Despite unemployment at 9.5 percent and millions of people having lost their jobs since Barack Obama was elected, Chris Matthews just doesn't understand why anyone would miss George W. Bush.

Without naming this week's PPP poll finding Ohioans would vote for Bush over Obama by the tally of 50 to 42 percent if a presidential election was held today, Matthews in the first segment of "Hardball" asked his guests, "Why would you want that back?"

When Time's Michael Scherer tried to explain logically why voters are disappointed with what Obama has done since Inauguration Day, Matthews wasn't having any of it (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Here`s the point. Why are the voters now in these polls -- now, some of the polls are robocall polls. They`re not the most reliable polls. But I`m seeing enough evidence to think there`s something going on. When people say -- independent voters say they`d rather have Bush back --

MICHAEL SCHERER, TIME: That`s right.

MATTHEWS: -- after Iraq and taking this economy -- doubling the national debt, bringing the deficit out of nowhere, when Clinton left it with a big, fat surplus, why would you want that back?

SCHERER: Take --

MATTHEWS: What`s your reporting tell you?

SCHERER: What a lot of these voters are voting for -- these are independent voters. You know, the miracle of Obama in 2008 wasn`t that he got elected, it was that he got elected in a lot of states like Indiana and North Carolina that didn`t go Democrat very often. He did that by grabbing independent voters who were sick of President Bush, who thought the country was going in the wrong direction, and he offered a broad promise of hope and change that hasn`t been delivered. That`s what he`s suffering for.

And I think in a place like Ohio, where you`re talking about that poll, what people are saying is, "Look, you know, we weren`t being treated well with the last guy. We`re not treated being well with this guy. We`ll take whatever we can get."

Exactly. Matthews either forgot or was dishonestly ignoring that this is why the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008: the country was unhappy with Republicans and just wanted to vote "D".

Now, the country is unhappy with the Ds:

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: There has been a message problem out of the White House. When you have polls showing that people don`t believe the stimulus has created jobs or saved jobs and you have Republicans echoing and -- and reemphasizing that particular lie, and it sets in, well, that`s something that actually, I think, is within the realm of control for the White House.

MATTHEWS: There are two choices when you vote, D or R. If the people push R, does your reporting tell that they know they`re voting for more lackadaisical administration, like Katrina, more hawkishness and neo- conservative fighting of wars that are wars of choice, not necessity? Do they know they`re voting for that kind of thing? And they`re voting for a guy who was so sloppy on fiscal policy, refused to veto a single spending bill, that we doubled the national debt? Do they know that that`s what R means when they vote R this November?

SCHERER: When I was in Indiana -- I was in South Bend, Elkhart, Joe Donnelly, very tough reelecting, won with 67 percent --

MATTHEWS: Yes.

SCHERER: -- of the vote --

MATTHEWS: I liked that part.

SCHERER: -- a couple years ago -- he is dealing with voters who were telling me Barack Obama`s not the guy I voted for. I thought he was going to turn the economy around. He didn`t turn the economy around. I didn`t know he was going to do this health care thing. I thought he was going to change Washington (INAUDIBLE) Washington change. That`s what they were voting for. It has nothing to do with the wars, the other --

MATTHEWS: Well, that`s the reelection talk, right.

SCHERER: No, but these are independent voters. These are people -- you know, they`re not high-information voters --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: When Obama was running for reelection or running for election, the economy wasn`t in the tank. It went in the tank during the transition. Doesn`t anybody remember that? It was the last quarter of the Bush administration that everything went to hell.

Once again, it's tough to determine whether Matthews' memory is suffering or he's just dishonest. The recession officially began in December 2007, and the financial crisis started in September 2008 - the THIRD quarter almost two full months BEFORE Election Day:

SCHERER: Obama went to Elkhart, Indiana, in February of 2009, couple weeks after he gets in office, he says, I`m going to pass the stimulus. It`s going to help you. I`m going to keep my promise --

MATTHEWS: Right.

SCHERER: -- to Elkhart. Elkhart`s unemployment now is over 13 percent and it`s been rising again this summer.

MATTHEWS: Because it was rising when he came in.

SCHERER: It was rising --

(CROSSTALK)

CORN: -- probably would be higher now if Obama hadn`t --

(CROSSTALK)

CORN: And you know, this is -- this is the administration`s obligation, and Democrats on the Hill are livid because they don`t think the White House is living up to this obligation of making a stronger case - -

MATTHEWS: There`s so much --

CORN: -- making the case that you just made!

MATTHEWS: Let`s make the points through the numbers. Unemployment when Bush came in was 4.2 percent. When he left office, it was up to 7.6 percent, way up from where he came in. When Bush came into office, we had a $281 billion Clinton-led surplus. When he left, we had a $1.2 trillion deficit. And he doubled the national debt. Those are the facts on the table.

Yes, but unemployment is now at 9.5 percent and likely climbing. There are currently 3.3 million fewer people on non-farm payrolls than in January 2009 making today's labor markets FAR WORSE than they were when Obama took office.

But that's only half the story, for the Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007. As this is a Congressional election, it is a referendum on what the Party controlling the House and the Senate have done since they took over.

Here, the numbers are even more glaring, as the unemployment rate that month was 4.6 percent. Over 7 million people have lost their jobs since the Democrats took over Congress.

As for fiscal policy, the last budget created by the Republican-controlled Congress had a deficit of $160 billion. This year, with Obama and Democrats controlling everything, we're on pace for close to a $1.6 trillion deficit, or TEN TIMES 2007's shortfall.

But Matthews doesn't want to share those numbers with his viewers: 

MATTHEWS: Let`s go back to the politics again. The voter out there, he can only choose between what he had and what he has. You`re saying he`s going to choose what he had in Elkhart, Indiana.

SCHERER: They`re not voting for Bush in Elkhart. They`re voting -- they`re voting because they`re --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Their memory of what?

SCHERER: No, they`re disappointed with what they have.

Indeed, because no matter how you slice it, in most parts of the country, things are worse today than they were when Obama was inaugurated and FAR WORSE than when the Democrats took over Congress.

But don't expect a shill like Chris Matthews to report that in an election year.

On Thursday's American Morning, CNN's Deborah Feyerick continued her network's promotion of the charge the "Islamophobia" is growing in the U.S. All but one of Feyerick's sound bites during her one-sided report were from those who agree with this charge, with the sole exception being used an example of someone using "Islam...[as] a political wedge issue."

Anchor Kiran Chetry and substitute anchor Ali Velshi introduced the correspondent's report just before the bottom of the 7 am Eastern hour. Chetry stated that "attempted terror attacks aimed at the U.S. have come mostly from Muslim extremists born outside of America" and then claimed that "America's Muslim community though has been quick to warn law enforcement about these potential threats." Velshi added that "the question is, why does it appear that more and more that all Muslims are being portrayed as potential terrorists or as targets of hate."

Feyerick began by citing unnamed "experts will tell you that there's a great deal of misunderstanding when it comes to what Islam is all about. Add on politicians spreading rumors that Sharia law- Islamic law- is coming to the United States simply because a group of Americans wants to build a mosque. It's time to ask, what's really going on?" She then noted that the "Islamic center and mosque to be built near Ground Zero is not the only mosque drawing fire. About a dozen others across the country are also under attack, from angry protests and suspected arson in Murfreesboro, Tennessee to Temecula, California. American mosques, in some cases, [are] being portrayed as monuments to terror or terror training centers."

The CNN correspondent continued with a series of sound bites from those who allege a growing and threatening "Islamophobia," and singled out conservatives for apparently persecuting Muslims:
FEYERICK: Conservatively, figures show an estimated five million Muslims in America, and intensifying hostility and rise in hate speech is alarming to many, like these clerics who we met at a recent Islamic summit in Houston.

YASIR QADHI, ALMAGHRIB INSTITUTE: You would never hear any mainstream commentator say, do you think another Christian sect could open up a mosque? Do you think Jews should be allowed to open their synagogues anywhere they want? We have mainstream news presenters just asking the question bluntly, do you think Muslims should open- should be allowed to open mosques anywhere they want?

WISAM SHARIEFF, BAYYINAH INSTITUTE: What changed the game? Nineteen people changed the game? How did that happen? Because we've been your doctor, we've been your x-ray tech, your accountant. We've been serving you slushies for a long time. (unidentified man off-camera laughs) So, what tipped the scales?

FEYERICK: Wisam Sharieff, Yasir Qadhi, and other prominent American clerics say American Muslims are under siege, both by Islamic extremists and some U.S. conservatives.

QADHI: You have radical Islamic clerics, right, preaching from abroad, saying you cannot be an American and a Muslim at the same time. Well, low and behold, on the far right, you have quite a number of famous, prominent Islamophobes who are saying the exact same message.

FEYERICK: The Ground Zero mosque, as some call it, has whipped up national debate, fueled, in part, by misinformation and fear-mongering. Yet, anti-Muslim feelings had been simmering.

Feyerick's example of a "famous prominent Islamophobe," to use Mr. Qadhi's term, was none other than former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Before playing her sound bite of Gingrich, she used her "wedge issue" label, and afterwards, went on to cite other unnamed "experts" and highlight an apparent "hate crime" against a Muslim:
FEYERICK: Islam has become a political wedge issue with politicians like Newt Gingrich comparing Muslims to Nazis.

NEWT GINGRICH: You know, Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.

FEYERICK: In fact, a Duke University study finds, rather than fuel terrorism in America, contemporary mosques prevent it. National security experts and American Muslims, like Saraj Mohammed, fear there's a lot at stake.

SARAJ MOHAMMED: The more they speak and the more they incite people, they themselves are a concern to be dealt with and they have to be told, you have to stop this rhetoric. It's hurting American security.

FEYERICK (on-camera): Right. Because it's creating hatred?

MOHAMMED: Yes, it's creating a lot of hatred.

FEYERICK: The latest 2008 FBI statistics on hate crimes against Muslims don't reflect what's going on now. But experts believe the spike that happened after 9/11 could repeat itself.

FEYRICK (voice-over): In New York recently, a cab driver was stabbed after his attacker allegedly asked if he was Muslim.

QADHI: Slowly but surely, we will counter this Islamophobia. Everybody had it. The Irish had it. The Catholics had it. The Italians had it. Now, it's just time for the Muslims.

FEYERICK: ("Allah ackbar" being chanted in an unidentified location) How long it will take to counter is anyone's guess.

At the end of the segment, the CNN correspondent, along with Chetry and Velshi, forwarded the claim that the Islamic cleric behind the Ground Zero mosque, Imam Faisal Rauf, was a "moderate" and bewailed what might happen if other "mainstream" Muslims were rejected by Americans:
FEYERICK (live): Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the one who is at the head of the so-called Ground Zero mosque, will return to New York City sometime today. He's been serving as an emissary for the U.S. State Department, reaching out to leaders in the Middle East, acting as a bridge between the U.S. and Muslim countries. He says, just as American Catholics were crucial in pushing reform in Vatican II, so will American Muslims be indispensable in bridging the chasm between America and the world's 1.2 billion Muslims. So, there's a real danger that alienating or marginalizing Western moderate mainstream thinkers is going to be a problem, simply because of religion.

VELSHI: It's a big issue. I know Imam Faisal, as you do- you'd be hard pressed to ever be able to describe him as radical, or a radical thinker. He believes he's building a bridge between different faiths, but when this label is applied, it gets applied and it sticks.

FEYERICK: Well, absolutely- and you have people simply asking questions with no fundamental proof as to what they're saying. It's one thing to say, let's find out where the money is coming from. Well, I can say that. But it doesn't mean-

VELSHI: Right-

FEYERICK: That it's coming from somewhere insidious. But that's what the allegation- that's what the insinuation is. So there's a real, sort of-

VELSHI: That's right. It's buried in the insinuation.

FEYERICK: Yeah.

CHETRY: And I know that you're hoping to get chance to sit down and talk to him one-on-one, correct?

FEYERICK: Absolutely. We spoke to the developer, who couldn't have been more honest about what this is about, and we're hoping to get a chance to speak to him as well.

CHETRY: Good stuff.

VELSHI: Thanks for your great coverage on this. Thanks, Deb.

Exactly a week earlier, on August 26, Feyerick joined the mainstream media's guessing game over the aforementioned stabbing of the Muslim taxicab driver, advancing the hypothesis that it may have been "connected to this big Ground Zero controversy, where we're hearing so much anti-Muslim sentiment." Who would have thought that a mere six weeks or so earlier, the correspondent actually played hardball with the real estate developer behind the New York City mosque, Sharif el-Gamel.

The news out of Government/General Motors during the past couple of days hasn't been particularly good.

First, August sales results were disappointing. Second, it become known today that GM will attempt to go public on November 18, a later than originally hoped post-election date chosen to hopefully allow for another reported quarterly profit to boost investors' appetite for its shares.

As so often has been the case during Democratic administrations when unfavorable developments arise, the UK press has seen potential problems with the IPO, while the Associated Press has been acting as if all is well.

In two separate items, AP reporters couldn't even bring themselves to tell readers what the company's real August sales decline was.

In a report yesterday on the industry's awful August, reporters Dee-Ann Durbin and Tom Krisher were appropriately gloomy overall, but they massaged GM's reported result (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Americans nervous about the drumbeat of bad economic news stayed away from auto showrooms. Automakers nervous about their bottom lines didn't offer deals to lure them in.

As a result, it was the worst August for U.S. auto sales since 1983, when the country was at the end of a double-dip recession. General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Ford all reported declines from the month before and from a year earlier.

The bleak results were a reminder that, for all the good news about the turnaround of the Detroit automakers, the market for cars and trucks in the United States remains frail. Initial data showed sales came in at about 997,000, down 5 percent from July, according to AutoData Corp.

"Coming in below a million units is eye-opening for August," said Paul Ballew, a former chief economist for GM. "I never thought I'd see that. That's a tepid month for August, which is supposed to be one of the top months of the year."

... "We know it's going to be a modest recovery. It's going to be bumpy," said Don Johnson, GM's vice president of U.S. sales. "What we don't want to do is get back to putting incentives in the marketplace to keep the plants running."

... Overall, sales at Ford were down 5 percent from July and 11 percent from last August. At GM, sales of its four remaining brands were down 7 percent from a month ago and 11 percent from a year ago.

For the year so far, sales are up 5 percent at GM, which is preparing for an initial public offering of its stock that could come as early as next month.

We learned today that the "next month" part concerning the IPO isn't going to happen. In her report today, Durbin's massage was more thorough:

Analyst: GM plans to sell shares on Nov. 18

General Motors plans to start trading shares again on Nov. 18, timing that allows the company one more quarter of earnings to build its case to investors, a firm that researches initial public offerings said Thursday.

Scott Sweet, the managing partner of IPO Boutique, said GM plans to price the shares on Nov. 17 and begin selling them the next day. He said the automaker wants to start a two-week a road show to drum up investor interest on Nov. 3, the day after the midterm congressional elections.

It's unclear if the IPO dates have been finalized. Two people with knowledge of the process say the automaker's board hasn't approved a date for the IPO but is expected to meet next week to discuss the issue. GM is in a "quiet period" before an IPO, so no one is authorized to discuss the process publicly.

... Sweet said his information comes from multiple people on Wall Street but declined to name them. He says the company hasn't yet established a price for the shares, but hopes to raise $15 to $20 billion with the initial public offering.

The timing could disappoint some Democrats who supported the government's $50 billion bailout of GM last year and wanted to point to a successful IPO before the elections.

... But one more quarter of earnings could help the automaker establish that it is healthy and capable of making sustained profits. GM earned $2.2 billion in the first half of 2010 despite depressed U.S. auto sales, but it lost $3.4 billion in the fourth quarter of last year.

GM also hopes the U.S. auto market sees some modest improvement this fall. On Wednesday it said its U.S. sales fell 5 percent from July and 11 percent from last August, when they were boosted by the Cash for Clunkers program.

The fact is, as seen in this Wall Street Journal compilation, that GM's August 2010 sales were 24.5% lower than August 2009. For Dee-Ann Durbin's and Tom Krisher's benefit, that's the result you get when you go to the WSJ link and compare the 185,105 vehicles sold in August 2010 to the 245,066 sold in 2009, and divide the difference (59,961) by 245,066. Yes, according to the company, sales of the company's four remaining brands were down "only" 11% from a year ago. But it's your job to report the full story, not merely to parrot the company's press release.

The folks at the Financial Times understand that, and also see how a company reporting declining sales in its largest market might encounter a bit of difficulty foisting its shares on the investing public. Reporter Bernard Simon also managed to find space for the actual year-over-year sales decline in yesterday's coverage (link requires free registration):

GM Sales Dip Casts Shadow Over IPO

General Motors? sales in its core US market sagged in August, potentially complicating its bid to drum up investor support for its forthcoming public share issue.

Sales were a quarter lower than in August 2009, when demand was bolstered by the Obama administration?s cash-for-clunkers scrappage incentives. GM has also eliminated four brands since then.

More worrying, however, was a 7.2 per cent decline from July. Low-margin sales to car rental operators and other fleet owners climbed to 28 per cent of the total, from 25 per cent in July. ?August was definitely what we call ?one of those months?,? said Don Johnson, GM?s head of US sales operations.

Mr Johnson said that consumers remained cautious amid an unexpectedly slow revival in employment. In the longer term, however, he forecast that there was ?pent-up demand building? that would ?eventually be released when the economy gets a firmer footing?.

... GM filed a bulky draft prospectus for an initial public offering with US and Canadian regulators last month. The US and Canadian governments hold 72 per cent of GM?s equity.

The document warns that in spite of a pick-up in demand since late last year, ?many of the economic and market conditions that drove the [earlier] drop in vehicle sales, including declines in real estate and equity values, increases in unemployment, tightened credit markets, depressed consumer confidence and weak housing markets, continue to impact sales?.

If the recent revival falters, the prospectus warns, ?our results of operations and financial condition will be materially adversely affected?.

It's hard to fault Mr. Johnson for his optimism, but if he thinks the revival in employment has been "unexpectedly slow," he's been reading too many happy-talk missives from Team Obama.

Durbin at the AP and an unbylined Reuters article both report that GM will conduct its IPO "road show" during the two weeks after the November elections. Reuters says that "The final value of the IPO has not been set but one source said early plans for the IPO envisioned selling $12 billion to $16 billion in common stock and $3 billion to $4 billion in preferred stock that would convert to common stock under a mandatory provision." That's $15-$20 billion of the $50 billion (really more) the government "invested" in return for a 61% stake during the company's emergence from bankruptcy. Even if the IPO flies, it will still be Government Motors.

Both Reuters and the New York Times correctly noted GMs 25% year-over-year August sale decline. Since AP couldn't bring itself to do so, the graphic at the top right of this post, which may have seemed a bit over-the-top when it appeared a few weeks ago, is more appropriate than ever.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

It's no secret that Chris Matthews once flirted with the idea of running for Senate in Pennsylvania, but since he didn't throw his hat into that race, the Hardball host, on Thursday night, did everything he could to help Joe Sestak beat Republican Pat Toomey, as he urged: "I hope your party gets organized up there, because the Democratic Party of Ed Rendell and you and all those other guys ought to get together with Brady and win this thing!" And even before Matthews invited viewers to "Meet Joe Sestak" in an interview segment, the MSNBCer began cheerleading for him in a preview as he teased: "Up next, Joe Sestak from my home state of Pennsylvania, he's fighting hard, the good fight against Pat Toomey, the Club for Growther of the far right." [audio available here]

The following exchanges were aired on the September 2 edition of Hardball:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Congressman Joe Sestak pulled off a big upset back in May when he beat Arlen Specter, he had been senator forever in Pennsylvania, in that primary. Sestak may need another upset come November. He faces a tough political climate up there. Pat Toomey, the Club for Growther of the far right is averaging a six-point gain on him right now in the latest pollsters average poll. Congressman Sestak joins right now us now. You know Pennsylvania, as you know, I'm talking to an expert, it's a purple state. It's somewhere in the middle. It's a John Wayne state. It's not a far right or far left state. How come Toomey is doing well when he's on the far right side? What is going on? Isn't he a [Rick] Santorum type?

...

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the support from the establishment up there. You beat the heck out of these people. You took the money people in big Philly. You took the machine, such as it was, on that day, it could be more interested, I think, on general election day and you beat the heck out of them. You pulled the biggest upset. Are those guys still mad at you for beating, the underdog, for beating their guy Specter?

JOE SESTAK: I'm told they're all gonna be there. A lot of them are gone for pre-Labor Day. And they're gonna be there right after Labor Day. Look, I'm not going to depend upon that. You know we raised close to $2 million in four weeks, right after the election. We're out there working every day. But more than that, I am going to help leverage those centers of excellence. I also have over 25 offices open, 25,000 phone calls a day since 1 January. We're gonna build a warfare coalition just like those 30 ships I had when I was a Navy admiral, doing the retaliatory strikes off Afghanistan, working together. But I also want you to know this Chris. I'm also focused on moderate Republicans and independents. I think when they find how extreme Congressman Toomey is, I mean if you liked Rick Santorum, you're gonna love Pat Toomey. 

MATTHEWS: How is he extreme? Give me some examples! I know I asked about the steel industry a while ago and he said basically he's a free marketer, "Let it rot! Don't do anything. The government has no responsibility to save industries that are in trouble." What's your view and what's wrong with his?

SESTAK: Well let me tell you, in his book he calls it "creative destruction." It's okay that we have China subsidizing their exports because it'll have creative destruction in America where people will be unemployed, but they'll find a job somewhere else. You know zero, zero taxes for corporations where you don't have to pay for it. Look when he was in Hong Kong, working for a Hong Kong billionaire, he actually worked on those currency swaps that helped China keep down over the years those, the, the value of, of the, the wan. And so we have, as someone who believes "benefit big business, benefit Wall Street and wealth might trickle down." Look he actually believed, when he was on the Small Business committee, he slashed in half the small business budget. He voted against studies for women to find out why are they're only getting two percent of all federal contracts supposed to go to small businesses? He just voted against that. Time after time, whether its education. Here's Philadelphia, you talk about a challenge in Philadelphia? Only about 28 percent of African-American males are graduating from high school there. And Chris it's only 33 percent of whites. And so I'm on the Education committee. This is about the common good. And he helped slash the education budget by $3 billion and voted against Pell Grants. He, what he did when he was president and this is the worst, I think. When he was president of Club for Growth -- and I like Pat, I've had a beer with him -- but when he was president of Club for Growth which John McCain called "a grab bag for the ultra rich,"when he was president he actually had as his principle mission purging the Republican Party of moderates and went after Senator Lincoln Chafee and others.

MATTHEWS: I know.

SESTAK: In my mind we don't need an ideology, we need someone who is willing to work.

MATTHEWS: Is he a right winger? Is he a right winger? Is he a right winger?

SESTAK: He, he's farther from the right wing. Yes he's much, he's extreme. Look...

MATTHEWS: Okay let me ask you, let's talk, let's talk turkey, Admiral, Congressman. I mean you deserve both titles. You've earned them. Let me ask you this. Are you gonna get Bill Clinton in there? It seems to me that if you look at Southwestern Pennsylvania, if you look at anywhere in that state, among the African-American community, which has been hammered with unemployment. They, if they had the jobs that the Irish guys had, in the neighborhoods I grew up in today, they'd be unbelievably middle class. They'd be in such a great shape. Those jobs are gone, those steel jobs. Let me ask you. Are you gonna bring Bill Clinton in there? Because, it seems to me, he would be even better than the President, to help you in Pennsylvania?

SESTAK: Yes. Yeah he's already come in for Scranton. Great rally. Unfortunately I was down in Washington for the good business of voting for that EFNEP bill that Congressman Toomey opposed and would have had 12,000 Pennsylvanians...

MATTHEWS: Well you gonna bring him back?

SESTAK: ...if we hadn't passed it. Absolutely. Actually I was talking with them the other day and they just wanted to know what days. They tell me I'm their top priority and I'm gonna keep working on that. So, I hope to see him out there a lot.

MATTHEWS: Well I hope your party, I hope your party gets organized up there, because the Democratic Party of Ed Rendell and you and all those other guys ought to get together with Brady and win this thing! Anyway, thank you Congressman Joe Sestak, running for Pennsylvania senator.

With a 9.6 percent unemployment rate overall in the United States and unemployment rates showing an uptick in states on the Gulf of Mexico that allow offshore oil drilling, one has to wonder what the Obama administration is thinking its Draconian wide-sweeping moratorium halting deepwater drilling in the Gulf after the BP oil spill.

While environmentalists are using today's explosion on a oil production platform in the Gulf to support a drilling moratorium, critics like CNBC's "Fast Money" panelist Jon Najarian have questioned the wisdom of the Obama administration's decision to put up to 75,000 in limbo.

"As far as what was going on in the Gulf, it shows a tone-deafness from this administration," Najarian said on the Sept. 2 broadcast of "Fast Money." "I mean, I'll pound the table for that because I'm not running for office. But I mean, this guy is tone deaf that 75,000 jobs in the Gulf of Mexico that have been idled for no good reason. It's costing all of us and it costs all the places where they would normally spend money as well."

On Sept. 2, a federal judge denied the federal government's request to dismiss a lawsuit challenging that moratorium.

The 75,000 jobs number is a figure backed up by the Dr. Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors. In a May 13 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Hunt warned then the ban would eventually impact that many job in the Gulf Coast states.

"Due to the Department's order, rigs completing wells in the next weeks will be unable to take on new work," Hunt wrote. "Over the next six weeks, up to 50 drilling rigs will complete wells and be unable to accept new work. These rigs will be idled, and those employees working directly on the rig face the prospect of unemployment, even if only temporarily. Additionally, employees of supporting service companies will also face unemployment. These workers represent a significant portion of the 75,000 hard-working individuals employed in the offshore Gulf of Mexico. The ripple effects of this abeyance of all new drilling will adversely impact coastal communities across Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama."

BBC Director General Mark Thompson admitted to the UK Daily Mail in an article today that Britain's state-run news outlet has had a "massive" left-wing bias. He insisted, though, that the network is taking steps to remedy the ideological slant.

BBC has a history of promoting the ultra-leftist agenda on most issues. But to see the channel's top dog admit it in an interview with the Daily Mail was quite a sight.

Now if only some television outlets on this side of the pond would do the same.

While Thompson pleaded guilty to a liberal slant, he insisted that a new crop of journalists is changing the political face of the BBC.

The Daily Mail's Paul Revoir reported today:

The TV chief also admitted there had been a 'struggle' to achieve impartiality and that staff were ' mystified' by the early years of Margaret Thatcher's government.

But he claimed there was now 'much less overt tribalism' among the current crop of young journalists, and said in recent times the corporation was a 'broader church'.

He claimed there was now an 'honourable tradition of journalists from the right' working for the corporation.

His comments, made in the New Statesman magazine, are one of the clearest admissions of political bias from such a senior member of its staff.

The BBC has long been accused of being institutionally biased towards the Left, and an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias.

Talk about honesty!

But while the BBC is looking into ways to remedy its "massive" slant to the left, swaths of the American news media have yet to even acknowledge that that slant exists.

First, do no harm...

In 2005, NBC and MSNBC and CNN were up in arms that conservative ?Jeff Gannon? was allowed into the White House briefing room by Team Bush to ask ?questions other reporters considered softballs.? Up until now, liberal talk-radio hosts like Ed Schultz have been seated in the front row of Obama press conferences, but they didn?t ask softball questions. On Thursday, it happened. Liberal radio host Bill Press asked press secretary Robert Gibbs to denounce Glenn Beck?s attacks on the president?s ?committed Christianity.?
BILL PRESS: Robert, over the last four days, Glenn Beck has criticized the president for believing in liberation theology, which he calls a Marxist form of Christianity. Two questions, Does the president, in your knowledge, even know what liberation theology is?

ROBERT GIBBS: I don?t know the answer to that. I will say this, Bill, um, a crude paraphrasing of an old quote, and that is, people are entitled to their own opinion, as ill-informed as it may be, but they?re not entitled to their own facts. The president is a committed, mainstream Christian. I don?t, I have no evidence that would guide me, as to what [whether?] Glenn Beck would have any genuine knowledge as to what the president does and does not believe.

PRESS: So this Marxist form of Christianity?

GIBBS: Again, I can only imagine where Mr. Beck conjured that from.

The double-ignorance of this exchange is impressive. How can Bill Press suggest that Barack Obama is ignorant about anything? They're defending Obama now by suggesting he's uninformed about progressive strains of Christianity? For his part, Gibbs is stonewalling athletically to assert there's no evidence that any Obama opponent could assemble to assert Obama's church of two decades, Trinity United Church of Christ on the south side of Chicago, embraced "black liberation theology" and its leading light, James Cone. In defending Obama, the liberal magazine The Christian Century acknowledged:

There is no denying, however, that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity. James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he's asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity.

Video of the Meet Bill Press exchange is supportively offered at a Hillary Clinton-founded media pressure group.

Yesterday the Gallup organization released a poll showing that Americans trust Republicans over Democrats on most major issues heading into the general election season. Today the same polling outfit released a poll that found a large number of Americans blame George W. Bush for the faltering economy. 

Guess which one Gallup partner USA Today hyped?

Here's how USA Today staffer Susan Page began her September 2 online story (filed at noon today):

Nearly two years after Barack Obama was elected president, Americans still are inclined to blame his predecessor for the nation's current economic problems.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than a third of those surveyed said George W. Bush deserved a great deal of the blame for economic woes and a third said he should get a moderate amount of it. Not quite another third called that unfair, saying Bush warranted not much or none of the responsibility.

The 71% saying Bush should get blamed was a modest decline from the 80% who felt that way about a year ago, in July 2009.

A search of the USAToday.com website failed to turn up a story specifically devoted to the September 1 Gallup poll that gauged voter preferences for the parties based on the issues.

Staffer Susan Page did make a brief reference to the poll in a September 1 "analysis" article regarding President Obama's Oval Office speech about the end of combat operations in Iraq, but that occurred in paragraphs 17 and 18 of her 20-paragraph story:

But the Iraq war is no longer the driving issue for Americans facing job layoffs and home foreclosures. In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,021 adults Friday through Sunday, those surveyed rated the economy, jobs, government corruption and federal spending as the top issues shaping their vote in November's congressional elections ? and preferred congressional Republicans over Democrats on handling the economy by double digits.

The war in Afghanistan ranked eighth in a list of nine issues.

Here's an excerpt from Gallup.com's website regarding the top issues poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds Americans saying the Republicans in Congress would do a better job than the Democrats in Congress of handling seven of nine key election issues. The parties are essentially tied on healthcare, with the environment being the lone Democratic strength.

The Republicans' advantage on most issues is an indication of the currently favorable political environment for the party. Of particular note is the parity between the two parties on healthcare, an issue on which Americans historically have viewed the Democrats as superior.

A similar USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in October 2006, just prior to Democrats' major gains in that fall's elections, highlights the potential implications of these findings. That poll, which includes several issues measured in the current survey, found the Democrats leading on all eight issues tested at that time, including some usual Republican strengths like terrorism and moral values.

In more bad news for liberal Democrats, Gallup.com released another poll today that shows that "Republicans Hold Wide Lead in Key Voter Turnout Measure":

PRINCETON, NJ -- Two months before this year's midterm congressional elections, Gallup finds 54% of Republicans, compared with 30% of Democrats, already saying they have given "quite a lot of" or "some" thought to the contests.

This "thought" measure is an important variable in Gallup's well-established classification of "likely voters," which is put into use closer to Election Day. The current gulf in thought between the parties mirrors the partisan gap in Gallup's voter enthusiasm measure that is tracked weekly.

We'll have to see how USA Today covers this later today or tomorrow, but I'm not holding my breath for the paper giving it much attention, if any.

Talk about an in-kind contribution.

In a short item about a Democratic Governors Association election complaint about Ohio GOP gubernatorial candidate John Kasich, the Associated Press's Julie Carr Smyth showed that she is willfully ignoring Buckeye State reality, or has been living a hermit's existence for the past few months.

In describing Kasich's standing against Democratic incumbent governor Ted Strickland, Smyth claimed that Kasich "is keeping pace with Strickland in polls and fundraising" (a picture of the relevant paragraph is here).

As you can see, that's sort of like a baseball writer claiming that "The Cincinnati Reds are keeping pace with the Chicago Cubs this year":

For those who aren't following baseball closely, the Reds have a 21-1/2 game lead on the Cubs with less than 30 games remaining.

Who do you think you're foolin', babe?

(Answer: Relatively disengaged voters who need to given the impression that the sinking Strickland campaign is really on track to victory, instead of heading towards the first defeat of an incumbent governor in the Buckeye State in 36 years.)

Democrats are upset that Kasich appeared on Fox News and was able to give out the name of his web site and encourage viewers to donate to his campaign during Bill O'Reilly's show on August 18. Awwww.

The election complaint is carried at a Huffington Post item courtesy of Sam Stein, a former NewsWeak (spelled that way on purpose) reporter. Two years ago, Stein claimed that Republican presidential nominee John McCain couldn't possibly have vetted VP pick Sarah Palin because no one had visited her town's local newspaper and looked through its archives. Well Sam, that just might be because the paper's archives going back a decade were available online, and contained hundreds of entries. This Internet thing is pretty cool when you have a clue about how to use it.

Ben Smith at Politico, who is not being linked because of his outfit's outrageous attempt to shut down the College Politico, seems to think that this complaint has as much validity as Stein's unproven claim against Team McCain two years ago:

It seems to hinge on a chyron and, to my eye, is more in the great tradition of thin, high-profile election-year litigation than about winning in court.

Speaking of "in-kind contributions," maybe Julie Carr Smyth can estimate how much value favoring Strickland we should place on her demonstrably false claim in a national news story that Kasich is only "keeping" pace with him, when the fact is that Kasich has an averaged-out double-digit lead.

Cross-posted at Bizzyblog.com.

The right-wing media have shamefully attempted to tie James Lee, who created a hostage situation in a Discovery Channel building, to former Vice President Al Gore, due to Lee's statement that he was "awakened" after reading Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth. In fact, Lee, who criticized Gore's book for not providing "solutions," holds a number of views Gore does not, including extreme opinions on population control and immigration.

Right-wing media attempt to blame Gore for Lee's actions

Hoft: Lee "saw Al Gore's junk-science movie and says he decided he had to do more." In a September 1 Gateway Pundit post, titled, "Gunman, Bomber, Leftist Activist -- Holds Hostages at Discovery Building," Jim Hoft posted a picture of Lee and wrote: "James Lee- behind the Save the Planet Protest. He saw Al Gore's junk-science movie and says he decided he had to do more... So he packed on bombs and took hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters."

Fox Nation: "Environmental Militant 'Awakened' by Al Gore?" Under the headline, "Environmental Militant 'Awakened' by Al Gore?" Fox Nation posted a section of a blog which stated:

Maybe the media is right. All the political vitriol, all the hate out there is spawning crazies capable of anything. We all need to stand together and send a message of unity and tell provocateurs like Al Gore to tamp down the rhetoric.

[...]

Who could have inspired such a maniac?! We know that he must have been influenced by someone. We've been told by countless lefty pundits and politicians that such craziness can usually be attributed to evil right-wing commentators who have whipped tea partiers into a seething, violent frenzy.

Well, this time it is clear. James Jay Lee has named the things that most inspired him -- some cultish book about an ape called "Ishmael" AND chief executive greeney Al Gore.

Fox Nation also ran side by side pictures of Lee and Gore on its homepage:

Drudge Report: Lee " '[a]wakened' by Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth.' " The Drudge Report linked to an MSNBC article about Lee under the headline, " 'Awakened' by Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'..." From the Drudge Report:

Fox & Friends: "[T]he gunman's extreme environmentalist views may have been sparked by an Al Gore documentary? Where's the media outrage there?" On the September 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade teased an upcoming segment by saying: "Now we know the gunman's extreme environmentalist views may have been sparked by an Al Gore documentary? Where's the media outrage there? Would they be silent if the tables were turned with a different documentary with a different point of view?" Later in the show, co-host Gretchen Carlson noted that "he apparently became some sort of an environmentalist junkie after he watched vice president -- former vice president's movie, Inconvenient Truth [sic], Al Gore's movie. He became a radical environmentalist."

Big Government: "An Inconvenient Truth: Enviros' Doomsday Rhetoric Breeds Eco-Terror." In a September 2 Big Government post, Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Christopher Horner wrote:

In the wake of yesterday's terrorism outside Washington, DC by Discovery-network hostage-taker James J. Lee, let's consider the position articulated by, say, radio host Glenn Beck to not attribute responsibility to Al Gore's eco-ranting. The latter is of course larded with assurances of a certain eco-catastrophe brought about by dark forces impeding salvation, and disturbing utterances like "the tide in this battle will turn only when the majority of people in the world become sufficiently aroused by a shared sense of urgent danger to join in an all-out effort." (Earth in the Balance, p. 269)

[...]

Beck's (somewhat backhanded, I understand) rationale for exculpating Gore of partial responsibility is that the terrorist was not a sane person. Yep. But the two -- culpability by Gore and other radical green imams, and acting out by mentally unstable members of their targeted demographic -- aren't mutually exclusive. We know that individuals bear responsibility for reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions, both the instigator and the instigated.

One might not like the connection, what with environmentalism being as chic as a Che Guevara handbag, but you can't deny it. Take the quiz, "Did Al Gore say it? Or was it the Unabomber?". I dare you to score better than 50%. That should make you uncomfortable. Then read Lee's manifesto, and really squirm at the similarities.

[...]

Eco-terrorism is terrorism. Stop waving it away as a different kind of terrorism, each incident in the pattern of behavior merely an isolated one. Willful or not, these incidents are the logical consequence of the doomsday rhetoric.

Environmental radicalism has been mainstreamed, the latest poisonous "radical chic". But there are consequences to this indulgence. Stop Gang Green before they harm again.

But Lee was also critical of Gore's book, and Gore does not share Lee's views on immigration and population control

Lee promoted living "WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children" and "programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility." In his manifesto against the Discovery Channel, Lee wrote that "[f]ocus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution." (emphasis in original) Lee demanded that the Discovery Channel promote this goal by creating "programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility."

Gore promoted "stabilizing" the human population through literacy, access to contraception, and reducing infant mortality. In Gore's book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, he advocated stabilizing the populations of Third World countries to guarantee access to resources. Gore recommended achieving this goal through literacy and education, access to contraception, and reducing the infant mortality rate:

A more careful analysis suggests that rising per capita income is also associated with several of the basic causes of demographic transition. High literacy rates and education levels are important, especially for women; once they are empowered intellectually and socially, they make decisions about the number of children they wish to have. Low infant mortality rates give parents a high level of confidence that even with a small family, some of their children will grow to maturity, carry the family name and genes (and in the belief of some societies, the spirits of ancestors), and provide physical security for their parents when they are old. Nearly ubiquitous access to a variety of affordable birth control techniques gives parents the power to choose when and whether to have children. [Page 311; italics in original]

Lee criticized An Inconvenient Truth for not providing "real solutions." In a post on his MySpace page, which has since been taken down, Lee reportedly wrote that Gore's book "was very enlightening" but "he didn't offer any real solutions":

I finished reading Al Gore's book, and [sic] inconvenient truth a few days ago. It was very enlightening. However, at the end he didn't offer any real solutions, as if changing a lightbulb would even put a scratch in the global warming epidemic. The book was half good, which means the part about science was good. The rest seemed like a commercial for sainthood.

Lee promoted "solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that." In his manifesto, Lee wrote, as one of his "demands":

Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!) 

Gore has been supportive of less restrictive immigration policies. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Gore expressed support for less restrictive immigration policies. For instance, an October 21, 2000, Des Moines Register article (accessed via Nexis) reported that Gore "pledges to make the INS 'more efficient and user friendly.' He supports expanding to Haiti and all of Central America a law that allows immigrants fleeing human-rights abuses in Nicaragua and Cuba to gain immediate asylum. Gore opposes legislation that would make English the official language" and "support[s] increasing the number of H-1B visas, which are six-year work permits." An October 8, 2000, Austin American-Statesman editorial (accessed via Nexis) further noted that "[b]oth Gore and [George W.] Bush advocate keeping families intact" and that "Gore wants the immigration applications speeded up." A September 4, 2000, San Diego Union-Tribune article (accessed via Nexis) quoted Gore as saying, "Every country...has a duty to protect its borders, but it must be done with compassion and the kind of respect for human life that is crucial to what we stand for as a country."

Some right-wing media figures denounced drawing links between Lee and Gore

Malkin: "Al Gore is not responsible for this." Later on the September 2 edition of Fox & Friends, guest Michelle Malkin said:

MALKIN: I'm going to do something that my enemies and opponents on the other side rarely do, and that is to make clear that Al Gore is not responsible for this. An Inconvenient Truth certainly is an incitement to stupidity and an incitement to massive, costly government intervention, but it is not, and it was never intended be, an incitement to violence.

Malkin also wrote on her website:

The gunman was reportedly motivated by Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth eco-propaganda. Guess what? I'm not playing that opportunistic blame game here. It's not Al Gore's fault when an enviro-nut goes off unhinged (and I've said that before). The blame in this case lies with the crazy man who terrorized the Discovery Channel employees. Period.

Beck: "You know what caused this guy to do these things? He was sick and twisted and crazy. Period." On the September 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, Glenn Beck attempted to use the bomber to revive attacks on White House official John Holdren but noted, "You know what caused this guy to do these things? He was sick and twisted and crazy. Period." Beck further noted that "these people do exist, and they exist on the left and the right."

Beck: Gore and Holdren are "not responsible in any way for the Discovery nutjob guy." On the September 2 edition of his radio show, Beck said: "So let me just be very clear here. Al Gore and John Holdren have a ton of really bad ideas. But they're not responsible in any way for the Discovery nutjob guy."

During the run-up to the Iraq war, some of the worst purveyors of misinformation about Iraq had a home at Fox News, and their ranks have swelled considerably since then. Media Matters takes a look at the track record of wrong predictions and shoddy analysis about the war in Iraq by many of Fox News' contributors and analysts.

Karl Rove

White House Iraq Group was formed to "set [messaging] strategy" for going to war with Iraq. The Washington Post reported in 2003 (accessed via Nexis) that the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was formed in August 2002 "to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it 'an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities.' " Part of the WHIG's mission, according to the Post, was to decide "what to demand of the United Nations in the president's Sept. 12 [2002] address to the General Assembly, when to take the issue to Congress, and how to frame the conflict with Iraq in the midterm election campaign that began in earnest after Labor Day." Rove was a regular participant in this group.

WHIG promoted view that Saddam "had weapons of mass destruction and was seeking more." The Los Angeles Times reported on August 25, 2005, (accessed via Nexis) that the WHIG "promoted the view that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was seeking more":

The group consisted of Rove, Libby, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, and Mary Matalin, Cheney's media advisor. All are believed to have been questioned in the leak case; papers and e-mails about the group were subpoenaed.

Before the war, this Iraq group promoted the view that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was seeking more. In September 2002, the White House embraced a British report asserting that "Iraq has sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The Washington Post further reported that WHIG "assigned Communications Director James R. Wilkinson to prepare a white paper for public release, describing the 'grave and gathering danger' of Iraq's allegedly 'reconstituted' nuclear program." From the October 30, 2005, article (accessed via Nexis):

By summer 2002, the White House Iraq Group assigned Communications Director James R. Wilkinson to prepare a white paper for public release, describing the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq's allegedly "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program. Wilkinson gave prominent place to the claim that Iraq "sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa." That claim, along with repeated use of the "mushroom cloud" image by top officials beginning in September, became the emotional heart of the case against Iraq.

Rove repeatedly politicized national security issues, including the war in Iraq, and actively encouraged GOP to campaign on the issue. Think Progress has documented Rove's repeated politicization of the Iraq war and his encouragement that Republicans campaign on the issue in 2002, which included (emphasis in original):

In January 2002, Rove told conservatives, "Americans trust the Republicans to do a better job of keeping our communities and our families safe...We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America."

[...]

In June 2002, Rove was giving PowerPoint presentations candidates [sic] advising them to "focus on the war" in their fall campaigns.

In September 2002, Time reported that when friends asked whether Bush planned to invade Iraq, Rove was been [sic] known to reply, "Let me put it this way: If you want to see Baghdad, you'd better visit soon."

In addition, according to an April 5, 2003, New York Times article (accessed via Nexis), Rove worked "busily ... to shape perceptions of Mr. Bush as a wartime leader and to prepare for the re-election campaign that will start as soon as the war ends." The Times quoted Rove as saying, "The president is leading the coalition of the willing, and is determined that Iraq will be disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction and that the cruel dictator's regime will be ended." From the New York Times:

The White House portrays Karl Rove, President Bush's most influential political adviser, as playing no role in military decisions that are shaping the Bush presidency.

But more than two weeks after the war began, Mr. Rove is busily working to shape perceptions of Mr. Bush as a wartime leader and to prepare for the re-election campaign that will start as soon as the war ends.

Tonight, Mr. Rove traveled here to tend to the Republican troops at the Texas Night fund-raising celebration of the Kent County Republican Committee.

"The president is leading the coalition of the willing, and is determined that Iraq will be disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction and that the cruel dictator's regime will be ended," Mr. Rove declared after taking the stage to chants of "U.S.A.!" in a cavernous hanger filled with the local party faithful wearing Texas-style cowboy boots, hats and bandanas.

Beyond courting Republicans at party events, Mr. Rove has in recent days been counseling Congressional Republicans and conservative groups on how to advance their domestic agenda even while attention is on Iraq.

This week, he held forth at a lunch with conservative commentators and journalists. Some participants had backed the administration on Iraq when it faced criticism that the war plan provided insufficient force and that it had been overly optimistic about Iraqi resistance.

Rove is currently a Fox News contributor, as well as Wall Street Journal and Newsweek columnist

Charles Krauthammer

Krauthammer predicted invasion of Iraq would lead to spread of democracy throughout Middle East. In a February 1, 2002, Washington Post column (accessed via Nexis), Krauthammer predicted that an invasion of Iraq would lead to the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East, saying:

Iran is not a ready candidate for the blunt instrument of American power, because it is in the grips of a revolution from below. We can best accelerate that revolution by the power of example and success: Overthrowing neighboring radical regimes shows the fragility of dictatorship, challenges the mullahs' mandate from heaven and thus encourages disaffected Iranians to rise. First, Afghanistan to the east. Next, Iraq to the west.

Krauthammer in June 2004: "[I]t's the beginning of the end of the bad news." On the June 1, 2004, edition of Special Report, Krauthammer said: "[I]t's the beginning of the end of the bad news. I mean, we're going to have lots of attacks, but the political process is under way."

In addition, in a March 7, 2005, Time column, Krauthammer wrote:

Two years ago, shortly before the invasion of Iraq, I argued in these pages that forcefully deposing Saddam Hussein was, more than anything, about America "coming ashore" to effect a "pan-Arab reformation" -- a dangerous, "risky and, yes, arrogant" but necessary attempt to change the very culture of the Middle East, to open its doors to democracy and modernity.

The Administration went ahead with this great project knowing it would be hostage to history. History has begun to speak. Elections in Afghanistan, a historic first. Elections in Iraq, a historic first. Free Palestinian elections producing a moderate leadership, two historic firsts. Municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, men only, but still a first. In Egypt, demonstrations for democracy -- unheard of in decades -- prompting the dictator to announce free contested presidential elections, a historic first.

And now, of course, the most romantic flowering of the spirit America went into the region to foster: the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, in which unarmed civilians, Christian and Muslim alike, brought down the puppet government installed by Syria. There is even the beginning of a breeze in Damascus. More than 140 Syrian intellectuals have signed a public statement defying their government by opposing its occupation of Lebanon.

Krauthammer is a political analyst for Fox News, and a regular member of Special Report with Bret Baier's "All Star Panel."

Fred Barnes

Barnes: "[W]inning the war in Iraq" is "going to be easy." On the January 18, 2003, edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys (accessed via Nexis), Barnes said: "[L]ook, the problem is not winning the war in Iraq. That's going to be easy. The problem right now is Hans Blix, the United Nations inspector in chief in Iraq, who seems to think his job is containment. You know, he says these inspections are a form of containment, and he wants to keep the inspectors there as long as possible, it seems to me, and has even said so."

Barnes in April 2003: "[I]t gets easier now. ... When you see those statues topple...you know that's victory." On the April 10, 2003, edition of Fox News' Special Report, Barnes said: "[T]he good news is contrary to what you hear in the media, it gets easier now. The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war. ... Hezbollah is a part of the war on terrorism. Syria harbors terrorists in the Biqa Valley, Hezbollah and so on. The Saudis export terrorism in terms of Wahabi Islam, and things can be done to crack down on that. It doesn't mean sending troops into Riyadh or into Damascus or things like that. But certainly the U.S. now has leverage that it didn't have before winning this triumph in Iraq. ... [L]ook, it is clear what victory in the war is. When you see those statues topple and you know that's victory."

Barnes: Terrorists in Iraq are hitting "soft targets." On the October 27, 2003, edition of Special Report, Barnes said, "But these terrorists are hitting soft targets. I mean, the U.N., the hotel, the Red Cross -- these are relatively soft targets. And I think they have a bad strategy. What do they gain from killing a lot of Red Cross personnel and a lot of U.N. personnel? I don't think they warm the hearts of Iraqis. They certainly don't build up more support in Europe or the United States. It is a last-ditch -- I think it is a desperate effort by these terrorists. It's not representative of a significant guerrilla force that's fighting the United States there."

Barnes: Obama not "strong on national security" because he opposed war "when the entire world believed" Saddam had WMDs. On the October 6, 2007, edition of The Beltway Boys, Barnes claimed that then-Sen. Barack Obama was "not in quite as strong a position on the war in Iraq as he really thinks he is." He explained that when Obama delivered his 2002 speech against going to war with Iraq, "it was back in a time when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that he would probably be willing to use them himself at some time or pass them along to terrorists who would use them. And yet, Barack Obama was against going to the war at that point." According to Barnes: "I don't think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be."

Bill Kristol

Kristol: "American and alliance forces will be welcomed in Baghdad as liberators." In testimony delivered February 7, 2002, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Kristol said:

[A]s in Kabul but also as in the Kurdish and Shi'ite regions of Iraq in 1991, American and alliance forces will be welcomed in Baghdad as liberators. Indeed, reconstructing Iraq may prove to be a less difficult task than the challenge of building a viable state in Afghanistan.

The political, strategic and moral rewards would also be even greater. A friendly, free, and oil-producing Iraq would leave Iran isolated and Syria cowed; the Palestinians more willing to negotiate seriously with Israel; and Saudi Arabia with less leverage over policymakers here and in Europe. Removing Saddam Hussein and his henchmen from power presents a genuine opportunity -- one President Bush sees clearly -- to transform the political landscape of the Middle East.

Kristol in April 2003: "The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably." In an April 28, 2003, Weekly Standard column, Kristol wrote:

The United States committed itself to defeating terror around the world. We committed ourselves to reshaping the Middle East, so the region would no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and weapons of mass destruction. The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably. But these are only two battles. We are only at the end of the beginning in the war on terror and terrorist states.

Kristol: "[A]lmost no evidence" that "the Shia can't get along with the Sunni." And on the April 1, 2003, broadcast of WHYY's Fresh Air, Kristol said, "There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

Kristol began working for Fox News as a political commentator in 1996, and he continues to serve as a regular contributor to the network.

Stephen Hayes

Hayes repeatedly advanced falsehood that Al Qaeda and Iraq were linked. Media Matters has identified instances in which Hayes advanced falsehoods and distortions to defend attempts by Vice President Dick Cheney and others in the Bush administration to link Al Qaeda and Iraq. For example, on the December 9, 2005, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Hayes defended Cheney's December 2001 claim that 9-11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. According to Hayes: "If you look at the front page of The New York Times in the days surrounding the vice president's claim, The New York Times was actually reporting the same thing." But as Media Matters noted, even after the Times and numerous other news outlets subsequently reported in May 2002 that the FBI and CIA "had firmly concluded that no meeting had occured," Cheney continued to raise the possibility that such a meeting took place.

Hayes "has made a career out of pretending Saddam and Al Qaeda were in league." Hayes has repeatedly claimed on TV, in The Weekly Standard, and in his book The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America, that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda. Spencer Ackerman wrote that Hayes "has made a career out of pretending Saddam and Al Qaeda were in league to attack the United States":

Hayes, in the Standard, has made a career out of pretending Saddam and Al Qaeda were in league to attack the United States. He published a book - tellingly wafer-thin and with large type in its hardcover edition - called "The Connection." One infamous piece even suggested that Saddam might have aided the 9/11 attack. Hayes can be relied on to provide a farrago of speciousness every time new information emerges refuting his deceptive thesis. Unsurprisingly, [former Vice President Dick] Cheney has repeatedly praised Hayes's work, telling Fox News, "I think Steve Hayes has done an effective job in his article of laying out a lot of those connections."

Pentagon called Hayes' assertion that "a top secret U.S. government memorandum" concluded that Saddam and bin Laden had an "operational relationship" "inaccurate." In an article in The Weekly Standard's November 24, 2003, issue, Hayes asserted that "a top secret U.S. government memorandum" -- which Hayes identified as a memorandum produced by former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith -- concluded that Saddam and bin Laden "had an operational relationship." Hayes wrote of the memo: "Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources." In a January 9, 2004, interview with Denver's Rocky Mountain News, Cheney cited Hayes' article, claiming that "[i]t goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and was forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago." Cheney added: "That's your best source of information." Following the publication of Hayes' article, the Pentagon released a statement asserting that "[n]ews reports" about the memo "are inaccurate" and that the portion of the memo to which Hayes' article referred "was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions."

Hayes is a regular Fox News contributor, who often appears as a panelist on Fox News' Special Report.

Judith Miller

Miller's series of articles on the now-debunked claim that Saddam had WMDs forced NY Times to apologize for its coverage. As Franklin Foer wrote for New York magazine:

During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein's ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by [Ahmad Chalabi] and his allies -- almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate.

Indeed, although the Times did not identify Miller by name, it did publish an editor's note in May 2004 apologizing for its coverage of the existence of WMDs in Iraq, particularly articles based on the assertions of Chalabi and other Iraqi defectors:

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge.

The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations -- in particular, this one.

Judith Miller now appears regularly as a Fox News contributor, including frequent appearances to offer media criticism on Fox's Fox News Watch.

John Bolton

Bolton: "The existence of Iraq's [biological weapons] program is beyond dispute." According to a November 20, 2001, Washington Post article (accessed via Nexis), Bolton -- then the Bush administration's undersecretary for arms control and international security -- said at a biological weapons conference: "The United States strongly suspects that Iraq has taken advantage of three years of no U.N. inspections to improve all phases of its offensive biological weapons program. ... The existence of Iraq's program is beyond dispute." From the Post:

John Bolton, undersecretary for arms control and international security, speaking at a biological weapons conference in Geneva on Monday, said the existence of a germ-warfare program in Iraq is "beyond dispute" and added that the United States strongly suspects North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and Sudan of pursuing such weapons.

"The United States strongly suspects that Iraq has taken advantage of three years of no U.N. inspections to improve all phases of its offensive biological weapons program," Bolton said. "The existence of Iraq's program is beyond dispute."

Bolton's comments come in the context of stepped-up U.S. anxiety about biological weapons and the willingness of America's foes to use them. Many members of the Bush administration favor making Iraq the next target in the U.S. war on terrorism, alleging that one of the key hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks met with Iraqi intelligence agents and that Saddam has the means and willingness to launch an attack on the United States.

"Beyond al-Qaeda, the most serious concern is Iraq," Bolton said. "Iraq's biological-weapons program remains a serious threat to international security."

Bolton: "We have very convincing evidence that Iraq maintains an extensive program for the production ... of weapons of mass destruction." The Chicago Tribune reported on January 25, 2003, (accessed via Nexis) that Bolton said "that the United States has evidence of Iraq's maintenance of weapons of mass destruction that will be disclosed at an 'appropriate time.' " The Tribune further reported that Bolton said, "We have very convincing evidence that Iraq maintains an extensive program for the production ... of weapons of mass destruction."

Bolton is currently a Fox News contributor, as well as a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich in 2001: "We know today that Saddam Hussein is willing to accept any level of sanctions to keep his program for weapons of mass destruction running." In November 2001, Gingrich asserted that Iraq had a WMDs program, writing, "We know today that Saddam Hussein is willing to accept any level of sanctions to keep his program for weapons of mass destruction running." He further wrote:

We are a serious nation, and the message should be simple if this is to be a serious war: Saddam will stop his efforts and close down all programs to create weapons of mass destruction. He will expel all terrorists from Iraqi soil, or we will substitute a new government in Iraq. We must insist on change, because we now have vivid proof in New York and Washington of the future if we do not.

Gingrich: "[W]e have a real obligation to take Iraq head on, because in the end, that's one of the centers of really big danger in terms of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare." On the December 5, 2001, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes (accessed via Nexis), Gingrich stated: "I do believe in the next 60 days we have a real obligation to take Iraq head on, because in the end, that's one of the centers of really big danger in terms of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare." From Hannity & Colmes:

GINGRICH: No, it's not a cowboy-type attitude. It's a direct attitude of a powerful country saying that in the first place, I believe that in the end the regime of Saddam Hussein cannot survive, that these are people who -- Saddam Hussein is trying to get nuclear weapons, he's trying to get biological weapons, he's trying to get chemical weapons. The president himself has said this man is very evil and very dangerous. President Clinton said he was evil and dangerous. Former secretary of state Albright described him as being like Hitler.

Now, there's a point here when I think you ought to take these things seriously. I think it ought to be the policy of the American government to help the Iraqi people replace the current dictatorship with a government that is more interested in economic trade than in weapons of mass destruction.

So whether Iraq wants to start the fight or whether we go and deliver an ultimatum, I do believe in the next 60 days we have a real obligation to take Iraq head on, because in the end, that's one of the centers of really big danger in terms of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare.

Gingrich: "I think history will record that a remarkably strong president happened to be in office at a juncture where weapons of mass destruction and terrorism rewrote all the rules of engagement in international relations." A March 9, 2003, Washington Post article (accessed via Nexis) reported:

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and a student of history, maintained that Bush's apparent serenity on the eve of a world-reordering war is part of his managerial style.

"When he was a younger man and owner of a baseball team [the Texas Rangers], he picked the manager and coaches and then sat in the stands," Gingrich said.

But Gingrich said the hesitation in stating the full extent of Bush's world vision is "confusing" foreign countries. "The most powerful nation in the world must be understandable, not merely formidable," he said. And what Bush needs to convey to the world is how much bigger than Iraq the coming war will be.

"I think history will record that a remarkably strong president happened to be in office at a juncture where weapons of mass destruction and terrorism rewrote all the rules of engagement in international relations," Gingrich said. "It will record that the president moved beyond old institutions and developed a new set of alliances."

Gingrich has been a political contributor to Fox News since 1999.

Dick Morris

Morris: "[T]he key, let us all remember, is to attack Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein before he acquires weapons of mass destruction." In an April 17, 2002, column in The Hill (accessed via Nexis), Morris wrote: "The Arab nations demand U.S. action partially to achieve their own ends vis-a-vis Israel, but also precisely to ensnare the United States before it can move against Iraq. They are masters at the game of sucking you into the desert and running you around with shuttle diplomacy until you drop. All the while, Saddam Hussein's scientists build his bomb. The clock is running. Will the United States act before Iraq completes its deadly work?" He further stated: "[T]he key, let us all remember, is to attack Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein before he acquires weapons of mass destruction. This will likely involve a large mobilization of American might and the deployment of several hundred thousand American troops."

Morris suggested Iraq was "developing an atomic bomb [that] they're going to use against us or Israel." On the July 25, 2002, edition of Fox News' The Big Story (accessed via Nexis), Morris advocated for war in Iraq, suggesting that the United States would find "laboratories for enriching uranium" and stating of Bush, "It's very clear he's made the case" to invade Iraq. From The Big Story:

JOHN GIBSON (host): [Bush] has had the -- a notion has been put forward that he has to take care of other things first. Has to be a Middle East peace, the economy has to get back in shape. Should he say, We'll work on those things, but I've got to go ahead with this other thing?

MORRIS: Yes, he should. And those things are really both for -- both false. The notion that he has to solve a 50-year-old problem in the Middle East before he can stop somebody from developing an atomic bomb they're going to use against us or Israel is ludicrous. It's put there by the moderate Arab countries to try to stop him from ever doing anything.

And I can't think of anything better for the stock market than to get it the heck off the A-section of the newspaper and back in the C-section where it belongs. If there were just negative earnings reports and stuff, the market wouldn't be going this crazy.

It's that -- it's -- it's even pushed the Roman Catholic priest scandal off the front pages.

And the point is, we have only one front page in every newspaper at any given time. And if it's all going to be about Iraq, it's not going to be about the stock market, which will help the market.

GIBSON: Oh, yes, but are you saying that to -- that the president should -- that the president can say, Look, I'm going to start this thing now, I'm going to start this campaign, I'm going to move troops, we're going to get going, and that he, he can set aside the, the grumbling, the mumbling that he is starting a war to save his political problems?

MORRIS: Yes, sure he can, because no Democrat is going to dare say that. If some Democrat gets out there and says, You're starting this war because of the election, he'll kill them. He'll say, I'm starting the war. When this guy used poison gas and when I invade him, I'll find five laboratories for enriching uranium.

Look, if George Bush announced on Labor Day, Hey, I've made a discovery, Uganda is developing weapons of mass destruction and we're going to attack it, OK, that's wagging the dog. But this guy has been talking about Iraq for a year now. Eighty-five percent of the country wants him to invade. It's very clear he's made the case. What he's done so far is procrastinate, for two reasons.

Legitimately, he felt he wanted to do some work in Israel and world opinion. But the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- illegitimately. But legitimately, it was that you don't fight a war in the desert in the summer. It's hot, particularly in those chemical uniforms. You ever been in one of them? It's hot.

And the point is, you fight a war in the winter in the desert. Duh? January and February. And it takes you about six months to do the troop buildup, so it starts in September.

Morris: "Once our guys go in there, and women go in there, they're going to find weapons and labs that 80 inspectors can't find, but 100,000 soldiers can." On December 8, 2002, edition Fox News' Fox Wire (accessed via Nexis), Morris said: "Seventy-nine percent of the American people think Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Sixty-two percent think he's planning to use it on us. And Bush is the judge and the jury. Once our guys go in there, and women go in there, they're going to find weapons and labs that 80 inspectors can't find, but 100,000 soldiers can." He further stated that "if I were Bush, what I would do right now is I would say, look. You're lying. You're lying through your teeth. And unless you tell the truth by January 1, I'm going to attack on January 2." Later during the segment, Morris said that Saddam is "a bad guy that wants to get nuclear weapons. He's a bad guy that has chemical and biological weapons. And he is fully as much of a threat as al Qaeda is."

Morris ridiculed Democrats who wanted "more evidence" of WMDs, saying if "we find out after we've gone in there" that Iraq "was three months away from an atom bomb," Democrats "can forget about 2004." On the January 28, 2003, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor (accessed via Nexis), Morris stated that "once we win in Iraq, the Europeans will be lining up to the Mediterranean to be part of that peacekeeping force." He further stated that " the Democratic Party is telling the United States, wait, get more evidence. Get more information. And we find out after we've gone in there that this guy was three months away from an atomic bomb, the Democratic Party can forget about 2004."

Morris: "I honestly believe that if you had 5,000 or 10,000 dead in this war, the American people would say, well, it just shows he had weapons of mass destruction, it just shows how important this was." On the March 31, 2003, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes asked Morris, "What is the number allowable, because that's the word that's used, casualties, before you think there is a greater dissent on the part of the American public?" Morris responded: "I honestly believe, Alan, that there is no ceiling. I honestly believe that if you had 5,000 or 10,000 dead in this war, the American people would say, well, it just shows he had weapons of mass destruction, it just shows how important this was." He later stated, "I think the American people have endless patience with this thing." From Hannity & Colmes:

COLMES: What is the number allowable, because that's the word that's used, casualties, before you think there is a greater dissent on the part of the American public?

MORRIS: I honestly believe, Alan, that there is no ceiling. I honestly believe that if you had 5,000 or 10,000 dead in this war, the American people would say, well, it just shows he had weapons of mass destruction, it just shows how important this was.

This is a defensive war. The American people feel that we are being threatened, and this isn't like Bosnia or Kosovo, where we're doing it for the good of the world. We are, but we're also doing it to defend ourselves.

And I think the American people have endless patience with this thing.

In May 2003, Morris stated that "we won the war" in Iraq. On the May 28, 2003, edition of Hannity & Colmes (accessed via Nexis), Morris stated: "[W]e removed this enormous cause of destabilization in removing Saddam. The Iraqis have moved. The Syrians have moved. The Saudis are cooperating in this investigation in a way they didn't in Khobar Towers. Yasser Arafat is out on his butt and Abbas is now in charge. And all of that, coincidentally, happened after we won the war."

Morris serves as a political analyst for Fox News.

Fox News' Eric Bolling repeated the discredited claim that the stimulus has "done nothing to help the economy." In fact, economists agree that GDP and employment levels are significantly higher than they would have been without the stimulus.

Bolling pushes myth that the stimulus failed

Bolling: The stimulus has "done nothing to help the economy." During the September 1 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Eric Bolling claimed that the stimulus has "done nothing to help the economy" and that "the economy is far worse than it was when we signed over $750 billion that turned into $862 billion." Bolling added, "Forget the other programs, it's literally trillions of dollars of economic stimulus that aren't working."

Independent and private analysts agree stimulus significantly raised GDP, employment

CEA: Recovery act raised GDP by at least 2.7 percent in the second quarter of 2010. In its fourth quarterly report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated that "the ARRA has raised the level of GDP as of the second quarter of 2010, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by between 2.7 and 3.2 percent."

Independent analysts agree that recovery act significantly raised GDP. In its quarterly report, the CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the recovery act with increasing the GDP. Included in these figures is the estimate by the nonpartisan CBO, which estimated that the stimulus raised GDP "by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent." CEA included the following chart in its report:

CEA: Recovery act has raised employment "by between 2.5 and 3.6 million." In its fourth quarterly report on the ARRA, the CEA stated: "The CEA estimates that as of the second quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.5 and 3.6 million. These estimates are broadly consistent with the direct recipient reporting data available for 2010:Q1."

Independent analysts agree that recovery act significantly raised employment. In its quarterly report, the CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the recovery act with increasing employment:

Economists say stimulus helped economic recovery

WSJ: 70 percent of economists surveyed said stimulus helped. The Wall Street Journal reported on March 12 that 38 of the 54 economists it surveyed "said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses, while six said the legislation had a net negative effect."

ABC News: Most on panel of economists "think the economy would be worse" without the stimulus. ABC News reported on February 18 that "most" of the economists on its panel "think the economy would be worse today without the big aid package, which totaled $787 billion and was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009."

NABE: 83 percent say stimulus raised GDP. A February survey of 203 members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) found that "[e]ighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA)."

USA Today: Surveyed economists said "stimulus package saved jobs." USA Today reported on January 25:

President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs -- but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.

Unemployment would have hit 10.8% -- higher than December's 10% rate -- without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.

Many economists say we need a second stimulus

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz: "The U.S. Congress has to pass a second stimulus." In January comments before the Council on Foreign Relations, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz reportedly said that the "stimulus has made a difference" and that "[t]he U.S. Congress has to pass a second stimulus." An August 5 Bloomberg article reported that Stiglitz said it was "absolutely clear that you need a second round of stimulus."

Nobel laureate Robert Solow: There is "need for further stimulus, of serious magnitude." In an August 10 Daily Beast blog post, Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert M. Solow wrote that "our economy is limping along" and that "[i]t would be foolhardy to sit and wait for a spontaneous burst of consumer spending or business investment in a sluggish economy with high unemployment." Solow argued for "further stimulus, of serious magnitude."

Economists have been pushing for additional stimulus for more than a year. A July 13, 2009, post on The New York Times' Economix blog listed economists that supported additional stimulus spending, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, former CBO director Robert D. Reischauer, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research Dean Baker, Berkeley economist Brad DeLong, University of Oregon economics professor Mark Thoma, and Yale economics professor Robert Shiller.

Berkeley economist Laura Tyson: We need a second stimulus. In an August 28 New York Times op-ed headlined "Why we need a second stimulus," Laura Tyson, a Berkeley economist who served as chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration and is a current member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, wrote that there is "too little appreciation for how stimulus spending has helped stabilize the economy and how more of the right kind of government spending could boost job creation and economic growth."

Following President Obama's speech on the end of combat operations in Iraq, media outlets hosted discredited Bush administration officials Karl Rove, Stephen Hadley, and Ari Fleischer to respond, despite the fact that the three were at the forefront of the campaign of misinformation used to sell the war.

Rove led WH group that "promoted" view that Saddam had WMDs "and was seeking more"

White House Iraq Group was formed to "set [messaging] strategy" for going to war with Iraq. The Washington Post reported in 2003 (accessed via Nexis), that the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was formed in August 2002 "to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it 'an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities.' " Part of WHIG's mission, according to the Post, was to decide "what to demand of the United Nations in the president's Sept. 12 [2002] address to the General Assembly, when to take the issue to Congress, and how to frame the conflict with Iraq in the midterm election campaign that began in earnest after Labor Day." Rove was a regular participant in this group.

WHIG promoted view that Saddam "had weapons of mass destruction and was seeking more." The Los Angeles Times reported on August 25, 2005, (accessed via Nexis) that WHIG "promoted the view that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was seeking more":

The group consisted of Rove, Libby, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, and Mary Matalin, Cheney's media advisor. All are believed to have been questioned in the leak case; papers and e-mails about the group were subpoenaed.

Before the war, this Iraq group promoted the view that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was seeking more. In September 2002, the White House embraced a British report asserting that "Iraq has sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The Washington Post further reported that WHIG "assigned Communications Director James R. Wilkinson to prepare a white paper for public release, describing the 'grave and gathering danger' of Iraq's allegedly 'reconstituted' nuclear program." From the October 30, 2005, article (accessed via Nexis):

By summer 2002, the White House Iraq Group assigned Communications Director James R. Wilkinson to prepare a white paper for public release, describing the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq's allegedly "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program. Wilkinson gave prominent place to the claim that Iraq "sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa." That claim, along with repeated use of the "mushroom cloud" image by top officials beginning in September, became the emotional heart of the case against Iraq.

Rove repeatedly politicized national security issues, including the war in Iraq, and actively encouraged GOP to campaign on the issue. Think Progress has documented Rove's address, President Bush made the now-infamous claim that "[t]he British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," a claim that was highly disputed and which turned out to be false. In 2003, then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley reportedly accepted responsibility for the line appearing in Bush's address, despite having received two memos and a phone call from CIA Director George Tenet three months earlier raising objections to its inclusion in prior speeches. From a July 2003 FoxNews.com article: 

Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley in a rare on-the-record session with reporters, said that he had received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from agency Director George Tenet last October raising objections to an allegation that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore from Africa to use in building nuclear weapons.

As a result, Hadley said the offending passage was excised from a speech on Iraq the president gave in Cincinnati last Oct. 7. But Hadley suggested that details from the memos and phone call had slipped from his attention as the State of the Union was being put together. 

The false claim was credited as one of the bases for shifting public support for the war. As a July 2003 New York Times analysis noted:

The speeches worked. Public opposition to the war, never fierce, began to melt, polls show, and by mid-March, when hostilities began, more than 60 percent agreed that ousting Mr. Hussein was worth spilling American blood.

Today, those 16 words haunt the administration. They are the best-remembered flourish in a portrait of Iraq that today seems unrecognizable. They are a leading rationale for a war that has resulted in the death of 224 Americans. And they are either unsubstantiated or based on a lie.

Hadley was also a part of the White House Iraq Group. According to a 2003 Washington Post 4/10/03] "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly ... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." [3/21/03] "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." [1/9/03] "Saddam Hussein does not exactly have a track record of telling the world the truth. So he, on December 8th, has to indicate whether or not he has weapons. Let's see what he says. If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." [12/2/02] "[G]iven the chance to throw off a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein, people will rejoice." [3/21/03] "[W]hen you take a look at the level of violence inside of Iraq, it is impossible to argue anything other than violence has, indeed, come down as a result of America's military operations." [6/25/03] "There is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly. ... And all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." [3/21/03]

Despite their history, media turns to Hadley, Fleischer and Rove to respond to Obama's speech

Kilmeade hosts Hadley to discuss whether "the president is finally acknowledging the previous administration was...on the right track in the middle east overall." On the September 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade hosted two Bush administration officials, Margaret O'Sullivan and Hadley, to discuss whether "the president is finally acknowledging the previous administration was right - was on the right track in the Middle East overall." 

MSNBC's Morning Joe hosts Fleischer to defend Bush and compare invading Iraq to invading Nazi Germany.  On September 1, MSNBC's Morning Joe hosted Fleischer to defend Bush for invading Iraq, and Fleischer compared Iraq to the invasion of Nazi Germany:

FLEISCHER: Probably the most profound meeting I ever sat on at the White House was a meeting with Elie Weisel. Just President Bush, Elie Wiesel, Condi Rice was there and myself. And the president asked Elie Wiesel - Nobel Peace Prize winner, Holocaust survivor - should he remove Saddam [Hussein]. Wiesel said yes, and then he added, "If only the world had listened to Winston Churchill in 1938 or 1939, World War II and the Holocaust could have been avoided. And I thought to myself, if the world had listened to Churchill in '38, people probably would've said "you exaggerated the threat of Hitler. You know, who says there was a World War coming?" We'll never know what we averted by getting rid of Saddam and how many lives were saved as a result of removing the threat of Saddam Hussein.

Rove: "This was not a well-delivered speech." On September 1, Fox News' On the Record with Greta van Sustern hosted Rove to attack Obama's Iraq speech, saying: "[T]his was not a well-delivered speech."  Rove called Obama's mention of Bush "an attempt at graciousness" that "didn't succeed," and he criticized Obama for not taking a "confident" tone that showed "a celebration of what has happened" in Iraq "to this point."

Fox News' Dave Briggs attacked the Department of Justice for asking election officials in Ohio to print ballots in Spanish, which he claimed would not be "a proper use of funds." But the Justice Department reportedly says the ballots are needed to obey federal law, which prohibits making a person educated in a Spanish-language school in Puerto Rico understand English in order to vote.

Briggs claims enforcing federal voting law is not "a proper use of funds"

Briggs: Spanish ballots are not "proper use of funds." During the August 31 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Dave Briggs claimed that the Department of Justice "is demanding" that Cuyahoga County, Ohio, election officials "print ballots in Spanish," and said, "The cost, again, $500,000 estimated, for what some say is 6,000 voters, which does sound like not a proper use of funds." He then asked a guest, "But, beyond that, I mean, do you think this is something that is absolutely required, is necessary, in our country?"

Plain Dealer: DOJ told Cuyahoga County "it needed to better accommodate voters educated in Puerto Rico." In an August 25 blog post, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that "the Justice Department told the [Cuyahoga] elections board July 29 that it needed to better accommodate voters educated in Puerto Rico who have limited English-speaking ability. At issue is part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires full voting opportunity for people from Puerto Rico, which makes them full U.S. citizens, but who are educated in primarily Spanish-language schools."

Federal law prohibits making Puerto Ricans educated in Spanish-language schools understand English in order to vote. According to provision of federal law originally enacted in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 explicitly protects the rights of Puerto Rican voters educated in U.S. schools to vote regardless of their ability to understand English:

(1) Congress hereby declares that to secure the rights under the fourteenth amendment of persons educated in American-flag schools in which the predominant classroom language was other than English, it is necessary to prohibit the States from conditioning the right to vote of such persons on ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter in the English language.

(2) No person who demonstrates that he has successfully completed the sixth primary grade in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the predominant classroom language was other than English, shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election because of his inability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter in the English language, except that in States in which State law provides that a different level of education is presumptive of literacy, he shall demonstrate that he has successfully completed an equivalent level of education in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the predominant classroom language was other than English.

Bush DOJ said the provision "requires jurisdictions to provide" ballots in minority languages. In September 2008 congressional testimony, Grace Chung Becker, then the acting assistant attorney general for the Bush Justice Department civil rights division, testified that the provision "requires jurisdictions to provide election materials, including ballots, in the required minority language for voters who are limited-English proficient (LEP) and who were educated in an American school in which the predominant classroom language was not English."

Briggs falsely claims English is "official language" of U.S.

Briggs: "English is the only official language of the United States." Introducing the discussion, Briggs asked, "English is the only official language of the United States, but should it be the only language on the ballot this November?"

FACT: U.S. does not have an official language. According to the government website USA.gov, "Congress has never declared an 'official' language for the United States." Likewise, MSNBC.com reported in 2009, "The United States has no official language."

In attacking DOJ, Briggs dredged up discredited attacks

Briggs: DOJ is "accused of stalling on the MOVE Act, which denies our troops the rights to vote." In the same segment, Briggs said the Justice Department was "accused of stalling on the MOVE Act, which denies our troops the rights to vote." Briggs' claim echoed the discredited attacks from conservative activists that the Justice Department was "ignoring" the act by "encouraging waivers."

FACT: The waiver process is built into the MOVE Act. The MOVE Act, which helps to ensure that troops overseas can exercise their right to vote, contained a provision that permitted states that would have an "undue hardship" in providing ballots 45 days before an election to apply for a waiver, which the Department of Defense must approve.

Briggs: DOJ "ignored" phony New Black Panther scandal because it has "not pressed charges." In the same segment, Briggs claimed that the Justice Department has "not pressed charges against the Black Panthers who clearly committed voter intimidation. So why choose this case to make such a big deal of when others are ignored?"

FACT: DOJ did press charges in the New Black Panther case. The DOJ successfully obtained default judgment against King Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside a Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008.

Story is another in a string of discredited, Fox-promoted attacks against DOJ

Fox News has hyped phony New Black Panthers scandal at least 95 times. On July 16, Media Matters for America reported that over the course of two weeks, six Fox News shows discussed the discredited New Black Panthers scandal during a total of 95 segments after Megyn Kelly's June 30 interview hyping GOP activist J. Christian Adams' unsubstantiated accusations. In all, these Fox shows devoted more than eight hours of airtime to discussing the New Black Panthers.

Fox News also pushing Adams' false claim that DOJ is "ignoring" military law. Fox News also heavily promoted the baseless "controversy" that the DOJ is attempting to ignore the MOVE Act in order to help Democrats "skew" the fall elections.

Right-wing media have frequently cited Bjorn Lomborg to downplay the danger of global warming. In his forthcoming book, Lomborg will reportedly declare global warming a "chief concern facing the world today" and recommend spending $100 billion annually on clean energy technology financed by a global carbon emissions tax.

Lomborg: Global warming "a challenge humanity must confront"

Bjorn Lomborg's new book declares global warming "a challenge humanity must confront." On August 30, U.K.'s The Guardian reported of Lomborg, "[t]he world's most high-profile climate skeptic is to declare that global warming is 'undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today' and 'a challenge humanity must confront.' " In his latest book, which will be published next month, Lomborg will reportedly call for "[i]nvesting $100bn annually" so that "we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century." Lomborg recommended "pouring money into researching and developing clean energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear power," and advocates for a "tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change."

Previously, Lomborg said climate change "is emphatically not the end of the world." In his 2007 book, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, Lomborg stated that while "climate change is a problem ... it is emphatically not the end of the world." He also contended that "the benefits from moderately using fossil fuels vastly outweigh the costs. Yes, the costs are obvious in the 'fear, terror and disaster' we read about in the papers every day, but the benefits, though much more prosaic, are nonetheless important." Lomborg also suggested that the money spent combating climate change would be better spent in other areas that do more "social good."

Right-wing media has frequently cited Lomborg to minimize threat of global warming

Conservative media figures and outlets have frequently cited or hosted Lomborg to downplay the potential danger of global warming; to make the point that attempts to prevent it would be overly expensive and ineffective; or to promote the idea that public officials should instead focus on more pressing issues. Fox example:  

Lomborg appeared in 2006 Fox News special that centered upon purported lack of "scientific consensus about" impact of climate change. On May 21, 2006, Fox News aired a special titled Global Warming: The Debate Continues. As Media Matters has previously noted, the special gave viewers the impression that there is a significant divide among scientists regarding the cause and effects of global warming. One of these contributors was Lomborg, who claimed that climate change was not an imminent threat and that "the data, the facts tell you that many, many things are moving in the right direction."

Beck hosted Lomborg to discuss how "our priorities are all mixed up" on climate change. On the September 21, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck hosted Lomborg to discuss how "our priorities are all mixed up" on climate change and his decision to switch from being an environmental activist to a "skeptical environmentalist." On the show, Lomborg claimed that "climate change is happening, but the real question we have to ask ourselves is: How much can we do against it? And how much is it going to cost?"

Beck featured Lomborg in two-hour special on "the other side of the climate debate." On May 2, 2007, Beck aired a two-hour special on "the other side of the climate debate" titled Exposed: The Climate of Fear. In the special, Beck introduced Lomborg as "an expert on the economic impact of global warming," but noted that he is "not a scientist." Lomborg said during the interview:

With global warming you're going to see more heat deaths, but what most people don't tell us is we're also going to see much less cold deaths.

And actually, many more people die from cold than from heat, so for England alone you mentioned the number 2,000 people. Actually that's what we expect will die from more heat waves in 2080, but what we have to remember is that 20,000 fewer will die from cold each year in 2080.

Now I'm not sitting and saying we should go for global warming, but I'm saying we need to know both.

He also said, "We worry intensely about climate change, but the point is we can do very little good at very high cost."

NRO's Goldberg called the science of the environmental movement into question citing research by Lomborg. In a May 20, 2008 column in the Los Angeles Times, National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg criticized the "irrational" environmental movement for "claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts." Goldberg used Bjorn Lomborg's analysis of the Kyoto Protocol to bolster his argument by falsely suggesting that climate change is not a grave threat to the polar bear population. Goldberg suggested that, contrary to the statements of environmentalists, the polar bear population is "thriving," and that, according to Lomborg, adopting provisions of the Kyoto protocol "would save exactly one polar bear."

Lomborg repeatedly appeared on Hannity & Colmes to claim that effects of global warming are "exaggerated." Lomborg was a guest on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes twice in 2007 to discuss climate change and its potential effects [via Nexis]. On March 21, Lomborg criticized Al Gore for his "wildly exaggerated stories about what's going to happen" and "using the catastrophe sense to push through legislation ... that are actually fairly bad, in the sense that they will cost a lot and do very little good." On September 4, Sean Hannity introduced Lomborg as an author who "debunks numerous popular myths about global warming, such as sea levels rising, decreasing polar bear populations and the recent increase of hurricanes." In his appearance, Lomborg discussed rising sea levels that result from global warming and claimed that he doesn't believe we will "incur a huge catastrophe" as a result.

NewsBusters writers frequently cite Lomborg in their attempts to minimize threat of climate change. On numerous occasions, writers at NewsBusters have criticized media reports on climate change using Lomborg's writings and statements as evidence that "there are far more serious problems" than global warming "facing the planet." For example, Noel Sheppard highlighted author Michael Crichton's praise of Lomborg's book, and said of Lomborg, "It is plain to see why Lomborg is such a controversial figure, as he is not afraid to call a spade a spade regardless of who might find such straight talk inconvenient."

Glenn Beck recently announced that he would leave a church that "preach[ed] who to vote for," while discussing his 8-28 "Restoring Honor" rally. However, Beck is working with James Dobson on the formation of his "Black Robe Regiment," who, along with his organizations, has a history of trying to influence elections through churches, including advocating for pastors to endorse political candidates.

Beck says he "would leave [his] church" if it "started to preach who to vote for"

Beck: "If my church started to preach who to vote for, oh, the Republicans are better than the Democrats or vice versa, I would also leave my church on that." On the August 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing his 8-28 rally, Beck said, "If my church started to preach who to vote for, oh, the Republicans are better than the Democrats or vice versa, I would also leave my church on that." From The O'Reilly Factor:

BILL O'REILLY (host): Now let's talk about the theocratic theme of the event. So there's -- do you think America should be run with a Judeo-Christian model of behavior? Is that what you want in the halls of power?

BECK: That's what we've -- well --

O'REILLY: We had it at one time? We did have it?

BECK: For our behavior? Yes. Does that mean that I want -- for instance, I've gotten in a lot of trouble for saying if my church is teaching social justice the way that Jeremiah Wright teaches social justice, leave your church. Let me say the same thing. If my church started to preach who to vote for, oh, the Republicans are better than the Democrats or vice versa, I would also leave my church on that. Teach people correct principles that all rights come from God.

Beck noted that he was working with Dobson in forming Black Robe Regiment

Beck said that he discussed with Dobson formation of Black Robe Regiment. Discussing his Black Robe Regiment initiative earlier in the day on his radio show, Beck said that there were religious leaders he met with who were wary of the initiative and were concerned that if they joined him they would "lose half [of their] congregation." However, Beck said, Dobson endorsed the initiative. According to Beck, Dobson "looked [Beck] right in the eye ... and he said; 'I will start tomorrow.' "

But Dobson and his organizations have history of using churches to influence elections

ADF, which Dobson co-founded, encouraged pastors to endorse candidates in 2008 and "challenge IRS rules that prohibit tax-exempt churches from engaging in partisan politics." In a September 2008 post onThe Washington Post's On Faith blog, David Waters wrote that the Alliance Defense Fund, which Dobson co-founded, "is recruiting preachers to challenge IRS rules that prohibit tax-exempt churches from engaging in partisan politics, step up to the pulpit ... and endorse a candidate." From the blog post:

The ADF is recruiting preachers to challenge IRS rules that prohibit tax-exempt churches from engaging in partisan politics, step up to the pulpit Sept. 28 and endorse a candidate.

ADF officials say this will be a courageous act of civil disobedience to defend free speech. It's really just a stunt by a conservative Christian organization to get evangelical Revs. to rev up the base for the Republican Party ticket. ADF was founded years ago by leaders of more than 30 Christian groups, including Focus on the Family's James Dobson, a born-again convert to the McCain-Palin Republican Party ticket.

Not that conservative evangelicals are the only churchgoers who appreciate a good stump speech under the cross on Sunday morning. Democratic candidates have been known to increase their church attendance in campaign seasons, especially in African-American churches. In too many churches, the long liturgical season between Easter and Advent isn't "Ordinary Time," it's "Campaign Time."

It's clearly Campaign Time for the ADF. "The (Sept. 28) sermon will be an evaluation of conditions for office in light of scripture and doctrine. They will make a specific recommendation from the pulpit about how the congregation would vote," ADF attorney Erik Stanley told the Post. "They could oppose a candidate. They could oppose both candidates. They could endorse a candidate. They could focus on a federal, state or local election."

Beck recently promoted ADF's "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" initiative, in which "several hundred preachers" say to IRS: "[C]ome after me. I dare you." On the August 27 edition of his Fox News show, Beck hosted former co-chair of the Texas Republican Party and evangelical minister David Barton, who touted this year's "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" initiative, saying that "you'll have several hundred preachers standing up and saying, 'IRS, come after me. I dare you. Come get me.'" Beck later told Barton that "you've got to come back next week ... because we have to talk about that" and stated: "Oh, America, oh, tell your preachers and your pastors and your priests and your rabbis about this. Please." Beck has credited Barton as suggesting the formation of the "Black Robe Regiment," and Barton spoke at Beck's August 27 "Divine Destiny" event.

In 2006, Dobson's group sought "'church coordinators' who would encourage pastors to 'speak about Christian citizenship,' conduct voter-registration drives, distribute voter guides and run get-out-the-vote efforts." An August 16, 2006, Washington Post article reported that Dobson's Focus on the Family organization sought "'church coordinators' who would encourage pastors to 'speak about Christian citizenship,' conduct voter-registration drives, distribute voter guides and run get-out-the-vote efforts." The Post reported also reported that Focus on the Family "said its efforts would be nonpartisan." From the Post:

Conservative Christian radio host James C. Dobson's national organization, Focus on the Family, said yesterday that it will work with affiliated groups in eight battleground states to mobilize evangelical voters in the November elections.

In targeting individual churches the way political organizers traditionally pinpointed certain wards, Focus on the Family is filling a void left by the near-collapse of the Christian Coalition and stepping into an area where recent Republican Party efforts have created resentment among evangelicals.

As a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization, Focus on the Family is barred from endorsing candidates. Tom Minnery, vice president of the Colorado-based group, said its efforts would be nonpartisan.

[...]

In an e-mail message to supporters last week, Focus on the Family said it would partner with its state-level "family policy councils" to "combat voter apathy and encourage Christians to go to the polls" in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Minnesota, Montana and Tennessee. Minnery, in a telephone interview, said those states were chosen for their "live, hotly contested races."

The e-mail said Focus on the Family is looking for volunteer county coordinators whose duties would include "recruiting key evangelical churches." It also is seeking "church coordinators" who would encourage pastors to "speak about Christian citizenship," conduct voter-registration drives, distribute voter guides and run get-out-the-vote efforts.

In 2006, Dobson reportedly "work[ed] with ministers around Minnesota to mobilize in time to influence the Nov. 7 elections." The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported in September 2006 [accessed via Nexis] that "[a]s part of a campaign to rouse Christian conservative voters, Dobson is coming to the Twin Cities next week to speak. His group also is working with ministers around Minnesota to mobilize in time to influence the Nov. 7 elections." While the article noted that Dobson had previously "stressed that they wouldn't tell people how to vote," he also said that"[w]hether Republicans deserve the power they were given, the alternatives are downright frightening." From the Star-Tribune:

As part of a campaign to rouse Christian conservative voters, Dobson is coming to the Twin Cities next week to speak. His group also is working with ministers around Minnesota to mobilize in time to influence the Nov. 7 elections.

Republicans counting on a strong turnout of Christian conservatives at the polls may have other reasons for concern. Midterm elections often do not excite the masses. A signature issue, such as a ban on same-sex marriage, is on the ballot in fewer states this year. And the federal government has promised to crack down on church-based partisan politicking after complaints about such behavior in 2004, which could suppress religious leaders' involvement and dampen turnout.

Dobson and others are working hard to counter that possibility, though they acknowledge their disappointment.

"Whether Republicans deserve the power they were given, the alternatives are downright frightening,"Dobson told more than 3,000 attendees at a recent "Stand for the Family" rally in Pittsburgh.

The event was the first of three designed to energize Christian conservative voters. All three are in states that have hotly contested Senate races: Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

The Pittsburgh event was part political rally, part church revival. Held at a downtown hockey arena, it featured entertainment by the Christian pop group the Sounds of Liberty. An enormous U.S. flag hung behind the speakers, who included Dobson, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Gary Bauer of American Values. All warned of threats to religious liberty, to marriage and, as Perkins put it, of "our children being indoctrinated with homosexuality in our public schools."

All the speakers stressed that they wouldn't tell people how to vote.

But if a politician shares his principles on issues from judges to marriage "and is committed to the God of the universe, and from my perspective, Jesus Christ his only begotten son ... it would be a sin not to go to the polls and vote for him or her," Dobson said.

On Fox & Friends, Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney continued attacking unemployment insurance, by seizing on a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Harvard economist Robert Barro, which claimed that unemployment rates would have been at 6.8% had Congress not extended unemployment benefits. But Barro's theory and similar claims -- that extending unemployment benefits in the current recession provide a disincentive for people to find work -- have been widely disputed by experts.

Varney cites WSJ op-ed in continued attack on unemployment insurance

Varney seizes on WSJ op-ed to claim that "unemployment would be at 6.8%, not the 9.5%," if Congress hadn't "extended unemployment benefits." On the August 31 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Varney cited a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz wrote that "America's economy is headed for a major slowdown" and that "[t]he country needs stimulus." Proceeding to describe the "optimal package," Stiglitz recommended: "We should begin by strengthening the unemployment insurance system, because money received by the unemployed would be spent immediately." 

Blinder: "Extending unemployment benefits is one of the best forms of stimulus we know." On July 2, NPR reported that former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve and Clinton economic adviser Alan Blinder "supports the effort to extend expiring unemployment benefits." NPR quoted Blinder as saying: "Extending unemployment benefits is one of the best forms of stimulus we know." 

Martire: Stimulus from unemployment benefits "greater than any other fiscal action government can take." In a June 30 piece in the State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois, Center for Tax and Budget Accountability Executive Director Ralph Martire wrote: 

As for the contention that extending UI encourages people to avoid finding jobs so they can stay on the public dole -- well, it's just plain goofy. In May 2010, the private sector created only 41,000 jobs. That's 72,000 less than what's needed to keep up with the demand generated by natural work-force growth, much less creating the positions needed for the unemployed to find work. No one's thumbing a nose at getting hired to live in luxury eating government cheese -- there simply are no private sector jobs available. 

Perhaps the hawks have forgotten that consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the nation's economy. The best consumers are low- and middle-income folks, who don't earn enough to save, so they spend their paychecks. That is, when they have paychecks. See, if they've lost their jobs and the private sector isn't creating jobs and the feds cut off unemployment benefits, their ability to spend drops to, well, nil. Which is why the amount of private sector economic activity stimulated by unemployment benefits is greater than any other fiscal action government can take. In fact, dollar-for-dollar, it's five times more stimulative than the Bush tax cuts. 

Sure, the long-term deficit has to be dealt with -- but honestly and responsibly. Short-term, deficit spending -- particularly on things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, housing assistance and the like -- is creating jobs and saving the U.S. economy from disaster. 

EPI's Mishel explains why unemployment insurance is "such good stimulus." In a June 10 hearing before the House Ways and Means Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, the Economic Policy Institute's Lawrence Mishel testifed:

As I have explained, the only real option for increasing economic activity and consumer demand for goods and services is federal government intervention in the economy, specifically through more deficit spending. The safety net programs are a vital part of this picture. 

[...] 

The reason extending unemployment insurance is such good stimulus is that it gets money to people who are the most likely to have depleted their savings and thus tend to have no choice but to quickly spend essentially every dollar they receive on necessities found in their local economy. In other words, virtually every dollar spent on extending unemployment insurance benefits goes directly, and immediately, toward the purchase of local goods and services, providing an extremely efficient demand boost. Not only is extending and expanding UI benefits the right thing to do for the people hurt most by this economic downturn, it is also excellent economic policy.

CEPR's Schmitt: Unemployment insurance helps "sustain a community." In an April 28 article, McClatchy Newspapers reported:

And allowing workers to fall off the unemployment insurance rolls can have negative ripple effects, said John Schmitt, senior economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

"It hits individuals hard, but it also hits their communities, and more broadly the country," Schmitt said. "Having unemployment insurance benefits can help sustain a community through a very difficult time."  

The right-wing media is "giddy" over the possibility of winning a Republican majority in Congress in order to shut down the government. The shutdowns cost the government at least $800 million, furloughed over a million workers, delayed veterans benefits, shut down federally funded research, and suspended certain law enforcement activities, among other things. 

The 1995-1996 gov't shutdowns had massive impact on public and cost the government at least $800 million

Federal government shutdowns occur when Congress cannot agree to pass a federal budget.  According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, Federal government shutdowns occur for the following reasons:

Shutdowns of the federal government have occurred in the past due to failures to pass regular appropriations bills by the October 1 deadline; lack of an agreement on stopgap funding for federal government operations through a continuing resolution; and other impasses, for example, in 1995, the lack of an agreement on lifting the federal debt ceiling.

Then-speaker Gingrich was criticized for orchestrating two government shutdowns in FY 1996, which cost the government at least $800 million.  Between November 1995 and January 1996, two federal government shutdowns occurred. As Time reported:

As the clocks struck midnight on Nov. 14, 1995, so began the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history. For 21 days -- from Nov. 14-19 and again from Dec. 16, 1995-Jan. 6, 1996 -- nonessential government employees stayed home while their leaders fought to pass a federal budget. The shutdown was sparked when an agreement between President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress (led by then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich) could not be reached by Sept. 30, the expiration date of the previous year's budget. In the end, the shutdown, which cost the government $800 million in losses for salaries paid to furloughed employees, was settled when Clinton submitted a budget that proposed to eliminate the federal deficit in seven years.

Delay: Gingrich "told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him...sit at the back of Air Force One." In his book No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight, Tom Delay, who was the Republican House Whip at the time of the shutdown, wrote:

Negotiations spiraled downward, and after Clinton vetoed a stopgap spending bill, funding for government services ran out, and a shutdown began on November 13, 1995. Not long after, Gingrich made the mistake of his life. He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One and exit from the rear on a flight to the funeral of assassinated Israeli prime minister [sic] Yitzak Rabin. It was pitiful. The New York Daily News carried the headline "Cry Baby" above a drawing of Newt as a screaming baby in diapers. The Democrats even tried to take a blowup of the cover onto the floor of the House.

The Hill also reported that Gingrich orchestrated the shutdown after President Bill Clinton made him and Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) sit at the back of Air Force One on a trip:

Gingrich received heavy criticism for helping to engineer the shutdown after it was reported he said that it was partially a result of Clinton's making former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and him sit at the back of Air Force One.

Over 1 million federal employees were furloughed.  According to the CRS report, over 1 million federal employees were furloughed as a result of the 1995-1996 government shutdown: 

The most recent shutdowns occurred in FY1996. There were two during the early part of the fiscal year. The first, November 14-19, 1995, resulted in the furlough of an estimated 800,000 federal employees. It was caused by the expiration of a continuing funding resolution (P.L. 104-31) agreed to on September 30, 1995, and by President Clinton's veto of a second continuing resolution and a debt limit extension bill.

The second FY1996 partial shutdown of the federal government, and the longest in history, began on December 16, 1995, and ended on January 6, 1996, after the White House and Congress agreed on a new resolution (P.L. 104-94) to fund the government through January 26, 1996. On January 2, 1996, the estimate of furloughed federal employees was 284,000.8 Another 475,000 federal employees, rated "essential," continued to work in a non-pay status. The shutdown was triggered by the expiration of a continuing funding resolution enacted on November 20 (P.L. 104-56), which funded the government through December 15, 1995. There were several short-term continuing resolutions between January 6, 1996, and April 26, 1996, when P.L. 104-134 was enacted to fund any agencies or programs not yet funded through FY1996.

Time: Shutdown "cost the government $800 million in losses for salaries paid to furloughed employees." Time reported that the "the shutdown was sparked when an agreement between President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress (led by then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich) could not be reached by Sept. 30, the expiration date of the previous year's budget. In the end, the shutdown, which cost the government $800 million in losses for salaries paid to furloughed employees, was settled when Clinton submitted a budget that proposed to eliminate the federal deficit in seven years."

 American veterans received "major curtailment in services," including health services.  The CRS reported that American veterans received "[m]ajor curtailment in services, ranging from health and welfare to finance and travel."

Health research, toxic waste clean-up were shut down.  The CRS reported that, according to "congressional hearings, press and agency accounts," new patients were not admitted to NIH:

New patients were not accepted into clinical research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ceased disease surveillance (information about the spread of diseases, such as AIDS and flu, were unavailable); hotline calls to NIH concerning diseases were not answered; and toxic waste clean-up work at 609 sites stopped, resulting in 2,400 "Superfund" workers being sent home.

Hiring of 400 border patrol agents was suspended.  The CRS report showed that law enforcement services were suspended, including hiring 400 border patrol agents.

Delays occurred in the processing of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives applications by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; work on more than 3,500 bankruptcy cases was suspended; cancellation of the recruitment and testing of federal law-enforcement officials occurred, including the hiring of 400 border patrol agents; and delinquent child-support cases were suspended.

200,000 U.S. visa/passport applications went unprocessed; tourist industries suffered millions of dollars in losses.  The CRS reported that:

20,000-30,000 applications by foreigners for visas went unprocessed each day; 200,000 U.S. applications for passports went unprocessed; and U.S. tourist industries and airlines sustained millions of dollars in losses. 

Parks/Museums/Monuments closed costing $14.2 million per day in tourism revenue. The CRS reported an estimated loss of $14.2 million per day in local communities near the national parks, museums, and monuments due to the shutdown:

Closure of 368 National Park Service sites (loss of 7 million visitors) occurred, with local communities near national parks losing an estimated $14.2 million per day in tourism revenues; and closure of national museums and monuments (estimated loss of 2 million visitors) occurred.

Nonetheless, right-wing media "giddy" for a similar shutdown

Erickson: "I'm almost giddy thinking about a government shutdown next year. I cannot wait!"  Via Twitter, Erick Erickson proclaimed:

In response to criticism over this statement, Erickson replied:

Morris: "There's going to be a government shutdown just like in '95 and '96, but we're going to win it this time."  On August 27, Fox News correspondent Dick Morris gave a speech at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation's Defending the Dream Conference, saying: "There's going to be a government shutdown just like in '95 and '96, but we're going to win it this time." 

So, it's going to be same time next year, guys and women. Same time next year. We're going to be back here and we're going to be pressuring the people who we helped elect to oppose big spending and we will be telling them you do not tread on us. Now, there's going to be a government shutdown just like in '95 and '96, but we're going to win it this time, and I'll be fighting on your side.

Gingrich using his old 1995 game plan to shape new GOP strategy: Take back Congress, "refuse to fund," and force Obama to respond.  In April 13 article, The Hill reported on Gingrich's comments encouraging the GOP to cause a government shutdown over health care reform:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Tuesday that a government shutdown could occur should Republicans attempt to strip funding for the new healthcare law next Congress.

[...]

"A simple majority can refuse to fund. So, if you have Boehner as speaker and Mitch McConnell as majority leader, all you have to do is not write into the appropriations bill the money," Gingrich said at a breakfast sponsored by The American Spectator and Americans for Tax Reform. "If the president vetoes the appropriations bills, you repass them.

"The president has got to make it into a positive political issue to veto the appropriations bills. Remember, the only person who can close the government is the president. If you're prepared to pass the appropriations bills, he has to decide to veto a bill you have passed. And so you simply pass a bill."   

[...]

"You have to consistently communicate key messages because the presidency is such a powerful instrument," he said. "I think this city has fundamentally misunderstood what happened with the shutdown. To most of the country, it became a signal that we were serious...If we win we have every right to say 'the American people have spoken."

Asked if he would encourage the Republicans to push for a shutdown, Gingrich said that the GOP needs to be ready to stand on principle.

"It's especially important that they keep their word to the American people," he told The Hill. "[They] can't be intimidated...you have to believe what you believe in."

Dave Weigel reported that Gingrich similarly encouraged Republicans to send Obama a budget which refused to fund health care reform, and see if Obama "decide[s]...he's going to veto the bill" or not. From Wiegel's April 13 report:

At a luncheon at the Heritage Foundation -- his second meeting with conservative journalists and bloggers today -- Newt Gingrich expanded a bit on his argument, made most recently at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, that a new Republican Congress could roll back the Democrats' victory on health-care reform by refusing to fund it. I asked Gingrich how this would work, given the experience of Republicans in the winter of 1995 when a showdown over the budget forced a government shutdown.

"Wait a second," said Gingrich. "This is the standard, elite, inside-the-Beltway worldview. Tell me in what way we didn't win. After that, we got to a balanced budget. And what happened to the Republican majority?" The answer, of course, is that Republicans held the majority in 1996, while President Bill Clinton was reelected.

[...]

Gingrich, having argued that the 1995 shutdown was good for Republicans, argued that a potential battle over health care would be even better. "There's a new poll out this morning," said Gingrich, referring to a Rasmussen Reports study. "By 58 to 38, people want to repeal the health-care bill. It'll get worse as people learn more and as the failure of the bill becomes more obvious. So if you take that model, all the Republican Congress needs to say in January is, 'We won't fund it.' What the president needs to decide is: He's going to veto the bill. He needs to force a crisis on an issue that's a 58 to 38 issue. And it's going to get worse. It'll be 2 to 1 or better by the time we get down to the fight. Because this bill is terrible."

I followed up with Gingrich after the speech, largely to clarify how Clinton's reelection figured into this recollection of the shutdown. According to Gingrich, Clinton simply over-matched the Republicans in 1996 and skillfully made the speaker of the House his target. The ability of Republicans to hold onto Congress was impressiveness nonetheless. "I always look back on the budget fight as the moment our base decided we were real, that we weren't just politicians," said Gingrich. "I believe -- and John Kasich and Bob Livingston agree with me -- if we had backed off, we never would have gotten to a balanced budget."

Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett falsely claimed U.S. gross domestic product "contracted over the last three quarters" to suggest that the stimulus failed. In fact, GDP has increased for four consecutive quarters, and economists agree that GDP and employment levels are higher than they would have been without the stimulus.

Jarrett falsely claims GDP "contracted over the last three quarters"

Jarrett claims GDP "contracted over the last three quarters" and asks "would yet another stimulus be a waste of taxpayer money?" During the August 30 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, Jarrett claimed that the economic recovery act "failed to keep unemployment under 8 percent" and that "GDP has not grown but decelerated -- actually contracted over the last three quarters." Jarrett went on to ask, "[W]ould yet another stimulus be a waste of taxpayer money?"

GDP has increased in each of the last four quarters

Bureau of Economic Analysis: GDP has grown for the last four quarters. In an August 27 report, the Bureau of Economic Analysis estimated that GDP increased by 3.7 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and 1.6 percent in the second quarter of 2010. According to the BEA, GDP has increased during each of the past four quarters.

Fox News itself has acknowledged as fact that the economy has grown for the last four quarters. An August 27 FoxNews.com article reported that "[t]he economy has grown for four straight quarters." After Jarrett falsely claimed that GDP "contracted," Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said that "the economy is not going down, it's growing, it's growing slowly," adding that this was "not terribly surprising."

Independent and private analysts agree stimulus significantly raised GDP, employment

CEA: Recovery act raised GDP by at least 2.7 percent in the second quarter of 2010. In its fourth quarterly report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated that "the ARRA has raised the level of GDP as of the second quarter of 2010, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by between 2.7 and 3.2 percent."

Independent analysts agree that recovery act significantly raised GDP. In its quarterly report, the CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the recovery act with increasing the GDP. Included in these figures is the estimate by the nonpartisan CBO, which estimated that the stimulus raised GDP "by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent." CEA included the following chart in its report:

CEA: Recovery act has raised employment "by between 2.5 and 3.6 million." In its fourth quarterly report on the ARRA, the CEA stated: "The CEA estimates that as of the second quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.5 and 3.6 million. These estimates are broadly consistent with the direct recipient reporting data available for 2010:Q1."

Independent analysts agree that recovery act significantly raised employment. In its quarterly report, the CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the recovery act with increasing employment:

Economists say stimulus helped economic recovery

WSJ: 70 percent of economists surveyed said stimulus helped. The Wall Street Journal reported on March 12 that 38 of the 54 economists it surveyed "said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses, while six said the legislation had a net negative effect."

ABC News: Most on panel of economists "think the economy would be worse" without the stimulus. ABC News reported on February 18 that "most" of the economists on its panel "think the economy would be worse today without the big aid package, which totaled $787 billion and was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009."

NABE: 83 percent say stimulus raised GDP. A February survey of 203 members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) found that "[e]ighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA)."

USA Today: Surveyed economists said "stimulus package saved jobs." USA Today reported on January 25:

President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs -- but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.

Unemployment would have hit 10.8% -- higher than December's 10% rate -- without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.

Fox News baselessly suggested that Democrats would attempt to "skew" the fall elections by exempting "battleground" states from a requirement that they ship ballots to overseas military personnel at least 45 days before the election. This manufactured controversy has completely fallen apart: The only "battleground" state (as defined by Fox News) that received an exemption has a Republican official overseeing its elections. Moreover, the waiver process is part of the law and was mentioned during the debate over the legislation, which was co-sponsored by 26 Senate Republicans.

Fox suggests Dems will abuse voting rights law to swing close elections in "battlegrounds"

Fox suggests waivers are a "political move" by Democrats "fretting" over November elections. On the August 27 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said, "There are 10 states out there that are trying to get an exemption from the [Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment] MOVE Act law, and four of them are expected to have hotly contested races in November -- races that could come down to just a few votes." Introducing a report from correspondent James Rosen, guest co-host Alisyn Camerota then asked, "So are the waiver requests a political move?" Rosen then claimed:

"You know, with some Democratic strategists and pollsters privately fretting about their party losing maybe 40 seats in the House and six or seven in the Senate, the votes of those overseas military personnel -- who register to vote in higher numbers than the general population -- could indeed prove decisive.

Later in his report, Rosen said, "Among the 10 states [requesting waivers] are some real battlegrounds with races shaping up as photo finishes, including Wisconsin and Colorado, where incumbent Senators Russ Feingold and Michael Bennet, respectively -- both Democrats -- are locked in races that RealClearPolitics.com rates as tossups." As he spoke, this graphic aired:

Fox: States with tight races seek waivers as Democrats are "fretting" over elections.  On the August 26 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly introduced a report from Rosen on "whether our troops overseas will get the chance to vote in coming weeks as we lead up to the midterm elections." Kelly continued: "Ten states now say it might not happen. And four of those states have races so tight that a couple thousand votes could very well swing the election results." As Kelly spoke, a graphic appeared on-screen identifying Washington, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Maryland as four states where "military voters could decide races":

Rosen then claimed, "Some of the Democratic strategists and pollsters in this town are privately fretting about their party losing 40 seats in the House, maybe six or seven in the Senate. Therefore, the votes of these overseas military personnel -- who register to vote in higher numbers than the general population does -- could indeed, as you say, prove decisive."

Fox: The "perception" is that "these voters are gonna vote Republican" and that "states" "want to skew the results." On the August 25 edition of Fox & Friends, Camerota discussed the states' waiver requests with Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. During the segment, Johnson said, "There's a perception -- and it's not true -- in American political history that somehow, voters are going to be Republican -- military voters are going to be Republican. That goes back to the Civil War. Since then, there's been no discernible pattern. ... But there is a perception, based on the historiography, that somehow these voters are gonna vote Republican." Camerota responded, "So, then it sounds like some people are suggesting that states would withhold their right, or mess it up somehow, because they want to skew the results."

DOD grants waiver to only one of Fox's "battlegrounds" -- and its top election official is Republican

Associated Press: WI, CO denied; MD dropped request. An August 27 Associated Press article reported that Wisconsin, Hawaii, Alaska, and Colorado "were denied requests on Friday to ignore a new federal law meant to protect the voting rights of deployed troops and other Americans overseas." It also stated, "Maryland initially asked for a waiver for its Sept. 14 primary, but then determined it could get the ballots to military and overseas voters before the election."

Sole "battleground" state (as defined by Fox) that received waiver has GOP secretary of state. The AP reported, "The Defense Department granted Delaware, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington the waivers." Sam Reed, Washington's secretary of state, is a Republican.

In a statement to Media Matters, Shane Hamlin, assistant director of elections for Washington state, explained the state's waiver request:

In October 2009, Congress passed new legislation called the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (the MOVE Act). Congress assumed that, in order to comply with the long-standing recommendation of a 45 day transit period, states must mail the ballots to military and overseas voters 45 days before Election Day. Consequently, Congress mandated in the MOVE Act that states mail ballots to military and overseas voters 45 days before Election Day. This timeframe does not comply with Washington's statutory deadlines for candidate filing, printing ballots, mailing and receiving ballots, or certifying the Primary or General Elections. For example, state law establishes that the Secretary of State's Office will certify the results of the Primary on Tuesday, September 7. The MOVE Act's 45 day deadline is Saturday, September 18, 2010. Eight business days is not enough time to reformat, print and distribute 55,000 - 65,000 ballot packets for military and overseas voters. Keep in mind that each of the 6,600 precincts in the state has a different ballot.

The MOVE Act allows states to apply for a waiver from the 45-day requirement if the state can accommodate the military and overseas voters in other ways. Because Washington does provide the same amount of time for the ballots to be sent and received, but simply provides it on an altered schedule, Washington has applied for a waiver from this very specific requirement. Washington is still providing the benefits that the MOVE Act envisions, and is even exceeding those expectations by providing 51 days of transit time for the General Election.

Waiver process was included in bipartisan MOVE Act

States' ability to request exemptions is provided for in law. The MOVE Act adopted by voice vote on July 23, 2009. Prior to the vote, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) noted the waiver provision during a Senate floor speech, saying that the bill "ensures that military and overseas voters have time to vote by requiring ballots to be sent out 45 days before the election and allowing blank ballots to be sent electronically. It also provides some flexibility to States that cannot meet the 45-day deadline, as long as they come up with an alternative plan to ensure time to vote."

26 Senate Republicans co-sponsored MOVE Act. According the Library of Congress' THOMAS website, the legislation had 59 co-sponsors, including 26 Republicans.

Cornyn: MOVE Act "balance[s] responsibilities between elections officials and the Department of Defense." Discussing an amendment to attach the MOVE Act to the Defense Appropriations bill, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said the amendment would "help us restore the franchise, the vote, to our deployed military overseas," adding, "Our goal has been to balance responsibilities between elections officials and the Department of Defense, and I believe this amendment accomplishes that goal."

Chambliss lauded passage of MOVE Act, which included waiver process. In a July 24, 2009, press release Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), said, "This is an important bill that addresses many critical quality-of-life issues for our men and women. I'm pleased an amendment to ensure that our military men and women serving overseas are able to participate in the electoral process was included in the final bill."

Fox News' America Live repeatedly hosts Lou Dobbs to mislead on immigration issues, despite his history of making false and absurd claims on the issue, such grossly overestimating the number of new leprosy cases in the U.S. and blaming that distorted figure on immigrants.

Dobbs pushed falsehood that Obama is "holding border security hostage"

Dobbs pushes Sen. Kyl's claim--which Kyl later walked back--that Obama told Kyl "he would hold border security hostage" to get comprehensive immigration reform. On the August 26 edition of America Live, Dobbs pushed the claim that "Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, remember, saying that it was very straightforward, that the President said he would hold border security hostage to so-called comprehensive immigration reform." Host Megyn Kelly had to correct Dobbs, by noting that Kyl "dialed that back later."

Burton: "The president didn't say that. Senator Kyl knows the president didn't say that." The Washington Post reported on June 21 that Kyl "said that President Obama personally told him the administration will not support stricter border enforcement until Republicans back broad immigration reform." The Post continued:

The White House strongly denied the claim.

At a town hall in Arizona on Friday, Kyl responded to a voter's question about immigration by detailing a one-on-one meeting he had with Obama. According to Kyl, "The president said the problem is if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform."

"In other words, they're holding it hostage," Kyl said at the event, a video of was circulated widely online on Monday, but not from Kyl's office. "They won't secure the border unless and until is it combined with comprehensive immigration reform."

Bill Burton, a White House spokesman, said, "The president didn't say that. Senator Kyl knows the president didn't say that."

"But what everybody knows because the President has made it perfectly clear is that what we need to do is everything that we can to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," he added. "And that includes not just securing the border, but doing a lot of other things."

Sen. Kyl had to walk back his own accusation. From a June 25 National Review Online post:

Kyl, of course, had a small spat with the White House last week over comments he made at a town-hall meeting. Kyl, responding to a voter's question, detailed a recent one-on-one conversation he had with the president. "They are holding [border security] hostage" over hopes for comprehensive immigration reform, Kyl said at the forum.

Kyl tells us that the comments were "taken a bit out of context," and that the "they" he was referring to was the Left, "the president's base," and not the administration. "I did not try to start a fight. This meeting happened a month ago and we were talking in the context of his political problems. He was talking about how they think that if we secure the border, you guys [Republicans] won't have the incentive to work on comprehensive immigration reform."

America Live regularly hosts Dobbs to mislead on immigration

Dobbs falsely claims Obama's border efforts are a "foundation" for "unconditional amnesty."  On the August 9 edition of Fox News' America Live, Dobbs called the border security bill "a modest border security piece of legislation," and claimed "it would give [the Obama administration] the foundation to say, we did something about border security...and then move ahead and have their way on the issue of unconditional amnesty." Dobbs later claimed "we are not seeing a commitment to actual detention and apprehension."

In fact, the Obama administration has increased both border security and immigration enforcement. memo to which Dobbs refers specifically recommends against deferred action, which is defined as "an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time." The memo states that "doing so would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive," so, "Rather than making deferred action widely available to hundreds of thousands and as a non-legislative version of 'amnesty,' [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] could tailor the use of this discretionary option for particular groups such as individuals who would be eligible for relief under the DREAM Act."

Dobbs has a long history of immigration misinformation, including falsely claiming immigrants spread leprosy

Dobbs has a long history of spreading immigration misinformation and conspiracy theories. He has routinely discussed the North American Union conspiracy theory, incorrectly claimed that undocumented immigrants drain social services and don't pay taxes, and repeatedly amplified the falsehood that undocumented immigrants are disproportionately violent. He has been an unrepentant purveyor of hateful attacks, fraudulently claiming, for example, that immigrants are spreading leprosy and seek to reconquer the southwestern United States. And in 2009, he legitimized the thoroughly debunked birther conspiracy theory concerning the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate.

Dobbs resigned from CNN under pressure for his anti-immigration views. According to The New York Times: "[T]he president of CNN/U.S., Jonathan Klein, offered a choice to Lou Dobbs ... [he] could vent his opinions on radio and anchor an objective newscast on television, or he could leave CNN." As a result of pressure put on CNN by Media Matters and other Hispanic groups to drop Dobbs, he announced his departure from CNN, citing a desire to "go beyond the role here at CNN, and to engage in constructive problem solving, as well as to contribute positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day, and to continue to do so in the most honest, and direct language possible."

* This item has been edited from its original version.

Much of Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" weekend -- and the run-up to it -- focused on one thing: Glenn Beck. Beck introduced a Beck-sanctioned clergy group that he claimed represented "180 million people," repeatedly associated himself with Martin Luther King Jr., made outlandish claims about the impact of the events, and was praised as "one of America's most trusted and honored citizens."

"As Martin Luther King said ... ": Beck's litany of self-aggrandizing claims

Beck announces the creation of his own organization of clergy members, the "Black Robe Regiment." During his August 27 "Divine Destiny" event at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., Beck said, "Tonight, you are going to witness something historic," and later added that "some of the best and bravest pastors, priests, rabbis, clerics in the country" were present at the event. He continued, "Tomorrow, we will announce the beginning of the Black Robe Regiment."

Introducing Black Robe Regiment, Beck claims that clergy in his crowd "represent 180 million people." During his August 28 "Restoring Honor" event on the National Mall, Beck said, "The Black Robe Regiment is back again today. These 240 men and women of all faiths are standing here today. ... These 240 men and women from all faiths represent thousands of clergy that we couldn't fit into this area that are amongst you now -- thousands that have come here to the Mall to stand with America and God. And those thousands that are here represent 180 million people."

Beck: "As Martin Luther King said, I don't know if I'll be there when we reach the promised land." Beck said on his August 27 radio show that "we are at the beginning of the awakening." He continued: "As Martin Luther King said, 'I don't know if I'll be there when we reach the promised land, I don't know how long it's going to take, but we are going to reach the promised land, or at least the edges of the Promised Land.' "

Beck: "I can relate to Martin Luther King probably the most." During "Restoring Honor," after reciting the names of Moses, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington, Beck said that "out of all these giants, I can relate to Martin Luther King probably the most because we haven't carved him in marble yet."

Beck: "I have been looking for the next George Washington. ... I know he is in this crowd." During "Restoring Honor," Beck said, "Somewhere in this crowd -- I know it. I have been looking for the next George Washington. I can't find him. I know he is in this crowd. He may be 8 years old, but this is the moment. This is the moment that he dedicates his life, that he sees giants around him. And 25 years from now, he will come not to this stair, but to those stairs. And he can proclaim, 'I have a new dream.' That must be our goal: to raise the next great monument."

Beck compares himself to "the man who saw the iceberg" on the Titanic. During "Restoring Honor" Beck said, "I know that many in this country think that I'm a fearmonger. It is not a label that I think applies. I do talk about frightening things. But I don't think the man who saw the iceberg as the Titanic was about to hit it and said, 'It's an iceberg,' was a fearmonger. He was warning people on the ship."

Beck at Kennedy Center: "We are 12 hours away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." During "Divine Destiny," Beck declared: "We are 12 hours away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And it has nothing to do with this city or politics. It has everything to do with God Almighty."

Beck: "America today begins to turn back to God." During "Restoring Honor," Beck said, "Something beyond imagination is happening. Something that is beyond man is happening. America today begins to turn back to God."

Beck says "there won't be a dry eye in the house" during his speech "because it is so stirring." On his August 27 radio show, Beck told listeners that they "will regret not being" at the event, adding that "there won't be a dry eye in the house at the beginning of" his speech "because it is so stirring."

Beck: "God's just like given me like hints on stuff, you know, like, come on, can't you be a little more plain?" During "Divine Destiny," Beck said to conservative activist David Barton: "Maybe he does it to everybody else, but God's just like given me like hints on stuff, you know, like, come on, can't you be a little more plain? And, he just gives you hints."

"Servant of God": Beck's honorees and associates heap praise on him

Jackson: "God sent his son to this earth so that we could all gather. And I think that's the dream and the vision of Glenn Beck." During "Restoring Honor," Rev. C.L. Jackson, the recipient of the Beck-awarded "faith" medal, said, "God brought us here through this bright young -- I call him -- servant of God, son of God, Glenn Beck. ... God sent his son to this Earth so that we could all gather. And I think that's the dream and the vision of Glenn Beck.

Huntsman: Beck is "one of America's most trusted and honored citizens." During "Restoring Honor," a medal honoring charity was awarded to businessman Jon Huntsman Sr. Emma Houston, a woman who was treated for cancer at Huntsman's namesake cancer institute, accepted it on his behalf. After saying, "May I quote him exactly," she said, "Glenn Beck is one of America's most trusted and honored citizens. I am grateful to him for presenting to me, through Emma Houston, this award for charity."

Gray: Beck is "America's history professor." At "Divine Destiny," Pat Gray, co-host of Beck's radio show, said about Beck, "You know him as, as someone described to me in line at the National Archive today, 'America's history professor,' someone who tells the truth about what's going on in America today," adding, "I know him as someone who cares so deeply about America that he loses sleep nightly. ... He is a man who now loves people with all his heart and loves the Lord with all his heart, might, mind, and spirit. I know him as a man -- and so do you -- as a man who works tirelessly fighting for this country."

Alveda King thanks Beck for using "his popularity and influence to bring us together." During "Restoring Honor," Alveda King, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece, said, "It's absolutely wonderful for Glenn to use his popularity and influence to bring us together to focus not on an election or political cause, but to focus on honor and on the content of our character, and not the color of our skin. God bless you, Glenn."

Beck associates himself with the divine

Beck: 9-11 was a "wake-up call" from God. During "Restoring Honor," Beck said, "The Lord will always send a people wake-up calls. And he has been sending us wake-up call, after wake-up call, after a wake-up call. ... [Y]ou can send two kinds of wake-up calls. One through fear, like 9-11. 9-11 woke us up, and we stood shoulder-to-shoulder for a very short period of time."

Beck's "message to you" at Kennedy Center: "Trust in the Lord. If he tells you to do it, do it." During "Divine Destiny," Beck said: "My message to you tonight is: Stand where He wants you stand, and trust in the Lord. If He tells you to do it, do it. If you can't figure it out, He will. Just do it."

Beck embraces statement that "this is the beginning of the end of darkness." During "Divine Destiny," Beck said that earlier, he asked Alveda King, "Can you feel it?" Beck added, "And she said, 'Yes, I can. This is the beginning of the end of darkness. We have been in darkness for a long time.' "

Beck promoted event with weeks of self-aggrandizement

Promotional video compares 8-28 to moon landing, Iwo Jima, signing of Declaration. In a video posted on a "Producers' Blog" at his website, Beck placed "Restoring Honor" in the context of the moon landing, the Montgomery bus boycott, Iwo Jima, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and other landmark historical events. It also suggested that Beck is following in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, most of the Founding Fathers, Martha Washington, the Wright Brothers, and other notable historical figures. The video was also shown at "Restoring Honor" itself.

The "spirit of God unleashed": Beck claims divine influence over his event. In the days and weeks leading up to the weekend of 8-28, Beck repeatedly promoted the idea that God was directly involved in the weekend's events. He predicted "a miracle" would occur at the event, said that attendees would "see the spirit of God unleashed," and claimed the rally will produce an "awakening."

"American miracle": Beck's outrageous predictions for his "historic" 8-28 rally. Beck promoted his rally with outrageous hyperbole, calling it everything from "an American miracle" to a "defibrillator to the heart of America." Beck also claimed that with the rally, he and his audience would be able to "reclaim" the "distorted" civil rights movement.

Fox News falsely reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has instituted a new policy of only deporting unauthorized immigrants who have committed serious crimes. In fact, DHS continues to deport those who have not committed crimes, but, in an effort improve the efficiency of the removal system, the agency will dismiss cases against certain individuals who have pending visa applications and are likely to receive those visas under current law.

Fox falsely reports that new ICE policy gives unauthorized immigrants "free pass" if they "don't have a criminal record"

Fox & Friends mischaracterizes new policy: "[T]hey're not going to" deport people "if you don't have a criminal record." On the August 26 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, guest-host Alisyn Camarota falsely suggested that the new policy means "that if it is a noncriminal case, a nonfelony case," the case will be dismissed "rather than moving forward with deportation." Co-host Steve Doocy also falsely claimed that "if a person does not have a criminal record and has been in this country two years or longer, essentially they get to stay and are not deported." Doocy also said:

DOOCY: It looks like this could be a backdoor way toward amnesty for thousands of people. But what is ultimately the message here? Hey come on in, come on in, live in the country illegally because even if you are arrested, and the threat of deportation -- they're not going to do it if you don't have a criminal record.

Gregg Jarrett falsely suggests "only illegals who are terrorists, or murderers, or criminals will be prosecuted and deported." During the August 26 edition of Fox News' America Live, correspondent Gregg Jarrett falsely suggested that the new policy means "only illegals who are terrorists, or murderers, or criminals will be prosecuted and deported":

JARRETT: Meg, there is allegedly this memo from an Assistant Secretary at ICE, which sets forth this brand new rule. If you're here illegally, but you haven't committed any serious crimes, well, your deportation case may be dismissed. We haven't confirmed it, and ICE won't deny it on the record. But if true, this would appear to be de facto amnesty. Now, the Department of Homeland Security is reviewing thousands of cases, and the Houston Chronicle and a television station in Houston both reporting that DHS is moving to dismiss some cases against illegals who have no serious criminal records. So, instead of deporting illegals, as the law demands, they would get to stay here, free and clear. An immigration lawyer says he's familiar with that memo.

CURTWRIGHT: (video clip) This is going to allow the Department of Homeland Security to focus upon people who we want them to focus upon; criminals, terrorists, not family members, not people who have been here for a very long period of time.

JARRETT: Yeah, but the law doesn't say that. It doesn't say that only illegals who are terrorists, or murderers, or criminals will be prosecuted and deported. So, critics are calling this a concerted effort by the feds to circumvent the law and create a back door amnesty program. US Senator John Cornyn thinks it's wrong.

The following day, Jarrett did another report on America Live after reading the memo, which he had suggested had been unavailable the day before, and noted that it is limited to those with pending applications with USCIS. According to the ICE website, the memo has been posted online since at least August 24.

Kelly forwards claim that government is "going to pursue only the criminals." During the August 26 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly stated: "There are brand new developments right now on claims that the Immigration and Customs Department is starting to grant amnesty--right now--to thousands of illegals who are currently facing possible deportation." Kelly also said, "The allegation today, which is new, is those cases are now being dropped, because ICE has chosen not to pursue them and instead is going to pursue only the criminals, the so-called criminals who are in custody, right?" In a later segment, Kelly suggested that people are getting "a free pass" if they have "been here two years" and "didn't commit any crimes":

KELLY: According to the Houston reports, all right, the Houston Chronicle and the other local TV reports down there, the deal is if you've been in the country illegally more than two years and you don't have a criminal record--these are folks who are already in custody, who had deportation cases against them--ICE is looking at it and saying, well that guy's been here two years and he didn't commit any crimes, so, he gets a free pass.

Dobbs: "This is a de facto surrender of national sovereignty." Appearing on America Live to discuss the new policy, Lou Dobbs stated, "This is a de facto amnesty program. It is a refusal, just as John Morton, the Director of ICE said he would, to not enforce laws, immigration laws, but to do so only selectively and in his judgment as to what is appropriate. This is, I'm afraid, more than de facto amnesty, this is a de facto surrender of national sovereignty. It should be truly troubling to every American citizen."

In fact, policy applies to those likely to have visa applications approved, not all non-criminal unauthorized immigrants

New policy designed to improve efficiency of removal system. An August 20 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement memo, outlines a new policy designed "to address a major inefficiency in present practice and thereby avoid unnecessary delay and expenditure of resources." The memo states that when an unauthorized immigrant has a pending petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for legal status, "this fact tended to promote delays in removal proceedings." This is because immigration court judges will postpone court dates if USCIS has not made a decision on the pending application and once the visa is granted by U.S. Citizen and Immigration services (USCIS), the judge will rule against deportation, a DHS official contacted by Media Matters said. The policy is designed to help the government avoid spending extra resources on cases that were never going to end in deportation anyway and instead hasten the removal of those who could pose a danger to public safety, according to the official.

Policy directs ICE attorneys to dismiss cases for certain individuals who will probably be permitted to stay in the U.S. The memo states that cases should be dismissed if "there is an underlying application or petition" for legal status with USCIS and ICE determines that they "appear eligible for relief for removal." The memo provides the following standards for dismissal:

Only removal cases that meet the following criteria will be considered for dismissal:

• The alien must be the subject of an application or petition filed with USCIS to include a current priority date, if required, for adjustment of status;

• The alien appears eligible for relief as a matter of law and in the exercise of discretion;

• The alien must present a completed Application 10 Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form 1-485), if required; and

• The alien beneficiary must be statutorily eligible for adjustment of status (a waiver must be available for any ground of inadmissibility).

An alien in removal proceedings may appear eligible for relief but for a variety of reasons, ICE may oppose relief on the basis of discretion. In those cases, ICE should continue prosecution of the ease before EOIR regardless of whether USCIS has approved the underlying application or petition.

Those who have committed serious crimes or entered the country illegally are not eligible for green cards and would therefore not have their cases dismissed under the new policy.

AILA president: The policy "affects only people who can immigrate legally under existing laws." David Leopold, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told Media Matters that the memo "affects only foreign nationals in deportation proceedings who are the beneficiaries of immigrant visa petitions, which, when processed, will give them an immediate right to file for a green card. Stated differently, the memo affects only people who can immigrate legally under existing laws--meaning they have otherwise played by the rules and waited their turn for a visa."

DHS official: ICE will re-file deportation case if the visa is rejected. According to a DHS official contacted by Media Matters, immigrants with pending applications for legal status who have their removal proceedings dismissed by ICE will have their deportation cases re-filed if USCIS rejects their visa application. Indeed, the memo states that the dismissals will be made "without prejudice," meaning that ICE is free to subsequently pursue the removal case.

Policy is part of effort to expedite removal of those with criminal records. The Houston Chronicle reported that DHS is reviewing cases with pending court dates for those that could be considered for dismissal. The article stated, "Richard Rocha, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, said Tuesday that the review is part of the agency's broader, nationwide strategy to prioritize the deportations of illegal immigrants who pose a threat to national security and public safety." The immigration courts are currently facing a massive backlog with around 250,000 pending cases in June and an average waiting time of 459 days, according to Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

David Leopold of AILA also stated that "this memo, if implemented across the US, could go a long way toward reducing the tremendous backlogs that plague the immigration courts, and relieving overcrowding in the vast ICE detention system. The memo represents an attempted efficient use of scarce law enforcement resources so the government can target violent criminals and terrorists."

NY Times: Policy applies to those with "active applications in the system to become legal residents." The New York Times reported on August 26:

Mr. Morton's memorandum refers to a particular group of illegal immigrants: those who have been detained in ICE operations because they did not have legal status, but who have active applications in the system to become legal residents. The memo encourages ICE officers and lawyers to use their authority to dismiss those cases, canceling the deportation proceedings, if they determine that the immigrants have no criminal records and stand a strong chance of having their residence applications approved.

The policy is intended to address a "major inefficiency" that has led to an unnecessary pileup of cases in the immigration courts, Mr. Morton said. The courts have reported at least 17,000 cases that could be eliminated from their docket if ICE dismissed deportations of immigrants, like those married to United States citizens, who were very likely to win legal status, the memo says.

Dismissal does not grant legal status or "amnesty." Immigration attorneys reportedly explained that these dismissals do not "grant any form of legal status," contrary to the claim that the action represents "amnesty," a term conservative media frequently use to describe legislative proposals that would grant legal status to unauthorized immigrants who meet certain conditions. USCIS, not ICE, determines whether to grant the visa. The Times reported that Mary Meg McCarthy, director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, stated: "This is for people who do have a path to legalize their status ... This does not create a new path to legalization for anyone."

DHS deporting record numbers of unauthorized immigrants

Wash. Post: "Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants." The Washington Post reported on July 26 that "removals reached a record high in 2009" and "the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration's 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007." Data from ICE show that the agency has removed more criminal immigrants from the U.S. in 2010 than any previous year:

Glenn Beck has repeatedly promoted the idea that God is directly involved in his August 28 rally. He has predicted "a miracle" will occur at the event, said that attendees will "see the spirit of God unleashed," and claimed the rally will produce an "awakening."

8-28 attendees will "see the spirit of God unleashed"

At 8-28, "You're going to see the spirit of God unleashed." On the August 26 edition of his radio show, Beck told his audience, "You're going to see the spirit of God unleashed, unlike you have probably ever seen it before, at least at a public function. You are going to see the power of God."

Beck is "only writing a few bullet points" for speech in case "the spirit" wants to talk. On the August 25 edition of his radio show Beck said, "I am only writing a few bullet points" for his 8-28 speech "so that I don't get in the way of the spirit in case he wants to talk."

Favorable 8-28 weather forecast means "God is smiling". On the August 25 edition of his Fox News show, Beck said, "By the way the weather here in Washington is incredible. And it is supposed to be sunny, pleasant, low humidity. I mean, dare I say it? God is smiling."

"The secret" to 8-28 rally is "God". On the August 26 edition of his Fox News show, Beck said that he's talked about "Saturday's message" for "six months on one of the biggest cable news shows in history and the third largest radio show in America." He continued, "Just between us. Don't tell anyone in the media. The secret is God."

8-28 involves "divine providence"

"Divine providence" led to rally's scheduling on day of MLK speech. On the June 18 edition of his radio show Beck said, "It is the anniversary of the 'I have a dream' speech, from Martin Luther King. And, what an appropriate day. At first we picked that date and we didn't know, and I thought 'oh, geez.' But now, now I almost think it was divine providence."

"Ask [God] for his divine providence" and for "the finger of the Lord to appear." On the July 7 edition of his radio show Beck said, "Washington, D.C. August 28, I ask for your continued prayers. And I... God knows what I'm talking about. Ask him for - ask him for his divine providence and the finger of the lord to appear." He continued, "It is only through divine providence, it is really only through divine providence that this is happening so far."

"I was told to stand where I'm standing." On his August 27 radio show Beck stated: "I'm sorry for the things that I have done that have caused me to be such an imperfect messenger, but I was told to stand where I'm standing. God doesn't promise protection for anything. He doesn't promise me protection for my wealth, for my house, for my body. He doesn't promise anything. He promises me the only thing of value:protection for our souls. But that requires you to do the best that you can. And that's all I'm doing."

8-28 is "the beginning of an awakening"

"We are at the beginning of the awakening." On the August 27 edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck claimed that "we are at the beginning of the awakening. This is a profound moment. This is it. Tomorrow is a step in that. It's not the beginning, it's not the end, its just part of it. You are at the awakening. This is fantastic."

"Pray for the spirit to be in that area unbridled," "this is an awakening." On the August 27 edition of his radio show Beck told a caller "You pray for the spirit to be in that area unbridled. You pray that the people that attend understand that this is a sacred space and that this is an awakening. That it's not a -- it's not atea party rally or anything else. You pray for a veil of protection of both body and spirit on that. And if you would, personally, pray if I would have the ears to hear exactly what I'm supposed to say tomorrow and that I just might just be in the place to where I would say those things."

"A miracle" will occur on 8-28

"I expect a miracle on 8-28." On his July 22 radio show, Beck said "I expect a miracle on 8-28. Witness it with me. Make history."

Beck: "What is going to happen on 8-28 will be a miracle." On his television show on August 11, Beck claimed that "what is going to happen on 8-28 will be a miracle." Beck told his viewers that he is "filled with great hope because I remember, not what I've said to you, but what I know to be true. I've said for some time now, expect miracles." He also told his listeners: "Literally, expect to see miracles. Great, powerful miracles are coming."

Beck asks listeners to "be a part of an American miracle" on 8-28. On the August 23 edition of his radio show, Beck encouraged his listeners to attend his Restoring Honor rally by asking them to "be a part of an American miracle." Beck appealed to his listeners by saying: "Please, if you are not thinking of coming to 8-28, or there's some reason, you're thinking, 'Oh I'm not really sure' -- something miraculous is going to happen on Saturday."

Beck says that "something miraculous is going to happen" at his 8-28 rally. On the August 16 edition of his radio show, Beck claimed that he doesn't "know how many people will come" but that "something miraculous is going to happen." Beck suggested that "your life, your fortune, and your country are at stake." He further stated that "if the people show up, I think it's going to provide a shockwave to this nation." Beck told his listeners they need to "return to God, or we are going to be buried in the rubble of history."

European High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy Baroness Catherine Ashton decided to head to China instead of participating in the Middle East stakeholders dinner hosted by President Obama in the Old Family Dining Room this week.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair covered a lot of national and transnational categories as head of the Quartet -- meaning theoretically that the EU, Russia, and the UN were in the room along with the US, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, and Jordan.

But two notable stakeholders were absent, and President Obama's team took care to address this by issuing a "readout" of phone conversations between himself and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and Saudi King Abdullah.

HuffPost editor Roy Sekoff joined Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" Thursday night to assess the electoral prospects of the candidates who seem to be vying even now for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

That group includes former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and even Bush-era Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

"I actually thought it would be impossible to top the 2008 group in terms of freak-showishness, when we had Sam Brownback running against Darwin and Tom Tancredo running on the xenophobia ticket," Sekoff said. "But this group, they have so many loose cannons, it almost is enough to make one pine for Duncan Hunter."

OMAHA, Neb. — A federal judge overturned Nebraska's ban on flag mutilation Thursday, clearing the way for Kansas church protesters to continue trampling on the U.S. flag when they protest at military funerals.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf said the law can't be applied as long as Megan Phelps-Roper and fellow members of the Westboro Baptist Church "otherwise act peacefully while desecrating the American or Nebraska flag during their religiously motivated protests."

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California court has refused to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal a ruling that overturned the state's gay marriage ban.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal on Wednesday denied a conservative legal group's request to force the officials to defend voter-approved Proposition 8.

PHOENIX — A Phoenix man accused of sexually assaulting his unconscious girlfriend and broadcasting the attack live on the Internet has pleaded guilty to three charges.

Twenty-two-year-old Jonathan Richard Hock pleaded guilty Thursday to two counts of attempted sexual assault and one count of voyeurism in Maricopa County Superior Court.

HONOLULU — Six recruiters were accused Thursday of luring 400 laborers from Thailand to the United States and forcing them to work, according to a federal indictment that the FBI called the largest human-trafficking case ever charged in U.S. history.

The indictment alleges that the scheme was orchestrated by four employees of labor recruiting company Global Horizons Manpower Inc. and two Thailand-based recruiters. It said the recruiters lured the workers with false promises of lucrative jobs, then confiscated their passports, failed to honor their employment contracts and threatened to deport them.