Media Matters for America - Latest Items

Wash. Times , FoxNews.com falsely claimed Justice IG report found that "ACORN mismanaged grant money"

J.K.F. — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:50:56 EST

The Washington Times and FoxNews.com falsely reported that a review by the Justice Department's inspector general of Justice Department grants to ACORN revealed that ACORN "mismanaged" grant funds. In fact, the IG report -- which identified one direct Justice grant to an ACORN affiliate and four subgrants to ACORN or ACORN affiliates between 2002 and 2009 -- did not address how ACORN or its affiliates managed these funds.

Wash. Times, FoxNews.com misrepresent Justice IG report to claim ACORN "mismanaged" grant funds

Wash. Times claimed "report" found "ACORN mismanaged grant money." On November 21, The Washington Times published an article headlined, "Report: ACORN mismanaged grant money." The article stated, "A report Friday by the Justice Department's independent inspector general revealed that ACORN won approval for nearly $200,000 in Justice grants since 2002 and mismanaged some of the money." But the article did not provide evidence supporting the claim that ACORN or its affiliates "mismanaged some of the money." Rather, the Times reported that the Justice Department report found "ACORN did not always receive the grant money that was approved." From The Washington Times:

FoxNews.com: "ACORN Mismanaged $200,000 of DOJ Funding, Report Finds." A November 20 FoxNews.com article headlined, "ACORN Mismanaged $200,000 of DOJ Funding, Report Finds," falsely reported that "ACORN mismanaged about $200,000 from the Justice Department, which failed to track how the allocated money was used, according to a report by the department's watchdog." From FoxNews.com

In fact, the Justice IG report did not address how ACORN or its affiliates managed grant money

IG report "conducted" review "to determine whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) had provided grants to" ACORN. From the DOJ IG report:

In response to a congressional request, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this review to determine whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) had provided grants to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inc. (ACORN). In our review, we examined whether: (1) ACORN applied for federal funds through DOJ-administered grant programs, (2) ACORN received federal funds through DOJ-administered grant programs, (3) controls were placed on the use of DOJ grant funds awarded to ACORN, and (4) DOJ conducted any reviews or audits of the use of DOJ grant funds awarded to ACORN. We also conducted the same analysis for organizations we determined to be ACORN affiliates.

Justice audit "did not identify any significant deficiencies" regarding an ACORN affiliate's use of DOJ funds, the only funds obtained through a direct grant. The only direct grant to ACORN or an ACORN affiliate identified by the IG report was a congressional earmark for $138,130 in 2005 for the New York Agency for Community Affairs Inc. (NYACA) for a youth organizing program. The IG report stated that "[w]e identified a Single Audit Act report issued in April 29, 2008, of the NYACA for the years ended 2005 and 2006. That Single Audit Act audit did not identify any significant deficiencies regarding NYACA's use of DOJ funds."

IG report found problems with other grant recipients, not ACORN

IG report: Audit found "significant irregularities" in activities of grant recipient NTIC, not ACORN. One of the four subawards to ACORN or ACORN affiliates identified in the IG report was a 2002 grant to the National Training and Information Center (NTIC), which partnered with "36 sub-recipients," including ACORN affiliate the American Institute for Social Justice (AISJ). According to the IG report, an audit of the NTIC grant "revealed significant irregularities in NTIC's grant activities, significant weaknesses in NTIC's grant management practices and internal control system, and various instances of unallowable, unsupported, and unapproved expenses." The IG report stated that the audit "could not determine how the grant funds paid to AISJ were spent" because "NTIC's files did not contain the required expenditure reports for Toledo ACORN or AISJ, and NTIC did not have any supporting documentation for the sub-recipient's expenditures." The report noted that the ACORN affiliate did not respond when the IG "attempted to contact NTIC's 36 sub-recipients by letters and telephone calls." Because the IG was "not able to contact Toledo ACORN, and their records were not available for audit, we questioned the total funds paid to this sub-recipient by NTIC, which amounted to $20,000."

Quick Fact: Fox's Johnson falsely claims that Senate health care bill prevents payment for some screenings

T.G. — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:31:19 EST

While discussing U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on medical screenings, Fox News' Peter Johnson Jr. stated on Fox & Friends that "what we see now in the Senate bill is the Senate saying that if you get an A or a B, then it's gonna be paid for. If you get a C, it's not gonna be paid for." In fact, the bill requires only that insurers provide coverage for screenings that receive A or B recommendations from the task force; it says nothing about whether insurers may or may not cover other categories of recommendations.

From the November 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

JOHNSON: This is a group appointed by the government. And so what we see now in the Senate bill is the Senate saying that if you get an A or a B --

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Right.

JOHNSON: -- then it's gonna be paid for. If you get a C, it's not gonna be paid for. And so --

DOOCY: Well, you would never know going in if you were gonna wind up with an A, B, or a C.

JOHNSON: Well, they've said it now.

Fact: Senate bill does not prevent insurers from providing coverage for screenings that do not get A or B recommendations

Bill requires insurers to adopt USPSTF recommendations in favor of specific preventive screenings. The Senate health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires insurance companies to cover screenings that the USPSTF rates as A or B recommendations. It does not prohibit insurers from covering screenings that receive other ratings:

''SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.

''(a) IN GENERAL. -- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for --

''(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of 'A' or 'B' in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;

Johnson's claim echoes misinformation in a New York Post column by fellow Fox News contributor Dr. Marc Siegel, who cited task force recommendations against regular mammograms for some women to baselessly assert that "under ObamaCare, guidelines will quickly become mandates."

Fox & Friends hosts falsely suggest Organizing for America director compared Palin to a terrorist

D.C.P. — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:44:44 EST

On Fox & Friends, co-hosts Gretchen Carlson, Brian Kilmeade, and Steve Doocy falsely suggested that Organizing for America director Mitch Stewart compared Sarah Palin to a terrorist when he wrote in a fundraising letter that her book tour is "dangerous." In fact, Stewart wrote that her tour is "dangerous" because Palin uses it as a platform to make false attacks on Democrats, and then the falsehoods are "widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups."

Fox & Friends suggests OFA director compared Palin to a terrorist

From the November 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: All right, meanwhile, as we talk about those Gitmo guys, you know who's really dangerous? Is it Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Is it --

KILMEADE: Major Hasan?

DOOCY: -- any of those guys? No. There's an organization out there called Organizing for America, which is Barack Obama's online group. And one of the guys in charge of that is saying that something that is really dangerous is the Sarah Palin book tour.

CARLSON: Well, apparently, because they are trying to create, you know, a firestorm again. She's an easy target, and so now she could be more dangerous than any terrorist out there. In the meantime, there's all that confusion, too. You remember that other book was coming out at the exact same time that looked just like her book, except it's called Going Rouge? There it is. You know, it's very confusing. It looks very similar, so apparently some people are being confused by the two books.

KILMEADE: Harper Collins has taken out money to put out ads together so people know how to order the right book. But I'll tell you one thing. This is why I think, tactically and politically, they should fear Sarah Palin. This book sale --

DOOCY: Absolutely.

KILMEADE: -- and her popularity are so much bigger than even her supporters could imagine.

DOOCY: Right. And so it's a little payback from Harper Collins, because they didn't like the idea that, rather than Going Rogue, there was this Going Rouge book out. So people who type in Going Rouge will actually be redirected to buy the actual book. And that organizing group from the Barack Obama organization, what they're doing is they're trying to raise half a million dollars to, quote, "push back against Sarah Palin and her allies." Push back.

OFA director called Palin's book tour "dangerous" because of the misinformation she spreads and in no way compared Palin to a terrorist

Stewart: Palin's tour is "dangerous" because her falsehoods are advanced by the media and right-wing groups. In a November fundraising email, Stewart wrote: "Right now, Sarah Palin is on a highly publicized, nationwide book tour, attacking President Obama and his plan for health reform at every turn" and that "[i]t's dangerous. Remember, this is the person who coined the term 'Death Panels' -- and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists." He continued: "Whatever lie comes next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform." From the email:

Eric Boehlert: Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget

E.B. — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:43:48 EST

Ugh, what a gruesome week it was for news consumers as the "serious" press showered time and attention on two GOP-friendly stories that defined "trivial pursuits": a book release and a bow. Sadly, this is what the Beltway press corps now voluntarily -- eagerly -- reduces itself to: chasing pointless, vacuous "news" stories that are literally of no consequence.

Why? Because the book and bow represented the easy, lazy, and safe thing to do last week. And among media elites, those remain three irresistible forces. (Raise your hand if you heard even one insightful comment about Sarah Palin amidst the TV cacophony last week.) That, along with the media's tradition of acquiescing to whatever production/distraction the GOP Noise Machine is cooking up, ensured the book and bow were elevated to breaking news status. Meaning, if it's a big deal to Drudge and Limbaugh and Beck and Malkin -- if they're all cheering it (Palin's book) or if they're all screaming about it (President Obama's bow) -- it must be news. In reality, of course, that's an awful way to run a newsroom assignment desk. But more and more producers and editors are gladly abdicating their responsibilities.

Not that long ago, serious journalists routinely ignored the noisemakers on the fringe, confident in their own ability to identify the news. Now, many inside the Beltway not only refuse to ignore the right-wing fringe, they look to it expectantly for "news" leads and soon find themselves filing pointless stories about whether the president's bow to the Japanese emperor was too deep. Or inappropriate. Or whatever the haters were carping about. (Of course, in news accounts, the unhinged haters are dressed up as Obama "critics.")

Not only did we see monumentally misguided decisions in obsessing over Palin's book release and even acknowledging the manufactured controversy of Obama's bow, but lots of the actual coverage was just atrocious. ABC News, in particular, seemed to embarrass itself in this regard.

Sitting down for a softball session with Palin, ABC's Barbara Walters asked her if it was Obama who lied about the health reform "death panels." Of course, as the whole world (minus Walters) knows, it was Palin who manufactured the universally debunked "death panel" smear this summer. But on ABC, Walters wanted to know if Obama was lying when he claimed death panels did not exist. Walters then allowed Palin to claim Obama had been "disingenuous" about the whole thing. (Welcome to Bizarro World.)

Meanwhile, for the utterly pointless tale of Obama's bow, ABC's Jake Tapper published an anonymous email from a "friend" (I kid you not) who claimed to be an expert on the Japanese Empire, and who mocked the president's bend-at-the-waist greeting. And yes, that represented the entirety of Tapper's "reporting" on the topic for that post. (BTW, Tapper's friend was dead wrong in his analysis, according to lots of named experts in Japanese culture and protocol.)

So yes, it was a media week to forget as the press covered the wrong stories, poorly.

My favorite headline from Palin Week, and the one that perfectly captured the absurdity of the media's purposeful overkill, came courtesy of Talking Points Memo, as it recapped the latest batch of (dismal) public polling data about the former Alaska governor:

Poll: Even Conservatives Don't Want Palin Running For President

What we learned from the pointless orgy of Palin news coverage last week is that the D.C. press corps has a very firm grasp on the obvious. Yes, Palin is a polarizing figure and yes, she might run for president in 2012. But honestly, did the cable channels and networks really have to mention "Palin" more than 1,700 times last week to make that blindingly obvious point. (That's the tally, according to TVeyes.) The news media's response to Palin's book was, of course, comically disproportionate to the supposed news surrounding it, or even surrounding her political status for that matter.

Based solely on her standing in the polls, Palin is the Dan Quayle of 2009. (She's the proud owner of a 23 percent favorable rating -- 23 percent.) So why do the media treat her as a rising superstar? Why, for instance, did The Washington Post insist on publishing dueling Going Rogue book reviews, an absurd editorial decision since the book itself was the definition of lightweight. ("It's definitely not a policy book and it's not going to change minds about her." And that was from a fan.)

The Palin book release story itself was built on empty, useless calories. Two or three weeks from now, nobody is going to remember (or need to remember) anything that transpired during Palin Week, because virtually nothing noteworthy happened. But journalists sure did their best to justify the madness.

The Washington Post's Michael Shear claimed that "there seems to be an insatiable demand from our audience -- liberals and conservatives -- and at the end of the day we have to, and should, respond to that." At Politico, Ben Smith explained Palin drives traffic and besides, "she's a great story and a pretty important political figure." And writing on The New York Times' Op-Ed page, a local Alaska journalist, Michael Carey, claimed, "The nation made [Palin] a celebrity."

The nation? Really? I'd say the press has made Palin a celebrity, while for the last year the nation has shrugged its collective shoulders.

Is there any evidence that since last November a large numbers of Americans who are not white evangelicals (Palin's most supportive base) and are not professional journalists (Palin's second-most supportive base), really care about what Sarah Palin thinks or says? I certainly haven't seen any proof to support that media's working assumption of Palin "mania." Yes, I understand she's selling lots of books this week. But thanks to the avalanche of free publicity, it would be shocking if she didn't move hundreds of thousands of units. (It's almost impossible to calculate how much free publicity the press generated for Palin's book with its blanketed, mass media coverage, but if pressed I'd guess the news media delivered at least $30 million worth of free marketing for HarperCollins.) But is there any larger proof that Palin, who remains perennially unpopular across the country, is in any way a political force?

I'll bet five bucks that when the Pew Research numbers come out this week we'll see a massive disconnect in terms of the amount of time journalists dedicated (i.e. wasted) to the Palin story, and the microscopic percentage of news consumers who listed the Palin book launch as the story they paid the most attention to last week. Instead, once again it will be the economy or health care that top the list because (surprise!) that's what matters to people. Beltway parlor games, and especially pointless ones involving Palin, are of no interest to most news consumers.

Speaking of disconnect, we saw it on full display with regards to the non-story of Obama's bow in Japan. And what we learned from the bow kerfuffle is that the press is still unwilling to ignore the trumped-up charges that the GOP Noise Machine concocts everyday in its incessant, hateful campaign against the president. (For the media, right-wing anger = news.) I had hoped journalists learned a valuable lesson in September, when mainstream outlets took seriously, and even eagerly hyped, the far-right's pre-emptive, hysterical claim that Obama was going to indoctrinate American students into his socialist agenda when he spoke to them via satellite. In the end, though, the press looked just as foolish as the Obama haters when the president delivered his speech and simply urged students to excel in class and stay in school.

Unfortunately, the bow charade proved once again the press still cannot resist the right-wing's siren song. The press cannot turn away from the loud, fringe shouts, even when those shouts revolve around utter trivia, and when those knee-jerk shouts are about a story that can easily be answered with the question, "Who cares?" As in, who cares if some people online didn't like the angle of Obama's greeting?

The sad truth is that the press is still way too impressed with the right-wing shouts and still capitulates to them, and then dutifully translates those shouts into "news" with coverage that seems purposefully dumbed down in order to avoid bringing news consumers to the obvious conclusion that the Obama-hating allegation being "debated" that day is absurd. Or, to avoid bringing news consumers to the equally obvious conclusion that the allegation being "debated" raised more questions about critics making it (i.e. what is wrong with these people?), than it did their target.

And, oh yeah, the disconnect: A sweeping majority of Americans approved of Obama's bow. And even a majority of Republicans thought it was the right thing to do.

The press should have ignored the bow nonsense and left it to the Obama haters. Just like the press should have put an early cap on its Palin coverage. When is that liberal media going to learn?

Quick Fact: Wallace falsely claims health bills direct task force to decide what services "aren't covered"

D.C.P. — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:13:31 EST

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace falsely claimed that it's a "fact" that the House and Senate health care bills direct the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to "determine what services, what tests, screening, are covered and aren't covered," and asked whether that amounts to "government rationing." In fact, the bills require insurers to implement task force recommendations in favor of specific preventive care, but they are not required to adopt those that recommend against preventive screening.

Wallace falsely claims under health bills task force "will determine what services ... aren't covered"

From the November 22 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW [D-MI]: As the only woman on this panel, let me say, first of all, I don't agree with that recommendation, and thank goodness it's not going to have any impact. It was only a recommendation. But the bigger issue here for us is the fact that what we're doing is, for the first time, making sure that women have maternity care and actually have mammograms covered. That's what's in our basic plan.

WALLACE: If I may bring Senator [Arlen] Specter [D-PA] in, because you have had a battle -- a personal battle with cancer yourself for years, sir. While the mammograms study set off a political storm and Health Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius backed away from it, the fact is both in the House bill and in the Senate bill, it repeatedly refers to this preventative services task force and says that it will determine what services, what tests, screening, are covered and aren't covered. Isn't that going to be government rationing?

SPECTER: The legislation pending specifically provides for testing. The report made on mammograms and pap tests not binding on us in any way. The bill up -- provides for testing just as I had an MRI, which was very, very beneficial to me. Listen, Chris, the real issue here is whether we're going to have governance.

**Fact: Neither Senate nor House health bills require insurers to adopt recommendations against preventive services**

The Senate health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires insurance companies only to cover screenings that the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends, those rated as an A or B recommendation; it does not require insurers to adopt guidelines that recommend against preventive screenings:

SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for -

(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of 'A' or 'B' in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force

Similarly, the House health care reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, requires insurance companies to cover the A or B recommendations of a new task force, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services, but does not require that insurers adopt recommendations against preventive services:

SEC. 3143. RESEARCH ON SUBSIDIES AND REWARDS TO ENCOURAGE WELLNESS AND HEALTHY BEHAVIORS.

[...]

(c) INCLUSION IN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE. -- If, on the basis of the findings of research and demonstration projects under subsection (a) or other sources consistent with section 3131, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services determines that a subsidy or reward meets the Task Force's standards for a grade A or B, the Secretary shall ensure that the subsidy or reward is included in the essential benefits package under section 222.

CNSNews' Jeffrey falsely suggests Senate bill "mandates federally subsidized abortion" inconsistent with Hyde Amendment

M.G. & M.W. — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:47:02 EST

Terence Jeffrey, editor-in-chief of the conservative website CNSNews.com, falsely suggested that the Senate health care bill "would mandate federally subsidized abortion" in a manner inconsistent with the Hyde Amendment's restrictions on the types of abortions for which federal dollars can be used. But the section of the bill Jeffrey cited explicitly prohibits the use of federal funds to provide coverage for abortions that are currently restricted under Hyde, and requires segregation of non-federal funds from federal funds to pay for those procedures in a manner similar to that used in many states that cover such abortions under the federally subsidized Medicaid program.

Jeffrey: Senate bill "would mandate federally subsidized abortion"

In his November 19 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.

Quick Fact: WSJ 's Freeman claims "there hasn't been any warming since 1998"; climate experts disagree

M.G. — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:22:32 EST

Wall Street Journal assistant editorial page editor James Freeman claimed that efforts to pass cap and trade legislation will fail because there is "no premise" for such legislation since "there hasn't been any warming since 1998," later adding that "there's no proof that this is happening as a result of man's activities, in fact, lately, it's not even happening anymore."

From the November 21 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report:

FREEMAN: $800 billion is a lot of money. The cost is huge, and that's probably an underestimate. But, you know, there's also that little detail that there hasn't been any warming since 1998, so.

STUART VARNEY (host): But what really killed it here? Was it economics, was it the cost that killed it, or something else?

FREEMAN: Well, what is the argument for it? If you're saying this is a massive cost, even bigger than this crazy stimulus, even bigger than the TARP, and by the way, there's no proof that this is happening as a result of man's activities, in fact, lately, it's not even happening anymore. So it basically has no premise right now.

Fact: Climate scientists reject conservative claim that recent global average temperatures indicate global warming has stopped

Climate experts reject the idea that the relatively cooler global average temperatures in several of the last 10 years are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist. Scientists have identified a long-term warming trend spanning several decades that is independent from the normal climate variability -- which includes relatively short-term changes in climate due to events like El Niño and La Niña -- to which they attribute the recent cooler temperatures.

Fact: Climate experts overwhelmingly believe global warming caused by "man's activities"

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 "Synthesis Report" concluded that "[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level" and that "[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [defined in the report as a ">90%" chance] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations." According to its website, IPCC is "the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)," and "[t]housands of scientists from all over the world contribute to" its work.

Quick Fact: Hannity falsely claimed Gore was wrong to say British judge ruling on An Inconvenient Truth "favored his point of view"

M.G. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:12:13 EST

In an interview with British filmmaker and climate change skeptic Phelim McAleer, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Al Gore's statement that a 2007 ruling by a British judge about Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, in Hannity's words, "favored his point of view" was "absolutely false."

From the November 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: Well, [Gore's] claiming that this court decision actually, you know, favored his point of view, that is absolutely false.

MCALEER: That is false.

HANNITY: Explain.

MCALEER: Well, the court case, it was a lengthy hearing, maybe a month of hearings, there was nine aspects of An Inconvenient Truth they looked at and they found nine significant errors or exaggerations.

Fact: British judge concluded film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact"

In his October 10, 2007, ruling, High Court Judge Michael Burton stated that while he had identified nine "errors and omissions" in the film, it is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact." The judge also said he had "no doubt" that the defendant's expert was "right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.' "

Quick Fact: Hannity falsely suggests Democratic health bills would "actually" only insure "12 million" people

G.L. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:47:52 EST

Sean Hannity responded to a statement by Democratic strategist Jacques DeGraff that "We're on the threshold of taking care of 31 million Americans who don't have health insurance" by claiming that "It's actually 12 million" who would get insurance.

From the November 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

FORMER MD GOV. ROBERT ERLICH: We're on the threshold of quadrupling the national debt.

DEGRAFF: We're on the threshold of taking care of 31 million Americans who don't have health insurance.

HANNITY: It's actually 12 million, but that's a whole different story.

Fact: CBO says Senate and House health bills would each reduce the number of uninsured in 2019 by more than 30 million

According to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) cost estimate of the Senate health care bill, "the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million" in 2019 compared to current law. Similarly, the CBO's score of the House bill as passed estimated the bill would have the net effect of reducing the number of uninsured Americans by 36 million in 2019 compared to current law.

Quick Fact: Fearmongering about rationing, Baier falsely claimed a "federal panel" promulgated cervical cancer guidelines

M.W. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:53:23 EST

Special Report host Bret Baier falsely claimed that recently released cervical cancer screening guidelines were promulgated by a "federal panel," adding that those guidelines "open the door to this conversation about rationing." Additionally, Mara Liasson suggested that that the Senate health care reform bill would implement a task force's recommendations for breast cancer screenings when "writing the basic health care package that insurers who participate in these exchanges are going to offer."

From the November 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

BAIER: I want to turn to this, the second day in a row that a federal panel has come out with guidelines and recommendations that the White House is not too please about. First we had the mammograms that they said this is not administration policy to move the age up to 50. Now the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or ACOG advises women to start pap tests for cervical cancer at 21, not 18.

[...]

LIASSON: Is ACOG actually a government panel? I think it's more --

BAIER: Independent.

LIASSON: It's, no, well I don't know if it's a government panel, I think the first one was definitely a government panel, the preventative task force--

BAIER: Right, right, right but it opens the door to this conversation about rationing.

LIASSON: There's no doubt. I think the mammogram thing was a huge kinda bowling ball rolling right down towards health reform because it's one of the most emotional issues for women. Breast cancer is the number one concern among women when they are asked to rate what they worry about. And here is the governmental panel, independent but in the Senate bill it says that when it comes to writing the basic health care package that insurers who participate in these exchanges are going to offer they are going to look to panels including this preventative task force and others to decide what should be in the package.

Fact: ACOG is "a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization" that issued nonbinding guidelines unconnected to health reform

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which on November 20 announced new recommendations for cervical cancer screenings, is not a "federal panel." In fact, it is a private membership organization. From the organization's website:

Founded in 1951 in Chicago, Illinois, ACOG has over 52,000 members and is the nation's leading group of professionals providing health care for women. Now based in Washington, DC, it is a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization.

ACOG works primarily in four areas:

Serving as a strong advocate for quality health care for women.

Maintaining the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education for its members.

Promoting patient education and stimulating patient understanding of and involvement in medical care.

Increasing awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women's health care. [ACOG website]

Additionally, the guidelines ACOG issued are Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires insurance companies only to cover screenings that the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends, those rated as an A or B recommendation; it requires insurance companies to cover the A or B recommendations of a new task force, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services, but does not require that insurers adopt recommendations against preventive services:

SEC. 3143. RESEARCH ON SUBSIDIES AND REWARDS TO ENCOURAGE WELLNESS AND HEALTHY BEHAVIORS.

[....]

(c) INCLUSION IN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE. -- If, on the basis of the findings of research and demonstration projects under subsection (a) or other sources consistent with section 3131, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services determines that a subsidy or reward meets the Task Force's standards for a grade A or B, the Secretary shall ensure that the subsidy or reward is included in the essential benefits package under section 222.

Media Matters: The Palin chronicles

S.S.M. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:02:22 EST

It was all too predictable.

From the moment Sarah Palin was airlifted out of the Alaska hinterlands by John McCain and plopped onto the national stage, she's been telling anyone who will listen how poorly she's been treated by the media, the Democrats, the blogosphere, etc. After she did her part in scuttling McCain's already foundering campaign, she added to her list of personal persecutors the same McCain staffers who made her a household name in the first place. The conservative media have cheered on her personal pity party every step of the way, adamantly refusing to acknowledge that Sarah Palin -- perfect Sarah Palin, conservatism's hockey-mom messiah -- has done anything wrong.

So it was inevitable that when Palin and her ghostwriter teamed up to produce her newly release memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life, it would be anything but a tedious exercise in self-martyrdom. The second half of the book, which recounts her time with McCain and the aftermath of the presidential campaign, is a litany of complaints peppered with absolutions of any errors on her part. Palin's account of her disastrous interviews with CBS anchor Katie Couric consists mainly of attacks on Couric for "badgering" her, "edit[ing] out substantive answers," and trying to "frame a 'gotcha' moment." She chastises McCain campaign staffers for having "no script to begin with," for not following her advice and talking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and for nurturing the "wardrobe fairy tale" so they could throw her "under the media bus" after the campaign ended.

When not complaining about how ill-treated she was, Palin wildly revised her own history, showcasing her penchant for falsehoods both big and small. She claims that the media were reporting "lies" about the Bridge to Nowhere, when it was she who, from the very start, lied about her own position on the bridge. She claims that she immediately liked the idea of going on Saturday Night Live, even though internal campaign emails show that she was initially reluctant because of the show's "gross" treatment of her family, going so far as to call the SNL crew "whack." She claims that there is no aerial hunting in Alaska, even though she proposed legislation supporting that very practice. The list goes on and on.

But remember, this is Sarah Palin we're dealing with here, and no matter how self-discrediting and ridiculous her book was, the conservative media would leap to her defense, claiming (once again) that she was the victim of a vicious liberal onslaught. Palin herself got the ball rolling before the book was even released, chastising the Associated Press (which got its hands on a copy prior to the release date) for assigning 11 reporters to fact-check it, saying that their time would be better spent fact-checking "what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial." Palin made no attempt to respond to the several factual errors and distortions the AP found, and neither did Fox News, which picked up where Palin left off and ran a breathless segment wondering why, exactly, the AP had assigned so many reporters to the book.

Then there's Rush Limbaugh, Palin's staunchest defender and perhaps the conservative media personality most disconnected from reality -- two traits that are in no way mutually exclusive. On November 13, Rush proclaimed that Going Rogue is "one of the most substantive policy books I've read." He must have received a special unabridged edition, because to every other observer -- even Fox News campaign reporter/operative Carl Cameron -- the book's policy prescriptions are few and far between, and rarely more detailed than "Ronald Reagan was right." In the conservative blogosphere, the adoration was even more comical: John Ziegler, the devoted Palinista who is -- and forgive the indelicate bluntness, but there is no better word -- an idiot, called the book the "greatest literary achievement by a political figure in my lifetime."

Meanwhile, the mainstream press ties itself into knots with their obsessive Palin coverage, trying to explain how it is that a riotously unpopular and ill-informed ex-governor speaks for legions of Americans. Newsweek undercut whatever merit its critical analysis of Palin's role in the political world had by festooning it with sexist Palin imagery. David Brooks continues to vacillate in his opinion of Palin, at various times calling her "smart," "a joke," "courageous and likeable," and a "cancer." PBS' Gwen Ifill said women "will be drawn to her story," even though Palin's popularity among women is in the toilet.

None of this is to say that Palin isn't shrewd. She's figured out that she can say whatever she pleases, lie freely, quit elected office to become a professional Facebook bomb-thrower, cash in on a ridiculous book she didn't even write, and still enjoy the adoration of her conservative fan base, as well as the attentions of the mainstream press.

Greg Lewis: The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts

G.L. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:44:09 EST

Once upon a time, Rush Limbaugh would profess how conservative thinkers like Charles Krauthammer were the bee's knees. He even said, on more than one occasion, that he would consider trading brains with Krauthammer:

LIMBAUGH: As you may remember my having said -- and I'll say it again -- I admire Charles Krauthammer like I admire few people. If I didn't have my own brain, it would be a toss-up as to whether I would want Krauthammer's brain or Justice Scalia's brain. I'm happy with my brain, but if I had to go in there and get a new one, it would be a toss-up between Scalia and Krauthammer.

Rush is definitely on to something, since Krauthammer is leagues ahead of him when it comes to intellect. When he's not trying to position himself as the pre-eminent wingnut hack columnist, Krauthammer is more than capable of stringing together an intelligent thought. Take, for example, his logical approach to the much-ballyhooed recommendation on mammograms by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force:

KRAUTHAMMER: I read the paper and the report that came out of it, and its recommendation is based not on the cost, the financial cost, but on the benefits, the net benefits... So when you have inexact tests and inexact screenings, you have to make a determination and decide how to balance them, and I think the report is a fairly good recommendation. It's not aimed at saving money. It would, but that's not what its recommendations are based on.

One might think Limbaugh, who holds Krauthammer's opinion in such high regard, might have come to a similar conclusion, particularly since Krauthammer is a doctor of psychiatry and has had medical training. But if you know Limbaugh's well-documented intellectual ineptitude like we do, then you probably wouldn't think that. And you'd be correct:

LIMBAUGH: We've all predicted this. There's no question that this is what's going to happen, and this is a leading indicator -- you might even say that we've got death panels going on here.

Since conflict seems to be the theme this week, then we need to discuss Limbaugh's pathetic showdown with Gallup. Rush Limbaugh, always a villain to statisticians everywhere, hunkered over to the latest Gallup poll this week and came up with a brainless attempt to discredit it:

LIMBAUGH: So [Obama's] under 50 percent in two polls now, Quinnipiac and the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. Gallup has him just teetering on the little teeter-totter at 50 percent and they're doing everything they can -- they're upping the sample of black Americans -- to keep him up at 50 percent in the Gallup poll.

Accusing a polling outfit of cooking its numbers is a serious, serious charge -- one that absolutely requires some modicum of evidence. Adding a racial element, as Rush did, only makes it that much more imperative that you back up the allegation. So what was Limbaugh's basis for claiming that Gallup was "upping the sample of black Americans"? There was no explanation. And hours later, Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport responded to Rush's accusation, swatting it down as a "complete and inexplicable fabrication." The Plum Line's Greg Sargent offered an alternate theory, which is at least as plausible as Rush's charge:

Of course, it's always possible that Gallup has been infiltrated by an army of ACORN workers who are holding Gallup officials hostage in a last ditch effort to game Obama's numbers in this one poll to prevent his presidency from going under.

Quick! Somebody get Andrew Breitbart on the case!

Rush also briefly found himself at odds with Fox News at the end of last week. After Rush declared Sarah Palin's new book "one of the most substantive policy books I've read," that sneaky Carl Cameron over at Fox had the gall to report that the book "largely steers clear of" policy. Perhaps heeding to the all mighty "Campaign" Carl, Rush backed off his original assertion a bit in later discussions of the book. On Tuesday's show, Rush downgraded the book to one with "some substantive policy stuff" in it.

And since Limbaugh's duking it out with everyone else, he might as well be in constant turmoil with himself, too. It's been well-documented that consistency is not Rush's strongest suit (unless you wanted to say he is consistently inconsistent). We caught him in an embarrassing flip-flop a few weeks ago when it came to moral victories in elections. Now Rush has taken to redefining and retasking words based on how they can best be used against the left.

On his show this week, Rush lambasted Attorney General Eric Holder for referring to the Fort Hood shooting as "tragic":

LIMBAUGH: Now some of what Holder said today. He called the shooting at Fort Hood "tragic." No. It was a jihadist massacre. It was a terrorist attack. It was not a tragedy.

As my Media Matters colleague Jeremy Holden pointed out, in that comment, Limbaugh made "clear that a distinction exists between terrorism and tragedy." If that's the case, somebody needs to ask Limbaugh if he holds George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan to the same standard. Bush referred to both the 9-11 attacks and the 2004 Madrid train bombing as a "tragedy," while Reagan described the 1984 Beirut embassy bombing and 1983 Beirut barrack attacks as "tragic."

Additionally, it was only a few months ago when Limbaugh himself described the shooting at the Holocaust Museum as a "tragedy." Holden commented:

You almost get the feeling that Limbaugh's distinctions have more to do with how the words can be used to attack the Obama administration and "the American left."

Meanwhile, that principle also holds true for Limbaugh if the subject is email hacking. Back during the '08 campaign, Limbaugh rightfully called foul when Sarah Palin's personal email account was hacked.

However, on today's show, Limbaugh touted an article reporting that hackers had apparently stolen "hundreds of emails and documents" from the UK's Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Not only did Rush not appear to display any sense of outrage at the likely crime that took place, he also falsely claimed that the emails contained proof that global warming is "made up." As much as Rush wants it to be so, the emails are no smoking gun that global warming is entirely made up.

But that's The Friday Rush, where double standards and absolute inanity are commonplace.

Limbaugh distorts apparently stolen emails to falsely claim global warming is "made up"

J.S. & C.S. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:04:32 EST

Rush Limbaugh -- who had previously condemned the "thugs" who hacked then-Gov. Sarah Palin's email account -- joined right-wing bloggers in touting a series of emails that were apparently stolen from the UK's Climate Research Unit [CRU]. Limbaugh proceeded to distort at least one of the emails in order to falsely suggest that it is evidence that global warming is "made up" and that leading climate scientists have been engaged in "substantial fraud."

Limbaugh distorts email apparently stolen by hacker, claims global warming is "made up" and scientists are engaged in "fraud"

On his November 20 radio show, Limbaugh referenced the alleged theft of CRU emails by what he described as a "hacker." Limbaugh went on to read from an email sent in 1999 by CRU director Phil Jones. Limbaugh falsely suggested that a phrase in the email -- "hide the decline" -- was somehow "evidence" of "substantial fraud."

From the November 20 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: By the way, folks, I want to give you a website to go to when you get a chance. It's called climatedepot.com. Something fascinating has happened, and I was first alerted to this today by our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer. A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU. That is Britain's largest climate research institute. They are a huge proponent of global warming.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: I don't know if the jury's still out on that, but more and more people are picking up on this. The whole thing as we've -- I've instinctively known this from the get-go 20 years ago. The whole thing's made up. And the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it. When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus. It's never what they say it is. There's always a hidden reason behind the objective. The objective -- stated objective is just designed just to get you feeling guilty, responsible, frightened, scared -- and your kids as well. But it looks like substantial fraud, a lot of evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the evidence on global warming. And Clarice Feldman at the AmericanThinker.com is posted one this, and she's got a sample of the purportedly hacked materials on here -- of the 1,079 emails and 72 documents, and they are available online -- the hackers put them up.

"Dear Roy -- or Ray, Mike, and Malcolm, Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years, i.e., from 1981 onwards, and from the 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline in temperature." To hide the decline in temperature. "Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-September for NH land N of 20 north. The latter two are real for 1999 while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is --" blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.

**NASA scientist: Emails do not show that "global warming is a hoax"**

NASA's Gavin Schmidt: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.

Email Limbaugh read was distorted, "pulled out of context"

Real Climate: Jones email "pulled out of context." In a November 20 post, Real Climate's staff, which is made up of several working climate scientists, cited Jones' 1999 email -- which Limbaugh read -- as "one example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context." Jones' November 16, 1999, email reads:

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

LSE Prof: Scientists use "trick" to mean "a clever way of doing something." A November 20 Guardian article reported that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."

Real Climate: "trick" Jones referenced is a method for making the "context of the recent warming ... clear" and isn't "problematic ... at all." Noting that "[s]cientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a 'a good way to deal with a problem,' " Real Climate explained:

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

Real Climate: "hiding the decline" refers to method that is "completely appropriate." Real Climate further explained:

As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Jones reportedly "explained he was not trying to mislead." The New Zealand magazine Investigate reported on November 20:

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing hiding "the decline", and Jones explained he was not trying to mislead.

"No, that's completely wrong. In the sense that they're talking about two different things here. They're talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered -- but they're talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it's just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don't always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years."

Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words "hide the decline".

"That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?

Limbaugh previously denounced Palin email hackers as "Obama thugs"

Limbaugh called Palin email hackers "thugs" and asked: "Do we live in a sick era, or what?" On the September 18, 2008, edition of his show, Limbaugh decried the "thugs" who hacked Palin's email account:

And then of course Obama, folks, is showing who he really is. The community organizer, the street agitator, the Chicago thug, clear the playing field, it's on display for everybody to see. Sarah Palin's e-mails, personal e-mails have been hacked, no doubt by Obama thugs, they dropped 30 people up there in Alaska trying to dig up dirt on her. Now they got some thugs that found her personal e-mail address, and the reaction to this is stunning. The Drive-Bys are not upset about this at all.

In fact, ABC, get this headline: "Palin's E-mail Habits Echo Worst Practices of Bush Administration, Expert Says." So we have the vice presidential candidate on the Republican ticket's personal e-mail hacked, they post screen shots on the Internet of her personal e-mails, she's now being criticized for using a personal account to conduct state business. This is why, by the way, presidents and vice presidents do not use e-mail, be it personal or business. And now we've got people coming around saying that she's irresponsible, the hackers have uncovered some fraud on her part. Do we live in a sick era, or what?

In LA video, O'Keefe and Giles expose their own dishonesty

J.S. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:18:22 EST

In making public a video he withheld for more than two months, right-wing activist James O'Keefe finally acknowledged that a Los Angeles ACORN employee "would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities" -- an admission that directly contradicts claims by his colleague Hannah Giles that no ACORN employees refused to help them. Moreover, O'Keefe's claim in the video that the Los Angeles employee was the "only" ACORN employee who refused to help is contradicted by the fact that ACORN employees in two other cities contacted the police following their encounters with O'Keefe and Giles.

ACORN employee refused to assist in obtaining house for "illegal activities"

O'Keefe: LA worker "was the only ACORN employee ... who would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities." In a video article on the conservative website Human Events, Mike Flynn, the editor-in-chief of BigGovernment.com, said in an exclusive interview: "It's not even just one random employee, it's so comprehensive, it's everywhere [O'Keefe] went. What shocks me is when you watch the videos, they don't even flinch."

O'Keefe dodged questions about whether ACORN employees refused to help

O'Keefe didn't disclose LA tape when asked whether any ACORN employees "were not willing to cooperate." During the September 13 edition of Fox News' America's News HQ, Shawn asked, "Were there some that refused your offers, that actually did not -- were not willing to cooperate?" But rather than acknowledge at the time what happened in Los Angeles, O'Keefe responded:

O'KEEFE: No -- in none of the facil -- [laughs] none of the facilities kicked us out. That's a lie.

O'Keefe waited more than two months after this exchange to acknowledge that Harris "would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities."

In September, Fox's Chris Wallace reported that O'Keefe "says he'll release all the tapes soon to show if any ACORN offices did the right thing." On the September 27 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace reported that "O'Keefe wants to set the record straight" and aired the following:

WALLACE: O'Keefe wants to set the record straight. He denies reports on left-wing blogs he got any money from conservative backers. And he says he'll release all the tapes soon to show if any ACORN offices did the right thing. Why not release all the tapes at the start?

O'KEEFE: We knew that they would lie and they would say, "Oh, you've got nothing," or, "You're dubbing your voice in." But you release a little bit at a time, and they get caught in their lie.

ACORN employees in other cities contacted the police

Philadelphia and San Diego area ACORN employees contacted police after O'Keefe's visits. Contrary to O'Keefe's assertion that the Los Angeles ACORN worker "was the only ACORN employee in our nationwide investigation who would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities," ACORN employees in Philadelphia and the San Diego area contacted the police following their encounters with O'Keefe and Giles.

Right-wing media put Obama on the couch for inch-deep analysis

M.M. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:45:43 EST

Right-wing media figures, including Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and The Washington Times' Wesley Pruden, have in recent days attacked President Obama while discussing his mental state. While claiming, "I'm not asking you to psychoanalyze the president," Beck asked psychiatrist and Fox News contributor Keith Ablow, "Are we crazy for saying something is not right?"; Savage offered a psychological diagnosis of Obama, claiming that the president has "deep psychological problems" and "deep-seated inferiority feelings."

Right-wing media figures discuss what's "wrong" with Obama, identify "deep psychological problems"

Beck and psychiatrist Ablow not psychoanalyzing the president -- just discussing what's "wrong" with him. On the November 11 edition of his Fox news program, Beck stated to Ablow: "I wrote to you, and I said, 'Do you see anything wrong here as a -- ' I'm not asking you to psychoanalyze the president. I'm saying, psychoanalyze the American people. Are we crazy for saying something is not right?" In his reply, Ablow stated: "We're not crazy for saying something's not right. It's a little crazy that more people aren't saying it more loudly." Ablow later stated: "[T]here is a big, cavernous gulf, apparently, between the president's ability to generate emotion and charisma and gripping words that move people when he's scripted. And then, when there's less time to prepare, there's some sort of lack of connectedness, a true lack of connectedness with at least what moves the majority of us." In discussing Obama's statements about the Fort Hood shooting, which Beck claimed were "disconnected," Ablow said: "[I]f he's not scripted to deliver the emotional cues, if he's not scripted to have lots of time and a teleprompter to do it, then he tends to stumble. And this was a huge stumble. This was a big, big window on the man's soul, I think." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 11/11/09]

Savage's psychoanalysis: Obama has "deep psychological problems," "deep-seated inferiority feelings." While discussing Obama's bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito, Savage stated that "this man has deep psychological problems" and that "since we know he is only a man, and therefore since all men suffer from psychological problems, is it not logical to assume that he may have psychological problems? And if so, what are his psychological problems, and how do they affect this man's behavior and his overt contempt for America, its history, and its people and his love of everything third-world?" He later claimed that "you start to put a picture together of a guy who has such deep-seated inferiority feelings, it seems as though he's looking for his father all over the world." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 11/17/09]

Pruden: "Obama's curious compulsion to travel the world to make endless apologies for America could stem from his spending the most formative years of his childhood in the Third World." In a November 17 column, Pruden, The Washington Times' editor emeritus, wrote that Obama's bow to Emperor Akihito was "a sign of a really deep sense of inferiority." In a November 20 column, Pruden wrote: "Barack Obama's curious compulsion to travel the world to make endless apologies for America could stem from his spending the most formative years of his childhood in the Third World."