• What Is The Impact Of Wind Farms On Wildlife?
• Do Wind Turbines Affect Human Health?
• Can Wind Power Compete With Fossil Fuels?
• What Portion Of Our Energy Needs Can Wind Realistically Satisfy?
• How Would Switching To Wind Power Impact The Climate?
• Have Federal Incentives For Wind Been Effective? 

FACT: Fossil Fuels Pose Far Greater Threat To Wildlife

MYTH: Wind Turbines Are Bird-Killing Machines

• Fox News' Greg Gutfeld: "Wind power is the Ted Bundy of bird-killers." [Fox News, The Five, 9/30/11, via Nexis]
• Marc Morano said on Fox News: "We've already known that windmills, as you mentioned, are killing birds. Estimates from 400,000 birds a year to almost a million... They're called bird blenders." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/30/12]
• The Hoover Institution's Deroy Murdock wrote: "The dirty secret about 'clean' wind power is that its turbines are giant whirling machetes." He went on to claim that the Obama administration "wants to give wind-power companies long-term permits to butcher bald eagles on the altar of green energy." [Washington Times, 5/18/12]
• In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the Manhattan Institute's Robert Bryce wrote that "as the bird carcasses pile up," "the wind industry's unofficial license to kill wildlife is finally getting some serious scrutiny." [Wall Street Journal, 3/7/12]

NRC: Wind Energy Accounts For "Minute Fraction" Of Human-Caused Bird Deaths. A 2007 report by the National Research Council concluded that wind turbine losses account for "a minute fraction" of bird deaths caused by human activities:

Collisions with buildings kill 97 to 976 million birds annually; collisions with high-tension lines kill at least 130 million birds, perhaps more than one billion; collisions with communications towers kill between 4 and 5 million based on "conservative estimates," but could be as high as 50 million; cars may kill 80 million birds per year; and collisions with wind turbines killed an estimated at 20,000 to 37,000 birds per year in 2003, with all but 9,200 of those deaths occurring in California. Toxic chemicals, including pesticides, kill more than 72 million birds each year, while domestic cats are estimated to kill hundreds of millions of songbirds and other species each year. Erickson et al. (2005) estimate that total cumulative bird mortality in the United States "may easily approach 1 billion birds per year."

Clearly, bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the total anthropogenic bird deaths--less than 0.003% in 2003 based on the estimates of Erickson et al. (2005). [National Research Council, May 2007]

Fossil Fuels Drive Climate Change, Which Threatens Hundreds Of Bird Species. A 2008 Department of Energy report noted that wind-related bird deaths cannot compare to the threat of climate change:

Publicity related to wind power developments often focuses on wind power's impact on birds, especially their collisions with turbines. Although this is a valid environmental concern that needs to be addressed, the larger effects of global climate change also pose significant and growing threats to birds and other wildlife species.

[...]

The future for birds in a world of global climate change is particularly bleak. A recent article found that 950 to 1,800 terrestrial bird species are imperiled by climate changes and habitat loss. [Department of Energy, July 2008]

Wind Turbines Pose "No Population Risks To Birds" In New England. A comparison of the impact of six electricity generation types on wildlife in New England found that wind power poses "no population-level risks to birds." Factoring in the effects of pollution and climate change, it concludes that "non-renewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources, such as hydro and wind." [New York State Energy Research And Development Authority, March 2009]

Coal Development Destroys Bird Habitats. According to the American Bird Conservancy:

Generally, impacts on wildlife have not had a significant effect on the ability to produce coal. For example, the Appalachian region is one of the most biodiverse parts of the country, and important habitat for many migratory birds, including warblers, waterthrushes, and vireos. It is also important to the coal industry. Over 1,200 mines are found in the region. Some 380,574 acres of forest habitat were destroyed for the purpose of mountaintop removal from 1992 to 2002.

[...]

Mining practices ... are blamed in part for the decline in the population of the Cerulean Warbler, a small, blue songbird that breeds in the mature forests of the Appalachian Mountains. This migratory species has experienced a 70% decline since 1966. The Louisiana Waterthrush, Worm-eating Warbler, Black-and-white Warbler, and Yellow-throated Vireo are also being threatened by removal of forest habitat. [American Bird Conservancy, accessed 5/17/12]

Up To One Million Birds Are Killed Every Year In Oilfield Production Pits. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Every year an estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds are killed in oilfield production skim pits, reserve pits, and in oilfield wastewater disposal facilities according to a study published by Pepper Trail, forensic ornithologist with the Service's Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon. [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 8/19/11]

By Contrast, Estimates Of Wind-Related Bird Deaths Range From 150,000 To 440,000 Per Year. PolitiFact reported:

David Cottingham, senior adviser to Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe, confirmed that the 440,000 bird deaths often attributed to the division are actually the estimates of one biologist - Manville - and are not considered official agency statistics.

[...]

The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, which includes Fish and Wildlife officials and representatives from the wind industry, utilities and others, looked at the issue and concluded there are roughly three to four birds killed per megawatt every year. With current capacity at roughly 50,000 megawatts, that comes to 150,000 to 200,000 birds per year.

Cottingham said those estimates are the ones Fish and Wildlife would be most likely to cite when asked about bird deaths caused by turbines. [PolitiFact, 3/9/12]

Government, Industry And Environmentalists Are Collaborating To Reduce Bird Deaths. In March, the Obama administration published new guidelines for land-based wind farms aimed at reducing the number of wind-related bird deaths. The guidelines call on wind developers to "eliminate from consideration areas that would pose high risks to birds and other wildlife, and to take steps to alleviate problems by restoring nearby habitat and other actions," according to the Associated Press. The guidelines were endorsed by both the American Wind Energy Association, an industry group, and the National Audubon Society, a conservation group. [Associated Press, 3/23/12]

FACT: There Is No Evidence That Wind Turbines Pose Health Risks

MYTH: Wind Turbines Adversely Impact Human Heath.

• Fox News' John Stossel on wind turbines: "They're going to kill birds, make noise, cause shadow flicker." [Fox News, Stossel, 5/12/11, via Nexis]
• Town Hall's Paul Driessen wrote: "The strobe-light effect, annoying audible noise, and inaudible low-frequency sound from whirling blades result in nervous fatigue, headaches, dizziness, irritability, sleep problems, and vibro-acoustic effects on people's hearts and lungs." [Town Hall, 5/8/12]
• Fox Business' Eric Bolling: "Turbines are popping up all across America, as the demand for the usage of wind energy is increasing. But at what cost? Residents close to them have reported everything from headaches to vertigo to UFO crashes." [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 11/12/10, via Nexis]

Independent Report: There Is "No Evidence" For "Wind Turbine Syndrome." A report prepared by an independent panel of experts for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection concluded that there is "no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a 'Wind Turbine Syndrome.'" The study debunked several of the supposed health impacts of wind turbines:

There is insufficient evidence that the noise from wind turbines is directly (i.e., independent from an effect on annoyance or sleep) causing health problems or disease. 

Claims that infrasound from wind turbines directly impacts the vestibular system have not been demonstrated scientifically.  Available evidence shows that the infrasound levels near wind turbines cannot impact the vestibular system. 

[...]

The strongest epidemiological study suggests that there is not an association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health problems. 

[...]

None of the limited epidemiological evidence reviewed suggests an association between noise from wind turbines and pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease, and headache/migraine. [Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, January 2012]

Literature Review: There Is No Proven Causal Link Between Proximity To Turbines And Health Effects. A review of the literature on the health impact of wind turbines concluded:

To date, no peer reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects. [Environmental Health Journal, 5/2/11]

Study: Shadow Flicker "Unlikely To Cause Adverse Health Impacts." An assessment of the health impact of wind turbines by the Oregon Public Health Authority concluded:

Shadow flicker from wind turbines in Oregon is unlikely to cause adverse health impacts in the general population.  The low flicker rate from wind turbines is  unlikely to trigger seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy.  Further, the available scientific evidence suggests that very few individuals will be annoyed by the low flicker frequencies expected from most modern wind turbines. [Oregon Public Health Authority, 1/3/12]

By Contrast, Fossil Fuel Pollution Has Serious Health Consequences. A 2009 report by the National Research Council estimated that burning fossil fuels costs the U.S. about $120 billion a year in "hidden" health costs:

A new report from the National Research Council examines and, when possible, estimates "hidden" costs of energy production and use -- such as the damage air pollution imposes on human health -- that are not reflected in market prices of coal, oil, other energy sources, or the electricity and gasoline produced from them.  The report estimates dollar values for several major components of these costs.  The damages the committee was able to quantify were an estimated $120 billion in the U.S. in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation.  The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize. [National Academy of Sciences, 10/19/09]

FACT: New Wind Generation Will Be Cheaper Than New Coal Generation

MYTH: Wind Will Never Be Cost Competitive

• Marc Morano said on Fox News: "Wind power was around since the 13^th century. People say let's let it compete with carbon-based energy, oil and gas. It did compete. Wind and solar have competed, and they had their rear-ends kicked!" [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/30/12]
• Town Hall's Paul Driessen wrote: "Wind has never been able to compete economically with traditional energy, and there is no credible evidence that it will be able to in the foreseeable future, especially with abundant natural gas costing one-fourth what it did just a few years ago." [Town Hall, 5/8/12]
• A Washington Times editorial stated: "Wind power made sense in the 18th century, but it doesn't make sense now. The private sector isn't interested in blowing money on hopelessly uneconomic windmill and solar projects." [Washington Times, 3/14/12]

New Wind Generation Will Soon Be Cheaper Than New Coal Generation. In the Energy Information Administration's most recent annual report, levelized costs for onshore wind that is brought on line in 2017 are cheaper than conventional or advanced coal brought on line in 2017. EIA explained that levelized cost is "often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies" and "represents the per kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant" for a certain period, but that "actual plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project." 

[Energy Information Administration, 1/23/12]

Bloomberg New Energy: Some Wind Farms "Already Produce Power As Economically As Coal, Gas And Nuclear." From a press release on the findings of a2011 Bloomberg New Energy Finance report:

The cost of electricity from onshore wind turbines will drop 12% in the next five years thanks to a mix of lower-cost equipment and gains in output efficiency, according to new research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 

The best wind farms in the world already produce power as economically as coal, gas and nuclear generators; the average wind farm will be fully competitive by 2016. [Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 11/10/11]

Study: Wind Could Save Consumers Billions In Electricity Costs. A recent analysis by Synapse Energy Economics found that adding more wind power to the electric grid would bring down electricity costs in the Midwest region:

Synapse's analysis indicates that the effect of introducing greater levels of wind resources into MISO [Midwest Independent System Operator] is to generally depress the average annual market price, relative to a baseline case of no additional wind generation beyond the existing 10 GW in place in MISO today. Since wind energy "fuel" is free, once built, wind power plants displace fossil-fueled generation and lower the price of marginal supply--thus lowering the energy market clearing price.

[...]

These market price declines will lead to reduced overall energy costs.  For this coal retirement sensitivity, power supply costs for MISO-region customers could range from $3.9 billion to $7.9 billion per year lower than baseline costs for the 20 GW wind addition, and from $6.1 to $12.2 billion per year lower than baseline costs for the 40 GW addition. These cost savings will exceed the annual costs of transmission improvements needed to integrate this level of wind addition. When including the effects of transmission, the net savings ranges from $3.0 billion to $6.9 billion per year for the 20 GW wind addition scenario, and $3.3 to $9.4 billion per year for the 40 GW wind addition scenario. 

For an average MISO region residential customer using 1,000 kWh per month, this translates to a net savings that would range from $63 to $147 per year in 2020 (for the 20 GW wind addition scenario), and from $71 to $200 per year for the 40 GW wind addition scenario. [Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, 5/22/12]

FACT: Wind Capacity Is Already At 10% In Some States And Is Expanding Rapidly

MYTH: Wind Power Won't Make A Dent In Our Energy Needs

• Marc Morano said on Fox News: "Worldwide, if you go for a whole number, 0% of energy is coming from wind. It's still less than half a percent if you round... Oil and gas produce massive amounts of energy. Wind and solar don't." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/30/12]
• Fox Business' Charles Payne: "Imagine a utopian world where every car is electrically driven. We couldn't build enough solar panels and enough windmills, it would still be fossil fuel." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/14/12, via Nexis]
• The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore said on Fox News: "I hope, I sincerely hope the president doesn't really believe that we can engine and power a $15 trillion industrial economy with windmills. It ain't going to happen." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/15/11, via Nexis]

EIA: U.S. Wind Generation Is "Continuing A Trend Of Rapid Growth." A recent Energy Information Administration report stated that "Generation from wind turbines in the United States increased 27% in 2011 compared to 2010, continuing a trend of rapid growth." The following chart demonstrates the continual increase in U.S. wind capacity:

[Energy Information Administration, 3/12/12]

Industry Saw Record Growth In The Beginning Of 2012. In the first quarter of 2012, the wind industry added 1,695 MW of electricity generating capacity - 52% more than it added in the first quarter of last year. This was the industry's strongest first quarter on record. [Department of Energy, 5/9/12]

Wind Accounts For 35% Of New U.S. Power Capacity Since 2007. A letter to Congressional leaders signed by over 350 coalition members including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Edison Electric Institute said, "In the last four years, wind energy has provided 35% of all new U.S. power capacity." [National Association of Manufacturers, 11/17/11]

DOE Estimates Wind Could Provide 20% Of U.S. Electricity By 2030. A 2008 report by the Department of Energy stated that a "20% Wind Scenario in 2030, while ambitious, could be feasible" if the wind industry can expand manufacturing, increase turbine installations, and improve reliability. [Department of Energy, December 2008]

Wind Is Already Supplying More Than 10% Of Electricity In Five States. According to the Department of Energy:

Five states received more than 10% of their electricity from wind in 2011, with South Dakota leading the way with 22.3%. Iowa, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wyoming completed the list. [Department of Energy, 4/18/12]

Harvard Study: U.S. Wind Potential Is "16 Times More Than Total Electricity Demand." The New York Times reported on the results of a 2009 study by Harvard University:

Using data from thousands of meteorological stations, the Harvard team estimated the world wind power potential to be 40 times greater than total current power consumption. A previous study cited in the paper put that multiple at about 7 times.

In the lower 48 states, the potential from wind power is 16 times more than total electricity demand in the United States, the researchers suggested - significantly greater than a 2008 Department of Energy study that projected wind could supply a fifth of all electricity in the country by 2030. [New York Times, 7/16/09]

FACT: Wind Energy Could Substantially Reduce America's Carbon Footprint 

MYTH: Wind Won't Affect Carbon Emissions, And May Even "Cause Global Warming"

• The Manhattan Institute's Robert Bryce wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: "A slew of recent studies show that wind-generated electricity likely won't result in any reduction in carbon emissions--or that they'll be so small as to be almost meaningless." [Wall Street Journal, 8/23/10]
• Forbes columnist Larry Bell wrote: "CO2 emission reductions [from wind power] are largely mythological." [Forbes, 5/22/12]
• Linking to a Reuters article, Fox Nation ran the headline: "New Research Shows Wind Farms Cause Global Warming." [Fox Nation, 4/30/12]

Right-Wing Media Distorted Study To Claim Wind Farms Cause Global Warming. Some ofthese media reports are based on a study of satellite data which found that nighttime land temperatures near Texas wind farms have increased relative to nearby areas without turbines. The lead author of that study told Media Matters that the coverage has been "misleading," clarifying in a press release:

Very likely, the wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only redistribute the air's heat near the surface (the turbine itself does not generate any heat), which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels. [University of Albany, accessed 5/14/12]

NREL: Every 1,000MW Of Wind Energy Offsets 2.6 Million Tons Of CO2. A 2009 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated that every 1,000 MW of wind energy reduces carbon emissions by 2.6 million tons. [NREL, March 2009]

DOE: Wind Could Reduce Annual Emissions By 825 Million Tons By 2030. According to a Department Of Energy report analyzing a 20% wind scenario:

Supplying 20% of U.S. electricity from wind could reduce annual electric sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 825 million metric tons by 2030.

[Department of Energy, December 2008]

FACT: Wind Has Achieved Huge Advances With Federal Support

MYTH: Funding For Wind Has Gone To Waste

• American Commitment's Phil Kerpen said on Fox News: "If you look at all the failure around Solyndra, the wind subsidies, ethanol and Obama is out there on the stomp day after day saying, we need to double down. The guys sounds like a degenerate gambler who can't recognize when he's losing." [Fox News, Hannity, 4/13/12, via Nexis]
• Town Hall's Paul Driessen wrote: "Despite tens of billions in subsidies, wind turbines still generate less than 3% of US electricity." Calling for an end to wind incentives, he said: "Politicians take billions from taxpayers, ratepayers and profitable businesses, to provide subsidies to Big Wind companies, who buy Made Somewhere Else turbines." [Town Hall, 5/8/12]
• The Heritage Foundation's Romina Boccia wrote in a blog post: "Subsidies like the wind energy production tax credit also perpetuate the mediocrity of the wind industry by distorting the market processes that guide entrepreneurs and investors toward the most promising energy solutions." [The Foundry, 2/24/12]

Production Tax Credit Helps Makes Wind Power Competitive With Natural Gas. From Beyond Boom & Bust: Putting Clean Tech On A Path To Subsidy Independence, a report by scholars at the Breakthrough Institute, the Brookings Institution and the World Resources Institute:

At present, the federal PTC [Production Tax Credit] for wind power production brings the levelized cost of electricity from new wind power projects down to an estimated range of $33-65 per megawatt-hour (MWh), depending on the quality of wind resource.

At these prices wind power is broadly competitive with new gasfired generation (with levelized costs as low as $52 at likely gas prices, see Box 1), supporting robust market expansion.

However, the PTC is scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, creating significant market uncertainty and prompting manufacturers of wind turbine components to prepare for layoffs and substantial market contraction. [Brookings Institution, April 2012]

Business Groups: U.S. Wind Manufacturing Has Grown 12-Fold. From a letter by over 350 coalition members including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Edison Electric Institute:

Equipped with the PTC, the wind energy industry has contributed impressively to U.S. economic development. Since 2005, the wind industry has spurred more than $60 billion of investment. Today, over 400 facilities across 43 states manufacture for the wind energy industry. US wind turbine manufacturing has grown 12-fold - 60% of a wind turbine's value is now produced here in America, as compared to 25% prior to 2005. Further, costs have been reduced over 90% since 1980, recently driven by a surge in game changing technological advances. In the last four years, wind energy has provided 35% of all new U.S. power capacity.

Yet despite its clear success, the PTC has been allowed to expire frequently and is again set to expire at the end of 2012. Now is not the time to increase taxes on wind energy. The PTC should be extended for at least another four years so that American know-how can keep producing domestic clean energy. [National Association of Manufacturers, 11/17/11]

Wind Boom In Texas Attributed To Production Tax Credit. From an October 19 ClimateWire article:

The production tax credit is widely seen as a key driver of the Texas wind boom. It lowers the cost of producing wind power by 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, providing a financial edge that has helped developers compete with low-priced electricity derived from coal and natural gas.

The credit, called the PTC, was so instrumental in the state's rise to wind dominance that a report issued by [Republican Governor Rick] Perry's office last year described it as a "crucial" piece in a broad plan to lower the price of wind energy. It complemented a state mandate requiring utilities to use more renewable energy and a fee-based program designed to carry far-flung wind power to urban centers along new transmission lines. [ClimateWire, 10/19/11, via Nexis]

CBO: U.S. Has Long Subsidized Oil And Gas With Permanent Tax Breaks. A Congressional Budget Office issue brief on federal financial support for energy development noted that "Under current law, most of the tax preferences for energy efficiency and renewable energy will expire, but preferences for fossil fuels are permanent." CBO further explained:

Tax preferences for energy were first established in 1916, and until 2005 they were primarily intended to stimulate domestic production of oil and natural gas. Beginning in 2006, the cost of energy-related tax preferences grew substantially, and an increasing share was aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and the sun, which generally cause less environmental damage than would result from producing and consuming fossil fuels. Provisions aimed at energy efficiency and renewable energy accounted for 78 percent of the budgetary cost of federal energy-related tax preferences in 2011. However, four of those provisions, including the one with the greatest budgetary impact, expired at the end of calendar year 2011. Only four major tax preferences are permanent, three of which are directed toward fossil fuels and one of which is directed toward nuclear energy.

[Congressional Budget Office, March 2012]

CRS: Wind Power Incentives "Have Been Much Larger In Several Foreign Countries." Noting that federal policies in the U.S. "have been instrumental in the development of a domestically-based wind power sector," the Congressional Research Service added:

Worldwide the wind power industry is driven by various types of government support, which range from tax credits to incentive policies like feed-in tariffs. These incentives have been much larger in several foreign countries than in the United States, which has helped to spur the manufacturing of wind turbines in Europe and Asia.

[...]

The expansion of U.S. wind power generation will depend, at least in part, on government policy decisions. If state and federal governments continue to support wind generation, manufacturing of wind generating equipment in the United States is likely to increase. The production costs of U.S. plants that make turbine components appear to be competitive with those in other countries, and the difficulty and expense of transporting very bulky products over long distances serves as an obstacle to import competition. [Congressional Research Service, 9/23/11]

The Blaze, Human Events Accuse "Obama Administration" Of Serious Crime

The Blaze: "White House Let Hollywood Bigwigs Learn Classified Information So They Could Make Movie About Bin Laden Death." A post on The Blaze claimed that "the White House" "invited people in the entertainment industry" to get "entire treasure troves of classified information." [The Blaze, 5/23/12]

Human Events: "Obama Administration Leaks Classified Information To Makers Of Propaganda Film." A post on the conservative website Human Events claimed that the "[w]atchdog group Judicial Watch wanted some questions answered about the degree of access to classified information the White House granted to these very friendly filmmakers." [Human Events, 5/23/12]

But Judicial Watch Only Said "The Records" Show Filmmakers Were Given "Access"

Judicial Watch: Investigation Launched Following "Press Reports Suggesting That The Obama Administration May Have Leaked Classified Information." While the Judicial Watch press release says that its investigation was launched "following press reports suggesting that the Obama administration may have leaked classified information to the director," the release does not definitively cite a single example of classified information that was leaked. From the press release:

Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained records from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) regarding meetings and communications between government agencies and Kathryn Bigelow, Academy Award-winning director of The Hurt Locker, and screenwriter Mark Boal.  According to the records, the Obama Defense Department granted Bigelow and Boal access to a "planner, Operator and Commander of SEAL Team Six," which was responsible for the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, to assist Bigelow prepare her upcoming feature film. [Judicial Watch, 5/22/12]

Bush Administration Also Gave Filmmakers Access For "Hollywood Productions"

LA Times:"The Access Bigelow And Boal Have Had ... Is Not Unheard Of." A post on an LA Times blog noted that a filmmaker was "granted an hour with President Bush" for a movie he produced about September 11:

The access Bigelow and Boal have had to CIA, DOD and other government officials is not unheard of for Hollywood productions. "Battleship" director Peter Berg embedded for a month with Navy SEALs in western Iraq as research for his upcoming SEAL film "Lone Survivor," and filmmaker Lionel Chetwynd was granted an hour with President Bush for a 2003 movie he wrote for Showtime, "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis." [The Envelope, latimesblogs.latimes.com, 5/23/12]

Fox Pushes GOP Conspiracy Theory Despite Contrary Evidence

Fox Suggests Contractor Was Fired For Saying Coal Regulation Would Cost Jobs. The Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) hired Polu Kai Services LLC (PKS) to conduct an environmental impact analysis of a forthcoming rule targeting stream pollution from mountaintop removal coal mining. The contractor prepared a draft analysis projecting 7,000 job losses, which was leaked to the [NPR, 1/7/10]

Study: Birth Defects "Significantly Higher" In Mountaintop Mining Areas. From a study published in Environmental Research by West Virginia University and Washington State University professors, which found that from 1996-2003, the prevalence of all birth defects studied was "significantly higher in mountaintop mining areas compared to non-mining areas":

The prevalence rate ratio (PRR) for any birth defect was significantly higher in mountaintop mining areas compared to non-mining areas (PRR=1.26, 95% CI=1.21, 1.32), after controlling for covariates. Rates were significantly higher in mountaintop mining areas for six of seven types of defects: circulatory/respiratory, central nervous system, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, urogenital, and 'other'. There was evidence that mountaintop mining effects became more pronounced in the latter years (2000-2003) versus earlier years (1996-1999.) Spatial correlation between mountaintop mining and birth defects was also present, suggesting effects of mountaintop mining in a focal county on birth defects in neighboring counties. Elevated birth defect rates are partly a function of socioeconomic disadvantage, but remain elevated after controlling for those risks. Both socioeconomic and environmental influences in mountaintop mining areas may be contributing factors. [Environmental Research, August 2011]

Study: Self-Reported Cancer Rates Significantly Higher In Mountaintop Mining Areas. From a study published in the Journal of Community Health by West Virginia University professors:

Mountaintop coal mining in the Appalachian region in the United States causes significant environmental damage to air and water. Serious health disparities exist for people who live in coal mining portions of Appalachia, but little previous research has examined disparities specifically in mountaintop mining communities. A community-based participatory research study was designed and implemented to collect information on cancer rates in a rural mountaintop mining area compared to a rural non-mining area of West Virginia. A door-door health interview collected data from 773 adults. Self-reported cancer rates were significantly higher in the mining versus the non-mining area after control for respondent age, sex, smoking, occupational history, and family cancer history (odds ratio = 2.03, 95% confidence interval = 1.32-3.13). Mountaintop mining is linked to increased community cancer risk. [Journal of Community Health, 7/24/11]

Study: Mountaintop Mining "Has Impaired The Aquatic Life In Numerous Streams In The Central Appalachian Mountains. A study conducted by the EPA of "37 small West Virginia streams (10 unmined and 27 mined sites with valley fills)" concluded that "Surface coal mining with valley fills has impaired the aquatic life in numerous streams in the Central Appalachian Mountains." [EPA, 7/8/08]

Study: There Is A "Clear Risk Of Increased Flooding" After Mountaintop Mining. From a study published in Environmental Geology by University of Kentucky professor Jonathan D. Phillips:

The potential impacts of valley fills associated with mountaintop removal/valley fill (MTR/VF) coal mining on downstream flooding in the coalfields of eastern Kentucky and adjacent states are a subject of public debate and scientific uncertainty. This study explored two aspects of this issue. First, hydrologic indices of relative runoff production and surface and subsurface flow detention were applied to conditions typical of headwater and low-order drainage basins in eastern Kentucky. Results show that there is a clear risk of increased flooding (greater runoff production and less surface flow detention) following MTR/VF operations, and suggest that, on balance, valley fills are more likely to increase rather than decrease flood potential. However, there is a wide range of outcomes, qualitatively and quantitatively. Flood risks can be increased or decreased, and the degree of either may vary markedly. The effects of MTR/VF mining on downstream peak flows are highly contingent on local pre- and post-mining conditions, and it would be unwise to apply generalizations to specific sites. Second, the occurrence of flash floods downstream of MTR/VF operations when nearby unmined areas did not flood or had less severe floods has frequently been explained (without supporting data) in terms of locally greater precipitation. The likelihood of such short-range variability of storm precipitation is evaluated by applying the state probability function to NEXRAD radar estimates of precipitation for two 2001 storms which produced flash floods in eastern Kentucky. The spatial structure of the storm precipitation indicates that at the scale of the analysis (pixel size of approximately 2 km) large local variations in storm precipitation are unlikely--that is, the probability of nearby hollows or low-order drainage basins receiving substantially different storm precipitation totals is low. [Environmental Geology, 2004]

Selenium, Which Has Been Found Downstream Of Valley Fills, Can Cause Health And Reproductive Problems. From a report published by the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Services:

The "intermittent and ephemeral" valley streams appear and disappear with the seasons and rains. But they are the headwaters for steady-running "perennial" streams below, and the foundation for the broader forest ecosystem: most notably a breeding ground for insects that provide the biomass to sustain birds and other animal life. When those streams are destroyed, the effects are felt far beyond the immediate vicinity of the valley fill, and scientists say they are irreplaceable.

[...]

The most ubiquitous form of downstream contamination may be the heavy metal selenium, a common element associated with coal seams. Selenium is an essential nutrient in small amounts, but it bioaccumulates in tissue, and in high enough concentrations can cause health and reproductive problems in wildlife and humans. In 2003, the EPA's environmental impact assessment found significant elevations of selenium downstream from valley fills. [Yale Environment 360, 7/20/09]

Fox Hypes Phony "War On Coal"

Fox Refers To "What Many Perceive As The Obama Administration's War On Coal." After Shannon Bream referred to "what many perceive as President Obama's war on coal," Fox played video of Reps. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Doug Lamborn (R-CO) expressing similar views. Fox did not quote a single Democrat or environmental group. [Fox News, Special Report, 5/18/12]

National Journal: Coal Industry Privately Acknowledges That Obama Administration "Inherited A Stack Of Obligations." A National Journal article noted that "a stack of court-ordered environmental regulations, some dating back 20 years" met EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson when she took office. The article also said: "Privately, coal chiefs and Republicans say they understand that Jackson inherited a stack of obligations and had to act." [National Journal, 9/22/11]

Bush Sr.'s EPA Chief: Previous Administrations Handed Regulatory "Grenades" To Obama. Greenwire reported in December 2010 that George H.W. Bush's EPA Administrator acknowledged that the Obama administration has legal obligations to enact regulations that were "left behind by the George W. Bush administration":

At a time of unprecedented rancor over the costs and benefits of U.S. EPA rules, the Obama administration has far less leeway than the agency's critics in Congress suggest, according to the man who led the agency under George H.W. Bush.

Many of the most costly new regulations were left behind by the George W. Bush administration, William Reilly told an audience at the National Press Club yesterday. Some of the rules were ordered by Congress but were never put in place, forcing EPA to settle with environmental groups. Others have court deadlines from when the last administration's policies were rejected in court.

"They're like little hand grenades that have been rolled out there by previous administrators, and now they're ticking," Reilly said. "They're very difficult, and some of them quite expensive, rules." [Greenwire, 12/17/10]

CRS: Coal Retirements "Caused By Cheap, Abundant Natural Gas As Much As By" Regulations. From an August 8 Congressional Research Service report:

The primary impacts of many of the rules will largely be on coal-fired plants more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the-art pollution controls. Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged in the price of competing fuel--natural gas--continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules.

[...]

In short, the "train wreck" facing the coal-fired electric generating industry, to the extent that it exists, is being caused by cheap, abundant natural gas as much as by EPA regulations. As John Rowe, Chairman and CEO of Exelon Corporation, recently stated: "These regulations will not kill coal... In fact, modeling done on the impacts of these rules shows that up to 50% of retirements are due to the current economics of the plant due to natural gas and coal prices." [Congressional Research Service, 8/8/11]

WH Press Secretary Carney Warns Reporters Not To Buy Into "BS" Of GOP-Driven Spending Claims

Carney: "Do Not Buy Into The B.S. That You Hear About Spending And Fiscal Constraint With Regard To This Administration." From Carney's May 23 press gaggle:

I just wanted to read something that I read this morning that caught my attention. This is from Market Watch's Rex Nutting. He says, "Of all the falsehoods told about President Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, but it didn't happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under President Obama, federal spending is rising at its slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.  Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has."

That means that the rate of spending -- federal spending increase is lower under President Obama than all of his predecessors since Dwight Eisenhower, including all of his Republican predecessors. That is a fact not often noted in the press and certainly never mentioned by the Republicans. 

[...]

I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to check it out; do not buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness. [Carney press gaggle, 6/28/10, emphasis in original]

 For more on the impact that Bush's policies have had on the federal debt, click here.

]]> M.F. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205240001 Thu, 24 May 2012 01:11:19 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230016 Following the Obama campaign's ad highlighting Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital, right-wing media are hysterically calling the ad an attack on private equity and even "an attack on capitalism" itself. But the ad clearly and specifically targets Romney's own work at Bain Capital -- which Romney and his campaign have repeatedly touted as crucial experience for dealing with the economy -- not private equity or capitalism as a whole.

Obama Campaign Releases Bain Capital Ad

Associated Press: "Obama 'Vampire' Ads Target Romney On Economy." The Obama campaign released an ad featuring former steel workers from a plant taken over and eventually shuttered by Bain Capital:

At the center of the Obama campaign effort are a new website, TV ad and online video including interviews with onetime workers at a Kansas City, Mo., steel mill that Romney's former private equity firm failed to successfully restructure. Workers lost jobs and health care benefits. Pensions were reduced.

"It was like a vampire. They came in and sucked the life out of us," says steelworker Jack Cobb. Add John Wiseman: "Bain Capital walked away with a lot of money that they made off this plant. We view Mitt Romney as a job destroyer. [Associated Press, 5/14/12]

Ad Only Targets Bain Capital, Not Private Equity Or Capitalism. Obama's ad contains no mentions of private equity or capitalism as a whole, but is in fact focused only on Romney's record with Bain Capital. From the ad:

JOE SOPTIC: I was a steel worker for 30 years. We had a reputation for quality products. It was something that was American-made. And we weren't rich, but I was able to put my daughter through college.

JOHN WISEMAN: Having a good-paying job that you can support and raise a family on is hugely important.

SOPTIC: That stopped with the sale of the plant to Bain Capital.

MITT ROMNEY, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I know how business works. I know why jobs come and why they go.

DAVID FOSTER: Bain Capital was the majority owner. They were responsible. Mitt Romney was deeply involved in the influence that he exercised over these companies.

SOPTIC: They made as much money off of it as they could and they closed it down. They filed for bankruptcy without any concern for the families or the communities.

JACK COBB: It was like a vampire. They came in and sucked the life out of us.

SOPTIC: It was like watching an old friend bleed to death.

ROMNEY: As I look around at the millions of Americans without work, it breaks my heart.

WISEMAN: Bain Capital sought elimination of the pension plan and termination of employee and retiree life insurance and health insurance.

SOPTIC: I was devastated. It makes me angry. Those guys were all rich. They all have more money than they'll ever spend, yet they didn't have the money to take care of the very people that made the money for them.

WISEMAN: Bain Capital walked away with a lot of money that they made off of this plant. We view Mitt Romney as a job destroyer.

COBB: To get up on national TV and brag about making jobs when he has destroyed thousands of people's careers, lifetimes -- just destroying people.

SOPTIC: He's running for president, and if he's going to run the country the way he ran our businesses I wouldn't want him there. He's so out of touch with the average person in this country. How could you care? How could you care for the average working person if you feel that way? [YouTube, 5/14/12]

Bain Capital Ad Is About Romney And His Record, Not Private Equity As A Whole

President Obama: Romney's Bain Capital Experience Is Relevant Because "His Main Calling Card For Why He Thinks He Should Be President Is His Business Experience." During a press conference at the NATO summit, President Obama focused the attack on Romney's record in private equity, not all private equity:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The reason this is relevant to the campaign is because my opponent, Governor Romney, his main calling card for why he thinks he should be president is his business experience. ... [H]e's not going out there touting his experience in Massachusetts. He's saying "I'm a business guy, and I know how to fix it," and this is his business. ... When you're president -- as opposed to the head of a private equity firm -- your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. [Politico, 5/21/12]

Obama Campaign Official: "No One Is Questioning The Private Equity Industry." On a conference call following the release of the ad, Obama campaign deputy manager Stephanie Cutter made clear that the ad was not an indictment of all private equity. From Politico:

"No one is questioning the private equity industry as a whole," Obama campaign deputy manager Stephanie Cutter said on a Monday conference call.

[...]

"This is about the values that Romney lived by," Cutter told reporters. "This is about whether Romney's business experience qualifies him to make the right decisions as president."

"What exactly happened at Bain Capital that gives Romney the experience to run a national economy?" Cutter asked. 

Cutter noted that when these attacks surfaced during the GOP primary, Romney consistently lost voters whose incomes were under $50,000.

"It really was damaging to Mitt Romney," Cutter said. [Politico, 5/14/12]

Fox's Bob Beckel: Obama Hasn't Made Private Equity Central To Campaign, "He's Made Romney's Claim To Be A Job Creator" Central. Fox News contributor Bob Beckel pointed out that the ads are aimed specifically at Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital, and not a private equity as a whole, prompting Fox's Dana Perino to accuse Beckel of splitting hairs:

BECKEL: To listen to you all equate private equity with free enterprise with big business, with the things that actually create jobs, and a little, small part of our economy to make it into the big attack on private enterprise and free enterprise --

KIMBERLEY GUILFOYLE (co-host): That's not what we're saying.

BECKEL: Yes it is. It's exactly what you said -- which is absolutely ridiculous.

DANA PERINO (co-host): But President Obama has made this the center piece of his attack against Romney, so don't you think we should be talking about it?

BECKEL: He hasn't made private equity. He has made Romney's claim to be a job creator because of his Bain Capital -- and that has proved to be a flat-out lie.

PERINO: OK. And that is where the splitting of the hairs comes, and I don't know if people are going to buy it. [Fox News, The Five, 5/21/12]

Slate Chief Political Correspondent John Dickerson: "It's Well Within Bounds To Put [Romney's Bain Capital] Career Under A Microscope." Addressing the ad focusing on Romney's time at Bain, John Dickerson argued that because Mitt Romney has "argued repeatedly that his career at Bain ... gives him special insight" into the economy, it is relevant to "assess the truth of his claims." [Slate, 5/21/12]

New York's Jonathan Chait: Obama's Defense Of Bain Capital Ad "Is Perfectly Sound." New York magazine's Jonathan Chait wrote that Romney's "is running on his record at Bain Capital." He also called Obama's defense of the Bain ad "perfectly sound." He added: "Romney has made his business career the center of his claim to expertise. Obama's ads suggest reasons why voters should eye this experience warily." [New York, 5/21/12]

PolitiFact: Romney "Made A Profit From Taking Over GST, And The Employees Lost Many Benefits Their Union Had Negotiated." PolitiFact found the Bain Capital ad's claims to be "mostly true":

We are checking this claim: "After purchasing the company, Mitt Romney and his partners loaded it with debt, closed the Kansas City plant and walked away with a healthy profit, leaving hundreds of employees out of work with their pensions in jeopardy."

We found, through corporate filings, interviews and investigations by other news organizations, that the statement is accurate but needs some clarification. First, it's true that Bain added significantly to GST's debt load while paying dividends to itself. The plant's closure, however, happened after Romney had left daily operations at Bain, though he led Bain during six years of its majority investment in the plant. And other, outside factors were at work, making the steel industry a tough business. Steel prices were low and electricity costs were high, and those forces drove other steel mills out of business around the same time.

The statement's last two claims are solid: Bain (and Romney) made a profit from taking over GST, and the employees lost many benefits their union had negotiated, including supplemental pension payments. The federal government had to step in to shore up the fund.

We rate the claim Mostly True. [PolitiFact, 5/16/12]

Romney Campaign Has Repeatedly Touted His Experience At Bain Capital

Gov. Mitt Romney: 25 Years In Business Has "Given Me An Understanding Of How America Works And How The Economy Works." In an interview with TIME's Mark Halperin, Romney explained that his experience in business has given him an understanding of how the economy works:

HALPERIN: The President says that your experience at Bain Capital will be central in this election. He says it does not qualify you to be a job creator as President. I know you think that working in the private sector in and of itself gives you insight into how the economy works, but what specific skills or policies did you learn at Bain that would help you create an environment where jobs would be created?

ROMNEY: Well that's a bit of a question like saying, what have you learned in life that would help you lead? My whole life has been learning to lead, from my parents, to my education, to the experience I had in the private sector, to helping run the Olympics, and then of course helping guide a state. Those experiences in totality have given me an understanding of how America works and how the economy works. Twenty five years in business, including business with other nations, competing with companies across the world, has given me an understanding of what it is that makes America a good place to grow and add jobs, and why jobs leave America - why businesses decide to locate here, and why they decide to locate somewhere else. What outsourcing causes - what it's caused by, rather. I understand, for instance, how to read a balance sheet. I happen to believe that having been in the private sector for twenty five years gives me a perspective on how jobs are created - that someone who's never spent a day in the private sector, like President Obama, simply doesn't understand.

HALPERIN: I want to ask you to be just a little bit more specific about that, because again, he said this is like the central way he's going to run this campaign, to focus on your business career. You said you know how to read a balance sheet. There are a lot of people in America who know how to do that. What would make you qualify to be President - again, specific things you've learned, things you know, policies that grow out of your experience at Bain Capital that would lead toward job creation.

ROMNEY: Well Mark, let's be a little more specific as to the area you'd like to suggest. Trade policies? Labor policies? Energy policies? Let's take energy, for instance. I understand that in some industries, the input cost of energy is a major factor in whether an industry is going to locate in the United States or go elsewhere. So, when at Bain Capital, we started a new steel company called Steel Dynamics in Indiana, the cost of energy was a very important factor to the success of that enterprise. [TIME, 5/23/12]

Romney: "I've Had A Number Of Leadership Experiences And I Know How To Run Things." Romney touted his business experience at Bain Capital during the Republican primary in February:

[W]ith the rise of Rick Santorum, Romney's past as a successful manager -- of the Olympics, Bain Capital and the state of Massachusetts -- has become an even more central point of contrast between Romney and his competition.

"[Santorum has] never run a business, never run a city, never run a state, has no experience in leading or running something," Romney told a Detroit radio station on Wednesday, in response to a question about why he's a better choice than Santorum. "My experience was I started off in business, worked my way up and became head of a business and, then started a business of my own successfully, and then was asked to go out and run the Olympics and ran that successfully, and then became a governor and was successful in running that."

As a result, Romney said, he can more effectively lead the country than Santorum.

"I've had a number of leadership experiences and I know how to run things and know how to lead," he said. [Politico, 2/18/12]

Romney On Record Of Job Creation At Bain Capital: "I'm Going To Stand And Defend Capitalism ... Throughout This Campaign." During the CNN Republican primary presidential debate on January 19, Mitt Romney responded to a question about his claims of job creation during his time at Bain Capital:

ROMNEY: We started a number of businesses. Four in particular created 120,000 jobs. As of today. We started them years ago. They've grown well beyond the time I was there to 120,000 people that have been employed by those enterprises. There are other we've been with. Some we have been with, some of which have lost jobs. People have evaluated that - since - well, since I ran four years ago when I ran for governor. And those that have been documented to lost jobs lost about 10,000 jobs. So 120,000 less 10 means we created something over 100,000 jobs. There's some, by the way, that were businesses we acquired that grew and became more successful like Domino's Pizza and a company called Duane Reade and others. I'm very proud of the fact that throughout my career we tried to build enterprises hopefully to try to return money to investors. There's nothing wrong with profit, by the way. That profit -- that profit went to pension funds, to charities. It went to a wide array of institutions. A lot of people benefited from that and by the way as enterprises has become more profitable, they can hire more people. I'm someone who believes in free enterprise. I think Adam Smith was right. And I'm going to stand and defend capitalism across this country throughout this campaign. I know we're going to get it hard from President Obama but we'll stuff it down his throat and point out it is capitalism and freedom that makes America strong. [MittRomney.com, 1/19/12]

Romney Communications Director Highlighted Bain Capital Job Creation Claims. In a blog post on Mitt Romney's campaign website, Romney communications director Gail Gitcho touted Romney's record at Bain, citing 2011 employment levels at several companies that Bain had invested in. [MittRomney.com, 1/19/12]

Romney Spokeswoman Andrea Saul: Romney's Experience At Bain Capital Give Him "Unique Skills And Capabilities" To Deal With The Economy. During the primary, the Romney campaign defended his record at Bain and argued that it made him uniquely qualified to be president:

In a broadly worded statement, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul defended the candidate's record in the private sector and said that at Bain & Co., Romney "helped lead a successful turnaround. At Bain Capital, he helped launch and guide a private equity and financial services firm."

"Bain Capital invested in many businesses; while not every business was successful, the firm had an excellent overall track record," Saul said. "These experiences give Mr. Romney the unique skills and capabilities to do what President Obama has failed to do: focus on job creation and turn around our nation's faltering economy." [Politico, 7/14/11]

Romney Campaign Released Ad Highlighting Bain Capital Investment In Successful Steel Company. On May 14, the Romney campaign released an ad hyping the Bain investment in Steel Dynamics. The narration in the ad says, "SDI almost never got started. When others shied away, Mitt Romney's private sector leadership team stepped in." [MittRomney.com, 5/14/12]

But Right-Wing Media Label Obama's Bain Capital Ad As "An Attack On Capitalism"

Fox's Gretchen Carlson: Ad Is "An Attack On Capitalism" Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson called the Bain Capital ad "an attack on capitalism":

CARLSON: So, how does the President get away with having it both ways? He had this huge fundraiser with a huge private equity guy here in New York City from Blackstone. And at the same time he's vilifying Mitt Romney for doing the exact same thing.

[...]

CARLSON: It is a double standard. It's an attack on capitalism. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/16/12]

Wall Street Journal'sKim Strassel: "This Is About A President Who Thinks Private Business Is Bad." On Meet The Press, Kim Strassel stated that the reason for going after Romney's time at Bain Capital was that the President "thinks private business is bad":

STRASSEL: Bain fundamentally is about two conflicting visions.

[...]

STRASSEL: This is about a president who thinks that private business is bad, that you need bigger government, more regulation, higher taxes, all of those things, and that people like Mitt Romney who were job creators fundamentally suck the life out of the economy. [NBC, Meet The Press, 5/20/12]

Fox's Gretchen Carlson: "This Class Warfare Dialogue, Which Some People Believe Is Happening, Is Going To Continue." Discussing President Obama's comments about the Bain Capital ad, Carlson said:

CARLSON: You have to go back to that press conference yesterday with President Obama when he was asked point blank, do you blame Governor Romney for those job losses, he didn't answer the question. So, I'm not so sure that he's going to point blank blame Romney like those ads do, but it's obvious that they're not walking away from this discussion, guys. They are not walking away from this. The president made it very clear yesterday. This is not a distraction. This comes down to a difference in philosophy and ideology about how two different men would run this country. The president says that Mitt Romney is missing what the president's job is all about. The job is not simply to maximize profits, it's to give everyone a fair shot. Have we heard that before? This lingo, this class warfare dialogue, which some people believe is happening is going to continue. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/22/12]

Fox's Andrea Tantaros: Obama Is Trying To Win Re-Election By "Going After Capitalism." On America's Newsroom, The Five co-host Andrea Tantaros stated that President Obama was going to try to win re-election by "going after capitalism":

TANTAROS: This is such a baseless charge about Bain Capital, and it's laughable to think that somehow the president is going to win an election going after capitalism. And he's doing it, might I add, by himself. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/22/12]

Right-Wing Media Have Repeatedly Claimed Obama Is Anti-Business

Bill O'Reilly: "Some Perceive" That Obama Is Fostering An "Anti-Business Climate." Speaking about the Obama campaign's fundraising, O'Reilly said:

O'REILLY: [Casino owner Steve Wynn] Does not like -- and I don't believe he's alone -- the anti-business climate that some perceive President Obama is fostering. So, why would the fat cats want to give the president four more years when he's done such a poor job on the economy? [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 7/19/11 via Media Matters]

Fox's Eric Bolling: Obama Is "Demonizing" Business Owners. In response to the founder of BET commenting that the White House lacked leadership on the economy, Eric Bolling stated:

BOLLING: [Obama]'s demonizing the business community, the business environment. I mean, the whole, you know, taxing people making over $250,000 a year -- that's small businesses. The business community is saying enough already with the class warfare trying to say if you're successful and you've made money, you're going to help pay for some of the social programs that he's always trying to make bigger and bigger. [Fox News, The Five, 9/28/11 via Media Matters]

Fox's Charlie Gasparino: Obama "Has Some Very Anti-Business Instincts." On America Live, Fox Business reporter Charlie Gasparino claimed President Obama has "anti-business instincts" while discussing his theory that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt secretly wants Romney to win:

GASPARINO: I think [Immelt] took the job for two reasons -- and this is like an outside adviser's job. Number one: Yes, to help GE.

[...]

GASPARINO: I think the second part is that he did feel like he wanted to give something back, that he did want to be part of an effort to show Obama, who clearly has -- listen, I don't think this is a political statement - he has some very anti-business instincts. [Fox News, America Live, 3/20/12 via Media Matters]

Charlie Gasparino: "This Administration Is Anti-Business, And That's Scary." When the National Labor Relations Board sued Boeing for allegedly moving work from Washington state to North Carolina, Gasparino stated:

GASPARINO: I know the Obama administration is going out of its way to say it's not anti-business.

[...]

GASPARINO: I tell you, this is really scary for investors in this country, because it's just proving that this administration is anti-business, and that's scary when you have nine percent unemployment. [Fox News, Cavuto on Business, 5/28/11]

Fox's Charles Payne: "The War Against Business Has Been Ratcheted Up Tremendously." During a segment about the NLRB suing Boeing, Fox contributor Charles Payne said: "The war against business has been ratcheted up tremendously." [Fox News, Cavuto on Business, 5/28/11]

]]> K.Z. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230016 Wed, 23 May 2012 17:30:00 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230009 Right-wing media have attacked a contract between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and a public relations firm to raise awareness of health and preventive care opportunities as a "propaganda piece" for the health care law that "violates many of the procurement laws." But PR campaigns like this are nothing new; in fact, the Bush administration spent $1.6 billion dollars over a 30-month span promoting its policies.

HHS Launches PR Campaign To "Educate The Public" On Health And Preventive Care Opportunities

The Hill: PR Firm Won "Competitive Bidding Process" To "Educate The Public About How To Stay Healthy And Prevent Ilnesses." The Hill reported on May 21 that HHS signed a $20 million contract with a public relations firm to "educate the public about how to stay healthy and prevent illnesses" and explain "preventive benefits provided by the healthcare law." From The Hill:

The Health and Human Services Department has signed a $20 million contract with a public-relations firm to highlight part of the Affordable Care Act.

The new, multimedia ad campaign is designed to educate the public about how to stay healthy and prevent illnesses, an HHS official said. 

The campaign was mandated by the Affordable Care Act and must describe the importance of prevention while also explaining preventive benefits provided by the healthcare law. The law makes many preventive services available without a co-pay or deductible, and provides new preventive benefits to Medicare patients.

The PR firm Porter Novelli won the contract after a competitive bidding process. The $20 million contract was first reported by PR Week. Porter Novelli did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [The Hill, 5/12/12]

Right-Wing Media Attack Preventive Health Campaign As "Propaganda" That "Violates ... Laws"

Sarah Palin: Health Care Law PR Campaign Is "A Propaganda Piece" That "Violates Many Of The Laws" Of "Government Contracts." On the May 22 edition of Fox News' On The Record, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin called the HHS campaign "one of the stupidest things I've heard coming out of Obama administration" and claimed it was a "propaganda piece" which "violates many of the procurement laws and other laws applicable to government contracts." From On The Record:

PALIN: This is one of the stupidest things I've heard coming out of the Obama administration. Not only is this, of course, pending in court, and I think it will be deemed unconstitutional, but this is a propaganda piece, which I think violates many of the procurement laws and other laws applicable to government contracts. This is propaganda. It's just promoting Obamacare.

And $20 million -- take it one step further and find out how did this PR firm even be awarded the $20 million contract? It's crony capitalism on steroids, Greta. The $20 million is going to a firm that employs and has as head honchos Obama surrogates. It's payback for their support of Obama.

And this comes on the heels of another $6 million HHS contract that went to another Obama crony, who happens to be the crony who Jeremiah Wright alleges was bribed with $150,000 to hush up until the election was over. Connect the dots. The $20 million contract is just part of the crony capitalism that corrupts Washington, D.C. [Fox News, On The Record, 5/22/12]

Stuart Varney: "You Could Say That's Using Taxpayer Money To Buy Some Votes." On the May 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney claimed "you could say" that the campaign is "using taxpayer money to buy some votes." Later in the segment, co-host Brian Kilmeade noted that "as a country, we put $100 million into selling the prescription drug plan and President Bush was president at the time" but claimed the situation was different because Bush "was not running for re-election. He was explaining a plan that got passed." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/23/12]

Fox's Ainsley Earhardt: It's "Hard To Imagine This Is Even Legal." On the May 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends First, co-host Ainsley Earhardt introduced a segment on the PR campaign by saying, "It's time for 'What the Hill,' and once we tell you the story, you'll understand why." After the report, Earhardt reacted to the story by claiming that it's "hard to imagine this is even legal, but it is." [Fox News, Fox & Friends First, 5/23/12]

Hot Air: "Obamacare Looks More And More Like A Slush Fund To Repay Obama Cronies." In a May 22 post on Hot Air, Ed Morrissey wrote that the campaign was to convince Americans "that they actually love government control of their health care" and that "ObamaCare looks more and more like a slush fund to repay Obama cronies." From Hot Air:

You know what ObamaCare really needs?  No, not a Constitutional loophole, or a subservient Supreme Court.  It needs a public-relations campaign to convince the majorty [sic] of Americans who want it repealed that they actually love government control of their health care.  And guess what?  We all get to pay for it

[...]

ObamaCare looks more and more like a slush fund to repay Obama cronies.  No wonder Obama is so desperate to save it. [Hot Air, 5/22/12]

But This Is Nothing New: The Bush Admin. Spent More Than $1 Billion On PR Campaigns To Promote Its Policies

SF Chronicle: "Bush PR Costs Taxpayers $1.6 Billion" Over 30 Months. A February 14, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle  article noted that a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that "[t]he Bush administration spent at least $1.6 billion on public relations and advertising campaigns over 30 months." From The San Francisco Chronicle:

The Bush administration spent at least $1.6 billion on public relations and advertising campaigns over 30 months, according to a report released Monday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

The report, requested by congressional Democrats, shows that government agencies are relying on outside consultants to help pitch their messages to the public, whether it's to bolster public support for the war in Iraq, deter buying prescription drugs from Canada or recruit for the armed forces.

"To communicate these messages to the general public or particular target audiences, departments contract with media-related vendors ... for a wide range of services, including communication plans, marketing design strategies, public relations campaigns, public service announcements and educational materials," according to the report.

The GAO report referenced by the San Francisco Chronicle included the following chart showing that the majority of the Bush administration's PR spending went to "advertising agencies" and "public relations firms." From the report:

[San Francisco Chronicle, 2/14/06; Government Accountability Office, 1/05]

Bush Administration Gave Media Outlets "Prepackaged News Stories" Without Acknowledging Its Role. According to a March 15, 2005, Washington Post article, the Bush administration regularly gave "TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them." From The Washington Post:

The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them.

That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M. Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations laws that ban covert propaganda. [The Washington Post, 3/15/05]

Bush Administration "Spent At Least $88 Million" On PR Campaigns In 2004 Alone. A January 26, 2005, USA Today article reported that an analysis of Bush administration spending found that, in the first term, Bush's administration doubled PR spending from President Clinton's second term. The article further pointed out that in 2004, the Bush administration spent $88 million "on contracts with public relations firms." From USA Today:

The Bush administration has more than doubled its spending on outside contracts with public relations firms during the past four years, according to an analysis of federal procurement data by congressional Democrats.

The administration spent at least $88 million in fiscal 2004 on contracts with major public relations firms, the analysis found, compared with $37 million in 2001, Bush's first year in office. In all, the administration spent $250 million on public relations contracts during its first term, compared with $128 million spent for President Clinton between 1997 and 2000. The analysis did not examine what the Clinton administration spent during its first term. [USA Today, 1/27/05]

Bush's HHS Spent $12.6M To Promote New Medicare Drug Benefits. HHS reportedly spent $12.6 million on a 2004 ad campaign explaining new Medicare prescription drug benefits. CBS News reported that critics questioned the objectivity of the ads, expressing concern about links between Bush's re-election campaign and one of the firms working on the ad campaign. [Media Matters, 8/2/10]

]]> J.V.B. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230009 Wed, 23 May 2012 14:15:21 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230007 Fox News host Brian Kilmeade attempted to whitewash Gov. Mitch Daniels' (R-IN) record as director of the Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), attacking the accusation that Daniels "drove up the deficit" and claiming the surplus Bush inherited from the Clinton administration was only "on paper." But policies enacted by the Bush administration while Daniels was OMB director added "trillions" to the deficit and are still responsible for the majority of the increase in federal debt under President Obama, and the Bush administration inherited an actual budget surplus from the Clinton administration.

Fox's Kilmeade Spins Daniels' Deficit Record As Head Of Bush's OMB 

Kilmeade Pushes The "Different Reality" To The Claim That Daniels "Drove Up The Deficit." On the May 22 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade interviewed Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. During the interview, Kilmeade attacked Austan Goolsbee, former chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, who recently cited policies enacted under Daniels' tenure as Bush's OMB chief as evidence that Daniels and the Bush administration "drove up the deficit." From Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: A former White House chief economist getting defensive about President Obama's failure to get the deficit under control.

GOOLSBEE [video]: Look, I don't dispute that the deficit has increased. I think for the Republicans who set in place the policies that led to the economic crisis that exploded the deficit to now be saying, well, look, why is the deficit so big is a bit -- you know, they lit the back half of the house on fire, now they're complaining the air conditioning doesn't work. 

KILMEADE: Well, you heard what Paul Ryan said to that. Let's find out what somebody else says to that. The budget chief under President Bush begs to differ. We're joined right now by now governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels. Governor, welcome back to the show. Can you answer Austan Goolsbee - you, in terms of driving up deficit? It was your policy that drove up the deficit? 

DANIELS: I understand why he's defensive. You know, doubling the deficit on this watch in the terrible economy, which is the biggest problem of all, even bigger than overspending, is the really anemic recovery we've got and that's all on the policies of this administration. No, I mean, they've tried this a long time, but it's very lame. You know, the deficit in 2007 was 1.2 percent of GDP, one of the lowest post-war. So, you know, a lot went into getting us in the fix we are in now, but it really won't wash for them to keep looking back, back, back, trying to blame it on someone else. 

KILMEADE: They're trying to blame it on someone else, but it keeps coming back to you -- your Office of Management and Budget, and people know what you've done as governor and Democrats are praising you as well. But they keep saying, "Well, you drove up the deficit." But in reality -- there's a different reality to what you actually inherited, correct? 

DANIELS: Yeah, sure. There was a bubble breaking back then, too, and all the revenue that people imagined was coming, everyone thought was coming. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/22/12]

But Policies Enacted While Daniels Led Bush's OMB Added "Trillions" To The Federal Deficit

NYT's Leonhardt: Policies Passed While Daniels Was OMB Chief "Erased ... $673 Billion" Of An $850 Billion Surplus. In a January 8, 2011, post on his Economix blog, New York Times economics writer David Leonhardt reacted to Daniels' claim that the budget deficit of the Bush administration was due to the stock-market bubble of the early 2000s by noting that while the bubble "erased a little less than $300 billion" of the $850 billion surplus forecasted by the Congressional Budget Office, but Bush policies "erased another $673 billion." From The New York Times:

When President Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office was forecasting an average annual budget surplus of $850 billion for 2009 through 2012, according to an analysis I did in 2009.

The bursting stock-market bubble and recession that Mr. Daniels mentions erased a little less than $300 billion of the surplus. The Bush administration's policies -- including the tax cuts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Medicare prescription-drug program -- erased another $673 billion.

Mr. Daniels is certainly correct that the bursting bubble of 2000 and beyond helped cause a recession -- and that the recession, in turn, shrank the federal surplus. But it is not true that "it wouldn't have mattered what policies you tried to implement." The Bush administration's policies did more than twice as much damage to the budget as the recession did. [The New York Times, 1/8/11]

Ezra Klein: Daniels "Held A Command Post" While Bush Passed Policies That Added "Trillions ... To The Deficit." In an August 25, 2011, post on The Washington Post'sWonkblog, Ezra Klein pointed out that while Bush's policies "cannot all be laid at Daniels' feet," he "held a command post" in the Bush administration "during many of [the] mistakes" that led to high deficits. From The Washington Post: 

"When President Obama claims that the state of our union is anything but grave," Daniels said, "he must know in his heart that this is not true." And the reason for Daniels' gloom was debt. We have too much of it. Much too much of it. And over and again, Daniels signaled that Republicans were not blameless in the rise of red ink. "The President did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight," he said. "To make such action happen, we also must work, in ways we Republicans have not always practiced, to bring Americans together," he admitted.

What Daniels didn't say is that he, Mitch Daniels, held a command post during many of these mistakes.

Daniels was George W. Bush's first budget director. He served from 2001 to mid-2003. That is to say, he oversaw the first round of tax cuts, and the initial cost estimates of the war in Iraq, and the development of the deficit-financed Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. During his time as Bush's budget director, the deficit increased by almost $200 billion. After he left, the policies he helped pass would add trillions more to the deficit. They are still adding to the deficit today.

These policies cannot all be laid at Daniels' feet. It is unlikely that Bush's budget director was heavily involved in the decision to enter Iraq -- though Daniels did produce short-term cost estimates that helped reassure Congress, quite wrongly, that the war would be swift and affordable. But the same cannot be said for the Medicare expansion, or the tax cuts. And as the New York Times has pointed out, these policies, together, have done more damage to the deficit than any legislation signed into law under President Obama. [The Washington Post, 8/25/11] 

TPM: Daniels "Was One Of The Men In Charge Of The Bush Budget That ... Helped Create The Gigantic Federal Deficit." In a January 5, 2011, post on Talking Points Memo, Evan McMorris-Santoro pointed out that Daniels "was one of the men in charge of the Bush budget" that "helped create the gigantic federal deficit." From TPM:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) -- on the short list of contenders for the GOP's presidential nomination in 2012 -- has an explanation for why the deficit exploded under George W. Bush. And it's not the massive Bush tax cuts, which Daniels helped shepherd as Bush's director of the OMB.

"The nation went into a deficit then because the bubble burst and we had a recession," Daniels told CNN this afternoon. "It wouldn't have mattered what policies you tried to implement, we were going to have a great big reversal."

Daniels' presidential ambitions could be hampered by the fact that he was one of the men in charge of the Bush budget that dramatically increased the size of federal government spending and slashed revenues thanks to the tax cuts. That helped create the gigantic federal deficit that Republicans used as a rhetorical cudgel to bludgeon the Democratic House majority to death in November. Tea partiers also like to use the deficit cudgel on Republicans, especially those that voted for Bush's budgets. (Daniels has other problems with the GOP base, too, such as his suggestion that it's time for a "truce" on social issues, which ticked off the values voters something fierce.) [Talking Points Memo, 1/5/11] 

Economic Policy Institute: "Bush Administration's Policies" Under Daniels "Ensured A Mediocre Economic Recovery." In a January 24 post on the Economic Policy Institute's (EPI) Working Economics blog, Andrew Fieldhouse noted that tax cuts passed under Daniels' tenure as OMB chief "are responsible for roughly half of today's structural budget deficit and half the public debt accumulated last decade." Fieldhouse further pointed out:

Daniels ran OMB from Jan. 2001 to June 2003; during his tenure, he helped craft the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. (Later tax acts accelerated implementation of some of these tax cuts, but this is when the real fiscal malfeasance occurred.) When Daniels took charge of OMB, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was projecting a $5.0 trillion (4.0 percent of GDP) budget surplus over the next decade. When he left office, CBO was projecting a $1.4 trillion (-1.0 percent of GDP) budget deficit over the next decade. Roughly $4.8 trillion of the fiscal deterioration resulted from legislation enacted over 2001-2003; the tax cuts alone added $2.6 trillion to the public debt over 2001-2010. (The other major drivers of this fiscal deterioration were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which Daniels didn't bother to pay for or even put on budget.) The 2001 recession certainly contributed to the emerging deficits--just as half of this year's deficit can be chalked up to economic weakness--but the Bush administration's economic policies ensured a mediocre economic recovery. [EPI, 1/24/12] 

Many Policies Passed Under Daniels And Throughout The Bush Administration Continue To Be The Primary Cause Of The Deficit

Ezra Klein: Bush Policies Responsible For Vast Majority Of Debt Increase Under Obama Administration. In a January 31 Washington Post column, Klein estimated that Obama's policies are responsible for $983 billion of the nearly $5 trillion increase in public debt over the course of his administration, while the remainder of the debt increase is attributable to Bush-era policies - many of which were enacted during Daniels' tenure at OMB. From The Washington Post:

[I]f you're a deficit-obsessed voter, the clock doesn't answer the key question: How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it's about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama's opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obama's policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

A chart accompanying the column made in conjunction with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) illustrated the debt impact of Bush's policies versus Obama's:

[The Washington Post, 1/31/12; The Washington Post, 1/31/12]

For more on the impact that Bush's policies have had on the federal debt, click here.

Kilmeade: Surplus Inherited By The Bush Administration "Was On Paper, It Wasn't In The Bank"

Kilmeade To Daniels: The Surplus Inherited By The Bush Administration "Was On Paper, It Wasn't In The Bank." From Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: They're trying to blame it on someone else, but it keeps coming back to you. Your Office of Management and Budget and people know what you've done as governor and Democrats are praising you as well. But they keep saying, "Well, you drove up the deficit." But in reality -- there's a different reality to what you actually inherited, correct? 

DANIELS: Yeah, sure. There was a bubble breaking back then, too, and all the revenue that people imagined was coming, everyone thought was coming --  

KILMEADE: The surplus was on paper, it wasn't in the bank. 

DANIELS: Yeah, it never happened and wasn't going to, given the, again, the economic recession that took place then. But, you know, it's really not worth arguing about at this point. We're in a very bad place, and the question is -- as it always is - is what do we do now? And what this administration is doing with regard to economic growth and spending discipline is simply not going to get the job done. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/22/12]

But The Bush Administration Inherited A Real Budget Surplus From The Clinton Administration

FactCheck.org: "Any Way You Count It, The Federal Budget Was Balanced And The Deficit Was Erased" Under Clinton. In a February 3, 2008, post, FactCheck.org pointed out that, even after removing Social Security surpluses, "there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while." From FactCheck.org:

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

The post further noted that even under a different accounting process called "accrual accounting," the "annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998,  $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000.  So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years."

FactCheck also included the following chart:

[FactCheck.org, 2/3/08]

The Economist: "The Clinton Administration Delivered A Couple Of Years Of Real Verifiable Budget Surpluses In The Late 1990s." A July 27, 2011, post on The Economist's Democracy in America blog noted that, while the long-term debt projections of the late 1990s may not have materialized, "The Clinton administration delivered a couple of years of real verifiable budget surpluses in the late 1990s, and if Clintonian levels of taxation and spending had continued, they likely would have generated annual surpluses that would have shrunk the debt by over $2 billion over the decade thereafter." From The Economist:

The Clinton administration's calculations in 2000 that the government would pay off its debt and accumulate savings of $2.3 trillion over the following ten years were wrong. And they were wrong not because of any stupid error or dramatically incorrect theory about the economic world, but simply because they failed to predict that the American economy would experience a financial crisis in 2008, followed by the worst recession since the Great Depression and a historically anaemic recovery. (I assume they failed to predict the 2001 tech-crash recession as well.) The Clinton administration delivered a couple of years of real verifiable budget surpluses in the late 1990s, and if Clintonian levels of taxation and spending had continued, they likely would have generated annual surpluses that would have shrunk the debt by over $2 billion over the decade thereafter. But the forecast that they would have eliminated the debt entirely and replaced it with trillions of dollars in sovereign wealth was a mirage. [The Economist, 7/27/11] 

NYT: Bush Administration Went "From Healthy Surpluses At The End Of The Clinton Era ... To Nine Straight Years Of Deficits." A July 23, 2011, New York Times editorial blamed "largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions" for taking the federal budget "from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits." From The New York Times:

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here -- from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

[...]

In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton's policies. But every year starting in 2002, the budget fell into deficit. In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush's policies and the effects of recession. Mr. Obama's policies in 2009 and 2010, including the stimulus package, added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary. [The New York Times, 7/24/11]

Daniels Is A Fox News Star

"A Star Is Born": Fox Figures Lauded Daniels For His Response To The State Of The Union. In January, Fox figures gushed over Daniels' Republican response to the State of the Union, with Chris Wallace claiming that "a star is born." Others praised Daniels' address as "poetic," "funny," "strong," and "quite impressive." [Media Matters, 1/25/12]

And Fox Similarly Whitewashed GOP Sen. Rob Portman's Fiscal Record As Bush OMB Chief

Fox Whitewashed Portman's "Interesting Background" As Bush OMB Director. In August 2011, reporting on the lawmakers selected to negotiate deficit reduction, Fox News' Mike Emanuel touted Sen. Rob Portman's (R-OH) "interesting background," saying that not only does he have legislative experience, but "he's done the budget from the administration side of things." But Portman's "interesting background" was serving as OMB during the Bush administration when federal deficits more than doubled. [Media Matters, 8/10/11]

]]> J.V.B. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230007 Wed, 23 May 2012 13:47:20 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205220015 President Obama has said that relentless deregulation and tax cuts -- "you're on your own" economics -- don't result in a strong economy and have "never worked." Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly twisted these words and falsely claimed that Obama is attacking "capitalism" and America itself.

Obama: Theory That Deregulation And Tax Cuts Lead To Strong Economy Has "Never Worked"

Obama In December: Trickle-Down Economics "Doesn't Work. It's Never Worked." From President Obama's December 6, 2011, speech on economics in Osawatomie, Kansas:

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt's time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. "The market will take care of everything," they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty.

Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the '50s and '60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory. [WhiteHouse.gov, 12/6/11]

Obama In December: " 'You're On Your Own' Economics ... Doesn't Result In A Strong Economy." From the Osawatomie speech:

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class -- things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people's premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn't afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

We simply cannot return to this brand of "you're on your own" economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn't result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn't result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that's enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens. [WhiteHouse.gov, 12/6/11]

Obama In February: America Won't Win With "The Same Old, Tired, Worn-Out, 'You're On Your Own' Economics That Hasn't Worked." From Obama's February 23 speech at a campaign event in Coral Gables, Florida:

[W]e've got to make sure that everybody is doing their fair share. Everybody needs a fair shot; everybody has got to play by the same set of rules; everybody has got to do their fair share.

And when it comes to paying for our government and making sure the investments are there so that future generations can succeed, everybody has got to do their part. Which is why I put forward the Buffett Rule: If you make more than a million dollars a year you should not pay a lower tax rate than your secretary. (Applause.) That's common sense. We've said if you make $250,000 a year or less, you don't need your taxes going up right now. But folks like me, we can afford to do a little bit more.

That's not class warfare. That's not envy. It has to do with simple math. If somebody like me gets a tax break that the country can't afford, then one of two things happen: Either the deficit goes up, which is irresponsible -- or we're taking it out of somebody else -- that student who is now suddenly having to pay a higher student loan rate, or that senior who's having to pay more for Medicare, or that veteran who's not getting the help they need after having served our country.

That's not right. That's not who we are. Everybody in this room, we are here, successful, because somebody down the road was not just thinking about themselves, they were taking responsibility for the country as a whole. They we're thinking about their future. The American story has never been about what we just do by ourselves; it's about what we do together. We're not going to win the race for new jobs and new businesses and middle-class security if we're responding to today's challenges with the same old, tired, worn-out, "you're on your own" economics that hasn't worked.

What these other guys are peddling has not worked. It didn't work in the decade before the Great Depression. It did not work in the decade before I became President. It will not work now. (Applause.) [WhiteHouse.gov, 2/23/12]

Limbaugh Morphs Obama's Statements About Economics Into Anti-American Sentiment

Limbaugh: Obama Said "The Country Has Never Worked" And "Capitalism Has Never Worked." From Limbaugh's February 24 show:

LIMBAUGH: Here's the next sound bite.

OBAMA [audio clip]: We're not going to win the race for new jobs and new businesses and middle-class security if we're responding to today's challenges with the same old tired, worn-out "you're on your own" economics that hasn't worked. What these other guys are peddling has not worked. It didn't work in the decade before the Great Depression. It did not work in the decade before I became president. It will not work now.

LIMBAUGH: Do you believe this? The country has never worked? Capitalism has never worked? America was not great until the New Deal. And then America plunged into the abyss again and only is on the path to reclaiming its greatness now that he is replicating the New Deal by a factor of 10. Has he ever heard of the Roaring '20s? Has he ever heard of the boom in the '50s and the '60s and the '70s. Has he ever heard of what happened in the 1980s? It never worked?

This is the second time he's said this such -- in such a prominent way. Last time was when he made his speech -- I guess it was in December, might have been January, the days run together so quickly now -- in Osawatomie, Kansas. Where he said America, as founded, hasn't worked. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/24/12]

Limbaugh: Obama Is "Essentially Saying That America Has Never Worked Since The Days Of Its Founding." From Limbaugh's April 2 show:

LIMBAUGH: It might have been in his Saturday radio address. I'm not sure. He said it before, so it's not new, but he said it again. He said, "We won't win the race for new jobs and new businesses and middle-class security if we cling to this same old worn-out, tired 'you're on your own' economics that the other side is peddling. It was tried in the decades before the Great Depression. It didn't work then. It was tried in the last decade. It didn't work. You know, the idea you would keep on doing the same thing over and over again, even though it's been proven not to work. That's a sign of madness."

This is Barack Obama essentially saying that America has never worked since the days of its founding. That this "you're on your own" economics hasn't worked. I would love to sit down -- I would love to have a conversation with him and say, "We've got $16 trillion in debt. No end in sight because of the deficits you're running up. Every program that you have put in place has failed, and every program that people like you have put in place has failed in its objective. Would you give me one instance where what you believe in has resulted in private-sector economic growth and prosperity? And would you please look back over the history of this country and tell me it didn't work and give me examples. I want to know what was it before the New Deal that didn't work? What was it --"

By the way, the thing that saved this country economically after the New Deal -- because the New Deal was destroying this economy -- was World War II. The New Deal was an abject failure, just like Obamanomics is an abject failure. But it's even -- the characterization of capitalism as "you're on your own" economics is so flawed as to be insulting. This is what I mean about these people being ignorant. Conceited, ignorant. I have no doubt he believes this. He's been taught this. He's theorized about it in the faculty lounge. He believes that capitalism is, "You're on your own." He believes that capitalism is people destroying each other, stealing from each other. That's what he thinks of competition. Competition is immoral. It's unhealthy because all it does is lead to cheaters. And who are the cheaters? The people that win. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/2/12]

Limbaugh: "Obama Said That. Quote Unquote, 'This Country Has Never Worked.' " From Limbaugh's May 21 show:

LIMBAUGH: So, once again, it's an attempt here to take on the majority as some evil -- the ruling class in this country, now, the Obamaites, they believe the country was founded unjustly, that it was founded by the 1 percent for the 1 percent, that it's never worked. Obama said that. Quote unquote, "This country has never worked." And now it's time to transform it. And part of that's payback. Part of it is payback because the majority, this evil white majority, has arranged things so that they get all the spoils, and then whatever they don't want is what gets handed down. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/21/12]

]]> D.S. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205220015 Tue, 22 May 2012 19:01:16 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205220010 Right-wing media responded to President Obama's May 21 high school commencement speech in Joplin, Missouri, by claiming that Obama "preache[d] socialist BS," called for "military-style community action during crises," and that he "uncorked a campaign speech."

Obama Gave High School Commencement Address In Tornado-Ravaged Joplin, MO

Obama Delivered Address On One-Year Anniversary Of Devastating Tornadoes. From The Kansas City Star:

President Barack Obama told the graduating seniors of Joplin High School Monday night that they and their city had inspired the world.

Speaking on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the mile-wide tornado that shredded their city, Obama said Joplin's lesson is that lives are defined not by what happens to people, but by how they respond.

"The story of Joplin is the story of what happened the next day," the president said. "And the day after that. And all the days and weeks that followed."

Even in the face of devastation, people can choose to carry on and make a difference, Obama said.

"And in doing so, we can make true what's written in Scripture -- that 'tribulation produces perseverance, and perseverance, character, and character, hope.' "

The president's visit was his second to Joplin in a year. Obama walked the city's streets one week after the EF-5 tornado struck, promising then that the country would stand at Joplin's side for years to come. [The Kansas City Star, 5/21/12]

Right-Wing Media Respond To Obama's Speech With Wild Attacks

Daily Caller: Obama "Pushed A Sharply Ideological Message And Included Partisan Jabs And A Call For Military-Style Community Action During Crises." A May 22 Daily Caller article about Obama's speech claimed that Obama "pushed a sharply ideological message and included partisan jabs and a call for military-style community action during crises." From The Daily Caller:

President Barack Obama's high school commencement speech in the tornado-stricken town of Joplin, Mo., pushed a sharply ideological message and included partisan jabs and a call for military-style community action during crises.

"You are from America. No matter how tough times get, you will be tougher," he told the students and parents May 22. "The road has been hard. The day has been long. But we have tomorrow, so we march. We march together," he said on the first anniversary of the deadly tornado strike.

The military imagery was entwined with stump-speech language that repeatedly contrasted the president's progressive ideology of organized acton against what he caricatured as the spiteful and selfish alternative of individualism.

"As you begin the next stage in your journey, you will encounter greed and selfishness; ignorance and cruelty. ... You will meet people who try to build themselves up by tearing others down; who believe looking after others is only for suckers," he said.

"My deepest hope for all of you ... [is that] you can serve as a reminder that we're not meant to walk this road alone; that we're not expected to face down adversity by ourselves," he told his audience. "We're stronger together than we are on our own."

The "stronger together" phrase is the main slogan used by Obama's campaign to rally young and first-time voters. [The Daily Caller, 5/22/12]

Jim Hoft: "How God-Awful ... Obama Preaches Socialist BS To Graduating Students In Joplin." In a May 22 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft linked to The Daily Caller article and wrote: "Haven't they been through enough, Barack? Their town was devastated by a massive tornado and now they're forced to listen to Barack Obama push his socialist BS at graduation." From Hoft's post:

Haven't they been through enough, Barack?

Their town was devastated by a massive tornado and now they're forced to listen to Barack Obama push his socialist BS at graduation.

What a nightmare.

[...]

Barack Obama returned to Joplin, Missouri to push his socialist dogma to the class of '12. [Gateway Pundit, 5/22/12, emphasis in original]

Fox Nation: "Obama Uncorks Campaign Speech At Joplin Graduation Ceremony." On May 22, Fox Nation linked to The Daily Caller article under the headline "Obama Uncorks Campaign Speech at Joplin Graduation Ceremony." From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 5/22/12]

Right-Wing Media Have Shown They'll Attack Obama Over Just About Anything

Disney World Speech. In January, right-wing media used Obama's speech at Walt Disney World as an opportunity to attack him, despite the fact that previous presidents, including Ronald Reagan, had given speeches at Disney parks while in office. [Media Matters, 1/19/12]

Halloween. In October 2011, right-wing media attacked the Obamas for handing out fruit along with candy to trick-or-treaters at the White House. [Media Matters, 10/31/11]

Paper Clips. In September 2011, the New York Post and Fox News attacked Obama for using a "chintzy" paper clip to hold together a copy of his jobs plan. [Media Matters, 9/13/11]

Hurricane Irene. While Hurricane Irene slammed the East Coast in August 2011, right-wing media responded by criticizing Obama, claiming that he "politicize[d]" Irene and that his hurricane briefings were nothing more than a "pathetic" "command center photo-op." [Media Matters, 8/29/11]

East Coast Earthquake. Following an earthquake that struck the East Coast in August 2011, right-wing media attacked Obama for being on a golf course during a family vacation when the earthquake struck. [Media Matters, 8/24/11]

Dijon Mustard. In May 2009, conservative media attacked Obama as an elitist because he ordered a hamburger with Dijon mustard. [Media Matters, 5/7/09]

Latin America Jobs Trip. In March 2011, right-wing media attacked Obama's long-planned jobs trip to Latin America as a "vacation," even though the trip was focused on economic opportunities for the U.S. and trade relationships with Latin American nations. [Media Matters, 3/18/11]

Children's Easter Egg Roll. Also in March 2011, Fox & Friends attacked the White House Easter Egg Roll for making the souvenir eggs more environmentally friendly and encouraging children to exercise. [Media Matters, 3/30/11]

Osama Bin Laden's Death. In May 2011, The Washington Times attacked  Obama following the successful raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, complaining that he golfed before the mission took place and that he "snub[bed] Bush" in his speech following bin Laden's death. [Media Matters, 5/3/11]

]]> E.S.S. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205220010 Tue, 22 May 2012 13:36:05 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205210015 In a New York Times op-ed, former CNN anchor Campbell Brown wrote that Obama "made reference to how women are smarter than men" in his Barnard College commencement speech, saying he "sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste." In fact, Obama said that "founding mothers" were likely "whispering smarter things" to the Founding Fathers about whether a woman should sign the Constitution.

Brown: Obama "Made Reference To How Women Are Smarter Than Men" In Barnard Speech

Brown: Obama Using "A Cheap Applause Line." From Brown's New York Times op-ed, headlined "Obama: Stop Condescending to Women":

WHEN I listen to President Obama speak to and about women, he sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste. In numerous appearances over the years -- most recently at the Barnard graduation -- he has made reference to how women are smarter than men. It's all so tired, the kind of fake praise showered upon those one views as easy to impress. As I listen, I am always bracing for the old go-to cliché: "Behind every great man is a great woman."

Some women are smarter than men and some aren't. But to suggest to women that they deserve dominance instead of equality is at best a cheap applause line.

[...]

I have always admired President Obama and I agree with him on some issues, like abortion rights. But the promise of his campaign four years ago has given way to something else -- a failure to connect with tens of millions of Americans, many of them women, who feel economic opportunity is gone and are losing hope. In an effort to win them back, Mr. Obama is trying too hard. He's employing a tone that can come across as grating and even condescending. He really ought to drop it. Most women don't want to be patted on the head or treated as wards of the state. They simply want to be given a chance to succeed based on their talent and skills. To borrow a phrase from our president's favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, they want "an open field and a fair chance."

In the second decade of the 21st century, that isn't asking too much. [The New York Times, 5/20/12]

What Obama Actually Said: "Founding Mothers" Were Likely "Whispering Smarter Things In The Ears Of The Founding Fathers"

Obama Noted That "No Woman's Signature Graced The Original Document." From Obama's speech at Barnard College:

It's been said that the most important role in our democracy is the role of citizen. And indeed, it was 225 years ago today that the Constitutional Convention opened in Philadelphia, and our founders, citizens all, began crafting an extraordinary document. Yes, it had its flaws -- flaws that this nation has strived to protect (perfect) over time. Questions of race and gender were unresolved. No woman's signature graced the original document -- although we can assume that there were founding mothers whispering smarter things in the ears of the founding fathers. (Applause.) I mean, that's almost certain.

What made this document special was that it provided the space -- the possibility -- for those who had been left out of our charter to fight their way in. It provided people the language to appeal to principles and ideals that broadened democracy's reach. It allowed for protest, and movements, and the dissemination of new ideas that would repeatedly, decade after decade, change the world -- a constant forward movement that continues to this day. [WhiteHouse.gov, 5/14/12]

Obama Joked In Speech That Praising Women At A Women's College Was "A Cheap Applause Line." From Obama's speech at Barnard College:

We know these things to be true. We know that our challenges are eminently solvable. The question is whether together, we can muster the will -- in our own lives, in our common institutions, in our politics -- to bring about the changes we need. And I'm convinced your generation possesses that will. And I believe that the women of this generation -- that all of you will help lead the way. (Applause.)

Now, I recognize that's a cheap applause line when you're giving a commencement at Barnard. (Laughter.) It's the easy thing to say. But it's true. It is -- in part, it is simple math. Today, women are not just half this country; you're half its workforce. (Applause.) More and more women are out-earning their husbands. You're more than half of our college graduates, and master's graduates, and PhDs. (Applause.) So you've got us outnumbered. (Laughter.)

After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world. [WhiteHouse.gov, 5/14/12]

Obama Encouraged Graduates To 'Make A Difference," "Fight For Your Seat At The Table." From Obama's speech at Barnard College:

After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world.

But how far your leadership takes this country, how far it takes this world -- well, that will be up to you. You've got to want it. It will not be handed to you. And as someone who wants that future -- that better future -- for you, and for Malia and Sasha, as somebody who's had the good fortune of being the husband and the father and the son of some strong, remarkable women, allow me to offer just a few pieces of advice. That's obligatory. (Laughter.) Bear with me.

My first piece of advice is this: Don't just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table. (Applause.)

[...]

So whether it's starting a business, or running for office, or raising a amazing family, remember that making your mark on the world is hard. It takes patience. It takes commitment. It comes with plenty of setbacks and it comes with plenty of failures.

But whenever you feel that creeping cynicism, whenever you hear those voices say you can't make a difference, whenever somebody tells you to set your sights lower -- the trajectory of this country should give you hope. Previous generations should give you hope. What young generations have done before should give you hope. Young folks who marched and mobilized and stood up and sat in, from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall, didn't just do it for themselves; they did it for other people. (Applause.)

That's how we achieved women's rights. That's how we achieved voting rights. That's how we achieved workers' rights. That's how we achieved gay rights. (Applause.) That's how we've made this Union more perfect. (Applause.)

And if you're willing to do your part now, if you're willing to reach up and close that gap between what America is and what America should be, I want you to know that I will be right there with you. (Applause.) If you are ready to fight for that brilliant, radically simple idea of America that no matter who you are or what you look like, no matter who you love or what God you worship, you can still pursue your own happiness, I will join you every step of the way. (Applause.)

Now more than ever -- now more than ever, America needs what you, the Class of 2012, has to offer. America needs you to reach high and hope deeply. And if you fight for your seat at the table, and you set a better example, and you persevere in what you decide to do with your life, I have every faith not only that you will succeed, but that, through you, our nation will continue to be a beacon of light for men and women, boys and girls, in every corner of the globe. [WhiteHouse.gov, 5/14/12]

Campbell Brown Is Married To Romney Adviser

Brown Discloses That Her Spouse Is A Romney Adviser, Says She Has "No Involvement With Any Campaign." From Brown's New York Times op-ed:

But Mitt Romney will never be confused with Rick Santorum on these issues, and many women understand that. (I should disclose here that my husband is an adviser to Mr. Romney; I have no involvement with any campaign, and have been an independent journalist throughout my career.) [The New York Times, 5/20/12]

]]> T.K. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205210015 Mon, 21 May 2012 18:17:10 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205210014 Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC all covered a 2001 study by psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer that purported to show that a "change in one's sexual orientation was possible." Anti-gay groups claiming homosexuality is a choice have repeatedly cited the study. Last month, Spitzer retracted the study, and while MSNBC covered Spitzer's retraction, neither CNN nor Fox has done so, according to the Nexis database.

Spitzer: "I Believe I Owe The Gay Community An Apology"

Truth Wins Out Publishes Letter From Spitzer. On April 25, the LGBT nonprofit group Truth Wins Out printed a letter from Spitzer apologizing for the study:

Several months ago I told you that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for American Prospect, and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer, I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here it is.

[...]

The Fatal Flaw in the Study -- There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject's reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject's accounts of change were valid.

I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some "highly motivated" individuals.

Robert Spitzer. M.D.
Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry,
Columbia University [Truth Wins Out, 4/25/12, emphasis original]

Spitzer Published Study In 2001 Concluding People Can "Change" From "Homosexual" To "Heterosexual"

American Prospect: Study Concluded That For "Highly Select Group Of Motivated Individuals," "Change In One's Sexual Orientation Was Possible." From an April 11 American Prospect article by Gabriel Arana titled, "My So-Called Ex-Gay Life": 

In 2001, the year I started college, the ex-gay movement's claims received a significant boost. In 1973, Columbia professor and prominent psychiatrist Robert Spitzer had led the effort to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness. Four years after Stonewall, it was a landmark event for the gay-rights movement. But 28 years later, Spitzer released a study that asserted change in one's sexual orientation was possible. Based on 200 interviews with ex-gay patients -- the largest sample amassed -- the study did not make any claims about the success rate of ex-gay therapy. But Spitzer concluded that, at least for a highly select group of motivated individuals, it worked. What translated into the larger culture was: The father of the 1973 revolution in the classification and treatment of homosexuality, who could not be seen as just another biased ex-gay crusader with an agenda, had validated ex-gay therapy. 

An Associated Press story called it "explosive." In the words of one of Spitzer's gay colleagues, it was like "throwing a grenade into the gay community." For the ex-gay movement, it was a godsend. Whereas previous accounts of success had appeared in non-peer-reviewed, vanity, pay-to-publish journals like Psychological Reports, Spitzer's study was published in the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. [The American Prospect, 4/11/12]

NY Times: Spitzer Wrote That "Majority Of Participants" Reported Change From "Homosexual Orientation Before Therapy" To "Heterosexual Orientation." From a May 18 New York Times article:

Reparative therapy, sometimes called "sexual reorientation" or "conversion" therapy, is rooted in Freud's idea that people are born bisexual and can move along a continuum from one end to the other. Some therapists never let go of the theory, and one of Dr. Spitzer's main rivals in the 1973 debate, Dr. Charles W. Socarides, founded an organization called the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, or Narth, in Southern California, to promote it.

By 1998, Narth had formed alliances with socially conservative advocacy groups and together they began an aggressive campaign, taking out full-page ads in major newspaper trumpeting success stories.

"People with a shared worldview basically came together and created their own set of experts to offer alternative policy views," said Dr. Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist in New York and co-editor of "Ex-Gay Research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics, and Culture."

To Dr. Spitzer, the scientific question was at least worth asking: What was the effect of the therapy, if any? Previous studies had been biased and inconclusive. "People at the time did say to me, 'Bob, you're messing with your career, don't do it,' " Dr. Spitzer said. "But I just didn't feel vulnerable."

He recruited 200 men and women, from the centers that were performing the therapy, including Exodus International, based in Florida, and Narth. He interviewed each in depth over the phone, asking about their sexual urges, feelings and behaviors before and after having the therapy, rating the answers on a scale.

He then compared the scores on this questionnaire, before and after therapy. "The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year," his paper concluded.

The study -- presented at a psychiatry meeting in 2001, before publication -- immediately created a sensation, and ex-gay groups seized on it as solid evidence for their case. This was Dr. Spitzer, after all, the man who single-handedly removed homosexuality from the manual of mental disorders. No one could accuse him of bias. [The New York Times, 5/18/12]

"Ex-Gay" Groups Used Spitzer's Study To Hype Reparative Therapy -- Which APA Says Doesn't Work And Can Be "Harmful"

American Prospect: "Spitzer's Study Is Still Cited By Ex-Gay Organizations As Evidence That Ex-Gay Therapy Works." From The American Prospect:

Spitzer's study is still cited by ex-gay organizations as evidence that ex-gay therapy works. The study infuriated gay-rights supporters and many psychiatrists, who condemned its methodology and design. Participants had been referred to Spitzer by ex-gay groups like [the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality] and Exodus, which had an interest in recommending clients who would validate their work. The claims of change were self-reports, and Spitzer had not compared them with a control group that would help him judge their credibility. [The American Prospect, 4/11/12]

AP: In 2009, "American Psychological Association Declared" That "Mental Health Professionals Should Not Tell Gay Clients They Can Become Straight Through Therapy." From an August 5, 2009, Associated Press article:

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

In a resolution adopted by the association's governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of so-called reparative therapy, a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain that gay men and lesbians can change.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-to-4 vote. The association said some research suggested that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

Instead of seeking such change, the association urged therapists to consider multiple options, which could include celibacy and switching churches, for helping clients live spiritually rewarding lives in instances where their sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

The association has criticized reparative therapy in the past, but a six-member panel added weight to that position by examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960. Its report was endorsed by the association's governing council in Toronto, where the association's annual meeting is being held this weekend. [Associated Press, 8/5/09, via The New York Times]

CNN: "According To The American Psychiatric Association, The Potential Risk Of Reparative Therapy Is Great." On May 12, CNN aired a segment on a California bill that would ban reparative therapy for minors. Anchor Randi Kaye interviewed a man who had undergone reparative therapy and cited experts' reports to note that "the potential risk of reparative therapy is great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior." From the broadcast:

KAYE: This week, President Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage, but some people think that being gay is a choice. And when people see their children showing so-called feminine traits, they hope something called reparative therapy will cure them. This week, California may become the first state to actually ban this type of therapy. The vote is Tuesday. 

I spoke recently with someone who grew up dealing with this therapy about how it affected him. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAYE (voice-over): When Ryan Kendall was 13, his mother read his diary and discovered he was gay. That was the beginning of the most painful years of his life. 

RYAN KENDALL, WENT THROUGH "REPARATIVE THERAPY" FOR BEING GAY: For years I thought God hated me because I was gay.

KAYE: Ryan says his parents were determined to change him. They signed him up for what's called reparative therapy with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, otherwise known as NARTH. Reparative therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation has been used for decades as a way to turn potentially gay children straight. 

KENDALL: Every day, I would hear, this is a choice. This can be fixed.

KAYE: And did you believe that?

KENDALL: I never believed that. I know I'm gay just like I know I'm short and I'm half Hispanic. I've never thought that those facts would change. It's part of my core fundamental identity. So the parallel would be sending me to tall camp and saying, if you try very hard, one day you can be six foot one. 

KAYE: Ryan says he was treated by Joseph Nicolosi, a clinical psychologist who today is still associated with NARTH.

[...] 

KAYE (on camera): According to the American Psychiatric Association, the potential risk of reparative therapy is great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior. The association says therapists' alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce the self-hatred already felt by patients. 

(voice-over): Dr. Nicolosi says his therapy isn't harmful and he only treats people who want to change. Not true, says Ryan Kendall. 

KENDALL: It led me to periods of homelessness, to drug abuse, to spending a decade of my life wanting to kill myself. It led to so much pain and struggle. And I want them to know that what they do hurts people. It hurts children. It has no basis in fact. And they need to stop. [CNN, CNN Saturday Morning News, 5/12/12]

April 2012: Spitzer Retracts, Apologizes For "Reparative" Therapy Study

Spitzer Asks American Prospect Writer To "Print A Retraction Of His 2001 Study." In an interview with Arana, Spitzer said that he now admits "the critiques [of my study] are largely correct" and asked Arana to "print a retraction of his 2001 study." From the article:

This spring, I visited Spitzer at his home in Princeton.

[...]

I asked about the criticisms leveled at him. "In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct," he said. "The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more." He said he spoke with the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior [the journal where the study was published] about writing a retraction, but the editor declined. (Repeated attempts to contact the journal went unanswered.)

Spitzer said that he was proud of having been instrumental in removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Now 80 and retired, he was afraid that the 2001 study would tarnish his legacy and perhaps hurt others. He said that failed attempts to rid oneself of homosexual attractions "can be quite harmful." He has, though, no doubts about the 1973 fight over the classification of homosexuality.

"Had there been no Bob Spitzer, homosexuality would still have eventually been removed from the list of psychiatric disorders," he said. "But it wouldn't have happened in 1973."

Spitzer was growing tired and asked how many more questions I had. Nothing, I responded, unless you have something to add. 

He did. Would I print a retraction of his 2001 study, "so I don't have to worry about it anymore"? [The American Prospect, 4/11/12]

NY Times: "Psychiatry Giant Sorry For Backing Gay 'Cure.' " A May 18 New York Times article described Spitzer writing a letter of apology for the study:

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, considered by some to be the father of modern psychiatry, lay awake at 4 o'clock on a recent morning knowing he had to do the one thing that comes least naturally to him.

[...]

Now here he was at his computer, ready to recant a study he had done himself, a poorly conceived [2001] investigation that supported the use of so-called reparative therapy to "cure" homosexuality for people strongly motivated to change.

What to say? The issue of gay marriage was rocking national politics yet again. The California State Legislature was debating a bill to ban the therapy outright as being dangerous. A magazine writer [Arana] who had been through the therapy as a teenager recently visited his house, to explain how miserably disorienting the experience was.

And he would later learn that a World Health Organization report, released on Thursday, calls the therapy "a serious threat to the health and well-being -- even the lives -- of affected people."

Dr. Spitzer's fingers jerked over the keys, unreliably, as if choking on the words. And then it was done: a short letter to be published this month, in the same journal where the original study appeared.

"I believe," it concludes, "I owe the gay community an apology." [The New York Times, 5/18/12]

Fox News, CNN, And MSNBC All Covered Spitzer's Study ...

Fox News Covered Study At Least Once, In 2001. According to a search of the Nexis database, Fox News covered Spitzer's study at least once, on the May 9, 2001, broadcast of Fox News' Special Report. On the show, Fox News correspondent Rick Leventhal interviewed Spitzer about his study:

[BRIT HUME, ANCHOR]: For years, people have argued whether homosexuality is an issue of nature or nurture. That is whether people are born gay or if they become gay as a product of their environment. Now a study suggests that lifestyle may be a matter of choice rather than genetics.

Fox News Correspondent Rick Levanthal explains.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICK LEVANTHAL, FOX CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Lots of folks say they're gay and proud, but what if gays would rather be straight? A new study suggests switching teams is not only possible, it's already happening.

DR. ROBERT SPITZER, HOMOSEXUAL STUDY AUTHOR: Whether somebody decides to make that effort is a personal choice, and my study doesn't certainly say that people should try to make that change. What it does say is that the conventional wisdom that making that effort is always doomed to failure is just not accurate.

LEVANTHAL: Dr. Robert Spitzer says reparative therapy works if subjects are highly motivated. His study examined 200 gays seeking help to change their sexual orientation, finding two-thirds of the men and almost half the women achieved good heterosexual functioning, which means they were in loving and emotionally satisfying heterosexual relationships for a full year.

But gay and lesbian groups call the research snake oil, not science, saying this was no random sample but a deck stacked with recruits from anti-homosexual ministries and the Dr. Laura show, changing because of pressure, not therapy.

JOAN GARY, GLAAD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Many of the participants of this sample of these 200 phone calls are people who were recruited by anti-gay organizations. But I think the important point shouldn't be missed here, which is the why of sexual orientation is not relevant to whether people get treated fairly or not.

LEVANTHAL: Critics say real results can be found in another just- released study claiming 97 percent of people in reparative therapy ultimately return to their gay and lesbian lifestyle.

(on camera): Neither of the [studies] has been published or submitted for peer review. So there are many unanswered questions, and there's a lot at stake here, including the gay community's political clout. If homosexuality is a choice or a condition that could be reversed, it could be harder convincing people that gays need special protection and legal rights.

In New York, Rick Levanthal, Fox News.

(END VIDEOTAPE) [Fox News, Special Report with Brit Hume, 5/9/01, via Nexis]

CNN Anchors And Guests Have Covered Or Cited Spitzer's Study At Least Five Times Since 2001. According to a Nexis search, CNN has featured segments covering or citing Spitzer's study at least five times since it was published in 2001, including one segment in 2010.

• May 9, 2001: CNN Covers Spitzer's Study Twice. On May 9, 2001, CNN aired two segments covering Spitzer's study. On CNN's since-discontinued morning show, Live At Daybreak, then-CNN anchor Carol Lin interviewed Robert Spitzer live. From the show:

LIN: I hope you're bracing yourself for the response to this study, because already it is the buzz of our newsroom: How do you change from gay to straight?

SPITZER: Well, first of all, I'm not sure the term "gay" is correct. Many of these people that I studied -- I studied over 200 -- were never gay in the sense of being comfortable with their homosexual feelings. Some had been, but most were never comfortable with their homosexual feelings.

Through a variety of change efforts -- some with standard psychotherapy, some in "ex-gay ministries" -- over many years, and usually in a very gradual process, they did change their sexual feelings.

This is not something that they were able to choose. It's not a question of choosing one's feelings. It's a question of making an effort through a particular program.

[...]

LIN: Was this voluntary behavior, or did religion somehow play a role in this conversion?

SPITZER: First of all, I wouldn't use the word "conversion." I would use the words "increasing one's heterosexual potential and diminishing homosexual potential."

Many of these people were motivated, certainly, by religious conflict, but that was not the only reason that they sought to change. Many of them sought to change because they were not satisfied with what they regarded as the gay lifestyle, which they found emotionally unsatisfying. Many of them were married and felt that their marriage could only be saved if they changed their feelings. And many of them wanted to get married but were unable to have opposite-sex feelings until they experienced this change.

LIN: So on the bottom line here, are you saying that a homosexual can choose to be straight?

SPITZER: No, I'm certainly not saying that. I would be very concerned if that's the way this study -- it's not a question of choosing. One doesn't choose to become heterosexual or homosexual. One can choose to resist an impulse. One can choose to make an effort by joining some kind of a program. These are not people who chose to change. They chose to make an effort to change. Some were successful, to varying degrees.

LIN: Dr. Spitzer, I only have a few seconds left with you, but it sounds to my ear like there is a potential here for someone to make the argument that homosexuality can be treated in the same manner that alcoholism is treated?

SPITZER: I don't know if it's in the same manner, and I don't know what the success rate is, but I do think the evidence is, as I said before, that some homosexuals who want to change can change. But it's not an easy process, and it's not choosing to change: It's choosing to make the effort.

LIN: It'll be interesting to see how people, after they hear your report, make that distinction. [CNN, Live at Daybreak, 5/9/01, via Nexis]

CNN covered Spitzer's report again that night on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports:

[WOLF BLITZER, HOST]: Can gays go straight? Should they? We'll hear about the latest research, and then a debate. I'll speak live with the Reverend Jerry Falwell, who says he can convert gays. And Elizabeth Birch, of the Human Rights Campaign, who says Falwell is wrong.

[...]

BRIAN PALMER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Nearly 30 years ago the American Psychiatric Association declared it would no longer consider homosexuality as a mental disorder. This year, the APA debates a controversial study by a psychiatrist who supported that 1973 decision. Dr. Robert Spitzer says some lesbians and gays have been made heterosexual through psychotherapy and religious counseling.

DR. ROBERT SPITZER, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Many of these people that I studied -- I studied over 200 -- were never gay in the sense of being comfortable with their homosexual feelings. Some have been, but most were never comfortable with their homosexual feelings, and through a variety of change efforts, some with standard psychotherapy, some in ex-gay ministries, over many years, and usually a very gradual process, they did change their sexual feelings.

PALMER: Critics denounced Spitzer's study, saying he practiced bad science, basing his conclusions on short phone interviews with subjects, 66 percent of whom were referred by so-called "gay-to- straight" conversion programs.

[...]

PALMER (voice-over): Spitzer's report got a lot of attention. But also presented at the conference: A five-year study by two New York psychologists of gay men and lesbians who have undergone so- called "conversion therapies." Its findings: 88 percent say the treatments did not work. [CNN, Wolf Blitzer Reports, 5/9/01, via Nexis]

• May 12, 2001: CNN's Take Five Debates Spitzer's Study:

[JAKE TAPPER, CO-HOST]: This week, you couldn't miss reports of a new study that says gays who are "highly motivated" to turn straight, can.

Columbia University Psychiatry Professor Robert Spitzer based his report on a phone survey of people who said they changed their sexual orientation with therapy. Gay rights groups are calling the study "snake oil" and "not science."

Michelle, where's the truth? Spitzer or the gay groups?

[MICHELLE COTTLE, CO-HOST]: Not with this study. Whatever your beliefs on the origins of homosexuality, there's serious questions to be asked about this.

For starters, the volunteers were referred by these ex-gay ministries, which are based on the belief that homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes, and your only chance of salvation is to reject the lifestyle. So, already, you're looking at serious cherry- picking of respondents.

Second, during these phone interviews, the vast majority of people said that they still had fantasies and same sex urges. And the doctor trumpets the fact that even these people have achieved a high degree of heterosexual functionality through hard work. He's taught them to perform heterosexually. And I'm not sure how it differs from cult indoctrination to some degree. [CNN, Take Five, 05/12/01, via Nexis]

• July 2, 2001: Guests On CNN's Crossfire Debate Spitzer's Study. On the July 2, 2001, edition of Crossfire, co-host Bill Press discussed the Spitzer study with guest and conservative radio talk show Janet Parshall:

PRESS: John, I tell you what has me outraged is this -- the constant theme we hear from people like you is that homosexuality is like a light switch. You can turn it on and turn it off. Either you can be gay on weekends and straight during the week, if you want to. I mean, it's that easy. In his report, Dr. Satcher says there is no valid scientific evidence to support this reversibility of homosexuality. Are you finally ready to admit that it's a way some people are born and some people are not?

PARSHALL: Absolutely no evidence whatsoever that someone is born that way. And you need to talk to Dr. Robert Spitzer and get his opinion on this and why in fact, he now says that people can indeed change people, engage in sexual behavior. That could be defined as heterosexual or homosexual. They're not born homosexual. [CNN, Crossfire, 7/2/01]

• April 6, 2010: Guests On CNN Newsroom Cite Spitzer Study During Discussion Of CA Law. On April 6, 2010, during a segment on CNN Newsroom about a California law dating from 1950 that required "health experts" to "seek a cure to homosexuality," guests cited Spitzer's study:

[KYRA PHILLIPS, ANCHOR]: Homosexuality. Is it a problem in need of a cure? It grabs your attention, doesn't it? And as you probably know, California is one of the most liberal states in the country, but wait until you hear about this law. Since 1950, health experts have been required to seek a cure to homosexuality. Lawmakers are in the process of repealing it, but some are saying not so fast.

Richard Cohen is a psychotherapist and an author. He's also a husband, father, and self-described former homosexual. Bonnie Lowenthal is a California assemblywoman. She wrote the bill to erase the law.

[...]

PHILLIPS: And Richard, let me ask you. Do you think that your homosexuality was a mental disorder?

RICHARD COHEN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST, INTERNATIONAL HEALING FOUNDATION: I think that we should keep this bill, the 8050 in California for two reasons. One, it says let's do research why sexual predators abuse children, and I am a survivor of sexual abuse. So, to do research to find out why predators do this is excellent.

[...]

COHEN: I actually had a partner, a male partner for three years. But in my heart I had a passionate desire to marry a woman and create a family. I went to several therapists and they said, you're born this way, accept it. I knew that wasn't true for me, so it took so many years to figure out why I had homosexual feelings and then come out straight.

For 20 years now as a psychotherapist, I've helped, as I said, hundreds in therapy and thousands of healing seminars. Changeispossible.com. That's our Web site because we know that change from the inside, not just behavioral change, Kyra, this is internal change.

And Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University did a study published in 2002, Archives of Sexual Behavior showing 200 men and women who reversed from homosexual to heterosexual and change their orientation. [CNN, CNN Newroom, 4/6/10, via Nexis]

MSNBC Covered Spitzer's Study At Least Once, In 2001. According to a Nexis search, MSNBC covered Spitzer's study at least once, excluding the times it has since covered his retraction. From the May 9, 2001, broadcast of Hardball:

[CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST]: Well, this is going to be interesting. Today there are two new studies out seeking to shed light on a controversial question with political implications, one by Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University offers examples of gay men and women who say they were made straight through psychotherapy and religious counseling. Another study suggests that people cannot change their sexual orientation, even if they want to.

Dr. Spitzer interviewed about 200 gay men and women who reported they had become heterosexual. He writes, quote, "The subjects' self-reports of change appear to be, by and large, valid rather than gross exaggerations, brainwashing, or wishful thinking."

[...]

MATTHEWS: We're also going to be joined right now from San Francisco by an old friend, Elizabeth Birch of the Human Rights Campaign.

Why to me, I'm not gay, I'm straight, I just have a question. Why is this such a hot issue, this question of whether you can through counseling and whatever change your orientation? Why is it a political question?

ELIZABETH BIRCH, HUMAN RIGHTS: Well, Chris, I think that what's important about this is that these studies can be very dangerous if they're not done correctly. And the fact is, is, none of it matters, because truly public policy should really be based on whether we're treating every American in a fair and equal way and with a lot of self-esteem.

But this particular study seems to me to be enormously flawed, in that the pool of people from which Dr. Spitzer drew from, it was in a highly religiously charged atmosphere. He basically had these people supplied by a couple of right-wing organizations. And in fact, this study has not been subjected at all to peer review, which is an absolute basic step in research.

These researchers had an opportunity to subject it to peer review and opted not to. [MSNBC, Hardball, 5/9/01, via Nexis]

... But Only MSNBC Has Covered Spitzer's Retraction

MSNBC's Maddow Covered Spitzer's Retraction Twice. On her MSNBC show, host Rachel Maddow covered Spitzer's retraction twice in April. From the April 18 broadcast of her show:

MADDOW: In 2001, this came out. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation?

This was not published in some quack, fringe, wishful thinking anti- gay publication. It was not a vanity publishing thing. This was published in a well-regarded peer-reviewed medical journal called "The Archives of Sexual Behavior". And this piece was not published by some anti-gay true believer who was trying and failing to pull on the guise of scientific authority to justify being super anti-gay.

Look at the author of this. Look, Robert L. Spitzer. That would be the same Dr. Robert L. Spitzer who had been so instrumental in delisting homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. In 2001, 28 years after, Dr. Spitzer told the country that being gay doesn`t make you sick, he published this, this study, which says he studied a couple hundred patients and he found that you could, in some instances, pray away the gay! You could get rid of your homosexuality through therapy or something. He said some gay people, essentially, could be turned straight.

The anti-gay groups, "the being gay is a choice" people, the you can be cured of your homosexuality folks, they were over the moon. Look at this press release from a pray away the gay group called NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Their press release, prominent psychiatrist announces new study results. Some gays can change!

Ever since this study came out in 2001, 11 years ago, Dr. Robert Spitzer`s work has been cited as proof that if you want it enough, you can turn yourself from gay to straight. The "cure the gay" people have spent that last 11 years moving to the center of anti-gay politics in the United States. They have become as mainstream as you can get in the anti-gay political world.

When President George W. Bush urged Congress in 2006 to amend the United States constitution, to make it anti-gay marriage, the Bush White House made sure that a contingent of people who specialize in supposedly curing gay people were in attendance at the White House announcement.

[...]

MADDOW: [L]ast week Dr. Robert Spitzer made it known that he would please like to take that study back from 2001. He would like to retract it. It does not mean what people think it means and he wishes it would not have published.

Last week, the "American Prospect" magazine published a remarkable piece of reporting, including the explosive revelation that Dr. Spitzer is renouncing this 2001 study that changed gay politics in America ever since. Dr. Spitzer says he wishes he could retract the study from the journal in which it was originally published. He says that efforts to cure gay people of homosexuality, quote, "can be quite harmful"; acknowledging that he did not study a representative sample of people, but instead counted on people sent to him from anti-gay groups.

Dr. Spitzer now says, quote, "The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more."

Dr. Spitzer essentially saying that study was not science, it was just a series of anecdotes. He's sorry it was published. He wants to take it back. [MSNBC, The Rachel Maddow Show, 4/18/12, via Nexis]

Maddow covered Spitzer's letter of apology on the April 26 broadcast of her show. She also discussed the impact Spitzer's retraction might have on the legal status of Proposition 8 in California, since its proponents have cited Spitzer's study previously. Her guest Kenji Yoshino, a law professor, said, "I think it's a big deal":

MADDOW: Dr. Roberts Spitzer, the aforementioned Dr. Robert Spitzer, that prominent psychiatrist quoted there in the Prop 8 trial whose work is supposed to prove that gay people can change themselves into straight people, as we reported last week, Dr. Robert Spitzer recently revealed to the American Prospect he would like to retract his study, the one cited in that Prop 8 trial. He says he regrets it, he'd like to retract it and the he basically does not think it qualifies as science.

His study was published in this journal "The Archives of Sexual Behavior." The journal's editor says that it will not formally retract the study, but they are going to publish this letter to the editor from Dr. Spitzer.

Kudos and thanks to truthwinsout.org for being the first to publish the content of Dr. Spitzer's letter. It is kind of astonishing. Dr. Spitzer writes that there's no way to determine if the people in his study who said they turned ex-gay were credible when they said it. There's no way to determine if they were credible when they said they had been cured of the gay.

[...]

MADDOW: The fact that this study from the early 2000s, the fact it no longer exists for the anti-gay rights side in the Prop 8 case, how do you think that will affect the case going forward?

YOSHINO: I think it's a big deal. So, first of all, the reason immutability is important is because under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, there's a standard called heightened scrutiny. And there are certain classifications like race, national origin, sex, nonmarital parentage, lineage that get that scrutiny.

The $64,000 question of this case is whether or not sexual orientation is going to be added to that list. And one of the criteria that's been looked at to determine whether or not a group gets heightened scrutiny is immutability, as you mentioned.

So, the fact that Spitzer retracting this and the fact that the testimony in the Prop 8 trial was overwhelming for the fact that sexual orientation is very hard to change could figure into that analysis. [MSNBC, The Rachel Maddow Show, 4/26/12, via Nexis]

Neither CNN Nor Fox Has Covered Spitzer's Retraction. According to searches of Nexis, since Arana's American Prospect article was published on April 11, CNN has repeatedly covered "reparative" therapy in the context of a proposed California bill that would ban such therapy for minors; host Soledad O'Brien even interviewed Arana about his own experience with "reparative" therapy on the May 11 broadcast of Starting Point. However, CNN has not covered Spitzer's retraction of his 2001 study. Neither has Fox News.

]]> C.R. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205210014 Mon, 21 May 2012 17:57:40 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205180024 Fox News is attempting to downplay and discredit its own poll, which found that if the election were held today, voters would re-elect President Obama by a 7-point margin. This is hardly the first time Fox has tried to distort poll findings to advance a certain narrative.

Fox News Poll: If Election Were Held Today, Obama Would Win Re-Election

Fox News Poll Found That Registered Voters Would Vote For Obama Over Romney If Election Were Held Today. In a Fox News poll conducted May 13-15, 46 percent of registered voters said they would vote for Obama, as opposed to 39 percent who would favor Romney: 

[Fox News, 5/16/12]

Fox News' Response: Question Poll's Findings

Fox & Friends Co-Hosts Dismissed Poll, Pointed To Independents' Importance, And Challenged Methodology. Discussing the Fox poll on Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson dismissed the findings, emphasizing that independents "decide every election." Co-host Brian Kilmeade went on to challenge the poll's methodology:

CARLSON: Well, let's look at independents, because in the end, they decide every election. So the independents now for Mitt Romney compared to April have also gone down by 12 points, 46 percent to 34. Barack Obama, though, has gone down, too, from 33 percent to 29 percent. So one third of all independents are still undecided. So it appears that there's a lot of work to be done with both campaigns on trying to lure in the independents right now.

[...]

KILMEADE: I mean, this seems like a small poll, and these are registered voters, which a lot of the experts say you got to factor that in. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/17/12]

Dick Morris: "If You Want To Know How The Election's Going To Come Out, Don't Pay Attention To" Fox Poll. After discussing a Rasmussen poll that found Obama trailing Romney in North Carolina, Fox News contributor Dick Morris criticized the poll's methodology and questioned its findings:

MORRIS: Well, I don't mean to accuse Fox News of Democratic bias, but -- liberal bias -- but I do want to point that it generally doesn't make sense to do a survey where 40 percent of the people you're interviewing are not gonna vote.

BILL O'REILLY (host): Forty percent of registered voters didn't show up last time, right?

MORRIS: Right.

O'REILLY: But, the mood of the country is what the Fox News poll wanted to gauge.

MORRIS: Look, there is a real purpose to surveying adults [unintelligible] among registered voters -- they all live here and they pay taxes.

O'REILLY: Yeah, I mean, this basically shows that Obama has some strength.

MORRIS: But if you want to know how the election's going to come out, don't pay attention to that. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 5/16/12]

Fox News' Response: Draw Own Conclusion From Findings

Bill Hemmer: "You Can Find Good News For Mitt Romney In This Polling, Depending On What Number You're Looking At." On America's Newsroom, Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer downplayed the findings and pointed to numbers in the poll that seemed to favor Romney over Obama. Contributor and Weekly Standard senior writer Stephen Hayes discounted the poll's importance, saying the state of the economy will be "the single best determinant of who's going to win":

BILL HEMMER (co-host): I think you can find good news for the president in our polling. And I think you can find good news for Mitt Romney in this polling, depending on what number you're looking at. This number is difficult to overcome: Economic conditions, are they fair or poor? 88 percent say yes. When you're an incumbent, how do you argue against that?

HAYES: That is -- that is the difficult number for the White House. I mean, that's got to be an alarming number for the White House. And again, it's consistent with what we've seen when pollsters ask, Is the country on the right track? Is the country on the wrong track? The right track, wrong track numbers, many pollsters will tell you are the single best determinant of who's going to win the election ultimately in November, and the more people say that we're on the wrong track, the worse it is. And when you have people, 88 percent of people asked, saying the economy is only fair or poor, that's not the track that the country wants to be on. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/17/12]

Jon Scott Pointed To Margin Of Error And Claimed: "Effectively, They're Still Tied." Anchor Jon Scott stated:

SCOTT: First, if the election were held today, President Obama would enjoy a 7 percent advantage over presumptive Republican nominee Governor Mitt Romney. Three weeks ago, the candidates were tied at 46 percent each in this same poll. But on the all-important issue of the economy, 45 percent of voters think conditions are worse than they were in 2008. 28 percent think they are better.

[...]

SCOTT: We should note that that poll has a plus or minus 3 percent margin of error. So, ah, effectively they are still tied.[Fox News, Happening Now, 5/17/12]

Happening Now: "If Starting A Small Business, Who Would You Pick As Your Business Partner?" Discussing the poll, Happening Now sought to downplay the poll's findings by highlighting this question: "If starting a small business, who would you pick as your business partner?"

[Fox News, Happening Now, 5/17/12]

Fox News' Response: Highlight Polls Favorable To Romney

Dick Morris: "I Did A Poll" That Has Obama Trailing Romney. Morris dismissed the Fox poll by pointing to a poll he conducted with likely voters, which he claimed is a better determinant of election outcomes:

MORRIS: I did a poll -- 6,000 interviews with likely voters from May 5th to May 11th, and margin of error less than half of 1 percent. Every one of them a likely voter. I have Obama behind Romney 52 to 42. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 5/16/12]

Megyn Kelly Pointed To Poll That "Is Raising Red Flags For The President's Re-Election Chances." HostMegyn Kelly opened her show by citing a Gallup poll that she claimed "is raising red flags for the President's re-election chances," saying that the "poll finds only about a quarter of the country is satisfied with the direction of the country." She added: "A lot of folks who know about polls tell you that's the number you really need to watch, satisfied or not with the direction of the country." Kelly later dismissed the Fox poll by pointing to data from Real Clear Politics and said, "That's what we care about":

KELLY: In the Real Clear Politics average of all polls, the President is ahead of Romney by two and a half points. So that's a close race right now. But you say, look, that's well and good, it's going to come down to swing states. That's what we care about: The polling in these critical nine states -- these swing states. And that's what the White House and probably the Romney campaign are tracking closer than anything. [Fox News, America Live, 5/17/12]

Lou Dobbs: "A Brand New" Poll Shows Romney With "A Three Point Lead On The President." Fox Business Anchor Lou Dobbs chose to report instead on a Mason-Dixon Poll that favored Romney:

DOBBS: A brand new Mason-Dixon national poll has Governor Romney opening up a three-point lead on the president. Among independents, Governor Romney's lead extends to six points. The latest evidence of a tightening race apparently has the Obama campaign team a little on edge. [Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 5/17/12]

Fox News Has A History Of Manipulating Poll Results To Conform To Certain Narrative

Fox Called Polls Showing More Favorable Results For Romney "Pretty Significant." Fox & Friends co-hosts pointed to two polls showing Romney leading Obama, describing the results as "pretty significant" and evidence that "Mitt Romney's popularity is surging." None of the co-hosts quibbled over whether the polls were conducted among likely or registered voters, and no one factored in its sampling size or margin of error. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/17/12 via Media Matters]

Bret Baier Misrepresented Poll On Gas Prices To Make It More Critical Of Obama. Special Report anchor Bret Baier claimed that a Fox News poll showed that a "majority" of Americans say Obama "is to blame for gas prices," which is in line with Fox's false messaging that the Obama administration was responsible for an increase in gas prices. In fact, the poll found that a majority said Obama is not to blame. Baier later pointed out the error and apologized. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 3/16/12 via Media Matters]

Fox Favored Poll Finding Opposition To Contraception Rule, While Ignoring Other Polls That Found The Opposite. Fox repeatedly touted a Rasmussen poll that found that 50 percent of respondents do not believe contraception costs should be covered under the Affordable Care Act, while ignoring two other polls that contradicted the Rasmussen poll's findings. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/09/12 via Media Matters]

Eric Bolling Cherry-Picked Poll To Distort Public Support For Gun Control. Host Eric Bolling highlighted a poll finding that "a record low number of people" support gun control laws. In fact, the poll pointed to robust public support for either maintaining or strengthening current gun violence prevention laws. [Fox News, The Five, 11/27/11]

Fox Treats Magazine's Interviews Of Protesters As A Real Poll. Fox News attacked the Occupy Wall Street protesters by seizing upon a "poll" conducted by New York magazine, painting them as far out of the mainstream. But Fox misrepresented the "poll," whose statistics only applied to the 100 protesters "who are in it for the long haul" that the magazine interviewed. It was not a truly random sample of the larger population of protesters. [Media Matters, 11/14/11]

]]> E.P.A. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205180024 Fri, 18 May 2012 18:05:00 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205180021 Conservatives have seized on Vice President Biden's remarks during an Ohio campaign speech about the issues facing the middle class, characterizing Biden as "unhinged" and "deranged," and claiming the administration is perpetuating "class-warfare." But with tax levels for the wealthy at historic lows set against the stark contrast of middle-class wage stagnation and reduced economic mobility, there is every justification to be passionate about the issue.

Biden Called Out People Who Cry "Envy" In Response To Discussion Of Issues Facing The Middle Class

Biden Argued Against Programs That Help The "Guys At The Top To Do Well" While Others Have To "Fend For Themselves." From a CNN.com post on a May 16 speech by Biden in Ohio:

In a sometimes fiery speech at M7 Technologies, an advanced manufacturing plant in Youngstown, Ohio, Biden added new emphasis to the attack on Romney's tenure at Bain Capital that the Obama campaign has waged all week, labeling his policies in a negative light as "Romney economics."

"There's the Romney philosophy, the Romney economics, which says as long as the government helps the guys at the top to do well workers and small businesses and communities, they can fend for themselves," Biden said.

In a personal appeal from the former Delaware senator, Biden said his parents voiced big dreams for their children, dreams Republicans "don't get." [CNN.com, 5/16/12]

Biden Criticized Those Who Attack People For Talking About The Struggles That Face The Middle Class. From Biden's May 16 speech:

Governor Romney is a patriot. He's a generous man. He gives to his church. He has a beautiful family. But he doesn't get it. He doesn't get what's at the core of all this. It's about people's dignity.

[...]

And by the way, one thing that I do resent: I resent when they talk about families like mine that I grew up in, I resent the fact that they think we're talking about we're envy. It's job envy. It's wealth envy. That we don't dream. My mother believed and my father believed that if I wanted to be president of the United States, I could be. I could be Vice President. My mother and father believed that if my brother or sister wanted to be a millionaire, they could be a millionaire. My mother and father dreamed as much as any rich guy dreams.

They don't get us. They don't get who we are. [Speech by Vice President Joe Biden, 5/16/12, via Talking Points Memo]

Conservatives React To Biden's Speech With Ridicule

Rush Limbaugh: Joe Biden Has "Gone Nuts." He's "Deranged." From the May 17 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: So Joe Biden, Joe Biden is off the reservation. A little Elizabeth Warren lingo there. Joe Biden he's just going nuts. Two days in a row now he's gone nuts. I told Cookie I want the Biden sound bites from yesterday because you know what I saw? I saw that -- we've played these Biden sound bites where he was going nuts yesterday about "People don't get us. What do you mean we are against [unintelligible]? What do you mean we don't want people to get wealthy? what do you mean?"

When you see it, when you see Biden's face, when you see his eyes, when you see his mouth, the facial expressions, it -- well I wouldn't call it demonic -- deranged. I mean, it's just, it's astounding, so I said Cookie give me the bites again, I want to play these bites again. I want to paint an accurate video picture of what "bite-me" looks like. [Premiere Radio Network, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/17/12, via Media Matters]

On Fox, Karl Rove Called Biden "Unhinged." From the May 16 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN (host): And Karl Rove is back with us. Karl, obviously a very passionate Vice President, but once again the topic of the wealthy in the United States come up, and he's in Ohio giving that campaign speech. I supposed he took Ohio because they're in deep trouble, and it's a swing state, right?

KARL ROVE (Fox News contributor): Yeah, I wouldn't say passionate, I'd say unhinged. I mean who's he talking about? I mean once again we saw there, you know, the class warfare, the unnecessary effort by this administration to pit Americans of different incomes against each other. Who's he talking about, the rich people that don't get it? Who's he talking about as saying that people who come from modest means can't dream?

[...]

ROVE: The President of the United States and the Vice President don't need to be looking for opportunities to try and pit Americans against each other based on their financial backgrounds. And you know who is he talking about? Damned if I know. [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 5/16/12, via Media Matters]

Fox's Kilmeade: "He's Getting All Red-Faced, Vice President Joe Biden Doubling Down On His Message Of Blaming The Rich For, Well, Everything." From the May 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): He's getting all red-faced, Vice President Joe Biden doubling down on his message of blaming the rich for, well, everything. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/18/12, via Media Matters]

And Dismiss Biden's Speech As "Class-Warfare"

Fox's Crowley: "This Is A Classic Joe Biden Class-Warfare, Obama-Esque Freak Out." From the May 17 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:

BILL HEMMER (co-host): Vice President Joe Biden fired up during a campaign speech in Ohio. Man was he ever. Critics say the speech about Mitt Romney's economic policies is more class warfare.

[...]

MONICA CROWLEY (Fox News contributor): Well if a Republican had acted this way, Democrats like Chris would be calling him a nut, but since it's Joe Biden, everybody goes "it's just Joe, this is how he acts." Look, on the substance of this, and lets set aside the style for a second, because that was sort of Howard Dean-esque, but again, that's just Joe.

On the substance of this, this is a classic Joe Biden class-warfare, Obama-esque freak-out, right? I mean, this is the message that they have been driving for the last three and a half years. Pitting Americans against each other, pitting the one percent against everybody else, casting those who are wealthier as not paying their fair share. Going against private jet owners, those who fly in private jets, millionaires and billionaires. This is what they've done, so this is just an extension of that rhetoric. [Fox News, Happening Now, 5/17/12, via Media Matters] 

Bill O'Reilly: Joe Was "Attacking The Rich" And "Trying To Demonize American Like Me." From the May 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY (host): Vice President Biden attacking the rich once again. That is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. First the stats, there are about 315 million people currently living in the U.S.A., and about three million of them are millionaires, that according to a wealth report from Merill Lynch. So we're not a country dominated by fat cats. The real power in America lies with the working class folks.

According to the Spectrum group, about 30 percent of millionaires attribute their status to inherited wealth. We're talking the Duponts, Roosevelts, Kennedys, those folks. So most wealthy Americans are self-made. Therefore the question becomes what is the beef from the Obama administration? Why are they trying to demonize Americans like me who have made money the old-fashioned way, we've earned it. Speaking in Ohio yesterday, Vice President Biden once again lashed out.

[...]

O'REILLY: Bottom line, this is all a bunch of garbage. The class-warfare the Obama administration is peddling is bogus. Wealthy people are not responsible for the bad economy, bad federal polices and corrupt financial greed-heads are responsible. Rich people pay most of the income tax in this country. Fifty percent of the population pays no federal income tax at all. Wealthy people create jobs. The Occupy Wall Street protesters break windows. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 5/17/12, via Media Matters]

Fox's Carlson: Biden And The Obama Administration Have "Vilified" The Wealthy. From the May 17 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): This is day two of what seems to be a big attack from the Obama-Biden camp on Romney's days at Bain Capital. Day two is in Ohio yesterday, and it was Joe Biden's job to go out there and say hey working class people, those--Mitt Romney is basically that guy that fired you, and he is over-the-top I think by any definition, let's listen.

[...]

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): He's talking about the American dream, which a lot of people think has been under attack for the last couple of years by the way. That people who start with nothing, and work really hard, and make a buck, have been vilified for the last three years, many times by this administration. So I thought it was really ironic that he was talking about millionaires, he could have thrown in billionaires too, because those have been the two buzz-words that this administration has used to talk about people that we should not like in our society right now. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/17/12, via Media Matters]

But Middle Class Wages Are Stagnant

CNN: "Middle-Class Incomes Have Been Stagnant For At Least A Generation, While The Wealthiest Tier Has Surged Ahead." From a Feb 16, 2011 CNNMoney article titled "How the middle class became the underclass":

Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting [sic] speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust. [CNN, 2/16/11]

CNN Chart Shows Stagnation Of Middle Class Wages. From CNN:

[CNN, 2/16/11]

And The United States Has Low Economic Mobility

NY Times: "Americans Enjoy Less Economic Mobility Than Their Peers In Canada And Much Of Western Europe." From a January 4 New York Times article titled "Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs":

[M]any researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

[...]

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) -- a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths. [The New York Times, 1/4/12]

NY Times Chart Shows The United States' Low Relative Economic Mobility. A chart from the January 4 New York Times article, comparing economic mobility between the United States and Denmark: 

[The New York Times, 1/4/12]

While The Richest Americans' Income Is At Record Highs

CEPR Report Shows Income Of Top 1 Percent Increased 256 Percent From 1979-2006, While Lowest Quintile Saw Incomes Rise 11 Percent. From a December 2010 report released by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR):

[Center For Economic and Policy Research, December 2010]

Vanity Fair: "Upper 1 Percent" Take In "Nearly A Quarter Of The Nation's Income" As Compared To "12 Percent" 25 Years Ago. From a May 2011 Vanity Fair article by Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz:

It's no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation's income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous -- 12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades -- and more -- has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow. [Vanity Fair, May 2011, emphasis added]

Huffington Post: "For 2007 ... The Top One Percent Of Earners ... Enjoyed A 6.8 Percent Growth" In Income, "Versus The 3.7 Percent Average" In The U.S. Froma March 2010 Huffington Post piece titled, "Number of U.S. Millionaires Soared In 2009: Spectrem Group":

Of course, household incomes have been growing unevenly for years -- even during times of seeming prosperity. For 2007, the year for which the most recent data is available, the top one percent of earners -- those with incomes of at least $398,000 per year -- enjoyed a 6.8 percent growth (versus the 3.7 percent average), boosting their share of the country's total income to 23.5 percent. [The Huffington Post, 3/9/10]

]]> M.F. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205180021 Fri, 18 May 2012 16:47:17 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205180017 Fox's Brian Kilmeade suggested that it was wrong for the Obama administration to have considered apologizing for an accidental deadly military strike against Pakistani troops by U.S-led forces. Fox is reporting that Obama will not apologize, but even if he were to do so, such an apology would hardly be the first time a U.S. president has apologized to a foreign nation.

Fox's Kilmeade Criticizes Obama For Considering Apologizing To Pakistan

Kilmeade: If Obama Apologized, "This Would Not Be The First Time President Obama Has Apologized To A Questionable Friend Of The United States." During the May 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy reported that the Obama administration will not apologize to Pakistan. Nevertheless, Fox & Friends co-hosts Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy suggested that it was problematic for the administration to have considered making such an apology, with Kilmeade saying, "[T]his would not be the first time President Obama has apologized to a questionable friend of the United States":

KILMEADE: We've learned there's a big push in the White House to apologize to Pakistan for the deadly air strike last year. And this would not be the first time President Obama has apologized to a questionable friend of the United States. It's been a live debate since that date. Live in Washington with more, Peter Doocy. Peter? 

PETER DOOCY: And Brian, we've now learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was on a plane to London back in December to meet with the Pakistani foreign minister and say that we're sorry for accidentally killing 24 Pakistani soldiers back on November 26th. But mid-flight, she was told to stand down because President Obama had just apologized to the president of Pak -- of Afghanistan after our troops burned a Quran, and officials worried that two apologies in one day would make us look weak. But now a senior U.S. official tells us that Pakistan just isn't going to get an apology, telling us late last night that, quote, "There've been discussions over time, over whether to apologize and a decision has been made to express deep regret and try to move forward." 

After the incident, a Pakistan -- Pakistan did close a border crossing with Afghanistan and it now cost NATO $38 million a month to work around it. And this U.S. official says that because of that, the U.S. is disinclined to apologize and the source close to the Pakistani government is quoted in The Wall Street Journal saying that if the apology would have occurred in the first or second day as it should have, we could have moved on, with another U.S. official saying in The Wall Street Journal today: "This goes to the fact that we don't know how to deal with the Pakistanis."

But White House National Security Advisor Tom Donilon said yesterday that we have made real progress moving towards resolving our issues with the Pakistanis. And he says that the key government groups in Islamabad have told us that they are ready to negotiate and that both sides, us and the Pakistanis, have determined that it's time to reach a conclusion. But remember that other U.S. official told us that there will not be an apology. Back to you. 

KILMEADE: All right. Peter, thanks. They want to skyrocket the amount that we pay to get across the border to get supplies into Afghanistan, which is basically -- it seems like we're paying off a ransom.

STEVE DOOCY: It does. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/18/12]

U.S. Presidents Have Apologized To Friends And Non-Friends Alike

President George H.W. Bush Apologized To Nicaragua's Sandanista Government After U.S. Forces Searched Through Nicaraguan Diplomatic Residence. During the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, U.S. forces entered and searched through the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador to Panama. After the Nicaraguan government complained that U.S. forces had violated international law by conducting the search, President Bush apologized for the incident, calling it a "screw up" that "shouldn't have happened" and saying that the U.S. had expressed its "regrets". From The Washington Post:

President Bush said today that Friday's search of the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador to Panama by U.S. troops was a "screw up" and "shouldn't have happened," but he questioned "what the man is doing with rocket launchers and grenades and Uzis and automatic weapons up to his eyeballs in his house."

The president, golfing here on vacation, and the State Department in Washington moved quickly to try to regain the high ground for the United States after the incident, which appeared to violate the internationally accepted principle of diplomatic immunity. 

[...]

"When you find those kinds of weapons caches," Bush said, "even though I think in retrospect we shouldn't have gone in there, it makes you wonder exactly what our young men are up against. I don't know what they need rocket launchers for in a man's house. But nevertheless, I said we shouldn't have gone in the Nicaraguan mission and we've expressed our regrets." [The Washington Post, 12/31/89, via Nexis]

• The Platform On Which Bush Ran In 1988 Called The Nicaraguan Government "A Soviet Client State" And Promised To Give "Military Aid" To Nicaraguan Rebels. [Republican Party Platform of 1988, 8/16/88, via University of California, Santa Barbara]

President Reagan Apologized To Japan For Sinking Of A Japanese Freighter. From United Press International:

President Reagan, in a letter to Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki, deplored the "extremely unfortunate" sinking of a Japanese freighter that was accidentally rammed by an American nuclear submarine, the Foreign Ministry said today.

[...]

"I want to tell you personally how much all of us in the United States regret the extremely unfortunate incident," Reagan wrote to Suzuki.

"Particularly regrettable was the tragic loss of the lives of two crewman from the Japanese ship," the president said. [UPI, 4/18/81, via Google News]

The Reagan Administration Apologized To France For Protecting Klaus Barbie. On August 16, 1983, Reagan's Justice Department issued a formal apology to France for protecting Klaus Barbie, a Nazi whom U.S. intelligence recruited and shielded in the aftermath of World War II. From The Economist:

American military intelligence officers recruited and later shielded from prosecution Mr Klaus Barbie, now awaiting trial in France for war crimes while head of the Gestapo in occupied Lyons. Evidence of their involvement has circulated for some time. Criticism has mounted, particularly in France. After an investigation, the justice department on August 16th acknowledged the charges in a long report and made a formal apology to France.

According to Mr Allan Ryan, the justice department's chief investigator of war crimes, army counter-intelligence officers recruited Mr Barbie in 1947 when he presented himself as a source of valuable information, especially about communists who had fought in the resistance.

As allegations of torture and other atrocities surfaced against Mr Barbie, the French sought him for trial. American officers not only concealed his whereabouts by lying to the American occupation authorities in Germany, but, late in 1950, they also helped him escape along the so-called ''ratline'' to South America used by other former Nazi officials. [The Economist, 8/20/83, via Nexis]

President George W. Bush Apologized To Iraq's Prime Minister After A U.S. Sniper Shot Up A Quran. From the Associated Press:

President Bush has apologized to Iraq's prime minister for an American sniper's shooting of a Quran, and the Iraqi government called on U.S. military commanders to educate their soldiers to respect local religious beliefs.

Bush's spokeswoman said Tuesday that the president apologized during a videoconference Monday with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who told the president that the shooting of Islam's holy book had disappointed and angered both the Iraqi people and their leaders.

"He apologized for that in the sense that he said that we take it very seriously," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "We are concerned about the reaction. We wanted them to know that the president knew that this was wrong." [AP, 5/21/08, via Google News]

President George W. Bush Apologized For Abu Ghraib Abuse: "It's A Stain On Our Country's Honor And Our Country's Reputation." From a May 6, 2004, USA Today article:

President Bush issued his first outright apology Thursday for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers, saying photographs of the mistreatment made Americans "sick to our stomachs."

In a White House briefing with Jordan's King Abdullah, Bush said he told Abdullah that "I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families."

Bush's apology, which he stopped short of giving in two interviews with Arab television stations Wednesday, came as the administration continued frantic efforts to control the damage from the prisoner abuse scandal.

The president continued to insist that guilty parties will be brought to justice. In addition to probes of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, investigations have been launched into the deaths of at least 10 Iraqi prisoners at U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"It's a stain on our country's honor and our country's reputation," Bush said. "I am sickened by what I saw and sickened that people got the wrong impression." [USA Today, 5/6/04]

Bush Administration Said It Was "Very Sorry" For Surveillance Plane That Entered Chinese Air Space. From the Chicago Tribune:

China agreed to free 21 men and three women after days of intense negotiation over wording of a U.S. government letter of regret accepted by Beijing's foreign minister Wednesday.

The deal to free the Americans required the United States to compromise by using the phrase "very sorry" in acknowledging some of China's complaints over the incident, but it was Beijing that gave up its assertion that the U.S. accept full responsibility and apologize before the crew could be released.

[...]

"Please convey to the Chinese people and to the family of pilot Wang Wei that we are very sorry for their loss," said the letter signed by Prueher.

Complaint acknowledged

Besides expressing sympathy, the letter acknowledged one Chinese complaint: that the damaged American plane entered China's airspace and landed at an airport without authorization.

But even this aspect of the letter came across more as an account of the event than as an apology. It said the U.S. was "very sorry" for entering Chinese airspace without "verbal clearance." [Chicago Tribune, 4/12/01]

For more on previous presidential apologies, click here.

Fox Has Repeatedly Pushed The False Narrative That Obama Constantly Apologizes For America

Fox News Figures Have Relentlessly Pushed The Myth That Obama Routinely Apologizes For America. Fox News figures have stated with regularity that Obama has gone on so-called apology tours in which he apologizes for America. [Media Matters, 4/26/12, 2/28/12, 2/9/11, 8/31/11, 5/18/10, 7/10/09]

But Independent Fact-Checkers Say The Claim That Obama Regularly Apologizes For America Is A Myth. Fact-checkers from the Associated Press, PolitiFact, and The Washington Post have all debunked the claim that Obama has repeatedly apologized for America. Fox News' own Juan Williams has made the same point. [Media Matters, 4/26/12]

]]> A.H.S. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205180017 Fri, 18 May 2012 15:34:00 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205180007 Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, are well-respected centrist congressional experts who are often cited by the media. But their recent conclusion that Republicans are responsible for political dysfunction -- laid out in an April 29 Washington Post op-ed and their recently released book -- has been largely ignored, with the top five national newspapers writing a total of zero news articles on their thesis.

Congressional Experts: Republicans At "The Core Of The Problem" Of A "Dysfunctional" Washington

Mann And Ornstein: "Let's Just Say It: The Republicans Are The Problem." In their April 29 Washington Post op-ed, the duo lay out the thesis of their latest book, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.

"Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach. [The Washington Post, 4/29/2012]

Mann And Ornstein Are "A Brand" In Washington And Considered "The Two Most Respected, Committed Scholars" Studying The U.S. Congress. The Washington Post's Ezra Klein wrote in regard to Mann's and Ornstein's recent op-ed:

In Washington, "Mann and Ornstein" are a brand. Mann works at the centrist Brookings Institution, Ornstein at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Over their four-decade partnership, they have established themselves as the two most respected, committed scholars -- and defenders -- of the U.S. Congress. They never tire of pointing out that the way the Founders designed the federal government, Congress came first, and it was intended to have an "institutional identity," not a partisan identity. It's that institutional identity, they now say, that is under threat, and more from one party than the other. [The Washington Post, 5/11/2012]

U.S. Newspapers Often Cite Mann And Ornstein But Largely Ignored Their Latest Thesis

During The Year Before Publishing Their Op-ed, Mann And Ornstein Were Cited 35 Times By The Top Five Newspapers. A Media Matters review of the top five national newspapers in the U.S., the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, between April 29, 2011 and April 29, 2012 reveals that the congressional experts were either cited by these papers or published articles within these papers 35 times.

A majority of these citations and authored articles -- 63 percent -- were news stories rather than opinion pieces.

But Only Five Articles Have Cited Mann And Ornstein's Thesis, All Authored By Opinion Writers. A Media Matters review of the top five national newspapers found only five mentions of Man's and Ornstein's thesis since the publication of their op-ed, all in opinion pieces.

• Four Of The Five Articles Mentioning The Experts' Thesis Were Published In The Washington Post, And All Four Were Written By The Paper's Columnists: Walter Pincus, who runs the Fine Print column, for "Don't Expect to Hear Much Truth-telling on Foreign Policy"; Robert G. Kaiser for his review of It's Even Worse Than It Looks titled, "How Partisan Republicans Bring America to Its Knees"; Ezra Klein, a regular Post columnist, for "GOP Elephant in the Room: Themselves"; and WashingtonPost.com blogger Greg Sargent's op-ed "A Topic No Sunday Show Will Tackle," which criticized the lack of coverage the experts have received.
• The New York Times' Single Article Was Paul Krugman's Column. Krugman discussed It's Even Worse Than It Looks in his May 3 column.
• Wall Street Journal Cited Mann's Expertise -- But Not About His Recent Thesis. The Journal published an April 30 article about super political action committees and 501(c) organizations made possible by new court rulings and Federal Election Commission decisions, but it does not reference the book at all (as a consequence, we have excluded this result from the chart below). Instead, it quotes commentary from Mann about these organizations' ability to raise money.

Experts' Thesis Also Ignored By Sunday Shows

Bob Somerby: "[T]he Pair Of Scholars Are Missing." From The Daily Howler on May 14:

Inside Washington, Ornstein and Mann have been famous for decades. (See The Daily Howler, 5/9/12.) Their recent cri de coeur ("cry of heart") hit a nerve, Klein says.

But now, the pair of scholars are missing--and no one is saying a word about it! Yesterday, for the third straight week since that book appeared, Ornstein failed to turn up on a Sunday news program. Mann was missing too. No one asked them about their book--the book which says that our current decline is the fault of only one party.

For decades, they were the most-quoted experts in Washington. Now, the Sunday programs can't find them! Bob Schieffer can't locate his trusted old friends. David Gregory is mystified too! [The Daily Howler, 5/14/2012]

Kevin Drum: "Norm Ornstein And Thomas Mann Are The Most Quoted Men In Washington." From Drum's Mother Jones blog on May 14:

Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann are the most quoted men in Washington. They have been for years. A couple of weeks ago they released a new book, and normally this would mean plenty of Sunday chat show bookings. But this book wasn't the usual pox-on-both-your-houses tome. Instead, they came right out and said it: Republicans are the big problem in American politics right now. [Mother Jones, 5/14/2012]

Greg Sargent: "[N]either Man Has Been Invited On To The Sunday Shows." From The Washington Post on May 14:

I ran this thesis by Ornstein himself, and he confirmed that the book's publicity people had tried to get the authors booked on the Sunday shows, with no success.

"Not a single one of the Sunday shows has indicated an interest, and I do find it curious," Ornstein told me, adding that the Op ed had well over 200,000 Facebook recommends and has been viral for weeks. "This is a level of attention for a book that we haven't received before. You would think it would attract some attention from the Sunday shows.'

Ornstein also noted another interesting point. Their thesis takes on the media for falling into a false equivalence mindset and maintaining the pretense that both sides are equally to blame. Yet despite the frequent self-obsession of the media, even that angle has failed to generate any interest. What's more, some reporters have privately indicated their frustration with their editorial overlords' apparent deafness to this idea.

"The piece focused on press culpability -- it would be hard to find a more sensitive issue for the media than the question of whether they're doing their job," Ornstein said. "We got tons of emails from some of the biggest reporters in the business, saying, `We've raised this in the newsroom, and editors just brush it aside.'"

Ornstein, while stressing that he wasn't casting any blame, noted that the topic hasn't come up on Howard Kurtz's weekend media show.

This is curious. Is "experts confirm that, yes, one side is more to blame than the other, and journalists should say so" really too hot a topic for the Sunday shows? Is it not relevant or interesting? [The Washington Post, 5/14/2012]

Paul Krugman: Mann And Ornstein "[C]an't Get On TV To Promote Their Book." From The New York Times on May 16:

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, two highly respected Congressional analysts with a reputation for being nonpartisan, have a book documenting the fact that our political dysfunction is very one-sided -- it's Republican extremism, not "both sides do it", that's at fault. Sales of their book have been very good, and there's a lot of public interest. But guess what? They can't get on TV to promote their book. [The New York Times, 5/16/2012]

Methodology

Media Matters searched articles from the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post in the Nexis and Factiva databases between April 29, 2011 and May 17, 2012 for the following keywords: Thomas E. Mann, Thomas Mann, Norman J. Ornstein, or Norman Ornstein. Only articles that cited Mann or Ornstein or were authored by Mann or Ornstein were included in the analysis. Articles that cited both or were co-authored were only counted once. Mann and Ornstein's April 29, 2012 column, "Let's Just Say It: The Republicans Are The Problem," was not included in the data.

]]> R.S. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205180007 Fri, 18 May 2012 12:30:00 EDT