Media Matters for America

Wash. Times issues correction for uncritically quoting Indiana man calling Obama a Muslim

Fri, 9 May 2008 13:23:13 EST

As Media Matters for America noted, a May 7 Washington Times article that ran in the online and print editions uncritically quoted an Indiana man saying of Sen. Barack Obama, "I can't stand him. ... He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned." In the May 9 edition of the Times, the following clarification was issued: "An article in Wednesday's editions about the Indiana primary election quoted a man who said he thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. The article inadvertently failed to note that Mr. Obama is in fact a Christian."

The online version of the Times article has been updated with a note stating: "This story was updated May 8 with the following clarification: Mr. Obama is in fact a Christian and regular church-goer, although polls show a minority of Americans mistakenly believe him to be a Muslim."

Reports in the Los Angeles Times and on washingtonpost.com and the Baltimore Sun's website also contained the same quote without noting that it was false; these publications have yet to issue corrections.

Discussing Cindy McCain's tax returns, NBC's Curry did not note effect on John McCain of wife's fortune or benefit to Cindy of tax cuts her husband now supports

Thu, 8 May 2008 19:50:44 EST

On the May 8 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Ann Curry interviewed Cindy Hensley McCain, Sen. John McCain's wife, who said in response to calls for her to release her tax returns: "[M]y husband and I have been married 28 years, and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate." Curry responded by asking, "So you'll never release, you're saying? ... Even if you're first lady?" After McCain said, "No," Curry added, "Because that is -- even though not an elected position, you would be in a very public role." McCain replied, "I'm not the candidate." Beyond noting Cindy McCain's "very public role" if she became first lady, Curry did not challenge her with any other reason why her tax returns are relevant to the presidential campaign. Among those reasons: John McCain, and therefore John McCain's campaign, benefits from his wife's wealth, and the tax returns would indicate the extent to which Cindy McCain -- and presumably therefore John McCain -- has benefited from President Bush's tax cuts, which McCain supports permanently extending.

In an April 27 New York Times article, Barry Meier and Margot Williams reported that McCain's campaign used a corporate jet owned by his wife's company, Hensley & Co., "over a seven-month period beginning last summer" and that "[f]or five of those months, the plane was used almost exclusively for campaign-related purposes." Meier and Williams also reported that "McCain's campaign was able to use his wife's corporate plane like a charter jet while paying first-class rates, several campaign finance experts said. Several of those experts, however, added that his campaign's actions, while keeping with the letter of law, did not reflect its spirit."

Further, Associated Press reporter Sharon Theimer, in an April 4 article, wrote that "[t]he McCains' marriage has mixed business and politics from the beginning, according to an expansive review by the Associated Press of thousands of pages of campaign, personal finance, real estate and property records nationwide." From the article:

Within a few years of marrying Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a multimillionaire Anheuser-Busch distributor, John McCain won his first election. He was new to Arizona politics and fundraising in the 1982 race for the House of Representatives, and his campaign quickly fell into debt. Personal money -- tens of thousands of dollars in loans to his campaign from McCain bank accounts -- helped him survive.

Anheuser-Busch's political action committee was among McCain's earliest donors. Cindy McCain's father, James Hensley, and other Hensley & Co. executives gave so much money that the Federal Election Commission ordered McCain to give some of it back. His campaign used Hensley office equipment such as computers and copiers, and Cindy McCain personally paid some of the campaign's bills.

Campaign reimbursed wife

The campaign gradually reimbursed Hensley for use of its equipment and Cindy McCain for her expenses. The loans -- described initially by McCain as coming from him and his wife -- caught the eye of the FEC, which repeatedly questioned him about them; spouses are held to the same donation limits as everyone else.

McCain told the FEC the loaned money came from his share of joint accounts. At the time, McCain reported drawing a $25,067 salary and $25,000 bonus working for Hensley in public relations and receiving a Navy pension of $11,038 a year. His 1982 financial disclosure report showed bank interest income, but it did not say how much the bank accounts held.

[...]

McCain's campaign still taps Hensley assets: His presidential campaign paid at least $227,000 last year to a limited liability corporation in which his wife and children are invested, King Aviation, for use of its private jet, according to campaign finance reports.

McCain also used Arizona property owned by Cindy McCain for a March 2 barbecue for reporters. The property is worth more than a million dollars and, according to profile by Home & Garden Television, has both a guest house and a third house next door for additional "living and entertainment space."

Curry also failed to point out -- either during the interview or a discussion with Today co-host Meredith Vieira -- that Cindy McCain's tax returns would also indicate the extent to which the McCains have benefited from the Bush tax cuts -- which John McCain supports extending permanently, despite previously opposing them. On April 18, the McCain campaign released John McCain's 2006 and 2007 income tax returns, but not Cindy McCain's separate returns. As part of John McCain's tax returns, the campaign released the "Wages and Salaries" that Cindy McCain received in 2006 and 2007 as chair of Hensley & Co., the McCains' share of interest income from a bank account, and their shares of income from John McCain's book royalties. But the information did not reveal the capital gains income, if any, for Cindy McCain from that period. By contrast, Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of Sen. John Kerry, did release what The New York Times reported on October 16, 2004, was a "two-page document" showing "total income of $5,073,554 last year" that enabled the Times to determine how much she had benefited from the Bush tax cuts.

A May 8 MSNBC.com article about Cindy McCain's interview by contributor Mike Celizic also failed to mention the reported intersection of her wealth and John McCain's political career.

From the May 8 edition of NBC's Today:

CURRY: She defended her own right to keep her tax returns private.

McCAIN: You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years, and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate.

CURRY: So you'll never release, you're saying?

McCAIN: No, no.

CURRY: Never?

McCAIN: No.

CURRY: Even if you're first lady?

McCAIN: No.

CURRY: Because that is -- even though not an elected position, you would be in a very public role.

McCAIN: I'm not the candidate.

CURRY: She disputed what has been described as her husband's temper.

[...]

CURRY: I also asked Cindy McCain about published reports this week that she and her husband didn't vote for George W. Bush after their bruising campaign loss in 2000. She said it's not true. Meredith?

VIEIRA: Very adamant about those tax returns -- a lot of people have been wondering if she's going to release them. She quite definitively said no.

CURRY: She's an extremely wealthy woman.

VIEIRA: Yeah.

CURRY: She's reportedly worth something like $100 million. But she is adamant that she will never release them because she's not a candidate -- she's actually not somebody who's a candidate, ever to be elected.

VIEIRA: All right, Ann. Thank you very much. Very interesting.

On Fox News, Williams cited McCain's immigration record as evidence of "working across party lines," but not his abandonment of bipartisan position

Thu, 8 May 2008 18:55:23 EST

During the May 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, White House correspondent James Rosen aired a clip of Fox News analyst and NPR contributor Juan Williams claiming: "You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there's John McCain, working across party lines." Williams did not note that McCain now says that he would no longer support his own bill if it came up for a vote in the Senate. Additionally, McCain has reversed himself on the issue of border security; he now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective.

Williams also said: "Senator Obama doesn't have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post-partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn't have the record." Similarly, during the May 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News analyst Karl Rove stated of Obama: "His campaign is built on two foundations: that he will be a bipartisan, post-partisan president who will bring Republicans and Democrats together. There is, however, no evidence that he has done this in the Senate." But neither Williams nor Rove noted that, as Media Matters for America has documented, Obama was a key co-sponsor of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S.2590) with the bill's primary sponsor, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (OK). In a press release upon Senate passage of the bill, Coburn himself referred to the legislation as the "Coburn-Obama Bill." Obama also worked with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (IN) to produce the "Lugar-Obama proliferation and threat reduction initiative," which President Bush signed into law on January 11, 2007, and which received funding on June 28 of that year. The initiative, according to Obama's Senate website, "expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction."

Moreover, during the Special Report segment, Rosen referred to McCain as "the maverick senator." Media Matters has documented numerous others in the broadcast and print media using the term "maverick" when discussing McCain despite his growing list of falsehoods and his rightward shift on immigration as well as on taxes and the religious right.

From the May 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

[video clip]

ROSEN: Where during the Republican primaries the maverick senator courted the GOP base and made scant mention of his alliances with liberal Democrats, McCain now has his eye on the fall and capturing blue-collar Democrats and other swing voters, and is accordingly playing up his ability to unite Americans. This shift came just hours after Senator Barack Obama, also with his eye on the fall campaign, cast McCain without naming him explicitly as a mean-spirited divider.

OBAMA: Yes, we know what's coming. I'm not naive. [video break] The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences, to turn us against each other for political gain, to slice and dice this country into red states and blue states.

ROSEN: The McCain campaign responded last night with a spokesman statement saying, quote, "With no record of bipartisan success, how is Barack Obama going to deliver the meaningful change America needs?" If the fall race shapes up as a battle for the mantle of bi- or post-partisanship, analysts suggest the two candidates will resort to familiar and competing themes, touting experience versus freshness.

WILLIAMS: You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there's John McCain, working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn't have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post-partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn't have the record.

[end video clip]

ROSEN: The Democrats may be right to worry about McCain's crossover appeal. His campaign cited polling data today showing that at this stage of the race four years ago, President Bush was pulling away only 9 percent of Democrats, but that if McCain's opponent is Obama, that Democratic defection rate doubles to 18 percent. In Washington, James Rosen, Fox News.

From the May 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

BILL O'REILLY (host): OK, so we go forward now. And Barack Obama then becomes the nominee sometime after June 3. They have a big conclave, and then they both come out and say for the good of the party, this is what's going to happen. So then you have two months -- let's see, July, August -- almost three months before the conventions. What should Barack Obama then do? I mean, he's got to take a vacation. The guy's, like, shell-shocked here.

ROVE: Sure. Yeah, he's got to recharge personally. That's an important part of this.

O'REILLY: Right. And then what?

ROVE: I think there are two things that he needs to do, and he may want to think about starting to do them sooner rather than later. First is, he needs to add substance to his arguments. His campaign is built on two foundations: that he will be a bipartisan, post-partisan president who will bring Republicans and Democrats together. There is, however, no evidence that he has done this in the Senate. So, if I were him, I'd be finding something in the Senate that -- where he could work with Republicans and say, "This is an example of how I'm going to do it." He ought to be talking about how he's going to bring Republicans into his administration and appoint them to the Cabinet, and hopefully get one or two prominent Republicans to say they would serve in the administration.

O'REILLY: He could probably get Colin Powell to do that.

ROVE: I don't know if he could or not. Colin's a -- Secretary Powell is a very cautious person.

Fox News' Cavuto, on-air graphic misrepresented projected cost of housing bill

Thu, 8 May 2008 18:38:51 EST

During the May 7 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto misrepresented the projected cost of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act. Cavuto falsely asserted, "[Congress is] about to spend a lot of capital -- try 300 billion bucks of capital, the price tag of a housing rescue package virtually assured a thumbs up in Congress, and equally assured a thumbs down by President Bush." During the segment, an on-air graphic read, "House lawmakers set to pass $300B housing bill; bailout?" In fact, while the legislation would authorize the FHA to insure up to $300 billion in homeownership retention loans for qualified homeowners, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that loans that would be insured under the new program would total about $85 billion, at an estimated cost to the government of $1.7 billion between 2008-2013. Including administrative and other discretionary costs, the CBO estimated a total cost of $2.7 billion for the program, not "$300 billion." During the discussion, author Chip Cummings noted that $300 billion sounds like a scary number, but it's $300 billion in insured loans, which actually is a drop in the bucket. The Congressional Business Office [sic] says that this may cost taxpayers maybe about $1.7 billion over four years."

During the May 8 edition of Your World, Cavuto stated, "The House has just approved that $300 billion housing rescue package that will help struggling homeowners, even some struggling lenders," without noting how much the bill is estimated to cost and without correcting his assertion from the previous day that Congress is "about to spend ... 300 billion bucks of capital, the price tag of a housing rescue package."

From the Congressional Budget Office:

Typically, much less than 100 percent of those eligible actually participate in federal benefit programs. Moreover, many factors would influence participation in the new program though, ultimately, the intersection of interests of both the mortgage holders and borrowers would determine the amount of participation.

Mortgage holders will evaluate loans that are eligible for the new FHA program and determine if the program would provide a better return than modifying the loans on their own, despite the risk of default. They will also evaluate whether the present value of the proceeds stemming from a modified loan under the new program is greater than or less than the value of proceeds from a foreclosure sale. Expectations regarding trends in house prices will greatly affect such calculations. Because mortgage holders may use different models to project future house prices, CBO expects that the behavioral responses by mortgage holders to the new program will vary considerably.

Borrowers also would have to decide whether participating in the program is a favorable option. In particular, borrowers would have to evaluate the profit-sharing provisions under the program and determine if forgoing some future profits on their homes is an acceptable arrangement even if foreclosure on their existing loans is the only alternative. Furthermore, some of the riskier borrowers with higher ratios of debt-to-income would be required to make six timely payments on the loan before being guaranteed by FHA; invariably, some of those borrowers would be disqualified from participating in the new program.

CBO estimates that fewer than 40 percent of the 1.4 million eligible loans would be refinanced under the new program. Following a reduction in the principal amount of those loans to make them affordable, CBO estimates that approximately 500,000 loans would be guaranteed under this legislation with an average loan amount of $170,000 each. Thus, CBO estimates that FHA would require about $85 billion in loan commitment authority over the next four years to implement the program. The legislation would authorize FHA to provide up to $300 billion in loan guarantees under the new program.

[...]

Using an estimated subsidy rate of 2 percent and our estimate that demand for loan guarantees would equal $85 billion over the next four years, CBO estimates that implementing the new loan-guarantee program would cost $1.7 billion over the 2008-2013 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts.

President Bush has threatened to veto the bill.

From the May 7 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: Back to Washington and the Capitol, where they're about to spend a lot of capital -- try 300 billion bucks of capital, the price tag of a housing rescue package virtually assured a thumbs up in Congress, and equally assured a thumbs down by President Bush.

BUSH [video clip]: I will veto the bill that's moving through the House today if it makes it to my desk, and I urge members on both sides of the aisle to focus on a good piece of legislation.

CAVUTO: OK. So he says dead on arrival. Is this a bailout? Well, real estate investor Wayne Rogers says it is. Blue Chip Cummings -- but Chip Cummings, I should say -- disagrees. Blue Chip would be a better name if you just went with that. He's the author of --

CUMMINGS: I'll take it.

CAVUTO: -- Mortgage Myths. All right, so, Wayne, what do you think of this?

ROGERS: I think it's a bad idea. Listen, Congress abdicated their responsibility, you know, back in the '90s when they lost the Glass-Steagall bill -- when they canceled the Glass-Steagall bill. We didn't learn anything. And there was a Depression in 1929, out of --

CAVUTO: Glass-Steagall, we should say, separated investments from traditional banking.

ROGERS: Correct -- the deposit institutions from investments and all of the other things that banks could do. And to bail out the banks, if you will, and to bail out the borrowers under this without doing -- correcting the major things that are underneath it is just idiotic.

CAVUTO: All right, idiotic. Chip, what do you think of that?

CUMMINGS: Well, I agree that certain aspects may seem idiotic, and $300 billion sounds like a scary number, but it's $300 billion in insured loans, which actually is a drop in the bucket. The Congressional Business Office says that this may cost taxpayers maybe about $1.7 billion over four years. But we've got to start somewhere.

From the May 8 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: All right. The House has just approved that $300 billion housing rescue package that will help struggling homeowners, even some struggling lenders. The president said the way it stands right now he would veto that in a nanosecond, unless some major changes are made. So we'll see where that soap opera goes, but that easily just passed the House.

Matthews offers walk-and-chew-gum explanation for why media don't adequately cover McCain

Thu, 8 May 2008 18:00:30 EST

During MSNBC's coverage of the May 6 Democratic primaries, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Dan Abrams, and Rachel Maddow discussed how the media, in Matthews' words, "completely ignore [Sen.] John McCain's problems." But in purporting to explain "the way the media works," Matthews, who anchored the primary coverage and hosts MSNBC's Hardball, offered the dubious suggestion that it is not possible for the media to cover both the Democratic primary and McCain adequately, asserting: "[A]s long as we focus on the fight between [Sens.] Hillary [Clinton] and Barack [Obama], and perhaps more recently just on Barack's problems, it blocks the sun -- the media, the public's attention -- from the problems that are obviously incipient and coming to be at some point with McCain." Liz Cox Barrett, who noted MSNBC's coverage in a May 7 post at the Columbia Journalism Review's daily blog, described Matthews' explanation of "how the media works" as "Can't Walk and Chew Gum." Indeed, it was Matthews, who in a recent hour-long interview with McCain, failed to challenge McCain on several issues, including statements regarding Iraq policy, other foreign policy issues, campaign finance, and spending projects, despite purporting to ask "tough" questions, but did manage to ask the following question of McCain, which Matthews characterized as a "tough one": "Is Barack Obama an elitist?"

Additionally, while Matthews and Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief, noted what they described as McCain's "problems," "weaknesses," and "mistake[s]," and suggested that the media have not given McCain what Russert referred to as "the same kind of scrutiny" as his Democratic rivals, Russert also suggested that the media could not cover both McCain and the Democrats, asserting: "But all of that in time. I mean, it is only May. This has been going on for some time but it's gonna be a long, long campaign. And when Senator McCain is back in the media's light, he'll receive the same kind of scrutiny." Purporting to translate Russert's comments, Barrett wrote: "We'll stop ignoring McCain's mistakes when we start focusing on McCain's mistakes!" [italics in original]. As Media Matters for America noted, on the May 5 edition of ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning, Russert ignored his own role in the media's disparate coverage of Rev. John Hagee, whose endorsement McCain sought and obtained, versus its coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the context of the Obama campaign: "I don't think -- the Hagee thing, McCain has not been questioned in great scrutiny by that -- scrutinized about that, or a lot of things. I mean, he's been -- really been given this grace period to go around the country, unify his party, raise some money, put a campaign together, and he's benefited from enormously. There's no doubt about it."

Later in the broadcast, Maddow, an MSNBC analyst, asserted:

MADDOW: John McCain is an attractive candidate to a lot of people who identify as moderate voters -- at least he is now with the way the media treats him. If John McCain gets redefined by a strong Democratic opponent and by a hungry press, then he won't be as attractive. But right now with the brand that he brings from 25 years of being essentially tongue-bathed by the press and being called a maverick, then he does have a lot of appeal.

In response, Abrams, host of MSNBC's Verdict, said: "Look, I agree with you about the media coverage of John McCain. That's why on my show, Verdict, we have a segment called 'Teflon John,' which relates to the fact that the media seems to love him and nothing seems to stick." Later Abrams stated: "[T]he Democrats have been getting a lot of -- have going after each other every night and we cover each and every one of the battles, and when it comes to McCain, we don't seem to cover it. Yet."

As Media Matters for America has extensively documented, the media have largely ignored McCain's inconsistencies, falsehoods, and controversial supporters.

From the 11 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's coverage of the May 6 primaries:

MATTHEWS: Do you think [Democrats worrying about the effects of ongoing primary] are aware of the way the media works? I was explaining this to a group of students the other night, that, you know, as long as we focus on the fight between Hillary and Barack, and perhaps more recently just on Barack's problems, it blocks the sun -- the media, the public's attention -- from the problems that are obviously incipient and coming to be at some point with McCain -- his problem with the war, which is unpopular, his problem with the economy, which is very unsteady right now. The more we focus on the Jeremiah Wright story, the less we focus on Hillary's problem with candor and the more we completely ignore John McCain's problems. Do you think the Democratic warhorses know that as long as there's a fire going on in one of those rings, the Barack Obama ring, we're not gonna focus much on John McCain's weaknesses?

RUSSERT: Yes. They believed initially that ignoring the McCain campaign was beneficial and helpful to the Democrats. But as this is has gone on, they see in their minds -- and we get flooded with the emails, Senator McCain making a mistake on Shia versus Sunni, making a mistake about the first Persian Gulf War and the second vis-a-vis oil, and his own relationship with Pastor Hagee and why isn't that talked about and reported on the way Reverend Wright's relationship with Senator Obama is talked about.

But all of that in time. I mean, it is only May. This has been going on for some time but it's gonna be a long, long campaign. And when Senator McCain is back in the media's light, he'll receive the same kind of scrutiny.

From the 1 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC's coverage of the May 6 primaries:

MADDOW: I mean, John McCain is an attractive candidate to a lot of people who identify as moderate voters -- at least he is now with the way the media treats him. If John McCain gets redefined by a strong Democratic opponent and by a hungry press, then he won't be as attractive. But right now with the brand that he brings from 25 years of being essentially tongue-bathed by the press and being called a maverick, then he does have a lot of appeal.

ABRAMS: Look, I agree with you about the media coverage of John McCain. That's why on my show, Verdict, we have a segment called "Teflon John," which relates to the fact that the media seems to love him and nothing seems to stick.

MADDOW: But everybody else hasn't made that pivot yet even though you have.

ABRAMS: I don't mean to sit here and say, "Oh, we're so great." Look, it's just that the bottom line has been that the Democrats have been getting a lot of -- have going after each other every night and we cover each and every one of the battles, and when it comes to McCain, we don't seem to cover it. Yet.

Fox News' MacCallum allowed GOP strategist to falsely claim Obama is "pushing for this global tax that would require America to pay tax to the U.N."

Thu, 8 May 2008 15:59:50 EST

On the May 7 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, host Martha MacCallum did not challenge the false assertion by Christine O'Donnell, GOP strategist and 2008 Republican candidate for Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) Senate seat, that Sen. Barack Obama "and my opponent Biden are pushing for this global tax that would require America to pay tax to the U.N." O'Donnell's comment echoes a claim by Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid, who falsely asserted in a February 12 column that the Global Poverty Act, a bill introduced into the Senate by Obama and co-sponsored by Biden, "could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States." Nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh quoted Kincaid's false claim on the February 14 edition of his radio program.

In fact, the Global Poverty Act would proclaim that "[i]t is the policy of the United States to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day." But the bill would not "require America to pay tax to the U.N.," as O'Donnell claimed. As Media Matters documented, the bill would establish no specific funding source; it would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending.

From the May 7 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:

MacCALLUM: All right. Let me get a quick thought from Christine O'Donnell and [attorney and author] Crystal McCrary here who are joining us. You know, so, the numbers don't add up. And, you know, people have been saying that all along, and I kept saying, "Well, I think she can still pull it out." But I'm not so sure now.

O'DONNELL: Well, keep in mind that Barack Obama is a time bomb. We have no idea what's going to happen between now and the convention. He is so far to the left, pushing for things --

MacCALLUM: I don't know what could be thrown at him that hasn't been thrown at him in the past 10 days.

O'DONNELL: Well, we can take a look at what he stands for. He and my opponent Biden are pushing for this global tax that would require America to pay tax to the U.N. So, as we take a closer look at him --

MacCALLUM: Quick, [unintelligible] Crystal. I'm sorry we're so short on time.

O'DONNELL: -- as long as she's still in the race --

MacCALLUM: Yeah.

McCRARY: I disagree. I don't think that Senator Obama is so far left. I mean, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama are quite similar, and they're both --

MacCALLUM: You think he can beat John McCain? Who would you rather have?

McCRARY: Let me say this. I think it would be more difficult for Barack Obama to beat Senator McCain than Hillary Clinton. I do have to agree with that. Although she has put up a great fight.

MacCALLUM: She sure has.

McCRARY: The numbers are daunting for her.

MacCALLUM: Thanks, you guys. I'm sorry we're so short on time.

Ignoring his numerous falsehoods, Detroit Free Press reported that at a town hall meeting, "[a]s usual, McCain was candid"

Thu, 8 May 2008 15:49:39 EST

In a May 7 article published on the website of the Detroit Free Press, staff writers Kathleen Gray and Emelia Askari reported of Sen. John McCain's May 6 town hall meeting at Oakland University: "As usual, McCain was candid and said things like fuel efficiency standards have to increase and the way to make the domestic automotive industry more competitive is to get other costs, like health care for autoworkers, under control." While the media routinely refer to McCain as a straight-talker who resists pandering, Media Matters for America has identified numerous instances during the campaign in which McCain has not, in fact, been "candid," including on the topic of health care.

The article was subsequently replaced on the Free Press website with another article by Gray and Askari that also discussed McCain's appearance at Oakland University but did not use the word "candid." The subsequent article was published in the May 8 print edition of the Free Press. The version of the article stating that "[a]s usual, McCain was candid" remains available in the Nexis news database.

During his campaign, McCain has falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama had said that Al Qaeda is not currently in Iraq; falsely suggested that Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton support a "big-government takeover of health care"; falsely suggested that Obama has only "in the last few days" proposed that a "strike force" remain in Iraq after the United States withdraws most troops; falsely claimed that Obama "approve[d]" of a meeting between former President Jimmy Carter and Hamas leader Khaled Meshal; falsely claimed that Clinton and Obama "want to raise your taxes"; and falsely suggested that Obama "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan." McCain also falsely asserted that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, his rival in the Republican presidential race at the time, "disparage[d] the service and courage of an American hero" with his statement that former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) is "probably the last person I would have wanted to have write a letter for me."

McCain has also repeatedly claimed that he voted against President Bush's tax cuts because they weren't paired with spending cuts -- a different reason from the one he gave in 2001 when he voted against the tax cuts; falsely claimed during the campaign that he called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as defense secretary; repeatedly made the admittedly false claim that Iran is training Al Qaeda; and after telling The Wall Street Journal in late 2005 that he knows "a lot less about economics" than "military and foreign policy issues," suggested he had not said this when confronted with the quote in a debate question.

From the original version of the May 7 Free Press article:

McCain encountered a mostly friendly crowd of several hundred people at Oakland University in Rochester, who didn't ask about slave trade or child pornography or religious freedom.

Their questions were more about everyday life in Michigan: fuel efficiency standards, environmental protections, and the loss of jobs in the state.

As usual, McCain was candid and said things like fuel efficiency standards have to increase and the way to make the domestic automotive industry more competitive is to get other costs, like health care for autoworkers, under control.

"One of the problems that the Big 3 automakers has is.increased costs that have been negotiated over the years that puts them at a competitive disadvantage," he said. "But now there is a recognition that we have to reduce those costs dramatically and put the domestic auto industry on a much more level playing field with foreign manufacturers."

While Gary Tibbetts, a 68-year-old retired research engineer for General Motors, wasn't particularly happy with the answer to his question about CAFÉ standards, he said he appreciated McCain's honesty.

"We have an honest disagreement, but I'm still a McCain supporter," Tibbetts said.

NBC's Curry did not challenge Cindy McCain on claim that "[m]y husband is absolutely opposed to any negative campaigning at all"

Thu, 8 May 2008 14:29:49 EST

On the May 8 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News anchor Ann Curry failed to challenge Sen. John McCain's wife, Cindy McCain, when she claimed, "You won't see [negative stuff] come out of our side at all," and asserted, "My husband is absolutely opposed to any negative campaigning at all." Indeed, Curry did not mention that John McCain has a documented history of negative campaigning, even as he has denounced it, that he has promulgated numerous falsehoods about his opponents during the campaign, or that he reportedly asserted that the terrorist group Hamas wants Sen. Barack Obama "to be the next president."

Further, Curry uncritically repeated Cindy McCain's claim that the McCain campaign would not engage in negative campaigning, saying: "You talk about -- that none of the nasty kind of campaigning that we've been seeing will come from your side. But are you prepared for the next six months, knowing that that's how it generally does go?" Curry again failed to challenge McCain when she said: "I believe I can speak for my husband on this same thing. We'd rather not win than to have to do that. That's not worth winning for." During the interview, on-screen text read: "Cindy McCain: We Won't Go Negative."

As Media Matters for America has documented, John McCain has falsely suggested that Obama had said that Al Qaeda is not currently in Iraq; falsely suggested in early April that Obama has only "in the last few days" proposed that a "strike force" remain in Iraq after the United States withdraws most troops; and falsely suggested that Obama "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan." McCain had previously falsely asserted that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, his rival in the Republican presidential race at the time, "disparage[d] the service and courage of an American hero" with his statement that former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) is "probably the last person I would have wanted to have write a letter for me."

Additionally, McCain's supporters have repeatedly engaged in smears for his benefit. Republican state parties and McCain's own campaign have attacked or promoted smears of Obama -- actions that he subsequently denounced or distanced himself from.

The interview, including Cindy McCain's assertions about negative campaigning, aired again on the 11 a.m. ET hour of the May 8 edition of MSNBC Live.

From the May 8 edition of NBC's Today:

CURRY: With Democrats getting closer to choosing a nominee, the spotlight now begins to shine on the general election now just six months away. How nasty might it get? Well, Cindy McCain's answer this morning.

[begin video clip]

McCAIN: And what you're going to see is, I believe we're going to see a great debate, which the American public deserves, more importantly. None of this negative stuff, though. You won't see it come out of our side at all, because --

CURRY: None of the negative stuff will come out of your side?

McCAIN: My husband is absolutely opposed to any negative campaigning at all.

CURRY: Cindy McCain expressed strong feelings on numerous subjects, including the devastation in Myanmar.

[...]

CURRY: It's six months to go before the election. You talk about -- that none of the nasty kind of campaigning that we've been seeing will come from your side. But are you prepared for the next six months, knowing that that's how it generally does go?

McCAIN: Well, I'm never ready for those kinds of things, particularly when it involves my children. But I can tell you that having been through this before, I'm actually glad -- grateful that I've been through it before, because if things do turn that way from the other side, I would hope that I would behave the same way I did before, and that is with grace and with dignity. And rise above it.

CURRY: Even if it doesn't help you win the presidency?

McCAIN: I believe I can speak for my husband on this same thing. We'd rather not win than to have to do that. That's not worth winning for.

[end video clip]

CURRY: I also asked Cindy McCain about published reports this week that she and her husband didn't vote for George W. Bush after their bruising campaign loss in 2000. She said it's not true.

Dick Morris: Election hinges on whether "we believe" Obama is "sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system"

Thu, 8 May 2008 13:02:11 EST

During the May 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing the potential for a presidential election between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, Dick Morris stated: "And the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who's sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system and is more in line with [Reverend Jeremiah] Wright's views?" Morris later claimed, "Now [Obama] has to be not Reverend Wright. He has to go to the Iwo Jima memorial [Unites States Marine Corps War Memorial] and talk about Americans' sacrifice."

From the May 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Look, any story that comes across our desk that we feel folks should know about, we're going to break.

MORRIS: My point is that the source of negatives against Obama in this race --

O'REILLY: Right.

MORRIS: -- is not John McCain. It's going to be the conservative media. And you're going -- and the liberal media is sort of out to lunch. And they only cover it after a couple of weeks, and then mess it up.

O'REILLY: Yes, but wait a minute. You're diminishing the liberal media; that's a huge machine. NBC, CNN, The New York Times will be outwardly rooting for Barack Obama. They will ruthlessly cut up John McCain. I don't think you just dismiss that.

MORRIS: There will be a lot of that, but John McCain is a given in this race. The variant is Barack Obama. John McCain is like the lever in the middle. And Obama's positives and negatives seesaw. And that will determine the race. And the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who's sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system and is more in line with Wright's views?

And that dialogue is going to be the key event that's going to be going on over the summer. And Obama has to win that dialogue. The reason Obama won North Carolina and almost won Indiana was not that his campaign was great or Hillary was bad or nobody bought the gas tax. It was that he answered Reverend Wright. And that answer really was effective and productive and really good.

Now -- but it's not going to stand the test of time. Because this guy, who used to have to convince people he wasn't a Muslim, now is electable only if he can convince people he never goes to church. Because he has got to persuade people that he wasn't in the pew when Wright talked about his stuff.

[...]

O'REILLY: Interesting. Now, if you're advising Barack Obama, he's got to, as you said -- and I agree with you. I don't think it's Reverend Wright. I think Reverend Wright's over, unless there's some other crazy thing that comes out. But I do think it's a race -- a race thing.

MORRIS: Well, the way --

O'REILLY: How do you handle that thing?

MORRIS: Obama got into the election and was popular because he was not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

O'REILLY: That's right.

MORRIS: Never mentioned their names, but he said, "I'm the other guy."

O'REILLY: Right.

MORRIS: Now he has to be not Reverend Wright. He has to go to the Iwo Jima memorial and talk about Americans' sacrifice.

O'REILLY: Well, what about his wife?

MORRIS: He has to --

O'REILLY: Doesn't his wife have to do that, too?

MORRIS: She does, too, but he has to take -- he has to go and celebrate American action on AIDS, celebrate --

O'REILLY: So on the Fourth of July, he's got to be everywhere.

More media outlets quoted Indiana man saying Obama is "a Muslim" without noting the assertion is false

Thu, 8 May 2008 12:54:59 EST

As Media Matters for America noted, a May 7 Washington Times article quoted an Indiana man saying that Sen. Barack Obama is "a Muslim" without noting that the assertion was false. As the blog Media Bloodhound noted, on May 6, the day of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, reports in the Los Angeles Times and on washingtonpost.com and The Baltimore Sun's website contained the same quote without noting that it was false.

By contrast, in a May 7 article, the Chicago Sun-Times wrote:

Though Obama outspent Clinton 2-to-1 in Indiana, there was just no reaching some people. At a restaurant outside Indianapolis Tuesday morning, one man waved Obama away when the senator approached him to shake his hand. The man told a reporter, "I can't stand him. He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."

Obama has never been a Muslim, but bogus e-mails accuse him of being a Muslim who put his hand on a copy of the Quran to be sworn into the U.S. Senate and refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

As Media Matters has repeatedly documented, Obama is, in fact, not a Muslim.

From the Los Angles Time article:

At the restaurant, about 50 people were eating breakfast when Obama walked in at 7:40 a.m. He went from table to table, chatting briefly with patrons about the economy and gas prices before sitting down to breakfast.

One of his first encounters went poorly. He approached a man sitting alone at a table and was waved away. The man told me afterward he had no interest in meeting Obama.

"I can't stand him," he said. "He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."

Obama seemed unfazed. He had better luck at a round table where several men were eating.

From the washingtonpost.com article:

Obama arrived at the Greenwood restaurant about 7:40 a.m. and received a mixed response. One man waved the senator away from his table, later telling the pool reporter on the scene that "I can't stand him. He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."

At another table, a group of regulars dubbed the "Johnson County Roundtable" greeted Obama warmly.

From the Baltimore Sun online article:

One of his first table stops did not go well. As he approached a man sitting alone at a table, Obama was waved away. The man later told a Los Angeles Times reporter that he was not interested in meeting Obama.

"I can't stand him,'' he said. "He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."

Obama got another surprise at another table. While talking to a trio of men eating breakfast, one handed him the bill. "This will seal the thing,'' the man said. The somewhat tightwad senator accepted the check and later took it to the cashier and paid it.

Will falsely claimed Clinton became Yankee fan "retroactively"

Thu, 8 May 2008 12:40:39 EST

In his May 8 Washington Post column, headlined "Yankee Fan Go Home," George F. Will claimed that "[Sen.] Hillary Clinton, 60, Illinois native and Arkansas lawyer, became, retroactively, a lifelong Yankee fan at age 52, when, shopping for a U.S. Senate seat, she adopted New York state as home sweet home." However, the idea that Clinton proclaimed herself a Yankees fan "retroactively" is a myth commonly repeated in the media and contradicted by the evidence, including reporting in The Washington Post. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Clinton's 2003 autobiography, Living History (Simon & Schuster), contains a photograph of her wearing a Yankees cap in 1992 -- eight years before she ran for the Senate. Further, The Washington Post reported on September 12, 1994, that "Mrs. Clinton ... as a kid was a 'big-time' fan of the Chicago Cubs and New York Yankees and 'understudied' Ernie Banks and Mickey Mantle." This is the second time in a week that Will has made false claims in his columns.

As Media Matters has previously noted, conservatives and media figures have falsely claimed that Clinton proclaimed herself a Yankee fan only after she decided to run for the Senate in New York, and have used Clinton's comments about the Yankees and her wearing of a Yankees cap to question her "authenticity."

From Will's May 8 Washington Post column:

Hillary Clinton, 60, Illinois native and Arkansas lawyer, became, retroactively, a lifelong Yankee fan at age 52 when, shopping for a U.S. Senate seat, she adopted New York state as home sweet home. She may think, or at least would argue, that when she was 12 her Yankees really won the 1960 World Series, by standards of "fairness," because they trounced the Pirates in runs scored, 55-27, over seven games, so there.

Unfortunately, baseball's rules -- pesky nuisances, rules -- say it matters how runs are distributed during a World Series. The Pirates won four games, which is the point of the exercise, by a total margin of seven runs, while the Yankees were winning three by a total of 35 runs. You can look it up.

After Tuesday's split decisions in Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton, the Yankee Clipperette, can, and hence eventually will, creatively argue that she is really ahead of Barack Obama, or at any rate she is sort of tied, mathematically or morally or something, in popular votes, or delegates, or some combination of the two, as determined by Fermat's Last Theorem, or something, in states whose names begin with vowels, or maybe consonants, or perhaps some mixture of the two as determined by listening to a recording of the Beach Boys' "Help Me, Rhonda" played backward, or whatever other formula is most helpful to her, and counting the votes she received in Michigan, where hers was the only contending name on the ballot (her chief rivals, quaintly obeying their party's rules, boycotted the state, which had violated the party's rules for scheduling primaries), and counting the votes she received in Florida, which, like Michigan, was a scofflaw and where no one campaigned, and dividing Obama's delegate advantage in caucus states by pi multiplied by the square root of Yankee Stadium's Zip code.

Memo to the media: Have you hosted on air the person who told Rumsfeld at military analyst meeting, "You are the leader. You are our guy"?

Wed, 7 May 2008 19:47:09 EST

Following the publication of the April 20 New York Times front-page article on the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon, the Department of Defense has released to the public numerous documents regarding the analyst program. One of the documents released is an audio recording of an April 18, 2006, meeting that several military analysts attended with then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During the meeting, one of the attendees tells Rumsfeld, "[W]e get beat up on television sometimes when we go on and we are debating" and says that he would "personally love" for Rumsfeld "to take the offensive, to just go out there and just crush these people so that when we go on, we're -- forgive me -- we're parroting, but it's what has to be said. It's what we believe in, or we would not be saying it." The individual adds: "And we'd love to be following our leader, as indeed you are. You are the leader. You are our guy." The transcript released by the Pentagon does not identify the person who made this comment; the Pentagon has provided this list of "confirmed" "[p]articipants." Media Matters for America has documented the consistent unwillingness of most of the outlets mentioned in the Times article to discuss the military analyst story. Will media outlets try to determine if they have hosted the person who asserted that Rumsfeld was "our guy" and suggested that he would "parrot[]" Rumsfeld's statements?

The Times article quoted portions of the individual's statement.

According to the list released to the Times by the Pentagon, "confirmed" "[p]articipants" for the April 18, 2006, meeting with Rumsfeld and Pace included:

Jed Babbin

Lt. Gen. Frank B. Campbell

Dr. James Jay Carafano

Col. (Tim) J. Eads

Gen. Ronald Fogelman

Col. John Garrett

Gen. William F. "Buck" Kernan

Lt. Col. Robert L. Maginnis

Col. Jeff McCausland

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney

Capt. Chuck Nash

Gen. William L. Nash

Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr.

Maj. Gen. Donald W. Shepperd

Wayne Simmons

Capt. Martin L. Strong

Gen. Tom Wilkerson

The Times article reported that ABC military analyst William Nash was "repulsed" by the meeting and quoted him saying: "I walked away from that session having total disrespect for my fellow commentators, with perhaps one or two exceptions."

From the April 18, 2006, meeting:

UNIDENTIFIED 1: I'm an old intel guy, and I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. And that is "psyops." Now, most people, when they hear that, they think, "Oh my God --

RUMSFELD: Yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED 1: -- "they're trying to brainwash [inaudible]."

RUMSFELD: "What are you, some kind of nut? You don't believe in the Constitution?"

UNIDENTIFIED 2: Well, he is.

[laughter]

UNIDENTIFIED 1: Some have characterized [inaudible]. But I would also disagree with you, sir, respectfully. You are absolutely brilliant in front of the camera. And anybody --

RUMSFELD: It's by acting. Because I don't spend any time --

UNIDENTIFIED 1: It doesn't matter. The point is that you are. And I think most of us would agree with that. And --

RUMSFELD: But I -- but -- but --

UNIDENTIFIED 1: -- to take the offensive is -- because many of us go on every day. We don't agree with everything the administration does, maybe with some of your decisions and -- but we get beat up on television sometimes when we go on and we are debating, and then we take the -- and we're all thick-skinned, or we wouldn't continue to do this.

RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm.

UNIDENTIFIED 1: But we would love -- I would personally love -- and I think I speak for most of the gentlemen here at the table -- for you to take the offensive, to just go out there and just crush these people so that when we go on, we're -- forgive me -- we're parroting, but it's what has to be said. It's what we believe in, or we would not be saying it.

[crosstalk]

UNIDENTIFIED 1: And we'd love to be following our leader, as indeed you are. You are the leader. You are our guy.

Las Vegas Review-Journal praised McCain for not backing off "bold position" on MN bridge collapse -- but he reportedly did back off

Wed, 7 May 2008 18:06:59 EST

In a May 5 editorial, the Las Vegas Review-Journal asserted that Sen. John McCain "did have a valid point" on April 30 when he said of the August 2007 Interstate 35W bridge collapse in Minnesota: " 'The bridge in Minneapolis didn't collapse because there wasn't enough money. ... The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects' -- $18 billion last year alone, the senator estimates." The Review-Journal later wrote: "Goodness. A bold position on an important issue that a president could actually do something about -- with no immediate 'clarification' from the staff, explaining that the senator somehow 'misspoke.' How refreshing." However, contrary to the Review-Journal's assertion, on May 1 the Associated Press reported that McCain "backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year's deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis," stating: "No, I said it would have received a higher priority, which it deserved."

In the May 1 AP article, reporter Libby Quaid wrote that McCain's May 1 statement "was in contrast to McCain's remarks to reporters aboard his campaign bus as it rolled through Pennsylvania on" April 30. While McCain claimed that the "bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects," Quaid noted that "[i]nvestigators with the National Transportation Safety Board suspect a design flaw -- undersize steel plates -- and heavy loads of construction materials as the cause of the disaster Aug. 1, according to preliminary findings." She also added that "Democrats accused McCain of using a tragedy that killed 13 people and injured 145 others to make a political point." Further, Quaid reported:

The remarks also put Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- a national co-chairman of McCain's campaign and potential vice presidential running mate -- in an awkward position. In January, Pawlenty had admonished critics to "quit exploiting the bridge tragedy to advance their political agenda."

Pawlenty struck a more cautious tone Thursday [May 1]. "I don't know what he's basing that on, other than the general premise that projects got misprioritized throughout time," he said. "We have to let the NTSB weigh in on this before anybody can make a final conclusion."

From the May 5 Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial:

Nonetheless, Sen. McCain, who finally seems to be gaining some traction in his own long-term battle against congressional "earmarks," did have a valid point Wednesday, as he campaigned in Pennsylvania.

The senator said the bridge collapse that killed 13 people and injured 145 others in Minnesota last year might have been avoided if Congress had spent its funds on such routine but vitally important projects as infrastructure maintenance, rather than on goofy pet projects that can range from bird-counting computers in Nevada to endive research in Massachusetts to a "$223 million bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it. ...

"The bridge in Minneapolis didn't collapse because there wasn't enough money," Sen. McCain told reporters in Allentown, tacitly rebutting the standard "More taxes!" cry. "The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects" -- $18 billion last year alone, the senator estimates.

Sen. McCain has vowed to veto spending bills containing earmarks, thus forcing congressional allocations back into the old-fashioned system of public vetting through public committee hearings.

"It's the process I object to," Sen. McCain said in response to the objection that some earmarks fund worthwhile medical research. "I'm sure that I can give you a list of projects the Mafia funds, and they would probably be good projects. But I can't give you a justification for the Mafia. I can't give you a justification for the corruption that's been bred which has sent members of Congress to the federal prison."

Goodness. A bold position on an important issue that a president could actually do something about -- with no immediate "clarification" from the staff, explaining that the senator somehow "misspoke."

How refreshing.

CNN hosts Republican creator of racially charged ad to falsely suggest link between 9-11 and Iraq

Wed, 7 May 2008 17:56:30 EST

During coverage of returns from the Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries on May 6, CNN hosted Republican advertising consultant Alex Castellanos -- creator of the racially charged "Hands" advertisement -- who echoed the myth invoked by the Bush administration that there was a link between the September 11 attacks, perpetrated by Al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. During Castellanos' appearance, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, referring to the war in Iraq, asked of a potential Barack Obama presidency: "Will he take us to war on a lie and see all of our troops die on a lie? And not ask for forgiveness?" Castellanos then interjected: "The planes crashing into a building. ... Planes crashed into a building. It was not a lie." In fact, the 9-11 Commission report stated: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States" and that "contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda ... do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

As Media Matters has noted, Castellanos' "Hands" advertisement, which ran on behalf of former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) during his 1990 re-election campaign against Harvey Gantt, the first black mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, featured a pair of white hands crumpling a job-rejection letter while a narrator said:

You needed that job. You were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority, because of a racial quota. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is. Gantt supports Ted Kennedy's racial quota law that makes the color of your skin more important than your qualifications. You'll vote on this issue next Tuesday. For racial quotas: Harvey Gantt. Against racial quotas: Jesse Helms.

Castellanos produced another racially charged ad that Helms' campaign ran in the weeks before the election. According to a November 2, 1990, New York Times report, the ad claimed that "Mr. Gantt obtained a television license in 1985 under a program to assist minority businessmen and that he and his partners soon sold it." Gantt denied that race had anything to do with his obtaining the license, a claim reportedly backed up by an FCC official. The Washington Post reported on November 4, 1990: "In fact, the racial preference program played no part in the FCC's final decision [to award Gantt's group the license], according to William Johnson, deputy administrator of the mass media division. Johnson said all qualified competitors to the Gantt group dropped out, and minority participation is a factor only in competitive decisions.

From the 8 p.m. ET hour of CNN's May 6 Democratic presidential primary coverage:

CASTELLANOS: He was a much broader-reaching candidate when this process started. And now, I think it's fair to ask: Would the people that you see in Barack Obama's life be the same people you see in his administration? You know, would you see Bill Ayers? Would there be people like Reverend Wright? The answer may be no, by the way.

BRAZILE: Oh, Alex, now, you know, that is so small.

CASTELLANOS: But he has raised -- no.

BRAZILE: That is so small, Alex.

CASTELLANOS: No, no, no. But I'm saying -- no, I'm saying that --

BRAZILE: That is so small.

CASTELLANOS: Whether -- the answer may be no. But the question is certainly out there for a lot of voters.

CAMPELL BROWN (anchor): I think in fairness --

BRAZILE: Will he take us to war on a lie and see all of our troops die on a lie? And not ask for forgiveness? Come on.

CASTELLANOS: The planes crashing into a building. The planes crashing into a building.

BRAZILE: Come on, Alex, don't do that.

CASTELLANOS: Planes crashed into a building. It was not a lie.

BRAZILE: No, you all want to make it superficial conversation, not a real substantive conversation. Let's make it about substance and not do all of this.

BROWN: OK, guys.

CASTELLANOS: Do you think --

BROWN: Hey, you know what, Donna, let me --

BRAZILE: That's beneath you, Alex. You know better.

Reuters failed to note Bush withdrew renomination of FEC chair who asserted McCain needs FEC permission to leave public financing system

Wed, 7 May 2008 14:54:29 EST

A May 6 Reuters article on President Bush's nominations for the Federal Election Commission noted that "[t]he FEC has been deadlocked with only two out of six members for months, therefore unable to act on key 2008 election issues such as Republican presidential hopeful John McCain's request to opt out of public financing for his bid." But the article left out the fact that President Bush withdrew the renomination of FEC chairman David Mason, who told McCain that he needed the FEC's permission to opt out of the public financing system in the primary. On January 9, 2007, Bush submitted Mason's name for reappointment to the FEC. On May 6, he withdrew that renomination, nominating three others to the commission.

As Media Matters for America has noted, Mason has taken the position that McCain cannot opt out of public financing in the primary without FEC approval, as McCain has attempted to do, meaning that every day that McCain spends beyond the limits of the public financing system -- which he has already exceeded -- he could be breaking federal law.

The Associated Press reported on February 21:

The government's top campaign finance regulator says John McCain can't drop out of the primary election's public financing system until he answers questions about a loan he obtained to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign.

Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain this week, said the all-but-certain Republican nominee needs to assure the commission that he did not use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit he obtained in November.

The loan could have required McCain to remain in the race, regardless of whether his candidacy was viable, in order to receive matching funds to pay back the loan. A March 23 Washington Post article reported that "McCain has officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system," and a February 22 article in the Post noted that "[k]nowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison." Under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, violators could face fines up to $25,000 and up to five years of jail time.

In contrast with the Reuters report, several other media reports on Bush's nominations for the FEC did note that Mason was not being renominated and that Mason has challenged McCain's actions. The Associated Press reported on May 6: "Bush also withdrew the nomination of current FEC Chairman David Mason, who had clashed in the past with likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain. ... Mason had informed McCain that he needed the approval of the commission before withdrawing and needed to explain the terms of a loan he obtained before he surged to victory in the early primaries. Without a quorum, the FEC was unable to act." The Associated Press further noted that Fred Wertheimer, president of the political watchdog group Democracy 21, said: "The only apparent reason for President Bush to drop Commissioner David Mason at this stage ... is to prevent him from casting an adverse vote against Senator McCain on important enforcement questions pending at the commission." Similarly, The Washington Post reported that Democrats "objected to the replacement of David M. Mason, one of two commissioners still serving on the six-member body," adding that "Mason earlier this year questioned the legality of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) opting out of public financing." The New York Times also reported that "Bush declined to renominate David Mason" and noted that Wertheimer asserted that Mason was being removed because he questioned McCain's "ability to withdraw from the public financing system for the primaries."

The May 6 Reuters article, in its entirety:

The White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday moved to break the deadlock at the Federal Election Commission, which had been without a ruling majority in a pivotal campaign year.

The FEC has been deadlocked with only two out of six members for months, therefore unable to act on key 2008 election issues such as Republican presidential hopeful John McCain's request to opt out of public financing for his bid.

To break the impasse, President George W. Bush nominated three new candidates to serve on the panel, but he refused to withdraw his nomination of Republican Hans von Spakovsky to serve on the FEC despite Democrats' opposition.

They have blocked his nomination because of his work at the Justice Department's voting division, questioning whether he tried to inject politics into the group meant to independently oversee the country's voting laws.

The White House believes he "would be confirmed by the Senate if allowed a vote," said White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in a letter to Reid on Tuesday.

As part of the package, Bush nominated Democrat Cynthia Bauerly, legislative director to New York Sen. Charles Schumer, Republican attorney Donald McGahn, and Republican Caroline Hunter, who works on the Election Assistance Commission.

Already another Democratic FEC nomination is pending, Steven Walther, and if he and Bauerly were confirmed, they would join Democrat Ellen Weintraub on the panel.

"This nominations package incorporates your proposals for the three Democratic seats on the commission and provides a clear path to our shared goal of a fully functioning six-member FEC," Bolten said.

While a spokesman for Reid, a Nevada Democrat, criticized the decision by Bush to stick with von Spakovsky, he indicated a willingness to move forward on the slate of nominations.

"We will work towards the confirmation of the remaining nominees and expect to defeat Mr. von Spakovsky," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "We will work to ensure that the commission is constituted so that it will be able to function in this election year."

The FEC is responsible for ensuring candidates abide by campaign laws such as contribution limits and also investigate election complaints like independent groups coordinating their efforts with candidates, possibly in violation of the law.