Media Matters for America

Media Matters for America http://mediamatters.org This link is for use by RSS-enabled software to retrieve the latest items from Media Matters for America. en-US Copyright 2009, Media Matters for America Limbaugh claims Franken "stole" MN Senate race, cites WSJ editorial to claim "[t]hey're counting votes twice" http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050016 On the same day that the Minnesota Canvassing Board <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.startribune.com%2Fpolitics%2Fnational%2Fsenate%2F37093114.html%3Felr%3DKArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaUU">certified</a> the results of the November 4 election, resulting in Democrat Al Franken's apparent victory in the state's U.S. Senate race by 225 votes, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh baselessly claimed that Franken "stole the race" and asserted that "The Wall Street Journal has a story on this. They're counting votes twice -- votes that were rejected, all kinds of things." However, as Media Matters for America <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050012">noted</a>, the Journal "story" Limbaugh referred to was an <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB123111967642552909.html">editorial</a>, which simply asserted that there was double counting, echoing the accusation by the incumbent, Republican Norm Coleman; it did not cite reporting to support its claim, only quoting State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, a member of the canvassing board, who the Journal said "has acknowledged that 'very likely there was a double counting.' " From the January 5 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show: <blockquote> CALLER: Thanks, and many other of them. Hey, Rush, the reason I'm calling is when you started talking about Caroline Kennedy -- I'm starting to really get pissed off about a lot of different things going on here. And -- and, you know, we talk about Caroline Kennedy, we talk about Al Franken, and it's been building up for a while. You talk about the Blago thing. You talk about everybody else. And what's really starting to frustrate me is the lack of accountability on the American electorate. We can't keep blaming Blago. We've gotta start blaming the people that are putting these people in office, and start holding us to accountability. And that's what has me frustrated. It hasn't been talked about a lot. And Rush, I tell you, you've told me one thing that I've always held to heart. LIMBAUGH: Yes. CALLER: Is you said you always have faith -- always have faith in the American people. LIMBAUGH: I do. CALLER: And I -- and I'm trying to believe in that. But we keep electing -- we keep electing these officials, and help me dissect that. LIMBAUGH: We did not elect Al Franken. He stole the race. They are stealing the race up there blind in front of everybody's nose. They are counting absentee ballots. The Wall Street Journal has a story on this. They're counting votes twice -- votes that were rejected, all kinds of things. That's just -- the Democrats are stealing the election up there. The Democrats run Illinois and Chicago. Of course they elected Blago and Obama and everybody else. That is -- that's not gonna change. </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050016 Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:01:54 EST Coulter: Today cancels, but CBS' Early Show to host her http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050014 In a January 5 update to her website, author and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter announced that the appearances she was scheduled to make on the January 6 edition of NBC's Today had been canceled, but that she would be appearing that day on CBS' The Early Show. As Media Matters for America has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812160012?f=s_search">noted</a>, Coulter recently announced that she was scheduled to appear on Today to promote the release of her new book, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.randomhouse.com%2Fcatalog%2Fdisplay.pperl%3Fisbn%3D9780307353467" target="_blank">Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America</a>, which Media Matters found to contain numerous <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040002?f=h_top">falsehoods</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040001?f=h_top">inflammatory statements</a>. As Media Matters <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040001?f=h_top">noted</a>, hosts and anchors on NBC itself and affiliates -- including Today co-hosts <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710120005?f=s_search">Meredith Vieira</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200606060006">Matt Lauer</a>, Tonight host <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200606150011">Jay Leno</a>, Hardball host <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200706280001">Chris Matthews</a>, Nightly News anchor <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080008">Brian Williams</a>, and CNBC's Big Idea host <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710120005?f=s_search">Donny Deutsch</a> -- have expressed disapproval of, in Leno's words, Coulter's "harsh" and "nasty" statements, or criticized the media for promoting her. For instance, discussing Coulter's October 8, 2007, appearance on The Big Idea -- during which Coulter <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710100008?f=s_search">asserted</a> that "we" Christians "just want Jews to be perfected" -- Deutsch <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710120005?f=s_search">said</a> on the October 12, 2007, edition of Today: "And I think that's what -- we're playing dangerous with words in our society that there's no accountability. There's a glibness that we in the media kind of elevate, and I'm here to kind of say I'm personally tired of it, and I think America is tired of it also." Deutsch later told Vieira that someone might ask, "Aren't we part of the problem?" Vieira responded: "Of course we are. We're perpetuating it." In a January 5 blog post, Politico staff writer Michael Calderone also <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fblogs%2Fmichaelcalderone%2F0109%2FCoulters_Today_show_interview_canceled_.html%3Fshowall">noted</a> Coulter's announcement that her Today appearance had been canceled, writing: "Media Matters has been <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040002">picking apart</a> the book, and last week asked the following: <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040001">"Is NBC going to help Coulter sell this book?"</a> Seems like they're not." From Coulter's website: <img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/today-20090105-coulter.jpg" border="0" alt="coulter" title="coulter" width="300" height="241" /> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050014 Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:35:00 EST Scarborough embellished as "reporting" WSJ editorial's one-sided echo of Coleman's recount accusation http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050012 On the January 5 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough falsely suggested that assertions in The Wall Street Journal about the Minnesota Senate race -- including the Journal's reference to "double counting" of ballots -- were the result of "reporting." Scarborough stated, "The Wall Street Journal is saying that there's some irregularities they need to investigate, double vote counts. I'm sure there's going to be a big debate about that," and later said, "The Wall Street Journal is writing today, reporting today, that there are a lot of discrepancies, a lot of inconsistencies, double votes being counted." But the Journal simply asserted that there was double counting, echoing the accusation by the incumbent, Republican Norm Coleman; it did not cite reporting to support its claim, only quoting State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, a member of the canvassing board, who the Journal said "has acknowledged that 'very likely there was a double counting.' " Moreover, as Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Farchives%2F2009%2F01%2Fcry_lie_me_a_river.php">noted</a>, at no point in the editorial did the Journal note that the canvassing board, which reached a unanimous decision rejecting "challenges to unmatched original damaged ballots," is bipartisan and has, in Marshall's words, "at least as many Republicans as Democrats, and may actually have more Republicans than Democrats": <blockquote> Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is an elected Democrat. He serves on the canvassing board automatically. For the rest he picked two Republican state Supreme Court Justices (justices appointed by Gov. Pawlenty (R)), one Independent judge appointed to the bench by former Gov. Jesse Ventura, and a fourth county judge who may be a Democrat or an Independent (we don't know because it was a non-partisan election). Needless to say, the Journal doesn't mention this, but hints at it in this feeble excuse, claiming that the rest of the canvassing board has been "meek" in the face of Ritchie's "machinations." </blockquote> The January 5 Journal editorial stated: <blockquote> Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies. Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes. This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals. </blockquote> However, the Franken campaign <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mncourts.gov%2FDocuments%2F0%2FPublic%2FOther%2F2008%2520Elections%2FResponseFrankenFrankenforSenate.pdf" title="http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Other/2008 Elections/ResponseFrankenFrankenforSenate.pdf">has argued</a> that the evidence does not show that double counting occurred. In a December 24 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mncourts.gov%2FDocuments%2F0%2FPublic%2FOther%2F2008%2520Elections%2FOrderA082206-1224.pdf" title="http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Other/2008 Elections/OrderA082206-1224.pdf">order</a>, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the State Canvassing Board's decision. In addition, in a later segment of Morning Joe, Scarborough asserted, "The Wall Street Journal reporting this morning that there are some irregularities in Minnesota," and asked NBC News' chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd, "Tell me, how ugly do you think it's going to get before Franken's seated?" Todd responded in part by asserting that the Journal's editorial page has an "obsession over voting irregularities," adding: "I think they have the assumption of shenanigans when maybe we don't know that there are shenanigans in this case." As Media Matters has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812190003">documented</a>, Scarborough has repeatedly invoked his "theory" that Franken "can steal" enough votes in the Minnesota race for U.S. Senate to emerge victorious, raising "steal[ing]" votes at least six times since the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.startribune.com%2Fpolitics%2Fnational%2Fsenate%2F36225454.html%3Felr%3DKArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c%3A%3AD3aDhUxWoW_oD%3AEaDUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU" title="http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36225454.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU">recount</a> began on November 19. From the January 5 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe: <blockquote> SCARBOROUGH: We are. And also, Al Franken -- MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Yes. SCARBOROUGH: -- may be ruled the winner today. The Wall Street Journal is saying that there's some irregularities they need to investigate, double vote counts. I'm sure there's going to be a big debate about that -- BRZEZINSKI: But it's not over. It's just not -- SCARBOROUGH: It's not even close. [...] BRZEZINSKI: The final ballots in Minnesota's still-undecided U.S. Senate race will be certified today, but that doesn't mean there is a winner. Democrat Al Franken has emerged with a 225-vote lead over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, but now there is a seven-day waiting period pending any new lawsuits. SCARBOROUGH: And there will be lawsuits, Mika. BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, there will be. SCARBOROUGH: As we reported earlier, The Wall Street Journal is writing today, reporting today, that there are a lot of discrepancies, a lot of inconsistencies, double votes being counted. In fact -- BRZEZINSKI: It's such a mess. SCARBOROUGH: -- the Democratic secretary of state is saying -- BRZEZINSKI: It's a shame. SCARBOROUGH: -- there are probably double vote counts, but we're going to certify it anyway, so it's going to be a mess. BRZEZINSKI: It'll be interesting to follow that one. [...] BRZEZINSKI: And the final ballots in Minnesota's still-undecided U.S. Senate race will be certified today, but that does not mean there'll be a winner yet. Democrat Al Franken has emerged with a 225-vote lead over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman. But now, there is a seven-day waiting period pending any new lawsuits. Do you think there will be new lawsuits? SCARBOROUGH: Oh, yeah. Let's check in right now with NBC News political director and NBC News chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd. BRZEZINSKI: Newly minted. SCARBOROUGH: Chuck, The Wall Street Journal reporting this morning that there are some irregularities in Minnesota. Tell me, how ugly do you think it's going to get before Franken's seated? TODD: I don't think it's going to be that ugly, because it is -- you know, Minnesota isn't -- isn't like, well, Illinois, OK, where you feel like there's always corruption around the corner. It's a very clean-government state. This is a state that always has one of the highest voter turnouts. There's a lot of confidence in government in that state as opposed to other states. So, while I understand The Wall Street Journal editorial page's obsession over voting irregularities -- and it is a Journal obsession, led by John Fund, who is as knowledgeable about this stuff as anybody there is -- but I think they have the assumption of shenanigans when maybe we don't know that there are shenanigans in this case. And I think you're -- this is what you're going to see today. Number one, Franken will be -- the canvass committee will say he's the winner. Now, the Republican governor and the Democratic secretary of state both have to certify it. The governor has said he's not going to certify it until all the lawsuits are done. So the irony to this is, is I think you'll see Roland Burris as a United States senator before Al Franken, but it certainly looks like today that both of them are on their way to becoming senators. </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050012 Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:56:10 EST Cunningham on the poor: "They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals" http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050010 On the January 4 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Cincinnati-based radio host Bill Cunningham <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810290010">continued</a> his attacks on the poor, stating: "[P]oor people were not and are not poor because they lack money. They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals." Cunningham added: "All that the mid-'60s and '70s did to the black community was to pay black fathers money on condition that they not be involved in the lives of their children and that black mothers were told that if you married, it would have a painful consequence. If, on the other hand, you acted irresponsibly by producing children out of wedlock, you would have a positive consequence, because government would fund bad behavior." As Media Matters for America has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810290010">documented</a>, Cunningham made similar remarks on his October 23 broadcast, asserting, "The reason people are poor in America is not because they lack money, it's because poor people in America lack values, character, and the ability to work hard." Additionally, Cunningham stated on his October 27 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810280013?f=s_search">broadcast</a>: "Among the so-called noble poor in America ... [b]irth control is not used so illegitimate children can be brought into the world, so the mom can get more checks in the mail from the government. And then once the child is born, that is the key to financial riches in the poor communities -- white and black -- in America." Talkers Magazine lists Cunningham on its "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkers.com%2Fmain%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D19%26Itemid%3D44">Heavy Hundred</a>" list of the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America." Cunningham's weekend show, Live on Sunday Night, it's Bill Cunningham, is syndicated nationally by Premiere Radio Networks. From the January 4 broadcast of Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham: <blockquote> CUNNINGHAM: I cannot say it too often or too many times. Nothing FDR did in the 1930s stopped or alleviated the Great Depression. Almost everything FDR did in the 1930s exacerbated the Great Depression. There's nothing LBJ did in '64, '65, and '66 that helped the plight of African-Americans; in fact, it hurt them. Almost all their actions brought about the law of unintended consequences. The goal of model cities, Section 8 housing, and food stamps was to give the poor people money, not understanding that poor people were not and are not poor because they lack money. They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals. All that the mid-'60s and '70s did to the black community was to pay black fathers money on condition that they not be involved in the lives of their children and that black mothers were told that if you married, it would have a painful consequence. If, on the other hand, you acted irresponsibly by producing children out of wedlock, you would have a positive consequence, because government would fund bad behavior. So LBJ and the Democrats and Republicans had the best of intentions to solve poverty by giving to poor people money, acting as if that was the resolution of their problem, when just the opposite occurred. By giving poor people money by acting irresponsibly, they incentivized more irresponsible behavior. </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050010 Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:03:53 EST MSNBC's Brewer suggested there is "a cloud over Franken" because lawsuit or filibuster could impede efforts to seat him in Senate http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050009 During the January 5 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer suggested that there is "a cloud over" Democrat Al Franken -- who <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.startribune.com%2Fpolitics%2Fnational%2Fsenate%2F37047159.html%3Felr%3DKArks7PYDiaK7DU2EkP7K_V_GD7EaPc%3AiLP8iUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaUU">reportedly leads</a> incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R) by 225 votes upon completion of the Minnesota Senate recount -- because a potential legal challenge by Coleman or <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fcampaign-2008%2Fcornyn-promises-filibuster-on-franken-seating-2009-01-02.html">filibuster</a> by National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) chairman Sen. John Cornyn (TX) could impede efforts to seat Franken in the Senate. Additionally, Brewer said that despite a potential legal challenge or filibuster, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is "saying we should get him [Franken] in right away." But in purporting to represent Schumer's January 4 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com%2F2009%2F01%2Fschumer_franken_has_won_senate.php">remarks</a>, Brewer did not mention that Schumer reportedly said "there are still possible legal issues that will run their course." Schumer concluded: "With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible." Brewer did not explain how a potential legal challenge by Coleman or a Senate filibuster by Cornyn constitutes "a cloud over Franken." As Media Matters for America <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812140004?f=h_top" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812140004?f=h_top">has</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812150008?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812150008?f=s_search">documented</a>, numerous media figures have similarly warned that a "cloud" hangs over President-elect Barack Obama because of the scandal involving Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) or asserted that the scandal threatens to cast a "cloud" over Obama's presidency, despite the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812120013" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812120013">absence</a> of any actual allegations of wrongdoing by Obama or his staff. As Media Matters <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050002?f=h_latest">noted</a>, in a January 4 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.abcnews.com%2Fthenote%2F2009%2F01%2Fcolemanfranken.html">post</a> on ABC News' The Note, senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl uncritically quoted Cornyn's baseless assertion that Schumer "believes Al Franken should be seated without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor, as Minnesota law requires." From Schumer's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com%2F2009%2F01%2Fschumer_franken_has_won_senate.php">statement</a>, as posted on the TPM Election Central blog on January 4: <blockquote> With the Minnesota recount complete, it is now clear that Al Franken won the election. The Canvassing Board will meet tomorrow to wrap up its work and certify him the winner, and while there are still possible legal issues that will run their course, there is no longer any doubt who will be the next Senator from Minnesota. Even if all the ballots Coleman claims were double counted or erroneously added were resolved in his favor, he still wouldn't have enough votes to win. With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible. </blockquote> From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the January 5 edition of MSNBC Live: <blockquote> BREWER: Senator [Harry] Reid [D-NV] says, look, we can -- we pick who sits in the Senate. The House picks who sits in the House. Is that true? NATE PERSILY (Columbia Law School professor): Well, the Supreme Court actually has issued a decision right on point, and it said that, you know, the qualifications in the Constitution as to age, citizenship, and residency are grounds for disqualifying someone, but you can't just decide who can sit there. So if the Democrats wanted to deny seats to all the Republicans, they can't do that. Now, there might be special circumstances here, because Blagojevich and this appointment are sort of under a cloud of suspicion of impropriety. And so, some people are saying, well, you know, they can deny a seat to [Roland] Burris because it's almost as if there's sort a bribery angle to this, but I think that's a pretty hard road for them to hoe. BREWER: And -- and don't they have more control over who sits in the Senate, like, once the senator is actually there, seated in the Senate? Can they do anything about a person who's just incoming and hasn't necessarily done anything wrong? PERSILY: Well, it's -- what they're -- people are saying is that they can deny him a seat because it's almost as if this is like a -- say a bribery type of case, right? So that there is this cloud that's hanging over the appointment, so therefore that it's almost as if someone were buying an election. BREWER: Interesting that you bring up this cloud hanging over the appointment, because we're looking at Minnesota, where, today, they're considering whether to name Al Franken as the winner. It appears that he's ahead in the recount. That being said, you've got Norm Coleman who's challenging it, perhaps legally. We may see a legal challenge. John Cornyn of Texas says he's going to filibuster Al Franken being named to that seat. So isn't there a cloud over Franken, and yet you have Schumer saying we should get him in right away? PERSILY: Well, that's right. What the Constitution says is that each house -- either the House of Representatives or the Senate -- is the judge of the qualifications, returns, and elections of their members. And there have been instances where they've said, you know, there's something suspicious in a certain election, therefore we're not going to seat them. That requires a majority vote of the Senate, and so, we'll see if they can prevent a majority vote from happening. </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050009 Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:45:26 EST IBD cited 1930s America, 1990s Japan as evidence that stimulus spending doesn't work, but economists disagree on both counts http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050007 In criticizing a large-scale economic stimulus <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F12%2F18%2FAR2008121804204.html%3Fhpid%3Dtopnews">plan</a> favored by President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, a January 2 Investor's Business Daily <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibdeditorials.com%2FIBDArticles.aspx%3Fid%3D315792191143684">editorial</a> echoed other media by citing two historical examples -- the New Deal and Japan's "lost decade" -- as purported evidence that stimulus spending is "the least effective way to give the economy a boost." However, as Media Matters for America has noted, according to prominent economists, economic conditions in both <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812030014">1930s</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811260002">America</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812220005?f=h_latest">1990s Japan</a> were improving following major increases in stimulus spending -- trends that were reversed only when the respective governments decided to cut spending and raise taxes in an attempt to reduce the deficit. Criticizing the New Deal, IBD asserted: <blockquote> In the 1930s, for instance, we went on an infrastructure binge, building new roads, dams and schools; electrifying the rural south and enlarging our ports, among other major tasks. Granted, some infrastructure improvement was called for. But all that activity didn't pull the the [sic] country out of depression -- not by a long shot. Unemployment averaged 17% in the '30s, and it wasn't until 1941 -- the start of World War II -- that GDP returned to its 1929 level. </blockquote> However, IBD's use of the average unemployment rate during the 1930s is misleading; historians and progressive economists have <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812030014">noted</a> that unemployment fell from the time the New Deal was launched until 1937, when, according to Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F11%2F10%2Fopinion%2F10krugman.html%3F_r%3D2%26hp">Paul Krugman</a>, President Franklin D. Roosevelt reversed course. In a November 10 Times column, Krugman wrote: "After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections." Additionally, IBD's assertion that "[u]employment averaged 17% in the '30s" appears to be based on unemployment data that does not include government-relief employment created by New Deal programs. Indeed, former Wall Street Journal writer Amity Shlaes -- whose 2007 book, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.harpercollins.com%2Fbooks%2F9780066211701%2FThe_Forgotten_Man%2Findex.aspx" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.harpercollins.com%2Fbooks%2F9780066211701%2FThe_Forgotten_Man%2Findex.aspx">The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression</a>, has been frequently cited by conservative media figures to dismiss the effectiveness of the New Deal -- acknowledged that her unemployment figures excluded "make-work jobs," instead relying on data compiled for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by economist Stanley Lebergott. In a November 29 Wall Street Journal column, Shlaes <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsec.online.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB122792327402265913.html" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsec.online.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB122792327402265913.html">wrote</a>, "To be sure, Michael Darby of UCLA has argued that make-work jobs should be counted. Even so, his chart shows that from 1931 to 1940, New Deal joblessness ranges as high as 16% (1934) but never gets below 9 percent" [emphasis in original]. After World War II, BLS ceased counting those in work-relief programs as unemployed, as noted by economist Gene Smiley in a 1983 Journal of Economic History <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812030014#20090105" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812030014#20090105">article</a>. Of Japan's "lost decade," IBD wrote: <blockquote> Japan followed the same Keynesian game plan after its real estate bust of 1989. To the applause of many American liberals, hundreds of trillions of yen were spent on infrastructure, raising outlays on big projects from 6.5% of GDP in 1990 to 8.3% in 1996 -- even more than contemplated under Obama's plan. That didn't work either. The 1990s were a "lost decade" for Japan's economy, and the country is still stagnating. Its infrastructure boom did have one lasting legacy, however: Japan is now the most heavily indebted nation in the OECD. </blockquote> However, contrary to IBD's assertion that stimulus spending "didn't work" in Japan, Adam Posen, deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petersoninstitute.org%2Fpublications%2Fchapters_preview%2F35%2F2iie2628.pdf">wrote</a> in his September 1998 book, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fbookstore.petersoninstitute.org%2Fbook-store%2F35.html">Restoring Japan's Economic Growth</a>, that "the 1995 stimulus package ... did result in solid growth in 1996, demonstrating that fiscal policy does work when it is tried. As on earlier occasions in the 1990s, however, the positive response to fiscal stimulus was undercut by fiscal contraction in 1996 and 1997." Other economists and media figures agree with Posen that the positive effects of the mid-decade stimulus packages in Japan were curtailed by attempts to scale back spending and increase sales taxes, as Media Matters has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812220005?f=h_latest">noted</a>. Krugman, for one, points to Japan's fiscal stimulus packages as having "probably prevented a weak economy from plunging into an actual depression." From IBD's January 2 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibdeditorials.com%2FIBDArticles.aspx%3Fid%3D315792191143684">editorial</a>, "For Real Stimulus": <blockquote> The massive new spending program that is being pushed by congressional Democrats emboldened by their newly enhanced majorities may come up as soon as Tuesday, when they return from their holiday breaks. Unfortunately, they've picked the least effective way to give the economy a boost. Those who argue for hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure projects and "green jobs" have it all wrong. We've tried those remedies before and found them wanting. In the 1930s, for instance, we went on an infrastructure binge, building new roads, dams and schools; electrifying the rural south and enlarging our ports, among other major tasks. Granted, some infrastructure improvement was called for. But all that activity didn't pull the the [sic] country out of depression -- not by a long shot. Unemployment averaged 17% in the '30s, and it wasn't until 1941 -- the start of World War II -- that GDP returned to its 1929 level. Japan followed the same Keynesian game plan after its real estate bust of 1989. To the applause of many American liberals, hundreds of trillions of yen were spent on infrastructure, raising outlays on big projects from 6.5% of GDP in 1990 to 8.3% in 1996 -- even more than contemplated under Obama's plan. That didn't work either. The 1990s were a "lost decade" for Japan's economy, and the country is still stagnating. Its infrastructure boom did have one lasting legacy, however: Japan is now the most heavily indebted nation in the OECD. If President Obama and his fellow Democrats get their way, the U.S. may soon be trudging down the same path. Next year, reckons budget expert Stan Collender, the deficit may hit $1.3 trillion, or 8% of GDP, as Congress tries to spend its way out of recession. That's roughly $13,000 for every taxpayer. </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050007 Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:39:47 EST Wash. Times echoed opponents' distortion of EFCA in asserting it would "eliminat[e] the secret ballot" http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050004 In a January 5 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwashingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2009%2Fjan%2F05%2Fdemocrats-pursue-ambitious-agenda-on-hill%2Fprint%2F">article</a>, Washington Times reporter S.A. Miller reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) "back a card-check bill that would allow unionization of a workplace if the majority of employees sign union cards, eliminating the secret ballot that workers cast to decide whether to allow a union." In fact, the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fedlabor.house.gov%2Fbills%2Fefca_billtext.pdf">Employee Free Choice Act</a> (EFCA) that Pelosi and Reid support does not eliminate employees' rights to a secret ballot. As The New York Times <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F11%2F09%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F09labor.html%3F_r%3D3%26oref%3Dslogin%26pagewanted%3Dall">reported</a>, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added]. Moreover, supporters of the EFCA <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812230011">say employers</a> often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts. The House Committee on Education and Labor has described the claim that "[t]he Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's 'secret ballot' election process" as a "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2F74.125.45.132%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcache%3AeVHmcZgH4jIJ%3Aedlabor.house.gov%2Fmicro%2Fefca_myth.shtml%2BThe%2BEmployee%2BFree%2BChoice%2BAct%2Bwould%2Bmake%2Bthat%2Bchoice%2B--%2Bwhether%2Bto%2Buse%2Bthe%2BNLRB%2Belection%2Bprocess%2Bor%2Bmajority%2Bsign-up%2B--%2Ba%2Bmajority%2Bchoice%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bemployees%2C%2Bnot%2Bthe%2Bempl">myth</a>" and stated on its website: "The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer." Further, by referring to the EFCA as "a card-check bill" in the Washington Times article, Miller used language <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040003?f=h_latest">frequently</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811260003#20090104">employed</a> by opponents of the EFCA. From the January 5 Washington Times article: <blockquote> Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid back a card-check bill that would allow unionization of a workplace if the majority of employees sign union cards, eliminating the secret ballot that workers cast to decide whether to allow a union. The bill, dubbed the Employee Free Choice Act, passed the House last year but died in a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate. The measure is a top priority for the Democrats' union allies. The question is how soon will Democratic leaders bring up the bill and risk political defeat while suffering criticism for kowtowing to union bosses. Republicans vow to stand firmly against the legislation. Their argument in defense of a secret ballot, which is a cornerstone of American democracy, will take considerable effort to rebuff. Still, the bill's supporters are confident. "I have no doubt it will pass and will be signed," said William Samuel, government affairs director for the AFL-CIO. </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050004 Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:40:41 EST ABC's Karl uncritically quoted Cornyn's baseless claim that Schumer "believes" Franken "should be seated without an election certificate" http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050002 In a January 4 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.abcnews.com%2Fthenote%2F2009%2F01%2Fcolemanfranken.html">blog post</a> on ABC News' The Note about the Minnesota Senate race, senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl uncritically quoted Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman John Cornyn's (TX) assertion that "[o]ne can't help but wonder why Senator [Chuck] Schumer [D-NY] believes Al Franken should be seated without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor, as Minnesota law requires. ... It appears that if Senator Schumer had his way, Minnesota's election laws would be disregarded." In fact, Schumer has not advocated bypassing legal requirements. In a January 4 statement -- which Karl did not provide -- Schumer reportedly said that "it is now clear that Al Franken won the election," but added that "there are still possible legal issues that will run their course." Schumer concluded: "With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible." Schumer did not say that Franken should be seated "without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor." From Schumer's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com%2F2009%2F01%2Fschumer_franken_has_won_senate.php">statement</a>, as posted on the TPM Election Central blog at 2:15 p.m. on January 4: <blockquote> With the Minnesota recount complete, it is now clear that Al Franken won the election. The Canvassing Board will meet tomorrow to wrap up its work and certify him the winner, and while there are still possible legal issues that will run their course, there is no longer any doubt who will be the next Senator from Minnesota. Even if all the ballots Coleman claims were double counted or erroneously added were resolved in his favor, he still wouldn't have enough votes to win. With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible. </blockquote> From Karl's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.abcnews.com%2Fthenote%2F2009%2F01%2Fcolemanfranken.html">entry</a> on The Note, posted on ABCNews.com on January 4 at 8:42 p.m.: <blockquote> Republicans are loudly complaining that Democrats -- specifically Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer of New York -- have declared Al Franken the winner of the Minnesota Senate race. The state canvassing board is expected to conclude Monday that Franken has won by 225 votes, but legal challenges continue and Gov. Tim Pawlenty won't certify the results until those challenges run their course. Meanwhile, Minnesota now has only one senator. As of noon Saturday, Norm Coleman was no longer a senator -- his term expired. It's unclear whether he will now be booted from his offices, but he has no legal standing to either his office space or his staff. Here is the statement from Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman John Cornyn, who basically calls Schumer a hypocrite for proclaiming the uncertified Franken a senator while refusing to recognize the uncertified Roland Burris -- indicted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pick to fill Barack Obama's vacated seat -- a senator: "While I recognize that as the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the 2008 elections, Senator Schumer is not ambivalent about the outcome of this election, his victory proclamation for Al Franken is troubling on at least a couple of levels. "First, there is the matter of Minnesota law and double standards. One can't help but wonder why Senator Schumer believes Al Franken should be seated without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor, as Minnesota law requires, when that is the very reason Democratic leaders are citing for not seating Mr. Burris from Illinois. It appears that if Senator Schumer had his way, Minnesota's election laws would be disregarded. "Then, there is the pending Supreme Court case and likely election contest that will ultimately decide, consistent with Minnesota law, who won the election. Senator Schumer's exultations are premature to say the least. Minnesota voters' choices must be respected and not the choices of political leaders in Washington. "Finally, as the new Chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over contested elections, Senator Schumer will likely play a key role in determining who ultimately assumes this Senate seat. Pre-judging the outcome while litigation is still pending calls into question his ability to impartially preside over this matter when it comes before the Committee, as it most certainly will." </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050002 Mon, 5 Jan 2009 09:40:22 EST Consistent with Fox pattern, Chris Wallace used terminology favored by Employee Free Choice Act opponents http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040003 Consistent with a pattern on Fox News, during the January 4 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace used a term employed by opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) when he identified the EFCA as "union card check." When challenged by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) about the use of the term "union card check," Wallace acknowledged that he was using the terminology of one side of the debate on the bill. Wallace claimed, "Big Labor's top priority is what's called union card check, and that would be eliminating the right to a secret ballot in determining whether or not you're gonna organize -- unionize -- a working place." Moments later, after Hoyer responded, "It's the Free Choice Act," Wallace stated: "Well, union card check, free choice. Both sides have their best -- their euphemisms." Hoyer then said to Wallace, "Of course, and you used one side," to which Wallace replied, "And you used the other. OK." The 2008 Republican national platform similarly identified the EFCA as " 'card check' legislation" in its statement of opposition to the bill. The platform <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gop.com%2F2008Platform%2FEconomy.htm%235">stated</a>: "The recent attempt by congressional Democrats to deny workers a secret ballot in union referenda is an assault, not only against a fundamental principle of labor law, but even more against the dignity and honor of the American work force. We oppose 'card check' legislation, which deprives workers of their privacy and their right to vote, because it exposes workers to intimidation by union organizers." Media Matters for America has previously <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811260003#20090104">documented</a> several instances of Fox News hosts, reporters, and contributors using the term "card check" to refer to EFCA. Other instances of Fox News contributors and anchors using the phrase "card check" to refer to EFCA include the following: <ul> <li>During the December 28, 2008, edition of Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington deputy managing editor Bill Sammon stated: "Much to the chagrin of Big Labor, Barack Obama and the Democrats will refrain from attempting to pass card check legislation in the first 100 days." </li> </ul> <ul> <li>During the December 26, 2008, edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Nina Easton stated that President-elect Barack Obama "could stand up to labor. And one of the first things he could do is let card check, which enables unions to easily -- very, very easily organize -- let that die in the Senate." Later in the discussion, Fox News contributor Fred Barnes stated of Obama: "What he needs to do is find -- I think his resolution should be that he should find someone to save him from his liberal friends who are in his Cabinet now, who do want card check to go through, particularly his labor secretary, who would turn over the entire American workforce to organized labor."</li> </ul> <ul> <li>During the December 18, 2008, edition of Special Report, Barnes claimed that "[Obama transition team economic adviser Larry] Summers' advice has been, to labor, give them card check. You know, support them when they try to get that through Congress and sign that bill."</li> </ul> Additionally, during the January 4 Fox News Sunday, Wallace stated: "[W]hen we last talked about this in November, you talked about the possibility of a compromise that would recognize the fact that there should not be unreasonable delays in giving an election, but on the other hand maybe not taking away the secret ballot from workers in a company," and asked Hoyer, "[A]re you prepared to take away the secret ballot?" In fact, Wallace's assertion that EFCA would eliminate employees' rights to a secret ballot is <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812230011">false</a>. Indeed, Hoyer responded, "Again, let me stress, Chris, nobody's gonna take away the secret ballot. The employees currently have and will have the opportunity to opt for a secret ballot. They don't have to sign the card. They can say, 'Look, we'll have an election, and we may vote.' But they have that choice right now, and they will continue to have that choice." From the January 4 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday: <blockquote> WALLACE: Big Labor's top priority is what's called union card check, and that would be eliminating the right to a secret ballot in determining whether or not you're gonna organize -- unionize -- a working place. I love the way that you're smiling already. Are you gonna move on that in the first month?<a name="ORIGHIT_19"></a><a name="HIT_19"></a> HOYER: I'm smiling because of the way you phrase it. It's the Free Choice Act, of course, and what it does is -- WALLACE: Well, union card check, free choice. Both sides have their best -- their euphemisms.<a name="ORIGHIT_20"></a><a name="HIT_20"></a> HOYER: Of course, and you used one side. That's why I was smiling. WALLACE: And you used the other. OK.<a name="ORIGHIT_21"></a><a name="HIT_21"></a> HOYER: Well, my point being that we believe that one of the problems that has existed in America is that working people have had a very, very difficult time in getting represented by unions in the workplace. Workplace has resisted that. The NLRB has not been very vigorous in assuring the lack of unfair labor practices. So we believe that employees -- if over 50 percent of them sign and say, "We want to be represented by a union," they ought to be able to be represented by a union. Let me say that many, many employers currently under existing law recognize such signatures right now and start to bargain and have a union representative. WALLACE: Whatever you call it, congressman, are you gonna pass it in the first month?<a name="ORIGHIT_22"></a><a name="HIT_22"></a> HOYER: I don't know about the first month, but we're gonna pass it early. WALLACE: You had talked about -- when we last talked about this in November, you talked about the possibility of a compromise that would recognize the fact that there should not be unreasonable delays in giving an election, but on the other hand maybe not taking away the secret ballot from workers in a company. Is there a compromise out there, or are you prepared to take away the secret ballot?<a name="ORIGHIT_23"></a><a name="HIT_23"></a> HOYER: Again, let me stress, Chris, nobody's gonna take away the secret ballot. The employees currently have and will have the opportunity to opt for a secret ballot. They don't have to sign the card. They can say, "Look, we'll have an election, and we may vote." But they have that choice right now, and they will continue to have that choice. WALLACE: But you want to pass the bill, just to be clear here, that the -- that unions, that labor, AFL-CIO, is talking about the Employee Free Choice Act, which would -- which would create a one-step system, a public vote, on whether or not to unionize.<a name="ORIGHIT_24"></a><a name="HIT_24"></a> HOYER: Well, a public vote -- you mean a signing of the -- of the card which says, "I want the union to represent me." WALLACE: Yes, right.<a name="ORIGHIT_25"></a><a name="HIT_25"></a> HOYER: What I have said, and I said on your program and will reiterate, that -- that bill that passed the House handily is certainly gonna be the base bill. Will there be discussions? There may well be discussions. And again, I want to stress nobody is precluding having a secret ballot. What we are saying is that an alternative route will be available. And if employees choose to sign -- over 50 percent of the employees sign a card saying, "We want to be represented by the union," that that will be affected.<a name="ORIGHIT_26"></a><a name="HIT_26"></a> HOYER: And give me a sense of the time frame? You said maybe not the first month. How soon?<a name="ORIGHIT_27"></a><a name="HIT_27"></a> HOYER: Well, I think it will be early. I think it will be early in the year, certainly in the early spring. Right now, obviously, our major, major focus is getting people back to work, getting our economy moving, making sure that working people can get back to work and we start creating those 3 million jobs that President-elect Obama has talked about. So that's a priority item for us. WALLACE: Let's move on to another item. </blockquote> From the December 28, 2008, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday: <blockquote> WALLACE: It's a tradition around here that our panel offers predictions for the New Year on a range of topics, and our motto is: "Often in error, but never in doubt." So, with that as fair warning, let's hear from Bill, Jill, Fred, and Ceci. And let's begin with the area that we supposedly know best, Bill, and that is politics. Your prediction. SAMMON: Much to the chagrin of Big Labor, Barack Obama and the Democrats will refrain from attempting to pass <a name="ORIGHIT_1"></a><a name="HIT_1"></a>card check legislation in the first 100 days. Now, they're gonna do this because they're gonna be worried they'll fall short of a filibuster-proof majority, and they're also worried -- they don't want to get hung up in some gays-in-the-military-type debacle that Clinton got hung up on and kind of mired his first days in office. So, <a name="ORIGHIT_3"></a><a name="HIT_3"></a>card check, I think, will be put on the back burner. WALLACE: Which is -- which would be -- just briefly, would take away the secret ballot and make it much easier for unions to organize a workplace. SAMMON: Exactly. That's gonna get put on the back burner, and Big Labor will not be happy, because they helped elect Obama, and they want a payback. WALLACE: Jill Zuckman, politics. </blockquote> From the December 26, 2008, edition of Fox News' Special Report: <blockquote> BRET BAIER (host): All right, Nina, your resolution? EASTON: As he's doing all these grandiose things, I think he should make it a point to offend the left wing, the special-interest groups of the left wing of the Democratic Party. He's already done it once, supporting the eavesdropping bill, because of his concerns about national security. He did it again, having Rick Warren give the prayer during the Inauguration. And I think he could do it again. He could stand up to labor. And one of the first things he could do is let card check, which enables unions to easily -- very, very easily organize -- let that die in the Senate. Because that -- that's something that if it is passed, not only he goes to war with business, but it could also, I think, harm the economy in the long run. So, I think that's one place. And also in the fiscal stimulus, I think he's gonna find there's a lot of places where he's gonna be -- he's gonna need to stand up to those special-interest groups on the left that supported him and financed a lot of pro-Obama stuff during the election. BAIER: All right, Fred. FRED BARNES (Weekly Standard executive editor): I'm gonna leave the panel so I can take that job that Charles recommended -- to whisper twice a day - CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (Washington Post columnist): You'd be good at it. BARNES: -- into Obama's ear, "You're not immortal." What he needs to do is find -- I think his resolution should be that he should find someone to save him from his liberal friends who are in his Cabinet now, who do want card check to go through, particularly his labor secretary, who would turn over the entire American workforce to organized labor, and his health and human services secretary, Tom Daschle, who thinks that the Clinton healthcare plan was just great -- it was just marketed poorly -- and all these environmental people who don't care about the economy, they just want to deal with the distant threat of global warming. He needs to be saved from them. Maybe Rahm Emanuel can do it. BAIER: All right, last word on this panel. </blockquote> From the December 18, 2008, edition of Fox News' Special Report: <blockquote> BARNES: I think it's clear in this administration -- I agree that he's not gonna do anything on trade. But that -- but the free-traders have won. I mean, I think it was The Wall Street Journal had a story today saying he's naming Congresswoman Hilda Solis, who's opposed to NAFTA, to be labor secretary, and that conflicts with the USTR [United States trade representative] pick, Ron Kirk. But labor doesn't matter. Look, you have the trade representative, you have Larry Summers, as Charles said. I mean, these are the people that are important on that issue -- BRIT HUME (host): Larry Summers as -- BARNES: -- will be the number one adviser, economic adviser, at the White House. These are free-traders. And I think their advice has been -- I've been told that their advice has been, Summers' advice has been, to labor, give them card check. You know, support them when they try to get that through Congress and sign that bill. But don't give them any protectionism on trade. Leave that completely alone, because the economy is fragile enough -- the world economy. So -- HUME: How much could the economy benefit in the near turn by, say, if he put through -- these are pre-exis -- the agreement with -- with Colombia exists. It is before Congress. Congress won't act. </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040003 Sun, 4 Jan 2009 19:58:11 EST Guilty: Coulter's latest book filled with falsehoods http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040002 Media Matters for America has examined a copy of author and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter's new book, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.randomhouse.com%2Fcatalog%2Fdisplay.pperl%3Fisbn%3D9780307353467" target="_blank" title="http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307353467">Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America</a>, which Media Matters obtained in advance of the book's release, and presents a sampling of the book's numerous falsehoods, including misrepresentations of the sources she cites. These falsehoods come on a wide-ranging list of subjects including her defense of the claims made against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign; her assertion that "Fox News has never been caught promoting a fraud"; her claim that President-elect Barack Obama was referring to Gov. Sarah Palin when he said "you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig"; and attacks she makes against New York Times columnist Frank Rich. Coulter has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812160012?f=s_search" target="_blank">announced</a> that she is scheduled to appear on the January 6 broadcast of NBC's Today to promote Guilty. Media Matters has also documented that Coulter made numerous <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040001?f=h_latest" target="_blank">inflammatory and offensive comments</a> in Guilty. Below are examples of the numerous falsehoods in Guilty. Liberals' purported "praise[]" for hoaxers for staging hate crimes Coulter claims that two black students who engaged in a hoax by hanging a black doll from a noose were "immediately praised" by "liberals," but the sources she cites do not support this claim. Coulter writes: <blockquote> In 1997, at Duke University, a black doll was found hanging by a noose from a tree at the precise spot where the Black Student Alliance planned to hold a rally against racism. Two black students later admitted they were the culprits and were immediately praised for bringing attention to the problem of racism on campus. Which is why I'm thinking about knocking over a liquor store to focus attention on the problem of big-city crime. Rather than "institutional racism," what we are witnessing is "institutional racial hoaxism" committed by liberals. [Page 10] </blockquote> Coulter cites two articles to back up her assertion that the students were "immediately praised," neither of which support such a claim. One of the sources Coulter cites is a January 8, 1999, Chronicle of Higher Education <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fmcnsarticles.blogspot.com%2F2003_10_12_mcnsarticles_archive.html" target="_blank">article</a>, which does not report that the students were "praised" but rather that "[s]ome classmates defended the two students." The sole student quoted in the article discussing the incident criticized both the students and the university: <blockquote> Some classmates defended the two students, whose names were not released. In a letter to The Chronicle, Duke's student newspaper, Worokya Diomande called the act "tasteless," but said "the idea behind the act ... is being overlooked." "The idea is that the university has not changed," wrote Ms. Diomande, who graduated last spring. "Blacks are allowed to be enrolled here, but the idea is the equivalent of the transition from field slave to house slave." </blockquote> Coulter's other source for her claim that the students were "immediately praised" is a January 31, 2000, article in The Weekly Standard (accessed from Nexis), which cites the Chronicle article in writing that "some at Duke defended the act, claiming it high-lighted the problem of race relations on campus." Fox News Channel On Page 15, Coulter writes, "Fox News has never been caught promoting a fraud -- unlike CBS (Bush National Guard story), ABC (tobacco industry report), NBC (exploding GM trucks), CNN (Tailwind), and MSNBC (Keith Olbermann)." In fact, as Media Matters has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060010?f=s_search" target="_blank">documented</a>, on several occasions since 2004, Fox News has issued a retraction and apology for airing a news report that repeated false information, one of which led Fox News' Vice President for News John Moody to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.washingtonpost.com%2Fsleuth%2F2007%2F01%2Fobama.html" target="_blank">reportedly warn</a> staff in January 2007 that "seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC." On the April 24, 2007, edition of Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjheNdN2ifIw" target="_blank">repeated</a> as fact an online parody news report of a school prank that included fabricated quotes attributed to the superintendent. Doocy issued an on-air retraction and apology during the May 16, 2007, edition of Fox & Friends First, but the superintendent brought suit against the Fox News Channel, Doocy, and Kilmeade. In a June 3, 2008, decision dismissing the lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Freporter.blogs.com%2Fthresq%2Ffiles%2Ffox_order080603.pdf" target="_blank">wrote</a>: <blockquote> The facts in this case -- a morning cable news show derisively reporting events and statements obtained unwittingly from an online parody -- should provide grist for journalism classes teaching research and professionalism standards in the Internet age. But First Amendment principles developed long before the Internet still provide protection to the gullible news program hosts against this public official's claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Poetic justice would subject the defendants to the same ridicule that they accorded the plaintiff. But in real life, the aggrieved school superintendent must be satisfied with their later retraction and a professional reputation sullied less than theirs. </blockquote> The lawsuit was filed by Leon Levesque, a school superintendent in Lewiston, Maine. According to The Associated Press, "[t]he case was an outgrowth of an April 2007 prank in which a middle school student tossed a slab of leftover Easter ham onto a table surrounded by Somali Muslim youngsters, knowing the Muslims would be offended." Freelance writer Nicholas Plagman later <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westword.com%2F2007-05-10%2Fnews%2Fham-it-up%2F" target="_blank">published</a> a fabricated <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.westword.com%2F840782.0.pdf" target="_blank">news report</a> about the incident at Associated Content in which he attributed numerous made-up quotes to Levesque, including one in which Levesque was alleged to have said: "These children have got to learn that ham is not a toy." On the April 24, 2007, edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy and Kilmeade reported on Plagman's story as though it were fact and repeated several of the made-up quotes attributed to Levesque. In discussing the parody report, Doocy repeatedly asserted: "We are not making this up." Indeed, when Kilmeade asserted: "You know, I hope we're not being duped," Doocy replied, "We're not being duped. I've looked it up on a couple of different websites up there." Doocy has also <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200701290001" target="_blank">retracted</a> his <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200701300007" target="_blank">false</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2F2007%2F01%2F19%2Ffox-obama-madrassa%2F" target="_blank">assertion</a> on the January 19, 2007, Fox & Friends, that Barack Obama "spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father -- as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa." According to the washingtonpost.com blog <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.washingtonpost.com%2Fsleuth%2F2007%2F01%2Fobama.html" target="_blank">The Sleuth</a>, Moody subsequently "issued this missive to staff in his daily editorial note on Jan. 23 [2007]: 'For the record: seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC.' " Moody also criticized the hosts of Fox & Friends in a January 29, 2007, New York Times <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2007%2F01%2F29%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F29media.html%3F_r%3D3%26pagewanted%3D1%26oref%3Dslogin" target="_blank" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/us/politics/29media.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin">article</a>, saying, "The hosts violated one of our general rules, which is know what you are talking about. ... They reported information from a publication whose accuracy we didn't know." Further, on October 1, 2004, Fox News issued a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134166,00.html" target="_blank">retraction and an apology</a> for a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200410010012" target="_blank">news story</a> written by chief political correspondent Carl Cameron that falsely attributed quotes to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in an attempt to ridicule him over a purported manicure. John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Coulter advances several falsehoods about Kerry in defending the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/swift_boat_veterans_for_truth" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/swift_boat_veterans_for_truth http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/swift_boat_veterans_for_truth">Swift Boat Veterans for Truth</a>, an organization which spread numerous <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170011" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170011 http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170011">falsehoods</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200410140001" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200410140001 http://mediamatters.org/items/200410140001">smears</a> regarding Kerry's military record in the six months leading up to the 2004 presidential election. Membership of Swift Boat Veterans Coulter writes that "nearly three hundred veterans who served with Kerry said he was lying about his war record [Page 109]" and also states: "Only 14 Swift Boat Veterans sided with Kerry, while 294 sided with O'Neill. Let's see, would it be more difficult to get 14 people to tell the same lie or to get 294 people to tell the same lie? [Page 99]" But contrary to Coulter's assertion, among the roughly 300 she referred to, who signed a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swiftvets.com%2Farticle.php%3Fstory%3D20040629220813790" target="_blank">letter</a> critical of Kerry, were people who <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200711090008#20090104a">subsequently</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Farticles%2F2004%2F08%2F06%2Fveteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry%2F" target="_blank">admitted</a> they had no firsthand knowledge of the claims they made; who <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200711090008#20090104b">contradicted their statements</a> opposing Kerry both before and after they made them; and who <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Fwashington%2Farticles%2F2004%2F05%2F04%2F25m_ad_campaign_showcaes_kerrys_career%2F" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/05/04/25m_ad_campaign_showcaes_kerrys_career/">reportedly said</a> they joined with the Swift Boat Veterans not because they believed Kerry had "l[ied] about his war record" but because they disapproved of Kerry's subsequent statements opposing the Vietnam War. Retractions by Swift Boat Veterans Coulter falsely claims that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story. [Page 100]" In fact, the organization <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200409030012?f=s_search" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200409030012?f=s_search">altered</a> its <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Purple1" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Purple1">website's account</a> of the December 2, 1968, mission for which the U.S. Navy awarded Kerry his first Purple Heart three days after Media Matters <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200408270009">noted</a> that the account was inconsistent with that of the group's star witness -- retired Rear Admiral <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200408270007" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200408270007">William L. Schachte Jr.</a>, who claims he was the commander on that mission. According to Schachte, Kerry did not deserve the award because the "skimmer" he supposedly commanded that night did not receive enemy fire, and Kerry's wound was the result of Kerry's own improper use of an M-79 grenade launcher. But in an April 2003 interview with The Boston Globe, "Schachte described the action as a 'firefight' and said of Kerry: 'He got hit,' " the Globe <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/28/retired_rear_admiral_contends_kerry_wound_not_from_enemy_fire?mode=PF" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/28/retired_rear_admiral_contends_kerry_wound_not_from_enemy_fire?mode=PF">reported</a> on August 28, 2004. According to the Globe, Schachte "did not challenge Kerry's Purple Heart" during that interview. The <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20040803040901%2Fhttp%3A%2Fwww.swiftvets.com%2Fstaticpages%2Findex.php%3Fpage%3DPurple1" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/static/mirror/swift_boat_purple_heart">original version</a> of the account on the Swift Boat Vets website begins: <blockquote> The action that led to John Kerry's first Purple Heart occurred on December 2, 1968, during the month that he was undergoing training with Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. While waiting to receive his own Swift boat command, Kerry volunteered for a nighttime patrol mission commanding a small, foam-filled "skimmer" craft with two enlisted men [emphasis added]. </blockquote> As Media Matters<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200408270009"> documented</a>, this description matches Kerry's own account, as well as the account of <a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=runyon" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=runyon">Patrick Runyon</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=zaladonis" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=zaladonis">William Zaladonis</a>, two enlisted men who have stated that: (1) Schachte was not on the skimmer; (2) Kerry was in command; and (3) Runyon and Zaladonis were the only other people besides Kerry on the small craft. The <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Purple1" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Purple1">updated version</a> of the Swift Boat Vets account -- now consistent with Schachte's version of events -- reads: <blockquote> The action that led to John Kerry's first Purple Heart occurred on December 2, 1968, during the month that he was undergoing training with Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. While waiting to receive his own Swift boat command, Kerry volunteered for a nighttime patrol mission on a small, foam-filled "skimmer" craft under the command of Lt. William Schachte. The two officers were accompanied by an enlisted man who operated the outboard motor [emphasis added]. </blockquote> Several other Swift Boat Veterans made statements during the 2004 presidential campaign that were inconsistent with their previous accounts, or subsequently reportedly retracted comments they made during that campaign, including: <ul> <li> John O'Neill. Unfit for Command (Regnery, 2004), co-authored by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth co-founder John O'Neill, asserted that "Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War" because "[a]reas closer than 55 miles from the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats." However, as Media Matters <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250004" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250004">noted</a>, according to White House recordings, in 1971 O'Neill told President Richard Nixon that he himself had been in Cambodia and answered in the affirmative when Nixon asked if it had been on a swift boat. </li> </ul> <ul> <li> Alfred French. In the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6bS627KVMCU" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bS627KVMCU">first Swift Boat ad</a>, then-Clackamas County (Oregon) senior deputy district attorney Alfred J. French announced: "I served with John Kerry. ... He is lying about his record." In preparation for the ad, French signed a sworn affidavit for the Swift Boat Veterans asserting that Kerry had received his Purple Heart "from negligently self-inflicted wounds in the absence of hostile fire." The affidavit French signed declared, "I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief" (emphasis added). But in an interview with The Oregonian, French <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kgw.com%2Fnews-local%2Fstories%2Fkgw_082304_news_french_protest.a701071e.html" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_082304_news_french_protest.a701071e.html">admitted</a> he was "not a witness" to the events surrounding Kerry's medals and that his information came secondhand from "friends."</li> </ul> <ul> <li> George Elliott. In an April 12, 2004, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fpoliticselections%2Fnation%2Fpresident%2F2004-04-12-kerry-vietnam_x.htm" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-12-kerry-vietnam_x.htm">article</a>, USA Today reported that Lt. Cmdr. George Elliott, Kerry's division commander, said of the actions for which Kerry received a Silver Star: "This was an exemplary action. There's no question about it." Elliott subsequently appeared in a Swift Boat ad in which he asserted that "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam," and, according to an August 6, 2004, Boston Globe <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Farticles%2F2004%2F08%2F06%2Fveteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry%2F" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/">article</a>, "sign[ed] an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star" which the Swift Boat Veterans gave to the Globe "to justify assertions in their ad and book." But in an interview with the Globe for that August 6, 2004, article, Elliott said that his involvement in the Kerry attack was "a terrible mistake" and said, "I'm the one in trouble here. ... I knew it was wrong. ... In a hurry I signed [an affidavit] and faxed it back. That was a mistake." The Globe further reported that "Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star." Finally, in an August 7, 2004, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Fwashington%2Farticles%2F2004%2F08%2F07%2Fveteran_claims_misquote_on_kerry_globe_stands_by_its_story%2F" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/08/07/veteran_claims_misquote_on_kerry_globe_stands_by_its_story/">article</a>, the Globe reported: <blockquote> Elliott released another affidavit yesterday backing away from his comments this week to the Globe, saying the reporter, Michael Kranish, misquoted him. Globe Editor Martin Baron released a statement saying "the Globe stands by the article. The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate." In 1996, when Kerry was running for Senate reelection and faced questions about the circumstances in which he shot the Viet Cong fighter, Elliott came to Boston and defended Kerry, saying he deserved the Silver Star. In yesterday's new affidavit, Elliott said, "had I known the facts I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star simply for pursuing and dispatching a single wounded Viet Cong." He added, "I do not claim to have any personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." </blockquote> </li> </ul> Media coverage of Swift Boat Veterans Coulter also suggests that the media ignored the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans, writing, "The only way they could have gotten less attention would have been to be interviewed on Air America Radio. [Page 101]" In fact, as Media Matters senior fellow Eric Boehlert wrote in <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FLapdogs-Press-Rolled-Over-Bush%2Fdp%2F0743289315" target="_blank" title="blocked::https://xmail.mediamatters.org/lapdogs">Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush</a> (Free Press, May 2006): <blockquote> By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth --hereafter, Swifties -- in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than 100 New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page 1 stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. [Page 177] </blockquote> Boehlert further wrote: <blockquote> [I]n the month of August, 2004, NBC network news alone covered the Swift Boat story on August 8, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29. CBS covered the story on August 8, 22, 23, 24, 25 26 and 30, while ABC devoted airtime to it on August 6, 8, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26. Some of the networks, using different morning and evening news programs, returned to the topic several times in one day. For instance on August 23, CBS reported on the Swifty controversy four different times, which of course, represented four more times than the CBS News division reported on question surrounding Bush's Guard service during the entire 2000 campaign. [Page 189] </blockquote> Kerry's Bronze Star Coulter also falsely suggests that no witnesses supported Kerry's account that his convoy came under enemy fire during the March 13, 1969, actions for which he was awarded the Bronze Star. Coulter wrote: <blockquote> Larry Thurlow was the Swiftee who, according to the Times's account, "earned a medal for bravery in a gun battle he accused Mr. Kerry of concocting." But Thurlow didn't think he had won his medal for coming under enemy fire for the simple reason that there had been no enemy fire. What happened was the first boat in the five-boat convoy, PCF-3, hit a mine that blew up the boat and tossed the sailors into the water. The Swiftees fired on the shore as a precautionary measure, but stopped when they realized there was no return fire. That is according to eleven crew members and three commanders on that mission -- or all living commanders, except Kerry. [Page 105] </blockquote> Coulter provided no citation for her claim that "eleven crew members and three commanders on that mission" agreed with her description of "[w]hat happened." In fact, several crew members on the convoy boats have stated that the convoy did come under enemy fire: <ul> <li> The crew of Patrol Craft Fast 94 (PCF-94). In a 2008 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-srv%2Fpolitics%2Fdocuments%2Fletter_to_pickens_062008.pdf" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/letter_to_pickens_062008.pdf">letter</a> to Swift Boat Veterans funder T. Boone Pickens debunking the group's "lies," Del Sandusky, Fred Short, David Alston, Michael Medeiros, and Eugene K. Thorson -- Kerry's crewmates on PCF-94 during the Vietnam War -- wrote that "[t]he innuendo that Kerry 'put himself in' for his Bronze Star Medal on a mission where there was no hostile fire, is completely disproved ... by all of the other crew members who were actually on the boat in this ambush."</li> </ul> <ul> <li> Jim Rassmann. In an August 10, 2004, Wall Street Journal <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opinionjournal.com%2Feditorial%2Ffeature.html%3Fid%3D110005460" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460">op-ed</a>, Rassmann wrote: <blockquote> I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire. On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life. While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river [emphasis added], and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath. When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire [emphasis added], I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard. </blockquote> </li> </ul> <ul> <li> Robert E. Lambert. An August 26, 2004, Mail Tribune (Oregon) <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.mailtribune.com%2Farchive%2F2004%2F0826%2Flocal%2Fstories%2F01local.htm" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://archive.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/0826/local/stories/01local.htm">article</a> reported that Lambert, "a crew member on swift boat PCF-51" during the March 13, 1969, action, said of Thurlow, his commanding officer, "He and another officer now say we weren't under fire at that time. Well, I sure was under the impression we were." The Mail Tribune also reported that Lambert "doesn't plan to vote for John Kerry" and quoted him referring to Kerry's "opposition to the Vietnam War once he returned to the states" as "absolutely reprehensible."</li> </ul> <ul> <li> Wayne D. Langhofer. In an August 22, 2004, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Farticles%2FA21239-2004Aug21.html" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html">article</a>, The Washington Post reported: <blockquote> Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river," said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry's. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks. Langhofer, who now works at a Kansas gunpowder plant, said he was approached several months ago by leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but declined their requests to speak out against Kerry. </blockquote> </li> </ul> <ul> <li> Jim Russell. In an August 23, 2004, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Farticles%2FA24891-2004Aug22.html" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24891-2004Aug22.html">article</a>, the Post reported: <blockquote> In Colorado, Jim Russell, who participated in Swift boat operations when Kerry did, wrote a letter to the editor of the Telluride Daily Planet to angrily dispute the claim that Kerry was not under enemy fire when he rescued Jim Rassman from the water, a feat that brought Kerry a Bronze Star and Purple Heart. "I was on No. 43 boat, skippered by Don Droz, who was later that year killed by enemy fire," Russell wrote in the letter. "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago [is] John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river." </blockquote> </li> </ul> Coulter also writes that during the actions for which he was awarded the Bronze Star, "Kerry had nothing to do with saving the boat that had been hit because -- again according to the accounts of all three living commanding officers, except Kerry -- Kerry fled on his boat the moment the first boat hit a mine [Page 105]." But Coulter's suggestion that Kerry's boat fled while the other boats remained is inconsistent with Rassmann's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opinionjournal.com%2Feditorial%2Ffeature.html%3Fid%3D110005460" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460">firsthand account</a> and with the account of Kerry's actions in his <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.findlaw.com%2Fhdocs%2Fdocs%2Fjkerry%2Fjkbronzestar.pdf" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/jkbronzestar.pdf">Bronze Star citation</a>. Rassmann stated: "[A]ll the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks," before Kerry returned to rescue him from the water. Kerry's "home-movie camera" Coulter writes that Kerry "carrie[d] a home-movie camera to war in order to reenact combat scenes and tape fake interviews with himself" during his tour in Vietnam [Page 100]. Coulter was repeating a discredited charge <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200407290002?f=s_search" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200407290002?f=s_search http://mediamatters.org/items/200407290002?f=s_search">previously made</a> by Internet gossip Matt Drudge and subsequently echoed by <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300013?f=s_search" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300013?f=s_search http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300013?f=s_search">The New York Times</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300004" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300004 http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300004">numerous cable and radio outlets</a> during the 2004 presidential election. Drudge's report cited a 1996 Boston Globe article, Unfit for Command, and Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson's book, "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260867/104-4022318-0606339?v=glance" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260867/104-4022318-0606339?v=glance http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260867/104-4022318-0606339?v=glance">Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undermine Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security</a> (Regnery Publishing, 2004). But in his September 7, 2002, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fgst%2Ffullpage.html%3Fres%3D9C01E1D9103EF934A3575AC0A9649C8B63" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D9103EF934A3575AC0A9649C8B63 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D9103EF934A3575AC0A9649C8B63">column</a>, the Times' current executive editor and then-columnist Bill Keller took up the issue of Kerry's wartime films and debunked the reenactment charge, which he wrote that he believed at first: "[R]elying on a report in the usually dependable Boston Globe, I mocked him for pulling out a movie camera after a shootout in the Mekong Delta and re-enacting the exploit, as if preening for campaign commercials to come." Contrary to Coulter's assertion that Kerry "carrie[d] a home-movie camera to war in order to reenact combat scenes and tape fake interviews with himself," after spending 40 minutes watching the movies Kerry shot in Vietnam, Keller wrote: <blockquote> The first thing to be said is that the senator's movies are not self-aggrandizing. Mr. Kerry is hardly in the film, and never strikes so much as a heroic pose. These are the souvenirs of a 25-year-old guy sent to an exotic place on an otherworldly mission, who bought an 8-millimeter camera in the PX and shot a few hours of travelogue, most of it pretty boring if you didn't live through it. </blockquote> Keller also wrote that, according to the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.swiftboats.org" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.swiftboats.org http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.swiftboats.org">Swift Boat Sailors Association</a>, "a group of veterans who manned" the kind of riverboat that Kerry commanded, "lots of enlisted men did the same." Keller further wrote: "Senator Max Cleland has hours of film from his service in the First Air Cavalry, which he has had edited into a three-minute meet-the-senator video." As Media Matters <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300013?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300013?f=s_search">documented</a>, a July 30, 2004, New York Times <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/politics/campaign/30video.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1091200161-nagGPkbzqlZwaLq5Yfy1yw" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/politics/campaign/30video.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1091200161-nagGPkbzqlZwaLq5Yfy1yw">article</a> reporting on the Drudge charge noted that "people who have viewed his [Kerry's] film from the war have said they have seen no re-enactments," but the paper did not report that Keller had been among those "people." Kerry and LexisNexis After detailing retractions Kerry purportedly made in response to the Swift Vets' claims, Coulter writes: "By contrast, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story. There's a reason it was Kerry -- and not the Swift Boat Veterans -- who told the Washington Post, 'I wish they had a delete button on LexisNexis' [Page 100]." But contrary to Coulter's suggestion, Kerry did not make that comment to the Post in response to the Swift Boat Veterans' claims. The Washington Post article which Coulter cites for the quote was a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA59559-2003May30%3Flanguage%3Dprinter" target="_blank">profile</a> of Kerry published on June 1, 2003, and Kerry was not referring to LexisNexis' documenting falsehoods, but to its documenting his having "be[en] a little brash when I first got into politics": <blockquote> Kerry stepped into the crowd, planting his big hands on workingmen's shoulders, quizzing students about their majors, telling a woman about the time his daughter's pet frog jumped on his nose. He waved, hugged, guffawed and sat knee to knee with a grandmother. Boland said: "This guy's not personable? What a phony issue." Yet it has been an issue, especially with journalists, all the way back to yellowing newspaper clips of 1971, which describe Kerry in such terms as "slick," "too pretty," "ambitious," "opportunistic." John Norris, Kerry's state director in Iowa, said he isn't worried: "The East Coast press uses the word 'aloof.' It's been an asset, because Iowans come with low expectations." Kerry appreciates the irony. "I'll say thank you to every journalist who wrote [expletive] articles about me," he joked. Then he added, "I plead guilty to being a little brash when I first got into politics. <a name="ORIGHIT_1"></a><a name="HIT_1"></a>I wish they had a delete button on LexisNexis." </blockquote> Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker's Palin criticism Coulter took conservative columnist Kathleen Parker out of context to suggest that Parker made only stylistic criticisms against Gov. Sarah Palin when Parker called for Palin to withdraw as the vice-presidential nominee. In fact, Parker criticized Palin for what Parker said was a lack of substance. Coulter wrote: <blockquote> Meteoric rises are available to any Republican who claims to be disgusted with the Republican Party for one or another reason. The heretofore unknown Kathleen Parker was the media's favorite Republican in 2008, after she called on Sarah Palin to withdraw from the campaign on the grounds that: She "filibusters. She repeats words, filling up space with deadwood." This might not have been manifestly insane if Palin's Democratic counterpart had been anyone other than Joe Biden -- who filibusters, repeats words, and achieves a personal coup every time he merely fills space with "deadwood," rather than one of his usual deranged pronouncements. [Page 114] </blockquote> Coulter's suggestion that Parker's' criticism of Palin was limited to style rather than substance is false. In fact, in the syndicated column Coulter <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Farticle.nationalreview.com%2F%3Fq%3DMDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE%3D" target="_blank" title="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=">cited</a>, Parker wrote, "Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there [emphasis added]." Parker further wrote: <blockquote> If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself. If Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she's a woman -- and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket -- we are reluctant to say what is painfully true. </blockquote> Lipstick on a Pig Coulter devotes four pages of Guilty [173-176] to discussing her false assertion that "Obama himself compared Palin to a pig and then denied doing so." In fact, Obama's September 9, 2008, statement, "you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig," did not refer to Palin, but rather to how a "list" of Sen. John McCain's policies were, according to Obama, no different from President Bush's. Obama did not mention Palin in at least the 65 words preceding his "lipstick on a pig" comment, as Media Matters <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809090026?f=s_search" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200809090026?f=s_search http://mediamatters.org/items/200809090026?f=s_search">noted</a>. Moreover, the expression "lipstick on a pig" is <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809100035" target="_blank" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200809100035 http://mediamatters.org/items/200809100035">common political rhetoric</a> -- Obama had reportedly used the expression in the past, and McCain used it in 2007 in reference to Sen. Hillary Clinton's health-care proposal. Former acting Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift -- a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.orlandosentinel.com%2Fnews_politics%2F2008%2F09%2Forange-county-c.html" target="_blank">national member</a> of the McCain campaign's "Palin Truth Squad" -- <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abcnews.go.com%2FPolitics%2FVote2008%2Fstory%3Fid%3D5772409%26page%3D1" target="_blank">falsely accused</a> Obama of making "disgraceful comments comparing our vice presidential nominee, Gov. Palin, to a pig," but later <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809100037?f=h_latest" target="_blank">backtracked</a> on her assertion, saying that she "can't know" if Obama's comment "was aimed at Governor Palin." Frank Rich's column on "Jeff Gannon" Coulter misrepresents a quote by New York Times columnist Frank Rich about former <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200501280006" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200501280006">Talon News</a> "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/static/mirror/gannonbio.html" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/static/mirror/gannonbio.html">Washington Bureau Chief</a>" <a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/jeffgannon" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/jeffgannon">Jeff Gannon</a> -- whose real name, James Guckert, was <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Farticles%2FA36733-2005Feb18.html" target="_blank" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36733-2005Feb18.html http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36733-2005Feb18.html">uncovered</a> by bloggers in February 2005 -- to assert: "The entire scandal that Frank Rich complained was not getting enough attention was that Gannon was a gay Republican [Page 200]." Coulter writes: "Another story that the mainstream media denounced the mainstream media for ignoring was the Jeff Gannon mystery scandal. It was a mystery scandal because it was a mystery why it was a scandal. In 2005, Frank Rich bitterly complained that the ' 'Jeff Gannon' story was getting less attention than another media frenzy -- that set off by the veteran news executive Eason Jordan.' " She continues: <blockquote> Rich, who became qualified to comment on U.S. foreign policy, national security, and presidential politics after spending a childhood dancing his favorite numbers from Oklahoma! in his mother's panties and then spending twelve years reviewing theater for the New York Times, attacked Gannon for not being a "real newsman." Not only that, but, Rich breathlessly reported, there were "embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking [Gannon] to sites like hotmilitarystud.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-rated $200-per-hour 'escort.' " In Rich's estimation, $200 an hour was way too much to pay a male escort who wasn't Latino. Now, if there's anybody in this world who knows what a real man is, it's Frank Rich. But as for knowing what a real newsman is, that's another story. [Page 198] </blockquote> But Rich did not say that the scandal consisted of Gannon's "embarrassing blogosphere revelations" or his status as a "gay Republican." Rather, Rich focused on the fact that Gannon was a "fake[]" journalist. In the February 20, 2005, column to which Coulter refers Rich <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2005%2F02%2F20%2Farts%2F20rich.html%3Fpagewanted%3Dprint%26position" target="_blank">wrote</a>: <blockquote> [F]or nearly two years the White House press office had credentialed Mr. Guckert, even though, as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post explained on Mr. Olbermann's show, he "was representing a phony media company that doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership." How this happened is a mystery that has yet to be solved. "Jeff" has now quit Talon News not because he and it have been exposed as fakes but because of other embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking him to sites like hotmilitarystud.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-rated $200-per-hour ''escort [emphasis added]." </blockquote> Rich added: "If Mr. Guckert, the author of Talon News exclusives like 'Kerry Could Become First Gay President,' is yet another link in the boundless network of homophobic Republican closet cases, that's not without interest. But it shouldn't distract from the real question -- that is, the real news -- of how this fake newsman might be connected to a White House propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day." Rich continued: " 'Jeff Gannon' is now at least the sixth 'journalist' (four of whom have been unmasked so far this year) to have been a propagandist on the payroll of either the Bush administration or a barely arms-length ally like Talon News while simultaneously appearing in print or broadcast forums that purport to be real news." Rich went on to discuss Armstrong Williams, Karen Ryan, and Alberto Garcia and wrote: "Such 'reports,' some of which found their way into news packages distributed to local stations by CNN, appeared in more than 50 news broadcasts around the country and have now been deemed illegal 'covert propaganda' by the Government Accountability Office. Media Matters has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200501280001" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200501280001">documented</a> several instances in which Gannon lifted text directly from Republican materials and sources. From Frank Rich's February 20, 2005, New York Times column: <blockquote> ''Jeff Gannon's'' real name is James D. Guckert. His employer was a Web site called Talon News, staffed mostly by volunteer Republican activists. Media Matters for America, the liberal press monitor that has done the most exhaustive research into the case, discovered that Talon's ''news'' often consists of recycled Republican National Committee and White House press releases, and its content frequently overlaps with another partisan site, GOPUSA, with which it shares its owner, a Texas delegate to the 2000 Republican convention. Nonetheless, for nearly two years the White House press office had credentialed Mr. Guckert, even though, as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post explained on Mr. Olbermann's show, he ''was representing a phony media company that doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership.'' How this happened is a mystery that has yet to be solved. ''Jeff'' has now quit Talon News not because he and it have been exposed as fakes but because of other embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking him to sites like hotmilitarystud.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-rated $200-per-hour &#