Media Matters for America - Latest Items

Quick Fact: O'Reilly falsely claims health bill will "require American taxpayers to fund abortion"

K.E.C. — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:22:04 EDT

On his Fox News program, Bill O'Reilly claimed that the health care bill will "require American taxpayers to fund abortion." In fact, the Senate bill, now being considered by the House, prohibits health insurers from using federal subsidies to pay for abortion services restricted under the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest.

O'Reilly claims "taxpayer money linked up with the termination of a fetus"

Talking about health care reform on the March 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that "we now have taxpayer money linked up with the termination of a fetus." Although he noted that President Obama "says no federal money will be used to fund abortions," O'Reilly concluded: "After much reflection, Talking Points would not vote for Obamacare mainly because the country can't afford it. ... In addition, it is grossly unfair to require American taxpayers to fund abortion if they believe it's wrong."

FACT: Senate bill does not allow federal funding for abortion above current law

The Senate health care reform bill -- now being considered by the House -- as passed states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services."

Senate bill establishes a separate premium to segregate funds used to pay for abortions from federal funds. The Senate bill as passed further requires issuers to "collect from each enrollee" in plans that cover abortions a "separate payment" for "an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of" abortion services. This value must be at least $1 per enrollee, per month. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services.

Current law allows for Medicaid to provide coverage for abortions restricted by Hyde by using similar fund segregation. According to a November 1, 2009, study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Those states "us[e] their own funds" -- not federal funds -- "to pay" for the procedures. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.

Right-wing media attack "Slaughter solution" as unprecedented, but GOP "set new records" for its use

Z.P. — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:23:21 EDT

Media conservatives have falsely characterized a legislative proposal reportedly being considered to finalize health care reform in the House as unprecedented, undemocratic, and unconstitutional. But the rule in question is an accepted part of House procedure, and Congress repeatedly used the rule under GOP leadership, according to a former GOP staff director of the House Rules Committee.

Self-executing rule is accepted part of House procedure

Politico: House leaders considering "self-executing rule" to finalize health care reform. A March 9 Politico article reported that Democratic House "leaders have discussed the possibility of using the House Rules Committee to avoid an actual vote on the Senate's bill, according to leadership aides. They would do this by writing what's called a 'self-executing rule,' meaning the Senate bill would be attached to a package of fixes being negotiated between the two chambers -- without an actual vote on the Senate's legislation."

CRS: "Self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House." In a 2006 report, as Time's Karen Tumulty pointed out, the Congressional Research Service defined the self-executing rule as part of the House rulemaking process:

Starting about twenty-five years ago, in response to developments such as increased partisanship and uncertainty with respect to how long or controversial the amendment process on the floor might be, the Rules Committee began to issue more procedurally imaginative and complex rules.

Definition of "Self-Executing" Rule. One of the newer types is called a "self-executing" rule; it embodies a "two-for-one" procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the "self-executed" provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule.

Self-executing rules require a vote. The CRS report makes clear that passage of a rule by the House is required for the "self-executed" provision to be adopted. Don Wolfensberger, former chief of staff for the House Rules Committee under Republicans, stated in a 2006 Roll Call column: "Almost every major bill must obtain a special rule, or resolution, from the Rules Committee permitting immediate floor consideration. The resolution also specifies the amount of general debate time and what amendments will be allowed. A special rule also may contain other bells, whistles, gizmos and gadgets.One of these optional attachments is a self-executing provision, which decrees a specified amendment to have been adopted upon the rule's passage [Emphasis added]. In other words, once the House adopts the special rule it effectively has adopted the amendment before the bill has even been called up for consideration [Emphasis added]."

Republicans "set new records" for use of rule

Wolfensberger: Republicans "set new records" for using self-executing rule. Also in his 2006 Roll Call column, Wolfensberger stated that the Republican Party "set new records" for its use of the self-executing rule:

Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party's bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority's preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O'Neill's (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright's (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

On April 26 [2006], the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule.

Media conservatives attack rule as unprecedented, unconstitutional, and undemocratic

Limbaugh calls rule a "twisted scheme" to "bend the rules." During the March 11 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) proposed using the self-executing rule to finalize health care reform legislation. Limbaugh said: "So, the scheme -- the twisted scheme by which the Democrat leaders plan to bend the rules to ram Obama's legislation through Congress now has a name: the Slaughter solution."

Doocy: "They can pass the health care bill without actually voting on it." During the March 11 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy stated that "the "Slaughter solution" rule would declare that the House deems the Senate version to have been passed by the House, and then House members would then have to vote on whether or not to accept the rule. So, by passing that rule, then they can pass the health care bill without actually voting on it. That is crazy."

Hannity: Democrats' "latest solution: Don't vote at all." During the March 11 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated (via the Nexis database), "The desperation among Democrats to pass this health care bill has reached new heights. Now they lacked the votes in the House to jam this bill through. So their latest solution: Don't vote at all. Now that's what House rules chairwoman Louise Slaughter is proposing. Now she wants to create a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed and once and for all by passing a minor bill that makes corrections to the Senate bill."

Fox Nation asks: "Should Rep. Slaughter be expelled from Congress?" On March 12, Fox Nation displayed the following graphic on its webpage:

Big Government: Slaughter's rule is "violating the Constitution." A March 11 post on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website stated, "The Slaughter Solution has one very large obstacle -- the Constitution Article I, Section 7," and that "if this Congress continues down this path of violating the Constitution, the 'people' will have a viable case, class-action or otherwise, in the US courts because it is going to be extremely difficult for a judge to ignore that the 111th Democrat-Progressive led Congress violated Article I, Section 7 to the most obscene extent."

Jim Hoft: "Democrats will use the unconstitutional 'Slaughter Rule.' " In a March 14 post on his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft stated, "Democratic leader Rep. Chris Van Hollen admitted today on FOX News Sunday that democrats will use the unconstitutional 'Slaughter Rule' to ram their pro-abortion nationalized health care bill through Congress. Democrats announced this tactic last week. They will pass the bill without voting on it. They will take over one-sixth of the US economy without even voting on it."

Hot Air: House is using self-executing rule "for the first time in U.S. history." A March 14 Hot Air blog post stated, "We're hours away from Slaughter revealing the strategy and Democrats have no other mechanism to pass a bill other than using an extra-Constitutional procedure. They don't have the votes to pass the Senate Bill, so they are -- for the first time in U.S. history -- about to rule that they actually passed a bill they never voted on."

Malkin calls Rep. Slaughter a "Constitution-butcher." On March 13, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin displayed the following graphic on her website:

Charen falsely claims health care reform "mandate[s] racial and ethnic quotas"

T.K. — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:42:06 EDT

Columnist Mona Charen falsely claimed that the House health care reform bill contains mandated "racial and ethnic quotas for medical schools and other federal contractors." In fact, the bill contains no quota mandates.

Charen falsehood: House bill mandates "racial and ethnic quotas"

From Charen's March 12 syndicated column:

Among the specifications of the House bill that passed last November are several sections that mandate racial and ethnic quotas for medical schools and other federal contractors. As Allan Favish reported in The American Thinker, the bill specifies that the secretary of Health and Human Services, "In awarding grants or contracts under this section ... shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of ... training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

This, along with other provisions, is broad enough to cover every medical, nursing, dental school and teaching hospital in the country and guarantees the institutionalization of racial, sex, and ethnic quotas in perpetuity (though the use of the word "underrepresented" before "minority" ensures that the quotas will not apply to Asians or Jews).

The rationale for quotas, insofar as there is one, is that African-Americans and Hispanics have, on average, poorer health than other groups. Liberals assume that these disparities are the result of discrimination or lack of access to health care rather than other factors like poverty, eating habits, heredity, and fitness. If medical and dental schools are required to admit more minority applicants, newly minted minority professionals will tend to those "underserved" populations.

Of course, medical and dental schools have been practicing affirmative action for decades, but they've had trouble recruiting large numbers of minorities. Part of the problem is that African-Americans do not tend to gravitate to math and science (the solution to which is to be found in families and schools). Still, for the past few decades, less-qualified minorities have been offered spots in medical schools, with the result that: 1) Those minority professionals who would have qualified without affirmative action bear a stigma, and 2) less-qualified minorities fail licensing exams at much higher rates than their classmates. Is it a service to the African-American or Hispanic communities to provide physicians and dentists who are less capable than others? Will it improve health outcomes to be treated by less-qualified professionals?

McCaughey falsely suggested that "racial and ethnic preferences" were only criterion for grants. Charen's statement echoes a false suggestion previously advanced by serial health care misinformer Betsy McCaughey, that only "racial and ethnic preferences" would be used in providing education grants training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. [Wall Street Journal op-ed, 11/7/2009]

Bill outlines preferences for federal grants, doesn't mandate quotas

Bill lists several preferences for allocating training grants, including demonstrating a proven track record in training underrepresented minorities. In a July 21, 2009, column, American Thinker's Favish, whose work Charen cited, referenced Section 2213 of the draft House health care bill, which addresses the establishment of "a primary care training and capacity building program consisting of awarding grants and contracts." The section does not mandate quotas; rather, it establishes guidelines that the government "shall give preference to" in awarding the grants, including a proven track record "[t]raining individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds." From the bill:

''(d) PREFERENCE.--In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:

''(1) Training the greatest percentage, or significantly improving the percentage, of health care professionals who provide primary care.

''(2) Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.

''(3) A high rate of placing graduates in practice settings having the principal focus of serving in underserved areas or populations experiencing health disparities (including serving patients eligible for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act or for child health assistance under title XXI of such Act or those with special health care needs).

''(4) Supporting teaching programs that address the health care needs of vulnerable populations.

Myths and Falsehoods on budget reconciliation

T.A. — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:45:44 EDT

In recent weeks, conservative media have promoted a number of myths and falsehoods about the possible use of the budget reconciliation process to finalize passage of health care reform.

Myth: Reconciliation is the nuclear option

Myth: Reconciliation undermines democracy

Myth: Reconciliation in general is "arcane," abnormal, and rarely used

Myth: Reconciliation is unprecedented for health care

Myth: Using reconciliation will bypass debate affecting "1/6 of our economy"

Myth: Democrats propose passing health care with only 51 votes

Myth: Obama broke a promise not to pass health care with a 50 + 1 vote

Myth: Reconciliation is the nuclear option

On Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier said that the Senate process of reconciliation "was once called the nuclear option" and aired clips of what he claimed were Democrats criticizing the nuclear option "when Republicans were using it." Fox News hosts and guests have repeatedly pushed the falsehood that the term "nuclear option" refers to the budget reconciliation process. The Fox Nation and Fox News personalities such as Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Dick Morris, Bret Baier, and Bill Sammon have all falsely compared reconciliation to the "nuclear option."

Fact: "Nuclear option" was coined by GOP to describe a process to change Senate filibuster rules. The term "nuclear option" was coined by former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the leading advocates of a 2005 proposal to change the Senate rules on filibusters for judicial nominations. After Republican strategists deemed the term a political liability, Republican senators began to attribute it to Democrats. As Media Matters for America noted, at the time, many in the news media followed suit, repeating the Republicans' false attribution of the term to the Democrats.

Myth: Reconciliation undermines democracy

The Washington Post published a March 2 op-ed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in which he claimed: "This use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation, against the will of the American people, would be unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government and damage the prospects of bipartisanship."

Fact: Reconciliation requires majority vote. The U.S. House Committee on Rules defines the budget reconciliation process as requiring a majority of both houses for passage. From the Rules Committee:

Once a reconciliation bill is passed in the House and Senate, members of each body meet to work out their differences. A majority of the conferees on each panel must agree on a single version of the bill before it can be brought back to the full House and Senate for a vote on final passage. Approval of the conference agreement on the reconciliation legislation must be by a majority vote of both Houses.

Myth: Reconciliation in general is "arcane," abnormal, and rarely used

In a National Review Online column titled "Unprecedented," the Heritage Foundation's Michael Franc referred to reconciliation as "an arcane budgetary procedure." In a February 23 editorial, The Washington Examiner accused Democrats of "running a Washington con game" in considering the use of reconciliation to pass health reform, asserting that the process is "an arcane legislative magic act." Additionally, in a February 23 article reporting that centrist Democrats were weighing the implications of using reconciliation to pass health care reform, Politico claimed that Republicans may be able to convince voters that the procedure "is an end-run around the normal legislative process."

Fact: Reconciliation is part of congressional budget process. The budget reconciliation process is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would have permitted oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill that Bush signed did not contain the provision on drilling.)

Myth: Reconciliation is unprecedented for health care

In a February 25 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Bill Frist claimed: "Using the budget reconciliation procedure to pass health-care reform would be unprecedented because Congress has never used it to adopt major, substantive policy change." In his February 25 Washington Post column, George Will suggested Democrats were "misusing" reconciliation for trying to pass health care legislation. Will wrote: "The summit's predictable failure will be a pretext for trying to ram health legislation through the Senate by misusing 'reconciliation,' which prevents filibusters."

Fact: Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform health care. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" were passed via reconciliation. Additionally, during a February 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, correspondent Julie Rovner quoted George Washington University health policy professor Sara Rosenbaum saying: "In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process."

Congress used reconciliation to pass Medicare Advantage and SCHIP. As part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, enacted through the reconciliation process, Congress -- which was controlled by the Republicans at the time -- created the "Medicare+Choice Program," currently known as Medicare Advantage or Medicare Part C. The program allows seniors to enroll in HMO-type plans rather than the traditional Medicare fee-for-service plan. The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), was also passed through reconciliation as part of the Balanced Budget Act. It provides federal matching funds to expand health coverage to children in low-income families who are not eligible for Medicaid.

Congress used reconciliation to pass COBRA. As part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Congress gave "workers and their families who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue group health benefits provided by their group health plan for limited periods of time under certain circumstances."

Congress used reconciliation to pass Patient Self-Determination Act. As part of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act, which requires hospitals, nursing homes, HMOs, and other organizations that participate in Medicare or Medicaid to provide information about advance directives and patients' decision-making rights.

Myth: Using reconciliation will bypass debate affecting "1/6 of our economy"

During the February 25 edition of Hannity (accessed via the Nexis database), Fox News contributor Sarah Palin suggested that congressional Democrats plan to "cram through via reconciliation this scheme, this government growth takeover of too many aspects of our health care." She went on to warn about "the risk is this one-sixth of our economy being so controlled and 1/6 of our society being so controlled by government with this takeover of health care." Similarly, Politico published a February 4 op-ed by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) warning that "Democrats may attempt to use reconciliation to short-circuit every senator's right and responsibility to fully debate a measure that will affect one-sixth of our economy." Also, CNN political analyst Gloria Borger asked during the March 12 edition of The Situation Room (accessed via the Nexis database): "[S]hould you pass something that affects one-sixth of the American economy with just a majority vote?"

Fact: Dems say they plan to use reconciliation only to tweak aspects of bills already passed by House and Senate. As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein reported, congressional Democrats are planning to pass "the 11 pages of modifications that President Obama proposed to reconcile the House and Senate bills with each other." From Klein's March 1 blog post:

Second, Democrats are not proposing to create the health-care reform bill in reconciliation. Rather, they're using the process for a much more limited purpose: passing the 11 pages of modifications that President Obama proposed to reconcile the House and Senate bills with each other. This is not a particularly ambitious use of the reconciliation process, and it's certainly not unprecedented. Republicans are arguing otherwise, of course, but the record belies their rhetoric.

The Hill: Reid says Dems "would likely use the budget reconciliation process to pass a series of fixes to the first healthcare bill passed by the Senate." The Hill reported in a February 20 article:

Democrats will finish their health reform efforts within the next two months by using a majority-vote maneuver in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.

"Reid said that congressional Democrats would likely opt for a procedural tactic in the Senate allowing the upper chamber to make final changes to its healthcare bill with only a simple majority of senators, instead of the 60 it takes to normally end a filibuster.

"I've had many conversations this week with the president, his chief of staff, and Speaker Pelosi," Reid said during an appearance Friday evening on "Face to Face with Jon Ralston" in Nevada. "And we're really trying to move forward on this."

The majority leader said that while Democrats have a number of options, they would likely use the budget reconciliation process to pass a series of fixes to the first healthcare bill passed by the Senate in November. These changes are needed to secure votes for passage of that original Senate bill in the House. "We'll do a relatively small bill to take care of what we've already done," Reid said, affirming that Democrats would use the reconciliation process. "We're going to have that done in the next 60 days."

Myth: Democrats propose passing health care with only 51 votes

During the February 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report (accessed via the Nexis database), correspondent Carl Cameron reported that "Republicans demanded Democrats abandon any plans to drive health care through the Senate with only 51 votes under the rarely used legislative maneuver known as budget reconciliation, instead of the normal 60 votes needed to advance major bills."

Fact: Senate already passed health care bill with 60 votes. On December 23, the Senate passed a cloture motion on H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with 60 votes. On December 24, the Senate passed the bill with 60 votes.

Myth: Obama broke a promise not to pass health care with a 50 + 1 vote

Numerous right-wing media figures have promoted video of Obama discussing the difficulty of governing with "50 plus one" votes on legislation to assert that Obama has broken a promise not to pass health care using reconciliation. For instance, during the March 3 edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck said: "New audio for you from Barack Obama saying that we cannot, cannot pass it with a simple majority vote. Health care has to be supermajority, has to be done that way. You can't just slip it by the American people, which they are now saying they're going to do. Yet another broken promise from Barack Obama." Similarly, Jim Hoft posted the video at his Gateway Pundit site and wrote: "But, of course, like everything else Obama promised, this statement came with an expiration date. Today Obama will announce that Democrats will force their unpopular nationalized health care bill through Congress using a simple majority to ram it through."

Fact: Obama didn't "promise" not to pass health care with 50 + 1 votes. In fact, in the video promoted by conservative media figures, Obama said it would be more difficult to govern without broad support, not that he promised not to use reconciliation to pass health care reform. The video shows several clips of Obama on the campaign trail in 2006 and 2007 discussing how he expected to pass health care reform. For example, in a September 2007 speech, Obama says of health care reform, "This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60 percent majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk that is not just a 50-plus-1 majority." In another clip, Obama discusses how he wanted to campaign in a way that brought more than a "50-plus-1" majority because "you can't govern" after such a victory and predicts that "you can't deliver on health care. We're not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy." In a 2006 speech, Obama says, "If we want to transform the government, though, that requires a sizable majority." At no point does he "promise" not to use reconciliation in health care reform.

Palin's new anti-health care reform Facebook post is full of old falsehoods

J.V.B. — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:59:35 EDT

On March 14, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a new anti-health care reform essay on her Facebook page that contains numerous falsehoods regarding reconciliation, House rules, and "federal funding of abortion."

Palin rehashes falsehoods about the House vote, reconciliation, abortion funding

Palin: Democrats want to use reconciliation to "bypass the regular voting procedure." In a March 14 Facebook post, Palin accused Democrats of trying to "ram through their takeover of our health care system regardless of the consequences" and of being "determined to use the Senate reconciliation process as a parliamentary trick to bypass the regular voting procedure."

Palin: House Democrats are trying to pass health care "without actually voting on it." Palin also accused House Democrats of trying to pass the Senate health care bill without a vote. She said: "The latest twists and turns in the Obamacare drama seem almost surreal. One minute the Democrat [sic] leadership is trying to amend a bill before the president has even signed it into law, and the next minute they're trying to draft a new rule that will allow the House to 'deem' a bill passed without actually voting on it!"

Palin falsely suggests that the Senate bill provides "federal funding for abortion." Palin commended the "Republicans in Congress" and the "Democrats [who] are standing with them" for "holding the line" in opposing health care reform. Palin specifically cited Rep. Bart Stupak as an example of a Democrat who is "holding the line" by saying "he won't vote for the Senate bill if federal funding of abortion is included." Stupak has repeatedly falsely claimed that the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion, while the abortion amendment he sponsored in the House bill does not. Stupak has also falsely maintained that his amendment does not go beyond the Hyde Amendment, which currently prohibits the federal funding of abortion, except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest.

Fox Nation highlighted Palin's post. Fox Nation posted Palin's Facebook essay and highlighted it with the headline "Palin: 'This is the Final Push!'" From Fox Nation:

Reconciliation is already part of Senate voting procedure, and has been used to pass health care legislation

Reconciliation process is part of congressional budget process. The budget reconciliation process is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill signed by Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.)

Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform the health care system. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" have passed via reconciliation. These measures include COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their insurance coverage, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program:

On NPR, Rosenbaum stated, "[T]he way in which virtually all of health reform ... has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process." During the February 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, health policy correspondent Julie Rovner quoted George Washington University professor Sara Rosenbaum saying: "In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process."

House would still need to vote on changes to Senate bill

Report: House would still have to vote on corrections to the Senate bill. Contrary to Palin's claim that the House would " 'deem' a bill passed without actually voting on it," CongressDaily reported (subscription required) that the rule would require that the "House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version" for passage. From NationalJournal.com's CongressDaily:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Senate bill prohibits health insurers from using federal subsidies to pay for abortion services restricted by Hyde

Senate bill prohibits issuers from using federal funds "for purposes of paying for" abortion. The Senate health care reform bill as passed states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services."

Senate bill establishes a separate premium to segregate funds used to pay for abortions from federal funds. The Senate bill as passed further requires issuers to "collect from each enrollee" in plans that cover abortions a "separate payment" for "an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of" abortion services. This value must be at least $1 per enrollee, per month. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services.

Doocy falsely suggested Senate bill allows for federal "funding for abortion"

J.M. — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:02:17 EDT

On Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy falsely suggested that the Senate's health care reform legislation contains "language that does allow for" federal "funding for abortion" beyond what is currently allowed under the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. Doocy referenced both Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-MI) and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposition to health care reform because they claim the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion.

Doocy: Senate bill "allow[s] for the" federal "funding for abortion"

Doocy: Stupak and USCCB oppose Senate bill because it contains "language that does allow for funding for abortion." On the March 15 Fox & Friends, Doocy reported that Stupak has "made it very clear that he's not going to vote" in favor of health care reform because the Senate bill "contains language that does allow for the funding of abortion." Doocy added: "Last week, the Catholic Church, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops" announced that "they are against this because it does allow for funding for abortion."

Both Stupak and the USCCB falsely claim Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion. Stupak has repeatedly falsely claimed that the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion, while the abortion amendment he sponsored in the House bill does not. Stupak has also maintained, falsely, that his amendment does not go beyond the Hyde Amendment, which currently prohibits the federal funding of abortion, except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. The USCCB has also advanced these falsehoods. In its March 11 statement to parishioners, which Doocy cited in his report, the USCCB stated that "the U.S. House of Representatives passed major health care reform that reaffirms the essential, longstanding and widely supported policy against using federal funds for elective abortions...the U.S. Senate rejected this policy and passed health care reform that requires federal funds to help subsidize and promote health plans that cover elective abortions."

FACT: Senate bill prohibits health insurers from using federal subsidies to pay for abortion services restricted by Hyde.

The Senate health care reform bill as passed states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services."

Karl Rove brings his misinformation tour to Meet the Press

B.C.O. — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:36:48 EDT

Karl Rove brought his misinformation tour to Meet the Press by making false claims about the Iraq war and the use of reconciliation to pass health care reform legislation.

Rove falsely claimed it "was not" Bush policy "to go into Iraq and take their" oil revenues "to pay for the cost of the war"

From the March 14 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

TOM BROKAW (guest host): And Mr. Rove, there was also sharp criticism, and justified, from a lot of quarters of the management of the war once you did go to war. The insurgency was more swiftly activated on the part of those Islamics who wanted to fight back. We were not greeted as liberators beyond the first couple of days. We didn't have enough troops to provide internal security. The cost of the war skyrocketed almost from the beginning. There was not a sharing of the oil revenue that a lot of people had promised, including the vice president.

ROVE: Let me correct you. There -- you've put it down a lot of things here. I'll be happy to deal with them serially or together, whichever you like. But for example, on that one, the administration emphatically said this was not about oil. And we thought right from the beginning --

BROKAW: No, no, not about oil, but it was about --

ROVE: Let me finish.

BROKAW: -- how we would share oil revenue and it would help offset the cost of the war.

ROVE: No. No, no. Tom, with all due respect, that was not the policy of our government, that we were going to go into Iraq and take their resource in order to pay for the cost of the war.

BROKAW: But it would be part of the consequence of getting the country stabilized.

ROVE: No. Part of the consequence would be that Saddam Hussein, who used the oil market to manipulate prices and deny supplies to the West, would no longer be in a position to do that. But the suggestion that somehow or another the administration had as its policy, "We're going to go into Iraq and take their resource and pay for the war," is not [unintelligible]

BROKAW: I didn't say that. What I said was that there would be an oil sharing and the revenue from that would help offset the cost of the war. And I didn't stay it was a principal factor, but it was part of the larger scheme.

ROVE: No, with all due respect, we're simply going to disagree on this.

Fact: Bush administration officials said "the bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis," including "oil revenues"

Rumsfeld: "[T]he bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis," including "oil revenues." In an October 2, 2003, defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Fact: Reconciliation has been used to pass major changes to health care laws

Will, Brooks mislead on deficit reduction in health care reform

J.V.B. — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:51:12 EDT

Columnists George Will and David Brooks both claimed that the deficit reduction provisions of the Senate health care bill are, in Brooks' words, "totally bogus" because "it has 10 years of taxes and six years of benefits." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the Senate bill will not only reduce budget deficits through 2019, but will continue to reduce deficits in the following decade.

Will, Brooks claim deficit reduction is "bogus" and due to "10 years of taxes and six years of benefits"

Brooks: "[A] lot of the deficit control is totally bogus." Appearing on the March 14 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Brooks said he "lean[s] against" health care reform, in part because "a lot of the deficit control is totally bogus." Brooks added: "We're [going to] have 10 years of revenue to pay for six years of costs."

Will: Legislation's deficit reduction is due to "accounting gimmicks." On the March 14 edition of ABC's This Week, host Jake Tapper said to Will, "[F]ormer Congressman Ray LaHood ... has an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune today talking about why, as a member of the House, he would have voted for this bill, because this bill reduces the deficit, and it also brings down health care costs and it will make insurance more affordable. Do you believe that he would have voted for it as a Republican congressman?" Will replied: "Not a bit. It reduces the deficit because you have 10 years of taxes and six years of benefits and other accounting gimmicks."

In fact, CBO has estimated Senate and House bills will continue to reduce deficits after 2019

CBO expects Senate bill to continue deficit reduction during decade after 2019. From the March 11 CBO estimate of the Senate health care bill:

CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. That judgment is unchanged from CBO's previous assessment, and the imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO's 10-year budget estimates.

CBO estimated the House bill will also result in deficit reductions in the decade after 2019. From the November 6 CBO estimate:

According to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1) [this estimate was later updated to $138 billion over the same period]. In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

Quick Fact: Perino falsely claims health care benefits would take years to start

Z.P. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:35:34 EDT

On March 12, Fox News contributor Dana Perino falsely claimed that people would "not see benefits for four to five years after" the health care reform bill passes. In fact, numerous benefits contained in the Senate bill would become available in the first year after the bill is enacted.

Perino falsely claims benefits will take years to begin

Perino: People would "not see benefits for four to five years after" bill is enacted. On the March 12 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Fox News contributor Dana Perino said of the health care reform legislation, "people are going to be taxed for the next several years and not see benefits for four to five years after that."

Fact: Numerous benefits in Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill

Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. According to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. Indeed, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein published the following list of benefits that the Senate bill would provide "before 2014":

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

Obama's plan also provides immediate benefits. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, Obama's health care plan also provides numerous benefits that will enact immediately after the bill's passage or within the first year, including protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, tax breaks for small businesses, and aid to seniors participating in Medicare Part D. From the House Committee on Education and Labor:

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions

The President's proposal will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. This provision is effective 90 days after enactment, and coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational in 2014.

Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations

The President's proposal makes an immediate and substantial investment in Community Health Centers to provide the funding needed to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most. This $11 billion investment begins in 2010 and extends for five years.

No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children

The President's proposal eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions for all Americans beginning in 2014, when the Exchanges are operational. Recognizing the special vulnerability of children, the plan prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six months after enactment and applying to all new plans.

Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans

The President's proposal will create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees, effective 90 days after enactment. This re-insurance will help protect coverage while reducing premiums for employers and retirees.

Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit

The President's proposal begins to fill the "donut hole" by giving seniors a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010.

Small Business Tax Credits

The President's proposal will offer tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 to make employee coverage more affordable.

Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage; later, when Exchanges are operational, tax credits will be up to 50 percent of premiums. The full credit will be available to firms with 10 or fewer employees with average annual wages of $25,000, while firms with up to 25 or fewer employees and average annual wages of up to $50,000 will also be eligible for the credit.

[...]

Patient Protections

The President's proposal protects patients' choice of doctors by allowing plan members to pick any participating primary care provider, prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before and woman sees an ob-gyn, and ensuring access to emergency care. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.

Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults

The President's proposal will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans for young adults who are not offered qualified coverage elsewhere.

Free Prevention Benefits

The President's proposal will require coverage of prevention and wellness benefits and exempt these benefits from deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans and all plans in 2018.

Beginning on January 1, 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will receive a free, annual wellness visit and will have all cost-sharing waived for prevention services.

No Lifetime Limits on Coverage

The President's proposal will prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.

Restricted Annual Limits on Coverage

The President's proposal will tightly restrict insurance companies' use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care, effective six months after enactment for all new health plans. These tight restrictions will be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. When the Exchanges are operational, the use of annual limits will be banned for all plans in 2014.

Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage

The President's proposal will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.

Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary

The President's proposal will prohibit group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all group health plans in 2014.

Beck attacks social justice

J.V.B., M.M., B.C.O., & D.C.P. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:50:52 EDT

Glenn Beck has repeatedly attacked the concept of social justice and churches that promote it, asserting that it is "code language for Marxism" and warning that "when you see those words, run." In fact, numerous churches and religious faiths, as well as prominent religious scholars, espouse social justice, including the Catholic Church, the Conservative and Reform movements of Judaism, and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Social justice is a tenant of mainstream faiths and has been promoted by respected religious scholars

The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals specifically with "Social Justice." From the section of its website devoted to "Social Justice," detailing positions on topics such as "Judaism and Health Care Reform" and "Jewish Community Budget Priorities." ("We have long been involved with the annual budget process, advocating for policies and programs that assist the most vulnerable people in our nation.") And the Union for Reform Judaism's Commission on Social Action "seeks to apply the insights of Jewish tradition to such domestic and foreign issues as human rights, world peace, civil liberties, religious freedom, famine, poverty, intergroup relations, as well as other major societal concerns"; its website cites a statement by Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, that "the thread of social justice is so authentically and intricately woven into the many-colored fabric we call Judaism that if you seek to pull that thread out, the entire fabric unravels."

National Association of Evangelicals promotes call to "work toward social justice." In presenting its Charitable Choice 2000 program, the National Association of Evangelicals, a speech on the topic of social justice, King stated: "I think with all of these challenges being met and with all of the work, and determination going on, we will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice." He also said: "It is tragic how individuals will often use religion and the Bible or misuse religion and the Bible to crystallize a status quo and justify their prejudices." The U.S. government website about the federal Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service 10/5/09]

Beck declares that phrases "lives in the real world," is "compassionate," and "understands social justice" are really "code language for Marxism." While discussing President Obama's remarks about what traits he would look for in a Supreme Court justice, Beck stated on his radio show:

BECK: They're now talking about making sure that they can correct -- progressive phrase -- "social justice." That does not come from the bench.

[...]

BECK: Barack Obama comes out and says he wants somebody who lives in the real world, somebody who is compassionate, and somebody that is -- that understands social justice. That's code language for Marxism. It's called, to quote Hillary Clinton, that very American, early 20th century progressivism, where they did a loophole and a couple of somersaults to deny that they were progressives, to show the difference was enlightenment. Progressive is enlightened. Marxism is at the barrel of a gun. That's the difference to these guys. Really? Yeah, you're telling me that you're not doing things through the barrel of a gun? You're gonna have to. They're going to have to. You don't need enlightenment. Justice is blind. [The Glenn Beck Program, 5/4/09]

Beck clarifies stance on social justice

Beck: Social justice in which "you empower yourself to go out and help the poor" is permissible. On his March 12 radio show, Beck reacted to criticism by the Sojourners' Wallis:

BECK: So now, Jim Wallis comes out, and he has started to attack me personally because I have said on this program, "social justice" is code language -- code language -- for big government. I want you to understand. When it comes to your church, if your church is preaching social and economic justice, you better do some digging and find out exactly what that means. Because if that means big government, if that means yes, you need to support these big government programs, you don't have a church. What you have is an organ of the government. You have the Anglican Church over in England, which we left. You have the Church of England.

Separation of church and state. It's weird that I have to argue with someone like Jim Wallis the separation of church and state. Now, if your church is talking about social justice in the way that you empower yourself to go out and help the poor, well then that's exactly what Jesus or Allah or Buddha or whoever it is, would like you to do.

GRAY: Yeah, they're trying to make this an anti-poor thing. They're trying to make this that you're against the poor?

BECK: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

GRAY: I mean that's just ridiculous.

BECK: And so now, they're ramping up a boycott on Christians to boycott our show. Oh, really? Look out, here it comes again, gang. The smear. [The Glenn Beck Program, 3/12/10]

Beck: "There's a lot of people that will say 'social justice,' and some people don't mean Marxism, but others do." Also, on his March 12 radio show, Beck stated:

BECK: The other thing they do is they always change and confuse the language. Political correctness comes from the progressive movement. Change and confuse the language. Look at this case. Social justice. There's a lot of people that -- who say "social justice" and some people don't mean Marxism. But others do, and you need to know, which is it?

The people who brought us, you know, the language into the political religious sphere were looking for ways to bring progressivism into the church. It continues today. Where's black liberation theology come from? Black liberation theology -- Jeremiah Wright's theology -- comes from South America. The church had the power down there. The church was all-important. What the church said, people listened to. It wasn't the government, because the government was always corrupt. People had faith in the church, and they knew they could never have a communist revolution if it wasn't for the church. If the church wasn't into it, so what did they do? They came up with black liberation theology. It's Marxism. And they got it -- spooned it in -- to the Christians, piece by piece. Just little bit -- progress. Little by little spoon feed it to people until the church would decay and collapse on itself.

Why do people in Europe not go to church? Because it's one with the government. It always has been. You must protect your church and make sure that it is not an organ for the government. That doesn't mean that you don't fight and protest, and you know, your church when it comes to a moral issue like abortion, that you don't stand up and fight for it. But you don't become one with the government. Separation of church and state. Progressives have been waiting for this moment for a hundred years. [The Glenn Beck Program, 3/12/10]

Media Matters: In which Glenn Beck hosts talk of tickle fights

G.L. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:49:52 EDT

This may forever be remembered as the week when "tickle fight" entered the political lexicon.

The story stretches back to last week, when Eric Massa (D-NY) announced his resignation from the House of Representatives. It took many people by surprise, including conservative commentators, who initially reacted to the story by trumpeting ethics allegations against him to tarnish Democrats. Sean Hannity compared Massa to disgraced Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), and Rush Limbaugh sounded enthusiastic that Speaker Nancy Pelosi could lose a vote for health care reform.

But the story took an unexpected turn over the weekend when Massa charged that Democratic leaders had pressured him to resign because he was set to vote against the health care bill. On Monday, Hannity and Limbaugh changed their tune accordingly. Hannity sounded off: "[I]t looks like this is only the latest instance of intimidation to come from the Obama White House." And Limbaugh bragged that he was doing his part "to make it a national story."

Enter Glenn Beck. Massa's allegations against the Democratic leadership appeared to confirm all of Beck's theories about the Obama administration, and Beck soon booked Massa for a full hour on his Tuesday Fox News show. It was at this point that the story turned toxic for conservatives.

Earlier that day, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin had called into Beck's radio show and given him prescient advice not to spend an hour with Massa. Their conversation became tense, as Beck seemed annoyed that Malkin would question his judgment. That afternoon, Limbaugh jumped ship on Massa. After earlier touting Massa's side of the story, Limbaugh now said he wanted Massa to remain in Congress as a Democrat because he was a "loose cannon," a "kook," and a "freak."

But Beck pressed ahead with his hour-long interview. Massa did look like a "loose cannon" during his interview with Beck, in a way that did not reflect well on the host. Massa also walked back his allegations against Rahm Emmanuel and admitted to having "tickle fights" with staffers in a house they shared. Beck couldn't get Massa to name names and accuse other Democrats of corruption. Massa instead talked about the need for campaign finance reform, only further frustrating Beck. Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert gave the following post-mortem:

Well, in one sense, Beck was right [about devoting an hour to Massa], because yesterday's colossal flop might just make television history. It might go down as one of the most pointlessly absurd -- and yes, truly unwatchable -- hours in cable news. Last night, the snickering had already reached epic levels. And with the can't-watch-TV performance, Beck most likely took the Massa issue off the table for Republicans, since the whole story now looks more like a comedy than an actual scandal.

"The result," Boehlert concluded, was that Beck became a "national laughingstock."

After the interview, Beck apologized to his viewers for wasting an hour of their time. Only an hour, Glenn?

One further note: Limbaugh apparently wanted to make sure Beck didn't get all the Massa attention. On Tuesday, Limbaugh was chatting with a caller about New York Gov. David Paterson appointing Massa's replacement. Limbaugh, never a man to back away from a race-baiting play on words, said: "So, David Paterson will become the massa who gets to appoint whoever gets to take Massa's place. So, for the first time in his life, Paterson's gonna be a massa."

Karl Frisch: Gone fishin': Right-wing media hook another dubious Obama conspiracy theory

K.V.F. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:00:30 EDT

After Robert Montgomery wrote in an ESPNOutdoors.com column that the federal government had a strategy in the works that "could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters," it was only a matter of time before the conservative media took the bait -- hook, line, and sinker. Easily made puns aside, the story was tailor-made for "conservative journalism." After all, Montgomery had no evidence for his claims.

Another week, another wild, right-wing-media-driven conspiracy theory centered on the Obama administration.

Conservative blogs led the charge in advancing the dubious story, posting their own spin under headlines like "Obama: The Will Of The People Be Damned - I'LL Decide Who Can Go Fishing" in the case of RedState.com and "Obama's war on fishing?!?!?!" from the queen of right-wing blogging and bellyaching, Michelle Malkin. It mattered little that the story was complete bunk -- unsupported by a shred of proof.

It wasn't long before Fox News' Glenn Beck, a regular purveyor of ridiculous Obama-centric conspiracy theories, took up the yarn. In classic Beck fashion, the crew-cut host told his audience, "I told you a year ago this would happen. I'm not some prophet by any stretch of the imaginations. ... People are losing their rights. Who's more important: the fish or you?"

Beck aside, no smear of the Obama White House would be complete without an assist from Rush Limbaugh, the granddaddy of the conservative media. On back-to-back shows, El Rushbo laid it on thick, one day saying that "fishing is about to become a privilege controlled by Barack Obama," and the next, speaking as if he were Obama: "[Y]ou can't touch me. ... I can stop you from going fishing wherever you want. ... I can do whatever I want to do."

In perhaps the strangest turn of events surrounding the story, FoxNews.com ended up debunking Fox News, with the conservative outlet's reporter Joshua Rhett Miller writing that government documents didn't contain "language pertaining to a potential ban on recreational fishing, as some reports had previously asserted." Of course, some of those "reports" included the Fox Nation website, Fox Business Network, and the previously mentioned Beck.

Ultimately, an ESPNOutdoors.com editor acknowledged "errors" in the handling of the piece and its lack of "balance," but you can expect this one, like so many others, to end up in some chain email from your Fox News-loving uncle in the coming weeks.

The controversy surrounding the latest debunked, conservative-driven conspiracy theory is not the first, nor is it the strangest. Like other bogus stories from the past year, it shares a similar cast of characters, most notably Beck, all eager to tar the president, evidence and journalistic integrity be damned.

Did you know that OnStar, the popular automobile safety feature, is actually a cause for concern because Obama's liberty-killing government could use it to impose "martial law?" You can thank Beck for that one.

Then there was the absurd story that FEMA was building concentration camps for those who disagree with the Obama administration. A year ago, Beck addressed the subject on Fox & Friends stating, "We are a country that is headed towards socialism, totalitarianism, beyond your wildest imagination," later adding that he "wanted to debunk" the theory that FEMA was building camps, but he just couldn't. Beck would go on to spend weeks sowing the seeds of this bizarre conspiracy theory, noting that he would debunk the issue when and if he could, before finally hosting the editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics to set the story straight.

The FEMA camp conspiracy dovetailed nicely with another Beck-driven tale of totalitarianism: that Obama is busy assembling a "civilian national security force," which Beck said was "what Saddam Hussein" did and "what Hitler did with the SS." Beck's relentless pursuit of this "story" was sparked by a speech in which Obama spoke of expanding the Foreign Service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps. That's right, to Glenn Beck, these respected outfits are akin to Hitler's SS. Shameful.

Reporters who value truth and journalistic integrity should be on notice: Don't trust these Beck-ian right-wing conspiracy theories, the people who spread them, or the networks that offer these kooks a platform. Deeming these folks rational players in the conservative movement deserving of our attention only serves to further undermine the already fragile reputation journalists have among the American people.

It almost makes one yearn for the days when right-wing cranks prattled on about the president's birth certificate. Even Beck wouldn't touch that one.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign up to receive his columns by email.

Doocy falsely suggests Byrd opposes reconciliation to finalize health care reform

C.S. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:12:50 EDT

Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy falsely suggested that Sen. Robert Byrd opposed using reconciliation to pass health care reform, citing comments Byrd made in 2001. However, Byrd recently defended use of reconciliation to complete passage of health care reform legislation already passed by both the House and the Senate.

Doocy suggests Byrd would oppose reconciliation to finalize health care reform bill

Doocy: Dems are "trying to do essentially what [Byrd] spoke out against." During the March 12 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy discussed comments Byrd made in 2001 critical of using reconciliation to pass major reform bills. After playing footage of Byrd's comments -- taken from a video first posted by the conservative website Naked Emperor News and promoted by Breitbart.tv -- Doocy stated:

DOOCY: So there you got the guy who invented reconciliation, and what a fantastic speaker he is on the -- was on the floor of the Senate. He's in declining health right now. But you've got to wonder how does he feel now regarding -- they're trying to do essentially what he spoke out against. Remember, essentially back in 1993, they tried to ram this through via reconciliation, and he said you can't do it. It was not designed for this purpose.

Byrd has defended possible use of reconciliation to finalize legislation already passed by the House and Senate

House and Senate have already passed health care reform bills. The Senate passed health care reform legislation with 60 votes on December 24, 2009. The CBO estimated that the bill would reduce the deficit by $118 billion over 10 years. The House passed its health care reform bill on November 7, 2009.

Byrd: "I continue to support the budget reconciliation process for deficit reduction." In a March 4 letter to the editor published in the Charleston Daily Mail, Byrd stated that "the Senate should debate the health reform bill under regular rules, which it did [emphasis added]. The result of that debate was the passing of a comprehensive health care reform bill in the Senate by a 60-vote supermajority." Byrd went on to defend the possible use of reconciliation to finalize passage of health care reform:

"I continue to support the budget reconciliation process for deficit reduction. The entire Senate- or House- passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch.

"Yet a bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation."

Applesauce redux: Doocy endorses "treat them like dogs" health care reform fix

J.V.B. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:03:59 EDT

Less than two weeks after Rush Limbaugh proposed eating "applesauce" as a solution for not being able to afford dentures due to lack of health insurance, Fox's Steve Doocy endorsed a veterinarian's idea to "fix" health care by "treat[ing] people like dogs." Limbaugh has also cited a lack of a "federal dog health care plan" as evidence that health insurance is not necessary.

Doocy endorses a "treat them like dogs" solution to health care reform

Doocy: Idea to "treat [people] like dogs" "makes a lot of sense." On the March 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy reported on a Newsweek column by "very brilliant" veterinarian Karen Oberthaler entitled "Treat People Like Dogs" which suggested that the health care system should resemble the veterinary one. Doocy said the idea "makes a lot of sense," because "we're on the hook" for our pet's medical costs. Doocy said: "[T]here's only 3 percent of Americans who have pet insurance and so we're on the hook for the charges. So, if Americans were on the hook for all the tests and stuff, it would be a lot different." Citing Oberthaler's column, Doocy added: "if you've got a golden retriever...and you know that the dog has got cancer and it's -- you know, there really is no getting any better, would you order a bunch of tests that are going to be costly and right out of your pocket because chances are you don't have the insurance...it also has to do with, you know, putting the dog through pain at the end of the road."

Limbaugh also suggested modeling the health care system after pet medicine because "there's no insurance involved"

Limbaugh: "There's no federal dog healthcare plan out there, and it's working just fine." On the June 15 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh argued against public health care programs, claiming "there's no federal dog health care plan out there, and it's working just fine," because the "private market is providing dog owners every option they want for their dogs to be cared for" and that "it's based on the owner's ability to pay, there's no insurance involved."

Limbaugh and other media conservatives have a history of mocking the uninsured

Limbaugh's health care plan: "If you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for?" Responding to a story Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) told about a woman who wore dentures that previously belonged to her dead sister because she lacked insurance and could not afford to buy her own, Limbaugh stated on February 25:

LIMBAUGH: You know I'm getting so many people -- this Louise Slaughter comment on the dentures? I'm getting so many people -- this is big, I mean, that gets a one-time mention for a laugh, but there are people out there that think this is huge because it's so stupid. I mean, for example, well, what's wrong with using a dead person's teeth? Aren't the Democrats big into recycling? Save the planet? And so what? So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for? Isn't that why they make applesauce?

Beck mocks Slaughter's story: "I've read the Constitution ... I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." On his February 26 radio show, Glenn Beck played an audio clip of Slaughter's account then said, "I am wearing George Washington's dentures right now. I'm wearing his teeth right now." He later added, "I just like wearing dead people's teeth. But in America -- I'm sorry, I didn't know that that was -- I've read the Constitution before. I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." Echoing Limbaugh's remarks the previous day, Beck stated, "The environmentalists should be all over Slaughter. 'How dare you say that?' My gosh, they're just recycling. They're just reusing."

Beck sidekick uses baby voice to mock letters Obama receives. On Beck's February 25 radio show, co-host Steve "Stu" Burguiere stated that Obama "gets 10 letters, Glenn, every night." Co-host Pat Gray asked, "From 2-year-old girls?" Then, one of the co-hosts started speaking in a baby's voice: "I have no health care, Mr. Pwesident, and I have no feet and no tonsils because doctors took 'em out."

Conservative blogger Pamela Geller linked to an audio clip of the segment, which she wrote was "[d]a best! the funniest thang evuh!"

Gateway Pundit attacks Slaughter's "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down." On his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft linked to a video clip of Slaughter telling the story about the dentures under the headline, "Horror! Lib Dem Claims Her Constituent Wore Dead Sister's Teeth (Video)." After declaring the account the "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down," Hoft wrote: "Will Obamacare buy me glasses and contacts? Will Obamacare buy me a gold tooth in the front of my mouth with a little heart on it?"

Ingraham: "Louise Slaughter won the Olympics of sob stories." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, radio host Laura Ingraham said she "liked the dueling sob stories, OK? One Democrat was trying to outdo the next on the sob story about how rotten our health care system is. Louise Slaughter won the Olympics of sob stories by saying one of her constituents had to wear her sister's dentures. OK? It got so bad with the health care system." She later added, "You had Harry Reid on the cleft palate with his -- I mean, the whole thing was ridiculous."

Fox Nation labels anecdote "Summit Insanity." From The Fox Nation, accessed February 25:

Limbaugh mocked story of transplant patient on Medicare who will have to pay own bills after three years. On February 26, referring to a story Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) recounted at President Obama's health care summit, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: This patient was about to receive a transplanted organ -- Clyburn didn't specify what it was -- and the horror -- he's gonna get a -- he's gonna get a totally paid-for transplant. The horror is that he was going to have to start paying his post-op bills in three years.

If this is the worst we can say about American medicine, are we really in that bad a shape after all?

I have a different observation on this. I mean, look at where we are with this. This guy is -- he about had an emotional breakdown 'cause he was told he's gotta start paying his own medical bills after three years. He gets a free transplant; he gets a free after-care for three years and then he's on his own, and he's mad and thinks he's getting screwed.

Limbaugh told caller who can't afford $6,000 to treat broken wrist: "Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist." In August 2009, Limbaugh had the following exchange with a caller:

CALLER: If we pay for our health care ourselves, would it bring costs down?

LIMBAUGH: Yeah, it would, if -- with other -- yeah, if you get some other players out of the game, yeah -- of course.

CALLER: What do you mean by "other players"? I'm sorry.

LIMBAUGH: Government -- get the government out of it. Get the government -- their stupid regulations. Get the government out of Medicare. You -- look it, the only way that cost or price ratios make sense is based on the consumer's ability to pay. There has to be a direct relationship between the customer and the business at the surface.

CALLER: OK. I just broke my wrist and it's costing me $6,000. I can't afford that.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist.

CALLER: That's true.

LIMBAUGH: You know why it costs $6,000? Because you, technically, aren't paying for it. An insurance policy's paying for it, backed up by some government insurance policy, or what have you.

Upping the double standard: Fox now asking if it's "time for Speaker Pelosi to go"

D.C.P. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:36:26 EDT

Despite presenting no evidence that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was personally aware of concerns regarding former-Rep. Eric Massa's behavior months before those claims were made public, Fox & Friends hosted a panel on March 12 to discuss whether it's "time for Speaker Pelosi to go." But Fox news figures defended then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert after it became public in 2006 that Hastert had likely been personally informed of an inappropriate email then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sent to a congressional page.

Fox News hosts panel on whether it's "time for Speaker Pelosi to go" over Massa allegations

Doocy: "[S]ome are wondering...is it time for Speaker Pelosi to go?" On the March 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy introduced a panel discussion by noting "the ethics violations plaguing Washington," and stating, "Some are wondering on the right, is it time for Speaker Pelosi to go?" Doocy went on to say, "We've heard of these skeevy allegations about" Massa that "apparently Pelosi's office knew about...back in October and people are going, what did she know? When did she know it? This doesn't look good for her."

During the segment, the following on-screen graphic appeared:

Fair and Balanced Fox: Defend Hastert -- who was likely aware of Foley's email -- but attack Pelosi, who says she was not aware of Massa allegations

The disparities between Fox's coverage of the reports surrounding Massa and its reported on March 11, "Pelosi said she personally learned about allegations of misconduct [by Massa] March 3. The speaker said her staff knew about the allegations of sexual harassment around the time they were reported to Mr. Hoyer's office in early February."

WSJ: Leadership aide says Pelosi wasn't informed of "October discussion" about Massa. While Pelosi's staff was reportedly informed of "concerns" about Massa in October 2009, the Journal reported that according to a senior Democratic leadership aide, "Pelosi wasn't informed of the October discussion, and the matter was not referred to the House ethics committee because it did not involve allegations of inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment."

Hoyer's office says Hoyer ensured misconduct allegations were immediately referred to ethics committee. Hoyer's office released the following statement on March 3:

The week of February 8th, a member of Rep. Massa's staff brought to the attention of Mr. Hoyer's staff allegations of misconduct that had been made against Mr. Massa. Mr. Hoyer's staff immediately informed him of what they had been told. Mr. Hoyer instructed his staff that if Mr. Massa or his staff did not bring the matter to the attention of the bipartisan Ethics Committee within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer would do so. Within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer received confirmation from both the Ethics Committee staff and Mr. Massa's staff that the Ethics Committee had been contacted and would review the allegations. Mr. Hoyer does not know whether the allegations are true or false, but wanted to ensure that the bipartisan committee charged with overseeing conduct of Members was immediately involved to determine the facts.

By contrast, ethics committee found that Hastert was likely told about Foley emails and apparently took no action. From page 85 of the ethics committee's 2006 report on the Foley scandal:

The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that Speaker Hastert was told, at least in passing, about the e-mails by both Majority Leader [John] Boehner and Rep. [Tom] Reynolds [R-NY] in spring 2006.

[...]

Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.

Ethics committee found that Rep. Boehner and then-Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) failed to show "any curiosity regarding" Foley emails and failed to ask Hastert to take any action. From page 85 of the ethics committee report:

Rep. Alexander did not ask either the Majority Leader or Rep. Reynolds to do anything -- each decided to mention the matter to the Speaker on his own initiative. Like too many others, neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds showed any curiosity regarding why a young former page would have been made uncomfortable by e-mails from Rep. Foley. Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.

In 2006, Fox News figures defended Hastert's role in Foley scandal

September 30, 2006: McClatchy reported that Reynolds said he informed Hastert of emails "months ago." On September 30, 2006, McClatchy reported (accessed via Nexis) that Reynolds said he informed Hastert "months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley":

Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee charged with maintaining his party's majority, said Saturday that he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley -- e-mails the boy said "freaked him out."

Hastert said he doesn't remember the conversation but "has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution," his chief of staff and outside counsel said in an internal review released after Reynolds' statement.

The revelations have prompted calls for independent investigations. Some Democrats have alleged a coverup by the House leadership.

Hannity defends Hastert: "The only thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an e-mail." From the October 4, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

JANE FLEMING (director, Young Democrats of America): Yeah, it's clear that Hastert knew over a year ago, and maybe even longer, that this was going on, and he did absolutely nothing about it. And we have to ask: Why did he do nothing about it?

It seems to us that he was covering it up, hoping that it would go away. When it didn't go away, then they had Foley resign, and they still haven't done a full investigation about --

HANNITY: Hey, Jane, Jane --

FLEMING: Yeah?

HANNITY: Let me stop you right here.

FLEMING: Go ahead.

HANNITY: There is no evidence, none that you can cite to our audience --

FLEMING: Yes, there is.

HANNITY: -- wait a minute, wait a minute -- that Dennis Hastert knew anything about the sexual, salacious nature of the instant messages.

[...]

HANNITY: The only thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an email. Now, I spoke to Hastert. He didn't even know about the request for a picture. All he knew was the parents wanted the emails to stop --

ANN COULTER (right-wing pundit): Right.

HANNITY: -- and the parents' request was answered. He didn't know about this, and there's no proof, in spite of liberals screaming it, they can't cite any evidence that Hastert knew.

COULTER: No, of course not.

HANNITY: But here's what we do know. Here's what we do know. The George Soros-funded group, for example, got hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Open Society that gives money to this group, CREW, well, they knew about this -- and I'm reading from The Hill -- quote, "when CREW received copies of Foley's e-mails earlier this summer." So apparently, now there's even discussion that they may have been in contact with Democrats.

Hannity said there's "no evidence" GOP leaders knew Foley was "going after pages," demanded CREW "phone records." From the October 5, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Let me go back to Michael Barone here for just a second. Michael, this is an important point you were raising here. And I want a full investigation. Democrats are calling for it, but interestingly, I think, you know, I'd like to see -- for example, we know that this website, CREW, funded by George Soros, had these emails now and were bragging on their website as early as July 21.

Now, that raises the questions, because a lot of these CREW members previously worked on Capitol Hill for prominent Democrats. I'd like to see emails, I'd like to see phone records, I'd like to know if there was any contact regarding these things. In other words, what did they know and when did they know it? Because what you're pointing out here, they would have put the safety and security of children, you know --

BARONE: At risk.

HANNITY: -- prioritize partisan politics over the safety and security of children.

[...]

DOUG HATTAWAY (Democratic strategist): That's exactly what the Republican leadership did. They -- the point you're missing, Sean, I think, is wherever these explicit emails showed up -- I don't know what the leadership knew about those -- they knew that this guy was going after pages --

HANNITY: There's no evidence of that at all.

[crosstalk]

HATTAWAY: -- they did nothing about it.

ALAN COLMES (co-host): And thank you very much, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Hattaway, and Mr. Barone. Thank you.

Hannity: "no evidence" Hastert knew, suggested Republican leadership are "innocent people" being "smeared." From the October 3, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Well, it's taken on a very different dynamic though tonight, and that is that Democrats are saying -- I was watching The Fox Report with Shep tonight, and there's Nancy Pelosi out there campaigning today, saying with just 100 percent certainty that Dennis Hastert knew.

Now, I interviewed Dennis Hastert. I've interviewed John Boehner. They both deny -- and there's absolutely no evidence to corroborate this. Now, we're also getting information tonight that there are Democratically funded websites, by people like Soros, that had knowledge of this long before this was made public.

I'm wondering if we're now moving into a different arena here, where this is so politicized that this is going to backfire against the people trying to make hay out of what is a sexual scandal of one man. Your thoughts?

[...]

HANNITY: All right, perhaps, but we'll examine that in the next segment. But I think more importantly here there's some fundamental, I think, fairness issues here.

Everybody that I know is glad Foley is gone, but there seems to be an issue here to purposefully politicize this issue, and I find that equally repugnant to me. And, more importantly, I think this takes on a whole new dimension, and this is it, that, if in the pursuit of political power you are going to falsely accuse individuals of knowing things about horrible scandals like this, you better have evidence, because we live in America, and those American people you're describing are fair-minded.

DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): And that's going to backfire.

HANNITY: And when innocent people are smeared, Dick, I've got to believe that people would tend to side with the people that are being smeared. And I see that this is happening more and more in this scandal.

Brit Hume: "[I]'s always easy to say what [Hastert] should've done, but when you start thinking about the things he could've done, there's not much there." From the October 8, 2006, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

HUME: Well, I think that toward the end of the week it did begin to look a little brighter. I don't think the weekend revelations, Chris, are particularly important.

The former page of whom you speak was an adult, 21 years old, at the time, and was long out of the House page program. And it appears that Foley's pattern was that he would flirt with these pages, and sometimes in quite a lurid and disgusting way, but nothing ever happened physically until after they were out of the program. And heaven knows how many more will turn up to say that, yes, they, too, carried on with him after they were out of the program, so I -- and besides that, Foley's gone, in disgrace, finished. So how much more of the scandal can be fed by revelations about what he did is questionable.

As for what Hastert knew or didn't know, we probably won't know what the facts are on that until this investigation is concluded. However, let's look back at this a moment.

Let's assume that Hastert did know or that he decided he wanted to do more than simply issue a stern warning when he discovered these overly friendly but not X-rated emails. I think the defense that he makes, or that some make of him, that if he tried to do something really strong, he would have been accused of gay-bashing, there would have been charges that the Republicans were trying to out one of their own members solely because he was gay. It would not have been a pretty sight.

So history doesn't disclose its alternatives, but I think we can pretty well see what that one would have been. And it gives you an idea of -- it's always easy to say what he should've done, but when you start thinking about the things he could've done, there's not much there.

Bill Kristol: "I think there's no evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my view." From the October 8, 2006, edition of Fox News Sunday:

KRISTOL: Well, one would think, if one were Foley's chief staff and thought one's boss was doing something really wrong and immoral, one might not just be quiet for the next three years, if Hastert's chief of staff didn't act appropriately. Maybe they thought they had talked to Hastert and to Foley and things -- and he had subsided. Maybe there's some self-serving recollection going on here.

I think there's no evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my view. And this is -- I do honestly believe now the media is trying to stampede the social -- you know, they're treating social conservatives like idiots, for one thing, like children. "Oh my God, one of 230 House members was gay and a real creep, and, you know, and therefore we're not going to vote on the issues we care about, therefore we're going to abandon every position we have. We're going to retreat in shudder from the -- retreat in horror from the polls in November and let the Democrats win a majority."

It's not going to happen. The polls have not moved all week. That is the big fact that's going on. The media is trying to stampede the elections, confirm the Democratic victory, and it's not working.

Kristol: "No one has really proven or even plausibly suggested what [Hastert] should have done that he didn't do." From the October 3, 2006, edition of Fox News' The Big Story:

JOHN GIBSON (host): With me now is Fox News political analyst Bill Kristol, who is the editor of The Weekly Standard. He actually spoke to Dennis Hastert just a short time ago.

Bill, what does Dennis Hastert say about this call for him to step town?

KRISTOL: Well, first, he's really repulsed, I think, by Foley's behavior. You know, Denny Hastert was a high school teacher and a high school coach, and this kind of attempt to exploit young boys, I mean, he -- it's just -- he seems really sickened by it.

He's angry at Foley for betraying his trust, his colleagues' trust, the voters of Florida's trust, these page -- pages' trust. He's also angry at the Democrats for making -- trying to make this a big political issue to divert attention from the real issues that should be debated in this congressional election, and I think he's disappointed in some of these few conservatives who I think foolishly have somehow lashed out at Denny Hastert.

The speaker seems to have done what he could have done given what knowledge he had at the time. No one has really proven or even plausibly suggested what he should have done that he didn't do. And I think he's -- he says he's going to, you know, he's not resigning, and he's going to try to get the debate back to the issues.

Mort Kondracke: "Hastert's position is completely defensible." From the October 6, 2006, edition of Fox News' Special Report:

KONDRACKE: Look, I completely agree with what Jim Baker said, and Jim Baker is a very wise politician, that you give the -- you give the enemy one of your people, and they'll just be chomping after more. Look, I agree that Hastert's position is completely defensible, and what the Republicans need to do is to change the subject.

Now, what are they going to change the subject to? They don't, you know, they're not going to want to talk about Iraq. I guess they want to go back to terrorism. I don't think that arguing over Gerry Studds or Barney Frank is gonna -- is gonna really change the subject; it's just going to rivet attention back on this because, look, what the Republicans rely on for their base is morality voters, values voters, married women with children, and evangelicals, and those people are dismayed by this whole thing.

Bill O'Reilly: "Hastert's you know, being witch-hunted down." From the October 4, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: And in the "Impact" segment tonight, the Foley controversy continues to dominate the media. The question now is there anything more here? And is the far left involved in exposing Congressman Foley?

Joining us now from the ABC News studio in New York City, the man who broke much of the story, investigative reporter Brian Ross.

Now we are hearing that the roof is going to fall in on Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Hastert's guy issued us a statement just seconds ago, saying, look, Hastert didn't know anything about this. He heard a couple of inappropriate emails were sent. Nothing was sexual. Hastert's, you know, being witch hunted down. What do you have? What do you know? And is Hastert in trouble in your opinion?

[...]

O'REILLY: Whatever. But the fact remains that you tried to get a hold of Speaker Hastert. And so did I today. We both did. He will not talk to you. He will not talk to me. I think that's foolish. I think he has to go out and defend himself.

Because at this point, the heavy odds are that he's going to have to resign for the good of the Republican Party. Am I wrong?

ROSS: Hard for me to judge on the politics of it, but I can give you the facts. And that is that he has given inconsistent statements and actually forgot apparently that he was told about Foley earlier this year by Congressman Tom Reynolds, who today reasserted, "I told the Speaker. Maybe he forgot, but I did tell him."

O'REILLY: But what did he tell him? What did he tell him? You see, here's the real crux of this matter.

ROSS: Right, right.

O'REILLY: Did he tell him this guy is just flirting with these guys, and it is ridiculous, and it's embarrassing, and he's got to stop? Or did he tell him the guy's having a sexual deal on the Internet? See, that -

ROSS: No, he didn't tell him that.

O'REILLY: -- that is what it is.

ROSS: And, look, I know what happened here in terms of the timeline. Those sexually explicit instant messages were not really in anybody's possession outside of a handful of pages until last week -

O'REILLY: All right.

ROSS: -- when we got them from some former pages.

O'REILLY: So it's very possible that Hastert didn't know anything other than the guy's an idiot. He's just doing things that are just immature and ridiculous.

ROSS: Well, a hair more than that, according to Fordham. That this was -- because it was no secret among that group that Foley was likely gay, and that his attention to the young male pages, in particular, troubled a number of staff members.

O'REILLY: All right, so they did raise a red flag -

ROSS: They did.

O'REILLY: -- and apparently Hastert did not act upon. I think that's fair. Is that a fair statement?

ROSS: Well, he -- Scott Palmer, according to Fordham, at least, went and met with Foley. And then others also went there.

O'REILLY: OK, so I think it's a fair statement.

Now the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is a far-left group. George Soros gives a lot of money to it through his Open Society Institute. They apparently are the ones that drove this thing behind the scenes. Is that what you're hearing?

ROSS: I'm not familiar with them. They didn't drive us, but I've since seen they have posted some of those original emails on their website. I don't think they had the ones that really are the ones as you say correctly are in contention.

O'REILLY: OK. Because we're trying to figure out who is driving this, who went to The St. Petersburg Times, The Miami Herald, Fox News in Washington and got a hold of some emails.

The emails that we got a hold of were innocuous. There weren't any smoking gun. But we now believe, and The Wall Street Journal believes as well, that a George Soros-funded group drove this story. That could be an interesting wrinkle here.

But now, Fox runs with claims that Pelosi aides may have known about Massa's behavior

FoxNews.com: "Massave Problem." On March 11, FoxNews.com posted a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Pelosi's Office Knew of Massa Concerns." FoxNews.com posted the following image which linked to the article:

Malkin: "The stance of the Democrat majority has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." On the March 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed "now it's coming out that potentially her aides may have known about Congressman Eric Massa and some of the concerns that people had about his activity, sexual misconduct allegations, that maybe they knew as long ago as last year." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin responded: "[T]his is about Nancy Pelosi, and it is about that very pledge she made so publicly and ostentatiously to clean the swamp, to drain the swamp, and what she has done is overflown it -- overflowed it, and I think the stance of the Democrat majority has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. And to hear her talk in such condescending and flippant tones about how her job is not to be a receiver of rumors -- that was the actual quote that she has given now -- what does that tell you about her vigilance regarding integrity among her majority members?"

America's Newsroom: There are "reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months ago" about Massa. On the March 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer claimed there were "new questions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about those incidents and, chiefly, when." Co-host Martha MacCallum claimed that there were "reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months ago about some very questionable issues surrounding Eric Massa." Hemmer later asked Fox News reporter Steve Centanni, "What do we know about what Nancy Pelosi's staff first heard, and when, about these concerns about Massa?"