Media advance false, misleading claims on abortion language, push anti-abortion alternative

On Dobbs, Donohue falsely claimed bill "explicitly" says on Page 110 that in the public option "you're going to have paying for abortion." On November 5, Catholic League president Bill Donohue stated: "[House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi is one of the problems here. She continues to deny that abortion is in the bill. Yet I have the bill in front of me. And on Page 110 of this 2,000-page bill, it explicitly says that in the public option that you're going to have paying for abortion." [United Stations Radio Network's The Lou Dobbs Show, 11/5/09]

Malkin: Current bill has "government abortion subsidies." In her November 6 syndicated column, Malkin wrote: "Upwards of 40 pro-life Democrats have objected to the plan's government abortion subsidies. Majority leaders evaded sunlight by keeping a compromise amendment on the matter out of the version of the bill made available to the public. As of Thursday afternoon (less than two days before the scheduled vote), Pelosi had yet to decide whether to permit an abortion ban amendment to her health care bill." [MichelleMalkin.com, 11/6/09]

NRO's Capretta/Washington Times: Democrats won't "back down on their unwavering commitment to abortion radicalism." In a post on National Review Online's "critical condition" blog that was quoted at length in The Washington Times' Inside Politics column, James C. Capretta wrote:

But there's apparently one thing most Democrats aren't willing to do, even if it jeopardizes their health care ambitions. And that's back down on their unwavering commitment to abortion radicalism.

For months, pro-life Democratic congressman Bart Stupak [MI] has warned Democratic leaders that he and a sizeable bloc of like-minded colleagues would vote against the Democratic health care bill in the House if it didn't clearly and unambiguously preclude taxpayer funding of elective abortions in a reformed system of subsidized health insurance.

This should be a no-brainer for House Democratic leaders. Giving Rep. Stupak what he wants -- which is a clean vote on a no-funding-for-abortion amendment -- would remove one more roadblock on their way to the nirvana of government-run health insurance. [National Review Online, 11/5/09]

RedState.com post hyped Stupak-Pitts anti-abortion alternative that would have effectively banned abortion coverage for many. From a RedState.com post by Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action:

Of course the false pro-life label is designed to give legislators cover back home. So we are working to get the word out to the grass roots. The Ellsworth Amendment allows the public option to pay for abortion on demand and allows government dollars to go to private plans that cover abortion. This amendment would undermine the only pro-life amendment that truly protects life in health care reform: the Stupak- [Rep. Joe] Pitts [R-PA] Amendment.

In order to stop unprecedented abortion funding in the guise of health care reform, we need everyone in pro-life America to contact Congress to prevent their tax dollars from going to abortion. [11/5/09]

Limbaugh fill-in Davis attacked "Cruella Pelosi," hyped Stupak actions on bill. From the November 5 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

DAVIS: Just a quick shout-out to a couple of folks: Bart Stupak of Michigan. Now this is a courageous Democrat. This is a guy who has essentially drawn a line in the sand and told Speaker Pelosi, "I've got about at least 40 people, you know, Democrats, who cannot, will not, support this thing, because it facilitates -- because of the degree to which it facilitates abortion," which it does.

And so, brother Stupak there in Michigan fighting the good fight in that regard and probably with a heavy price that lies ahead for him to pay, because woe be unto the Democrats who run afoul of, you know, Cruella Pelosi on this. There will be a price.

And the fact that they seem willing to pay it is the kind of thing that is kind of energizing, because you have to have 218 votes, and Speaker Pelosi herself doesn't know if she has them. [11/5/09]

Current bill forbids government money from being used to directly fund abortion

Page 110 does not say that public option requires government payments for abortion. Page 110 of the bill states: "PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION COVERAGE. -- An affordability credit may not be used for payment for services described in section 222(d)(4)(A)."

Current bill provides that premiums must cover costs of public option. The bill requires that premiums be set at a rate to "fully finance the costs of ... health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and ... administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option." Thus, since the bill requires that the public option be fully paid for by premiums and bans the use of affordability credits from the government for most abortions, the bill bans the use of government money to directly pay for abortions.

Status quo already allows people participating in federally funded plans to obtain abortions as long as funds are segregated. The bill's treatment of abortion -- allowing people participating in a government-administered health care insurance plan to use their own money to pay for abortion but forbidding federal funding of abortion -- is consistent with current law. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Hyde Amendment was originally passed to prohibit federal funding for abortions through the Medicaid program and has since been expanded to other areas. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the prohibition on federal funding for most abortions under Medicaid, according to a September 1 study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.

Current bill also prohibits government from requiring abortion coverage for insurance plans participating in exchange. From Section 222(e) of the bill:

(e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.--

(1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE. -- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary may not adopt in standards under section 224(b), the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) as part of the essential benefits package and the Commissioner may not require such services for qualified health benefits plans to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange.

(2) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE BY PLAN. -- In the case of a qualified health benefits plan, the plan is not required (or prohibited) under this Act from providing coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) and the QHBP offering entity shall determine whether such coverage is provided.

Anti-abortion alternative would have effect of banning abortion coverage for some who have it now

An amendment hyped by conservatives would have the effect of banning all coverage through insurance offered through the exchange. A failed amendment to the previous version of the House bill offered by Stupak and Pitts would effectively bar insurance companies from offering plans through the health insurance exchange that cover abortion. As Media Matters for America documented, such a provision -- if implemented as part of the current House health care reform bill -- would effectively cause a number of people who currently have abortion coverage to lose that coverage.

Media forwarded same myth about previous version of bill

Parker advanced myth that conservative proposal merely about "exclud[ing] abortion" from health reform bill. In her September 6 Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker described an amendment to the House's health care reform bill by anti-abortion members of Congress merely as a proposal "to exclude abortion from the bills" and suggested that a compromise provision in one of the versions of the House bills would change current law by allowing federally subsidized insurance plans to cover abortion as long as federal funds are not used. In fact, the anti-abortion proposal would effectively ban abortion coverage for those participating in health insurance plans that would be part of the proposed health insurance exchange -- including those who currently have such coverage -- and contrary to Parker's suggestion that "[s]egregating funding" would reverse current law, Medicaid already allows states to cover abortion so long as they don't use federal funds.

Additionally, on the September 1 edition of Hannity, Fox News contributor Dana Perino falsely suggested that allowing federally subsidized health plans to cover abortion is inconsistent with current law

Media fact-checks failed to note effect of Stupak-Pitts amendment. CBS, ABC, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Los Angeles Times all purported to fact-check claims about government funding for abortion but have ignored the fact that the Stupak-Pitts amendment by abortion opponents would have had the effect of forcing many who currently have abortion coverage to lose such coverage even if they receive no government subsidy.

Right-wing media respond to attack by demonizing Muslims

Schulssel: Think of Hasan "whenever you hear about how Muslims serve their country in the U.S. military." In a November 5 post -- headlined "Shocker: Man Who Shot Up Ft. Hood Soldiers Was Muslim" -- right-wing commentator Debbie Schulssel wrote:

UPDATE: Nidal Malik Hasan isPalestinian. Figures...Yeah, I wonder if that "Palestinian" town is actually Palestinian or part of the Islamic encroachment on Israel. Either way, he had every opportunity given to him by American taxpayers. And he murdered them anyway. This isn't just the Palestinian way. It's the Islamic way. And we expect Israel to make peace with guys like this? Even in the midst of the land of plenty, look at how they behave.

[...]

And, oh, yeah, think of Major Malik Nadal Hasan (and all of the other Muslim American traitorous soldiers in the U.S. military who've shot their fellow soldiers up and killed them or otherwise helped the enemy), whenever you hear about how Muslims serve their country in the U.S. military.

Well, actually, they do serve "their country" in the U.S. military.  And their country is Dar Al-Islam and greater Koranistan.

"It's Islamic terrorism, stupid. Wait, that's repetitive. It's Islam, stupid."

Geller: Shooter is in the "pious Muslim category," has "such Islamic bravery." In a November 5 blog post, Pamela Geller wrote: " 'Six months ago Major Hasan came to law enforcement attention for posting blogs supporting suicide bombing.' This puts him in the pious Muslim category." In a November 6 post, she wrote: "The pig jumped on a table and was shooting down on the crowd, which is why he could get so many off. Jihad Hasan was shooting soldiers in the back. Such Islamic bravery."

Malkin links shooter to other "Muslim Soldiers with Attitude." In her November 6 post headlined "The massacre at Fort Hood and Muslim soldiers with attitude," Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin linked the alleged Fort Hood shooter to "all those who came before Hasan," highlighting her March 2003 column on "Muslim soldiers with attitude" who are "suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security" and referencing "Muslim sniper" John Muhammad and "Muslim US soldier Hasan Abujihaad."

Right-wing media blame shooting on "political correctness," call for "special debriefings" of American Muslims

Carlson: "Could it be that our military is so politically correct... to be careful about treatment of Muslims" that this happened? On the November 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked: "Could it be that our own military is so politically correct right now ... to be careful about treatment of Muslims that they would have allowed this to go by?"

Michelle Malkin: "Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror." Commenting on "The whitewashing of jihad by the MSM," Michelle Malkin wrote: "I've said it many times over the years and it bears repeating again as cable TV talking heads ask in bewilderment how all the red flags Hasan raised could have been ignored: Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror."

Steyn: People afraid to report suspicious Muslim activity, lest they end up "in sensitivity-training hell for the next six months." On the November 6 edition of Rush Limbaugh's radio show, guest host Mark Steyn said: "You think about the next time you see some behavior that's suspicious -- guys praying, they're doing goofy things, they're talking about Saddam Hussein, all the things that the flying imams did. And you think to yourself, 'Do I call Homeland Security? No, I'm going to be tied up in sensitivity-training hell for the next six months. Maybe it's better to just forget about it, to ignore it.' And that is becoming the problem now, that we're conditioned to ignore it."

Kilmeade suggested that "it's time for the military to have special debriefings" of U.S. soldiers who are Muslim. On the November 6 edition of Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade asked Geraldo Rivera, "Do you think it's time for the military to have special debriefings of Muslim Army civili-- officers, anybody enlisted?" He added: "Because if I'm going to be deployed in a foxhole, if I'm going to be sitting in an outpost, I've got to know that the guy next to me is not going to want to kill me."

Farah falsehood: GW official "confirm[ed]" WND article; "take that, Media Matters!"

Guest-hosting the November 6 edition of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show, Farah said:

FARAH: Despite reports to the contrary yesterday, Major Malik Nadal Assan, the alleged shooter in the massacre at Fort Hood, is alive. And our report today, which is being disputed by Media Matters, says that he played a Homeland Security advisory role in the President-elect -- President-elect Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document. We now have confirmation of that report from the man that actually chaired that institute. His name is Daniel Kaniewski, deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University -- affirmed to WND in a telephone interview this morning that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of that transition task force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre. So, take that, Media Matters!

Media Matters debunked WND article's false headline, "Shooter advised Obama transition"

WND's confirmation of Hasan's identity is irrelevant to the glaring falsehood documented by Media Matters. In a November 6 item headlined "WND falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter 'advised Obama transition,' " Media Matters stated:

WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan "advised Obama transition" in the headline of an article by Jerome Corsi highlighting his listing as a "participant" in a report for the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University's Presidential Transition Task Force. However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition" -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events.

WND report: GW official "confirm[ed]" only that Hasan was an "Event Participant"

From the updated November 6 WND article:

Daniel Kaniewski, deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University affirmed to WND in a telephone interview this morning that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre.

Kaniewski said Hasan attended the meetings in his capacity as a member of the faculty of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, not as a member of the HSPI Presidential Task Force.

Kaniewski believed Hasan applied on the institute's website to attend the meeting and was accepted because of his professional credentials.

Kaniewski could not tell WND whether or not Hasan made comments from the audience that influenced the task force recommendations or not.

He further confirmed Hasan had attended several meetings held by the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University and that the institute is currently searching conference records to see if it is possible to determine what additional institute conferences he attended.

As Media Matters documented, WND claim contradicted by HSPI report and WND article itself

Corsi: No evidence "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition." In his article, Corsi wrote: "While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity."

HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force initiated in April 2008 -- well before Obama's election. According to the HSPI Presidential Task Force report Corsi cited to establish the link between Hasan and the organization, "in April 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners."

According to Kaniewski, Hasan not a Task Force member, listed because he RSVP'd for groups' open events. In a November 6 blog post, Gawker reported:

FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: Daniel Kaniewski, the institute's deputy director, confirms that Hasan attended task force meetings as an audience member, and stresses that he was not a member of the task force. "All of our events are open to the public," Kaniewski says, "and when someone RSVPs we put their name in the [report] so everyone knows who was in the room." He says institute staffers recall Hasan attending at least one task force event, and that he RSVP'd for several. "We do recall him speaking at one of our events as an audience member," he says, "but none of us recall what he actually said. Generally, our events are attended by people in the homeland security community, and Hasan had a very legitimate reason to be there. He was a fellow at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences."

Fox News advances false claim that "House Call" protest was "spontaneous," "organic," organized by "word of mouth"

Napolitano does not dispute Bachmann's description of protest as "spontaneous...organic."  Appearing on the November 4 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Bachmann asked "real freedom-loving Americans" to come to the steps of the Capitol, and said to guest-host Andrew Napolitano: "Judge, we're going to have a meet-up. And it's spontaneous. It's organic. Just last Thursday afternoon, I had the idea to really kill this bill. We need to have members of Congress see real freedom-loving Americans." After Bachmann pitched the protest, Napolitano said: "Alright. You and I have been at these tea parties. We have each spoken at them. And you know what the fire in the belly is like when freedom-loving Americans hear the words that they want to hear."

Bachmann on Hannity:  "[T]his was totally word of mouth. This was nothing that we organized, nothing that we planned. We didn't order one bus, one carload. Nothing."  On the November 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity, after registering surprise at the number of people who attended the rally, Bachmann claimed "this was totally word of mouth. This was nothing that we organized, nothing that we planned. We didn't order one bus, one carload. Nothing. Complete word of mouth. And estimates are anywhere between 20 and 45,000 people" attended.

Brent Bozell:  Protest was "spontaneous combustion."  On the November 5 edition of Hannity, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell responded to Hannity's claim that there was a "huge march on Washington today" by calling it "spontaneous combustion. This wasn't an instant tea party, this was a coffee urn exploding."

Peter Johnson Jr. advances GOP claim of no organization.  Discussing the protest on the November 6 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Peter Johnson Jr. uncritically advanced the claim that the protest came together without planning or organization on the part of GOP leadership, stating "the thing just kind of grew, the Congresspeople claim that there was no organization for it, and it kind of was a word of mouth thing."

Hannity: "This is a last minute thing."  On the November 3 edition of The Sean Hannity Show, after guest Mark Levin discussed how "we're hoping to put together a pretty good little rally," Hannity responded by stating, "can I add one thing? I don't want to interrupt you. ...This is a last-minute thing."

In fact, the event was organized in collaboration with prominent Astroturf group

Bachmann worked with Americans for Prosperity on the "House Call" protest.  Fox News hosts repeatedly ignored that, despite Bachmann's claim that "[t]his was nothing we organized, nothing that we planned," health care opposition group Americans for Prosperity [AFP] hosted a conference call with Bachmann and RedState.com's Erick Erickson before the protest.  A November 4 their website, AFP organized and ran numerous buses to bring people to the protest. AFP listed free bus rides for supporters in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Think Progress: Americans for Prosperity staffed the protest, organized buses from multiple states. Think Progress reported that at the protest, there were several AFP staffers organizing the arrival of buses. According to one of those staffers, "We have about 40 buses coming" from multiple states, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

And, it was aggressively promoted by Fox News days in advance

Beck: "We'll get the word out ... and we'll continue to have you make the pitch for people going to Washington, DC, noon this Thursday." On the November 2 edition of Glenn Beck's radio show, Bachmann stated, "I really believe, Glenn, if we can get good normal patriot, freedom loving Americans to D.C., converge at noon on Thursday on the Capitol steps, and what we need to do is literally go into these members of Congress' offices, look in the whites of their eyes and tell them don't take away my healthcare, don't take away my freedom. Because once government gets this power, Glenn, they can use healthcare as cradle to grave, they can use that as a pretext for controlling every other aspect of our life." Beck stated at the end of the interview, "Michele, God bless you. We'll get the word out and let's have you on a little bit later on this week and we'll continue to have you make the pitch for people going to Washington, D.C., noon this Thursday, and look them in the whites of their eyes." Bachmann again promoted the protest on the November 4 edition of Beck's radio program.

Bachmann: "[W]e began this on Sean Hannity's show." Also during the November 4 Glenn Beck broadcast, Bachmann further detailed her motivations to organize the protest, saying, "what we've done, and we began this on Sean Hannity's show, is just to - the only thing I know to do at this point to kill this bill is to ask and plead for real freedom-loving Americans to come to the steps of the US Capitol tomorrow."

Fox and Friends posts details of the protest on their website.  On the November 3 edition of Fox & Friends, two days before the protest, host Gretchen Carlson interviewed Bachmann. Calling the planned protest "the Super Bowl of freedom," Bachmann asked the show's viewers to join her on the steps of the Capitol, and listed guests who were scheduled to show up. While Bachmann was speaking, the on-screen text read: "Thursday reform bill protest planned."  At the end of the segment, Carlson told viewers that "people can get more information, they can go to FoxandFriends.com. We'll link it to your website."

Right-wing media attack Obama's introductory remarks

Fox Nation: "Appropriate? Obama Gives 'Shout Out' Before Fort Hood Remarks." Fox Nation posted a video of the press conference on November 5 with the headline, "Appropriate? Obama Gives 'Shout Out' Before Fort Hood Remarks":

Drudge headline: "Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting..." Drudge posted a link to a column by Robert A. George under the headline "Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting..." From the Drudge Report on November 6:

Commentary's Chavez: "He treated the event like a pep rally." Linda Chavez wrote in a November 5 blog post for Commentary Magazine that "President Obama's rushed press conference was surprising in its flippancy nonetheless. Before he got to the issue on everyone's mind - namely the deaths of Americans in uniform - the president gave a 'shout-out' to government bureaucrats gathered for a previously scheduled conference at the Interior Department, complete with appreciative chuckles. He treated the event like a pep rally rather than a tragic occasion with a wider audience than those gathered in the room. I wonder how many media outlets will compare Obama's performance to President Bush's 'Pet Goat' moment on 9/11. I won't hold my breath."

GatewayPundit: Obama addressed shooting "[a]fter two minutes of smiling, pointing and dithering." GatewayPundit blogger Jim Hoft wrote on November 5, "After two minutes of smiling, pointing and dithering... Barack Obama finally got around to mentioning the massacre at Fort Hood in Texas. The president then went on to tell the audience what great admiration he has for the men and women in uniform...Except, of course, for those serving in Afghanistan who he refuses to support."

Ben Johnson: Obama "feels there is no event so serious that it cannot be prefaced by a moment of glib hipness." On November 5 Johnson wrote on David Horowitz' Newsreal website that Obama's "shout out" "says it all: our commander-in-chief feels there is no event so serious that it cannot be prefaced by a moment of glib hipness, no solemn loss so sacred he will deny himself a moment of wry self-indulgence. Soldiers were killed? Let's say hi to Joe first. An entire theater of war needs a plan to defeat the terrorists who struck America on 9/11? No reason I can't go golfing, shoot some hoops, and hit the town with Michelle."  Johnson added, "We desperately need an adult in the White House. Sadly, today's press conference proves we do not have one."

American Thinker: "Our clueless C in C." American Thinker blogger Clarice Feldman wrote on November 5, "Twelve soldiers were murdered in cold blood at Fort Hood. Thirty others were wounded. Our Commander in Chief calls a press conference and begins it with a long thanks to the Interior Department and Indians who just concluded a conference and  then gives a good natured 'shout out' to an attendee, all with a studied nonchalance, before he even mentions the outrage on our military base."

Right-wing media falsely claim Pelosi broke 72 hours pledge

The Weekly Standard: "Pelosi's agreement to leave the 'final' bill online 'at the very end' of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge." In a November 5 blog post, the Weekly Standard's John McCormack wrote that Pelosi broke her pledge to put the "final" health care bill online 72 hours before it comes to a vote because, even though she posted the text of the bill and the manager's amendment online, "House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example." McCormack wrote that this is because the "Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order." From McCormack's Weekly Standard report in a July 14 post, a July 15-17 Republican press release for the Education & Labor Committee linked to its report, and the Ways & Means Committee linked to its report in an October 15 post.

Rules committee amendments don't apply to 72 hour measure

Sunlight Foundation: H. Res. 554 does not cover amendments to bills, and manager's amendment is "an extra-final version of legislation." According to a post on The Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that advocates for government transparency, "the proposed 72 hour rule written into H. Res. 554 (the Read the Bill bill) does not cover amendments to bills," and the manager's amendment "amount[s] to an extra-final version of legislation." The post stated that Pelosi's decision to put the Manager's Amendment online 72 hours in advance was "commendable." From the post:

A Manager's Amendment is a partial substitute for the underlying legislation that often includes many last minute compromises to gain support from lawmakers on the fence. There is no required procedure for the public disclosure of Manager's Amendments, but most are posted with the list amendments to be considered on the Rules Committee web site, usually the day before consideration.

[...]

While the proposed 72 hour rule written into H. Res. 554 (the Read the Bill bill) does not cover amendments to bills, the decision to provide adequate time for the health care bill Manager's Amendment is highly commendable. These long amendments are farther reaching in scope than other amendments and amount to an extra-final version of legislation that is not recognized in most people's mental image of "How A Bill Becomes A Law." Acknowledging that the bill's language should be available at all stages for at least 72 hours before action is taken is an extremely important step in the right direction.

Sunlight Foundation: "A milestone" that the text was posted online. The Sunlight Foundation's John Wonderlich also wrote in a November 1 blog post of the text of the bill: "September 24th, Speaker Pelosi said that the healthcare bill would be online for 72 hours.... That 72 hours is now.  The bill is online... We should recognize this as a milestone."

Hoyer: Adding an abortion compromise is not a violation of the pledge. According to a November 4 The Hill article, "Lawmakers said the abortion compromise may not be included in the final version of the bill to be released as soon as Wednesday, called the 'manager's amendment.' Instead, it may be included in the 'rule,' which is done the day before the vote. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday he did not consider that a violation of his pledge to have the bill language available for three days before a vote." According to the article, Hoyer said: "We said the manager's amendment we would give 72 hours for...Obviously, we have had 72 hours on the bill. So I don't think that is a violation."

WND article featured false headline "Shooter advised Obama transition"

From the November 6 WND article:

WND claim contradicted by HSPI report and WND article itself

Corsi: No evidence "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition." In his article, Corsi wrote: "While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity."

HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force initiated in April 2008 -- well before Obama's election. According to the HSPI Presidential Task Force report Corsi uses to establish the link between Hasan and the organization, "in April 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners."

According to HSPI, Hasan not a Task Force member, listed because he RSVP'd for groups' open events. In a November 6 blog post, Gawker reported:

FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: Daniel Kaniewski, the institute's deputy director, confirms that Hasan attended task force meetings as an audience member, and stresses that he was not a member of the task force. "All of our events are open to the public," Kaniewski says, "and when someone RSVPs we put their name in the [report] so everyone knows who was in the room." He says institute staffers recall Hasan attending at least one task force event, and that he RSVP'd for several. "We do recall him speaking at one of our events as an audience member," he says, "but none of us recall what he actually said. Generally, our events are attended by people in the homeland security community, and Hasan had a very legitimate reason to be there. He was a fellow at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences."

Hasan was listed in the group's report as one of roughly 300 "Task Force Event Participants."

Hannity twice stated that the Capitol Hill crowd numbered 20,000 -- before drastically walking it back

Hannity: "20,000 people showed up today." During the November 5 edition of ABC Radio Network's The Sean Hannity Show, Hannity stated, "We announced on Hannity Friday night on the Fox News Channel, we had Congresswoman Michele Bachmann [R-MN] on, and she mentioned that there was going to be on Thursday, she was going to put together in less than a week a little town hall on -- what do you want to call it -- march on our nation's Capitol. And anyway, 20,000 people showed up today."

Hannity: "[W]hat, 20,000 people showed up today." Hannity subsequently stated, "That was Jon Voight, the actor, who on his own heard -- I guess was watching Hannity last Friday -- and heard Congresswoman Michele Bachmann announce that she was going to have this rally today in preparation for what we expect to be a vote on a rare Saturday edition of Congress, and, what, 20,000 people showed up today."

Hannity: "I heard there was, like, 5,000 people plus there." Toward the end of his radio show, Hannity backtracked from his earlier estimates, responding to a caller's statement that "there was more than 1,000 people here," by stating, "I heard there was, like, 5,000 people plus there."

Citing U.S. Capitol Police, MSNBC's First Read reported much lower crowd estimates

MSNBC.com: "Three Capitol Hill police officers all guessed that the crowd numbered at about 4,000." In a November 5 First Read blog post, MSNBC.com reported, "The crowd, per [NBC'S Luke] Russert, is so far about 3,000 to 3,500, according to Capitol Police estimates." In a subsequent update, MSNBC reported, "Three Capitol Hill police officers all guessed that the crowd numbered at about 4,000."

Prior to the Fox News-promoted rally, Hannity predicted a "massive" crowd

Hannity: "I hear there's going to be a lot of people -- thousands of people." During the November 4 edition of his Fox News' show, Hannity stated, "All right, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann announced on this program last Friday that at noon tomorrow -- by the way, anybody that wants to go, you can go to the nation's capitol -- they're going to have a press conference, and then I hear there's going to be a lot of people -- thousands of people. Our cameras are going to be there. We'll have full coverage on the program tomorrow night."

Hannity: "I am told the crowd is going to be massive." During the November 4 edition his radio show, Hannity responded to a caller who said, "There's nine of us traveling in an RV with three buses behind us heading out of Georgia to go see Michele Bachmann tomorrow at noon," by stating, "I can tell you, I am told the crowd is going to be massive."

Fox News and its personalities, including Hannity, aggressively promoted protest. In the days leading up to the November 5 protest, and following its pattern of advocacy of right-wing events, Fox News and its personalities' repeatedly promoted the anti-health care reform protest spearheaded by Bachmann. Fox News previously promoted numerous other rallies such as the April 15 tea party protests, health care town hall protests, and the 9-12 march on Washington.

Conservative media previously inflated crowd estimates for the 9-12 March on Washington

Media conservatives ran wild with 9-12 protest crowd estimates. Although a D.C. Fire Department official estimated 9-12 March crowds at 60,000 to 75,000 people, media conservatives including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and Fox & Friends co-hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson cited participant numbers in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions.

PolitiFact.com: D.C. Fire Department official said "he thought between 60,000 and 75,000" participated. PolitiFact.com investigated whether conservative bloggers were falsely attributing a picture of a large crowd on the National Mall to the 9-12 events and concluded that they were. From PolitiFact:

We spoke with Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department, who said that the local government no longer provides official crowd estimates because they can become politicized. That said, on the morning of Sept. 12, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up.

"It was in no way an official estimate," he said.

We asked Piringer whether there were enough protesters to fill the National Mall, as depicted in the photograph.

"It was an impressive crowd," he said. But after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol the crowd "only filled the Capitol grounds, maybe up to Third Street," he said.

Anti-reform rally featured extremist images

"National Socialist Health Care, Dachau, Germany - 1945" From a blog post by the Center for American Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"Got Good Health Care? Let me cure that for you. Stop Obamunism." From a November 5 Huffington Post slide show:

"OBAMA - Gov't TAKE OVER ... JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY!" From the Huffington Post slide show:

Pelosi: "UnAmerican McCarthyite." From MSNBC.com:

"Maoism is not reform." From the Huffington Post slide show:

"Obama Listens to Mao, I listen to Fox News." From the Huffington Post slide show:

"KEN-YA TRUST OBAMA." From MSNBC.com:

NBC's First Read reports on "jaw-dropping signs." In a November 5 post on the rally, the MSNBC.com blog First Read reported:

Here are some of the more jaw-dropping signs seen at the rally:

• "Get the Red Out of the White House."

• "Waterboard Congress"

• "Traitor to the U.S. Constitution" (Picture of Obama on sign)

• "Ken-Ya Trust Obama?" (Rep. Steve King, R-IA, autographing the sign)

• "Un-American McCarthyite" (with picture of Pelosi)

• "I'm the King of the World: Remember the Titanic?" (Drawing of Obama in the mold of the 'Jovial Sambo' from the Jim Crow era doing the Leo Titanic pose."

Fox News personalities aggressively promoted Bachmann's protest against health care reform bill

Fox News follows pattern of advocacy in promoting November 5 rally. Fox News and its personalities -- including judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, contributor Newt Gingrich, hosts Gretchen Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and their website The Fox Nation -- repeatedly promoted Bachmann's November 5 anti-reform protest.

Fox News has repeatedly engaged in conservative advocacy by promoting protests

Fox News promoted April 15 tea parties. In the lead-up to the April 15 tea parties, which the channel repeatedly described as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties," Fox News frequently aired segments publicizing the events and encouraging viewers to get involved. A Media Matters for America study found that from April 6 to 13, Fox News featured at least 20 segments on the "tea party" protests. A subsequent Media Matters study found that from April 6 to 15, Fox News aired at least 107 commercial promotions for its coverage of the April 15 tea parties.

Fox News promoted town hall disruptions. Fox News promoted disruptions of Democratic town hall events by protesters opposed to health care reform -- protests that were touted by Republican leaders and supported by conservative groups. Following the August 2 disruption of a town hall event hosted by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Fox News personalities repeatedly lauded such protesters and urged viewers to take similar action.

Fox News promoted 9-12 protests. In the lead-up to the 9-12 protest, Beck's website worked with others organizing the September 12 "March on Washington," and Beck repeatedly encouraged viewers to attend the protest. Fox News also heavily promoted the Tea Party Express tour -- the final stop of which was the 9-12 protest -- on Fox News, Fox Business, The Fox Nation, and FoxNews.com.

Beck, BigGovernment's Flynn baselessly suggested Wicks prevented prosecutions

Holding up picture of Wicks, Beck said Obama administration "gets its point across" through "propaganda" or attacks by SEIU "thugs." From the November 3 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: [Y]ou know what? There are two ways this administration gets its point across, and I'm going to show both of them to you through this individual, Buffy Wicks. They either trick you through propaganda or they do it this way.

[video clip]

BECK: SEIU. SEIU. The thugs attacking a man at a Missouri town hall meeting. How are these two stories connected, and how is Buffy Wicks coming into play on this? We go to Mike Flynn. He is the editor-in-chief of BigGovernment.com. [11/03/09]

Beck and Flynn repeatedly attempted to tie Wicks to the lack of prosecutions for the alleged attack on tea party protestor in St. Louis. Discussing Wicks, Beck said to Flynn: "She's also, coincidentally -- in Missouri, she was also the campaign manager there, right? Campaign manager for Barack Obama." Flynn responded, in part: "Now, part of that effort, what they did -- there was a very famous, it got some national attention -- is they created an Obama truth squad. And what they did is that Buffy Wicks organized at the Obama campaign headquarters a press conference of law enforcement officials, prosecuting attorneys, district attorneys, at the campaign headquarters who issued a warning that they would prosecute rival campaigns for any -- what they saw as misleading statements from their campaigns."

Later, Beck and Flynn each suggested that Wicks has or may have some connection to the lack of prosecution of those involved in the Missouri incident:

FLYNN: I mean, the incident happened August 6th. Charges were filed. [Protester Kenneth] Gladney went to the hospital. Immediately, the Democrats brought in a high-powered attorney to defend the SEIU thugs who were charged with assault, and it's just kind of disappeared.

And what's interesting is that it disappeared within the jurisdictions of those individuals who are part of Buffy Wicks' truth squad.

BECK: I don't think that's true. Is that true? I don't think that's true that she was a part of the -- that they were a part of -- they were the same people of the truth squad, but I'm not sure. I'd have to check --

FLYNN: No, not the individuals, the individuals right now who are not pursuing the charges.

BECK: OK. We'll have to look into that. Here's my point -- and I want to follow this up tomorrow -- why haven't charges been filed? It has been 90 days. Why haven't they been filed? It's my understanding that it's now being kicked to the county, which the county usually only handles misdemeanors. This sounds like felony assault.

FLYNN: Right.

BECK: I'd like to know what game is being played through strings being pulled through the purple people. Also, the administration -- is Buffy Wicks involved? How is she involved? This is all propaganda to send a message, and they're getting off scot-free. I'm wondering how exactly. Mike, keep digging into it, and we'll talk to you again.

FLYNN: We will. All right. Thanks. [11/03/09]

Conservative commentator Vadum echoed Beck's, Flynn's attacks. Writing for conservative David Horowitz's Newsreal.com blog, the Capital Research Center's Matthew Vadum highlighted Flynn's assertion that the alleged assault case has "disappeared within the jurisdictions of those individuals who are part of Buffy Wicks' truth squad." [Newsreal.com, 11/04/09]

None of them cite actual evidence of Wicks' involvement. Beck, Flynn, and Vadum cited no evidence that Wicks had any involvement in the alleged attack or in the decisions made by Missouri law enforcement officials about whether to bring any people to trial based on the incident.

Right-wing media continue to flog claims that SEIU "thugs" beat up tea party protester, White House was involved

Breitbart claimed White House literally "directed" town hall violence. In a Washington Times op-ed, Breitbart cited the incident in St. Louis and distorted a reported quote from a White House official in claiming that "union thugs were directed by the White House to go to" the meetings "and 'punch back twice as hard.' " In fact, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina reportedly used that phrase while speaking to Senate Democrats -- not to any union groups -- and there is no indication it was anything other than a metaphorical explanation of how the White House plans to respond to attacks against Senate Democrats.

Beck said SEIU "delivers beatdowns to opponents," asks, "[W]ho would have thought union members might be thugs?" On August 10, Beck said: "While the SEIU dons their health care '09 T-shirts and delivers beatdowns to opponents, the tensions keep getting worse and the president really is not saying much helpful. You know what I mean? How about throwing us a bone here, Mr. President? How about a little, 'Hey, you know what? You guys should knock it off'?" Later, Beck said: "Who's the mob here? Kenneth Gladley [sic], he is a 38-year-old conservative. He'd probably say, I don't know. SEIU, you know, the people -- when I was handing out "don't tread on me" flags and I was attacked by a member of the SEIU?"

Beck subsequently added:

BECK: First of all, who would have thought that union members might be thugs? Not me.

You know, I am so sick and tired of the media and everybody else equating union thugs, like these guys, with regular American citizens who have gathered -- most of them -- for the first time in their lives to be heard. This isn't a bunch of college kids and hippies and union members being paid to protest. These are regular people who see how things are being run in this government, things like, oh, I don't know, Chicago politics, and they're terrified at the prospects of government-run health care. [8/10/09]

Beck, Breitbart's BigHollywood, BigGovernment websites on a witch hunt for Wicks

Beck, Breitbart's website attacked Wicks for participating in NEA conference call. As of November 5, Breitbart's BigHollywood.com has posted 21 different entries attacking Wicks. Breitbart's BigGovernment.com has posted 13 entries attacking Wicks, some of which are cross-posts from BigHollywood.com. On each occasion, the entries brought up Wicks' participation in an August 5 National Endowment for the Arts conference call. Beck has also previously attacked Wicks, saying, "Valerie Jarrett is the one that Buffy [Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement] was working for. Buffy, the propaganda slayer." According to a Nexis search, Beck has attacked Wicks on at least four occasions.

Beck compared NEA conference call to Goebbels. On November 3, Beck said of the NEA conference call: "Advocating through art is known as propaganda. You should look up the name Goebbels." [11/03/09]

No evidence of illegality in NEA conference call. As Media Matters for America has documented, advancing Beck's and Breitbart's aggressive promotion of the NEA conference call, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson and conservative columnist Ben Shapiro alleged that the NEA broke laws against lobbying and electioneering during the secretly taped call. In fact, the transcript of the conference call released by Breitbart's website contains no evidence of illegal electioneering or lobbying by government officials.

Baseless attacks against Wicks part of pattern

Right-wing media have repeatedly attacked the targets of their witch hunts with false and baseless charges. In addition to the baseless claims that Wicks is preventing prosecutions of people involved in the alleged assault in Missouri and that the NEA conference call contains evidence of illegality, right-wing media advanced other falsehoods, including:

• Education Department official Kevin Jennings "cover[ed] up statutory rape"

• State Department official Harold Koh "advocates the use of Sharia law in America"

• White House official Cass Sunstein advocated for forced organ donation, and that he argued that "you should not be able to remove rats from your home"

• former White House official Van Jones is a "convicted felon"

• Obama science and technology adviser John Holdren called for forced abortion and forced sterilization.

Right-wing media figures have also made baseless charges against Obama judicial nominees David Hamilton and Edward Chen and have smeared White House communications director Anita Dunn for stating that Mao Zedong was one of her "favorite political philosophers," and "manufacturing czar" Ron Bloom for stating in February 2008 that he agreed "with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.

Fox News personalities endorse V, claim its "similarities" to Obama are "eerie"

Beck newsletter: V seems to be "based exactly on what Glenn has been saying about progressives"; "[w]atch and decide for yourself." Glenn Beck's November 4 newsletter highlighted V under the headline "Favorite new show for Glenn?"

Glenn has long talked about the progressives and their goal of transforming the country -- transforming it into something reminiscent of a Karl Marx daydream. There is a new TV show on called 'V' on ABC that debuted last night which seems to be based exactly on what Glenn has been saying about progressives for the last couple of years. Watch and decide for yourself ... but the similarities are eerie.

Hannity: V "seems to be taking aim at Obama-mania," is "a show that I can actually get behind." On the November 4 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity said:

HANNITY: And a new ABC drama seems to be taking aim at Obama-mania. That's right, you heard me right. The show is called V, and it focuses on a telegenic leader who arrives from outer space offering a message of hope and compromise and promising, you guessed it, universal health care. Sound familiar? Oh, and the media? They love this new leader. Now, V premiered last night. Let's take a look at a few clips.

[...]

You know, I think this is one TV show that I can actually get behind.

O'Reilly: "It's pretty apparent" V takes shots at Obama; "I've got to watch that show." After airing clips of V, Bill O'Reilly stated on the November 4 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, "I've got to watch that show," adding that "it's pretty apparent the scriptwriters are taking some shots at President Obama."

Fox News figures used Fox's 24 to support the use of torture by U.S. authorities, other right-wing positions

Wallace supported waterboarding terrorists: "Listen, I'm with Jack Bauer on this." On the August 27 broadcast of his radio show, Steve Malzberg told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, "So I'm with you. I think the public would say, good! You know, water -- the public says, 'Waterboard them if you have to.' " Wallace replied: "Waterboard? Listen, I'm with Jack Bauer on this."

To buttress his support of torture, Beck aired clips from 24. On the April 22 edition of his Fox News show, Beck aired a clip of 24 to support his view that defending the torture of terrorists is a display of "honor."

Fox & Friends hosts, Beck cited fictional congressional testimony by 24's Jack Bauer in defense of torture. During the January 13 edition of Fox & Friends, Beck and the Fox & Friends hosts invoked 24 as a justification for the use of torture. Referring to the show's season premiere, in which protagonist Jack Bauer, a former member of the fictional "Counter Terrorist Unit," defends his use of torture during a hearing before Congress, Beck said: "[I]t's going to take somebody who sits in front of Congress who is not afraid of them anymore and does what Jack Bauer did. And that is, 'Yes, I did torture, and I'm proud of it.' And it's time for these things to come out of the closet." Introducing an excerpt from 24, in which Bauer is seen answering questions from a congressional committee about torture, Kilmeade stated: "Let's listen to what happened in the fictional series 24 and see if this helps build your argument." During the segment, on-screen text read: "What Americans Need to Hear; Beck Applauds Jack Bauer's Honesty."

Fox News' Gibson suggests nuclear-bomb plot on 24 is "an early warning sign" for America. From the January 16, 2007, edition of Fox News' Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: Well. The big security story tonight, terrorists detonate a mini nuclear bomb in downtown Los Angeles, the plan to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans: fact or fiction? Well, certainly maybe fiction for now. But 24's Jack Bauer has it right. People need to wake up to the possibility of nuclear attack. This isn't only coming from Hollywood. ... Is 24's faux suitcase nuke bomb a real wake-up call for America? Should we take this as an early warning sign that something like this could happen here?

Ingraham on The O'Reilly Factor: "America ... love[s] Jack Bauer"; ergo, America is OK with torture. On the September 13, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham stated, "The average American out there loves the show 24. OK? They love Jack Bauer. They love 24. In my mind, that's as close to a national referendum that it's OK to use tough tactics against high-level Al Qaeda operatives as we're going to get. OK?"

Dietl, on Your World, justified racial profiling: "You don't watch 24? They're out there." On the January 17 edition of Fox News' Your World, private investigator Richard "Bo" Dietl used 24 to justify the use of racial profiling when searching for terror suspects. Discussing an incident in which 40 American Muslims were barred from boarding a plane, Dietl told host Neil Cavuto and guest Imam Sayed Hussan al-Qazwini, leader of the Islamic Center of America and one of the 40 Muslim passengers: "The fact of the matter is -- I mean, you don't watch 24 on Fox TV? They're out there. They're out there. There are cells out there. We have to protect ourselves against it, as Americans."

La Jeunesse suggested because of Obama, Yucca may be "single biggest waste of your money ever"

From the November 4 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

MARTHA MacCALLUM (anchor): Well, it is a tax waste the size of a mountain, and a White House about-face causing problems for America's nuclear industry. William La Jeunesse is tracking your taxes. William, what's coming up?

LA JEUNESSE: Well, Martha, $13 billion and still nowhere to put America's nuclear waste. Now, coming up, I will show you what may be the single biggest waste of your money ever, and it's getting worse every day.

La Jeunesse: Yucca is "complete, from an engineering standpoint. It's just waiting for a license"

From the November 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): It has been called the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars in history, billions of our money sunk into a hole that's supposed to be used for nuclear waste, but now, Yucca Mountain, out West, will probably never ever be used.

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): William La Jeunesse is tracking your taxes live right near the San --

DOOCY: Onofre.

KILMEADE: -- Onofre nuclear power plant out in California. How much is this going to cost?

LA JEUNESSE: Well, I mean, how much of your money is gone? About $13 billion. Now, San Onofre -- you can't see it, it's a little dark here still -- is one of about 100 nuclear plants around the country. Each one, of course, generates tons of nuclear waste. Now, for 25 years, the federal government has been taxing consumers and ratepayers to pay for a place to put it. That is Yucca Mountain. It is complete, from an engineering standpoint. It's just waiting for a license. But the president says it is dead and will never be used. That is $13 billion of your money down the drain.

[...]

LA JEUNESSE: The federal government imposed a tax on your power bill for 25 years to pay for Yucca Mountain and promised America's nuclear industry it would have a place to store its waste by 1998. Since then, however, the feds have paid out almost 600 million in legal settlements for failing to live up to that commitment and expect another 11 billion on top of that. And with no plan for all this waste, America's cleanest, most dependable source of energy is in jeopardy.

But Yucca may not get a license, and if it does, experts say it may not be used for years

University of Illinois report: "[N]o particular reason" to expect that Yucca will accept spent fuel any time soon. According to a June 2009 University of Illinois report written by nuclear engineering experts, "[i]t may be difficult to license Yucca Mountain at all," and "even if licensed, Yucca Mountain will not start accepting spent fuel for a long time." From the report:

An underlying problem is that the legal requirement that the Department of Energy (DOE) take title to spent nuclear fuel has not been met for twenty-seven years since passage of the NWPA in 1982. And there is no particular reason to expect this approach will change in the foreseeable future. It appears, then, that spent nuclear fuel is destined to remain at about seventy U.S. nuclear reactor sites for several reasons. First, even if licensed, Yucca Mountain will not start accepting spent fuel for a long time. Second, nuclear reactors will soon produce more spent fuel than Yucca Mountain would be licensed to receive. And, third, it may be difficult to license Yucca Mountain at all, much less to amend the license for it to take more spent fuel. Thus a lot of spent nuclear fuel will continue to accumulate at reactor sites around the country, leaving those sites to manage this material. There is no question but that this management will remain subject to oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The question raised here is how or even whether the federal government should take title to spent nuclear fuel, especially as long as the spent fuel remains in the state in which it was generated. This question, in turn, raises the one of how funds for spent fuel management will be administered.

Licensing process itself takes years. According to a March 5 Associated Press article, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency responsible for reviewing the Energy Department's application for a license to begin construction on the facility, has four years to complete the review process. The Energy Department submitted its application in June 2008. According to the article, "There appear to be no immediate plans by the Energy Department to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application before the NRC because to do so could trigger lawsuits from the nuclear industry. The NRC has up to four years to consider the application."

Unresolved concerns about facility's safety are keeping it from coming online

NRC is considering at least 299 "contentions" to Yucca's license. In a September 15 article, the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted that the NRC is considering nearly 300 "contentions" from multiple petitioners against the license. A "contention," from a legal or technical standpoint, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is "a specific concern or issue material to the licensing of Yucca Mountain." The article reported that the state of Nevada recently filed five more contentions, in addition to the nearly 300 that the NRC has already agreed to review.

"Contentions" are mostly safety concerns about facility, and some needed technology is not ready. When Nevada originally filed the contentions, the Review-Journal reported in a December 20, 2008, article that "[o]f the 229 contentions presented to nuclear regulators, most -- 180 -- pertain to safety." From the article:

State scientists believe geologic conditions of the mountain coupled with under-estimated corrosion rates of waste containers could result in deadly radioactive materials escaping the repository sometime before the hundreds of thousands of years that the remnants reach peak doses. Some of the equipment described in DOE's application for emplacing containers by remote control and other elements such as drip shields to divert water either don't exist or haven't been tested.

[...]

"They have not accurately estimated ground water flows in the mountain," [Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency Director Bob] Loux said Friday as he continued to head the State Nuclear Projects Agency until his replacement is chosen in the wake of controversy over his approval of unauthorized salary hikes in the office.

In addition, Loux noted, DOE's license application doesn't address the possibility that the ridge top could erode and climate change could impact the integrity of the site.

New contentions address volcanoes, corrosion as well. The September 15 Review-Journal article reported that a "key concern is the state's assertion that the DOE used 'improper techniques' in a safety assessment of how fast a metal known as Alloy-22 will corrode if it is used for waste containers," and that "[t]he state also repeatedly has questioned the DOE's logic behind its plan to wait 75 years to install titanium drip shields to prevent water from trickling onto waste containers entombed in a maze of tunnels inside the volcanic-rock ridge, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas." From the article:

[Executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects Bruce] Breslow said the Alloy-22 corrosion study challenge comes in addition to new safety contentions about water infiltrating the planned repository from 10,000 years to 1 million years and effects from erosion during the same time period.

Also, two challenges are related to future volcanoes affecting Yucca Mountain.

Despite uncertainty about viability, the project is expected to cost taxpayers more than $96 billion

Las Vegas Review-Journal: Cost jumped from $57 billion to more than $96 billion. According to a July 16, 2008, Review-Journal article, "The projected costs to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, ship used radioactive fuel to Nevada from around the country and operate the site for 100 years have grown to more than $90 billion, an energy department official said Tuesday." The article added: "The department's previous 'total system life cycle' cost estimate for the repository was $57.6 billion, set in 2001. Since that time, the project schedule repeatedly has been pushed back and some of its key elements are being redesigned."

Reid: "Flawed plan" and a "bloated budget." According to a statement posted on Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) website, the Yucca Mountain plan was "flawed" and had a "bloated budget." From the statement:

In 2008, the DOE announced that it was raising Yucca Mountain's estimated price tag from $57.5 billion to over $96 billion. Beyond its bloated budget, the Yucca Mountain project faced a laundry list of scientific, technical, public health, legal, and safety problems. The skyrocketing price tag, the steadfast opposition of Nevadans and their congressional delegation, and the growing understanding that Yucca was a mortally flawed proposal have led to the project's demise.

While the Obama administration's budget cut funding for the Yucca Mountain program, it provided almost $197 million for the Department of Energy to explore alternative ways to store energy.

IBD asserted Gore "still claims" hurricanes "are increasing in frequency"

From the November 3 IBD editorial:

The book's cover depicts one of the hurricanes Gore still claims are increasing in frequency and intensity. What has happened in the past three years is that such claims have been thoroughly debunked as the earth has cooled, possibly for decades hence.

For example, a recent study by researchers at Florida State University determined that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.

Ryan Maue, co-author of the report released in November 2008 on "Global Tropical Cyclone Activity," used a measurement called accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) that combines a storm's duration and its wind speed in six-hour intervals. The years 2007 and 2008 had among the lowest ACE measurements since reliable global satellite data were first available three decades ago.

In fact, Gore has said there is "no consensus" linking global warming to hurricane frequency

Gore: "There is no consensus linking the frequency of hurricanes to global warming." As noted by science reporter Chris Mooney, Gore stated during a March 21, 2007, congressional hearing on climate change, "There is no consensus linking the frequency of hurricanes to global warming and I've never said there is -- it's the intensity of hurricanes. It's also true, the scientists say, you can't take an individual storm and say, 'This is caused by global warming.' But the odds of stronger storms are going up."

An Inconvenient Truth: "There is less agreement among scientists" about the impact of climate change on the "number of hurricanes." Gore noted in his 2006 book An Inconvenient Truth that "[a] growing number of new scientific studies are confirming that warmer water in the top layer of the ocean can drive more convection energy to fuel more powerful hurricanes." He added, "There is less agreement among scientists about the relationship between the total number of hurricanes each year and global warming -- because a multi-decade natural pattern has a powerful influence on hurricane frequency." Gore further stated that "some scientists" have said that warming could lead "to an increased frequency of hurricanes."

IBD's claim that study "debunked" climate change/hurricane intensity link undermined by study's author

Maue: Recent decrease in hurricane energy "does not contradict the recent climate change / TC linkage literature." Ryan Maue, the Florida State University Meteorology researcher cited by IBD, stated on his website that "[u]nder global warming scenarios, hurricane intensity is expected to increase (on the order of a few percent), but MANY questions remain as to how much, where, and when. This science is very far from settled." Maue added, "Many papers have suggested that these changes are already occurring especially in the strongest of hurricanes due to warming sea-surface temperatures, but the methodology and data issues with each of these papers perhaps overshadows the conclusions. The notion that the overall global hurricane energy or ACE has collapsed does not contradict the recent climate change / TC linkage literature but provides an additional, perhaps less publicized piece of the puzzle."

Maue reportedly "believes there's simply not enough reliable data" to determine whether climate change will increase hurricane intensity. The Houston Chronicle reported on October 31 that Maue "believes there's simply not enough reliable data to make a call either way" on the question of whether climate change will bring more intense storms.

IPCC stated that it is likely hurricanes will "become more intense." The International Panel on Climate Change stated in its Summary for Policymakers of the Fourth Assessment Report, "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."

Fox advances false GOP claim that their plan would save $5,000 in premiums compared to Democrats' plans

GOP math: Republican bill's premiums are $5,000 less "than the cheapest Democrat plan." A November 4 press release from Ways and Means Ranking Member Rep. Dave Camp estimated the premium for plans in the individual market under the GOP alternative at $10,120, while "the CBO estimated that in 2016 [the lowest cost plan] under the House Democrats' bill would be $15,000 for a family." Based on this, the press release claimed that the GOP alternative would be "nearly $5,000 less expensive than the cheapest Democrat plan." From the press release:

NOTE: Earlier this week, the CBO estimated that in 2016 the "average of the three lowest-cost basic plans" under the House Democrats' bill would be $15,000 for a family. Today, CBO estimated that the Republican bill would lower premiums in the individual market up to 8 percent, the small group markets by up to 10 percent, and the large group market by up to 3 percent. According to CBO average health care premiums in the individual market would be $11,000 in 2016 under current law. An 8 percent reduction in those costs would mean a premium of $10,120 - nearly $5,000 less expensive than the cheapest Democrat plan, which CBO says is unlikely to attract many families, meaning average premiums would be even higher in the Democrats' exchange.

Fox's Caroline Shively parrots GOP press release. On the November 5 edition of Fox News' Fox and Friends, contributor Caroline Shively adopted the GOP spin by reporting, "Now, on the other side of the aisle, Republicans have gotten favorable reports from the Congressional Budget Office on the cost of their health care bill. GOP lawmakers say that means premiums for millions of families will be almost $5,000 lower under their plan, compared to the cheapest plan in the Democrats' exchange."

America's Newsroom attributes Republican talking point to CBO.  On the November 5 edition of America's Newsroom, host Martha McCallum claimed, "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is saying that the Republican bill ... will carry lower costs for Americans. The CBO estimates that health insurance premiums would be nearly $5,000 cheaper under the Republican reforms than the Democratic ones."  In fact, the CBO never made that claim. The comparison was based on calculations done by Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee.

In fact, the $5,000 difference ignores premium caps in House Democrats' plan

GOP estimate misleads on premiums under Democrats' plan.  Because the Democrats' health care bill provides premium caps on a sliding scale based on income, the lowest amount that a family would have to pay in premiums is significantly less than the GOP alternative. The New York Times reported, "Under the House bill, the budget office said, a family of four with income of $78,000 in 2016 would pay, on average, an annual premium of $8,800." Families with lower incomes would pay even less: "A family of four with income of $66,000 would pay premiums of $6,300." The CBO analysis of premiums under the House plan includes a chart indicating that when accounting for the premium caps, most families will pay premiums of less than $15,000 in 2016 to purchase the reference plan in the exchange [see "Enrollee Premium in Reference Plan" column]. The $15,000 figure cited by Republicans is the estimated 2016 cost of the premiums associated with a family policy that the CBO used as its "Reference Plan." This figure does not include any subsidies. From the CBO:

Democrats' bill also includes subsidies for cost sharing. The House Democrats' health care reform bill also includes subsidies for cost-sharing, which encompasses certain out-of-pocket medical expenses associated with health insurance plans. These subsidies are provided on a sliding scale, according to income. Families of four whose income is no more than 350 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) would receive some sort of cost-sharing subsidy under the House Democrats' bill. The CBO makes no mention of subsidies when scoring the Republican plan.

GOP's 8 percent premium savings used to calculate $5,000 figure don't apply to "80 percent of total private premiums." CBO estimated that the Republican plan could reduce premiums by "5 percent to 8 percent," but only for coverage in the individual market which, according to CBO estimates, "a little more than 5 percent of total private premiums." For 80 percent of the private premiums, which come from the large group market, the GOP alternative would eventually lower premiums by "zero to 3 percent," according to CBO:

In the small group market, which represents about 15 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 7 percent to 10 percent compared with amounts under current law. In the market for individually purchased insurance, which represents a little more than 5 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 5 percent to 8 percent compared with amounts under current law. And in the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO's estimates.

Fox & Friends report obscures that GOP plan wouldn't cover uninsured, wouldn't significantly lower premiums, would reduce deficit less than Dems

CBO: GOP plan leaves 52 million people uninsured. Shively's Fox & Friends report ignored that the GOP plan would not cover most uninsured Americans. Despite a reported claim made by a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner that the Republican alternative "will cover millions more Americans" than the Democrats' plan, the CBO estimated that the plan will only cover 3 million uninsured Americans over the next 10 years, 33 million less than the House Democrats' newly released bill.  According to the CBO, the GOP plan would leave 52 million people still uninsured. By 2019, CBO predicts that under the GOP plan, "[t]he share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage" would be "roughly in line with the current share."

CBO: GOP plan would lower most premiums by "zero to 3 percent." Shively also ignored that the CBO estimated that for 80 percent of the insured population, the Republican alternative would "lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent." In addition, CBO estimated that some of the bill's provisions "would tend to increase the premiums paid by less healthy enrollees."

CBO concluded GOP plan would result in less deficit reduction. Shively also did not report that the CBO estimates indicate that House Democrats' bill lowers the deficit more than the GOP's proposal. The Republican alternative is estimated to reduce the federal deficit by $68 billion over 10 years. By comparison, the Democrats' bill would reduce the federal deficit by $104 billion, according to CBO.

In 2006, Rush mocked Democrats for claiming a "moral victory" in losing campaigns

Rush's 2006 message to Democrats declaring "moral victories": "You're just stroking yourselves trying to tell yourself something good happened when you lost." Discussing the special election in California's 50th Congressional District between Republican Brian Bilbray and Democrat Francine Busby during his June 6, 2006, broadcast, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: The Democrats have already said that even if Francine Busby loses, that it will be a "moral victory," because they're making inroads in these safe Republican districts. It's sort of like Paul Hackett when he lost in a Republican district in Ohio, they said it was a "moral victory." Can I tell you about moral victories?

[...]

So I would say to you Democrats who want to continue to redefine victory as when you narrowly lose, "Keep it up, because for all the moral victories in the world you think you're having, it's just a bunch of sophistry. You're just stroking yourselves trying to tell yourself something good happened when you lost," and of course for the country at large, it is a good thing when liberal Democrats lose. [From RushLimbaugh.com, accessed 11/4/2009]

Rush mocked Democrats for portraying 2006 CA-50 election as a "moral victory." From the June 7, 2006, broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Then you go to California 50 and Brian Bilbray, 50-45%, over Francine Busby. Busby can't get above 45% no matter what happens in that race. As I predicted to you, ladies and gentlemen, when the last polls came out that showed that they were basically tied but then he had moved up two points, I said, "It's going to be bigger than that," and that the Democrats are going to proclaim this a moral victory, and the reason why -- I didn't predict that because I was just reporting that -- some guy that works at The Hotline, which is an inside-the-Beltway tip sheet, had pretty much some weeks ago said, "This is going to be a big moral victory even if Busby loses."

Here's just a sample. I mean, you can find this on any Democrat kook blog that you go to today. But here's just a sample. What is the blogger? "My Direct Democracy," I guess it's called. "No matter what the media says, no Democrat should be mistaken about this result. First, this is a huge seismic shift in our favor that bodes extremely well for November. If we receive an 18% shift nationwide, we will win the House easily. If Republican candidates are pulling only 20% of the independent vote the Indecrat [sic] realignment is still on." So the Democrats are indeed portraying this as a "moral victory," ladies and gentlemen, even though Francine Busby loses by four-and-a-half to five points.[From RushLimbaugh.com (subscription required), accessed 11/4/2009]

Reacting to defeat of conservative-backed Hoffman in NY-23, Rush touted Hoffman's "good showing"

Limbaugh says Sarah Palin "is not damaged at all" by Hoffman's "good showing." On his November 4 broadcast, responding to a caller's question as well as "talking points" in the media that the result of the NY-23 election was that "Limbaugh and Palin lost" for supporting Hoffman, Limbaugh said: "Sarah Palin is not damaged at all, to answer the [caller's] question. Sarah Palin's not damaged at all by the good showing of Doug Hoffman. Not at all." [Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/4/09]

Rush on Hoffman vote: "I'm reasonably sure that this was the highest percentage of the vote ever won on the Conservative Party line by a House or Senate candidate." From his November 4 show:

LIMBAUGH: These are my thoughts on New York 23. In the first place -- I'll have to double-check this, but I'm reasonably sure that this was the highest percentage of the vote ever won on the Conservative Party line by a House or Senate candidate. I think Hoffman had a higher percentage of the vote than even James Buckley, who won his U.S. Senate race on the -- against this Goodell guy, Charles Goodell, in the '70s. So that's one thing.

Rush "paraphrase[s]" RedState's Erick Erickson: "[T]he real victory was making sure that a Republican in Name Only did not win." Referencing a blog post by Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Limbaugh said on his November 4 show, "the message out of this is, we took out a horrible Republican. We kept a horrible Republican from possibly winning and totally redefining the party in a way that would make it a permanent minority party. So in Erick's view, yeah, it would've been great if Hoffman won, but the real victory was making sure that a Republican in Name Only did not win."

Rush on NY-23 outcome: "What did not lose was conservatism." From his November 4 show:

LIMBAUGH: So there's a lot to be said here. But what did not lose, what did not lose, is conservatism. What lost was Republican ineptitude and incompetence in selecting the wrong candidate from the get-go, staying with her for too long, and then sending her off packing while she endorses the Democrat.