Somehow the conservative media found a way to link a program promoting childhood health to an increase in pedestrian deaths. The magic word? "Obama."
The Drudge Report linked to this Washington Examiner story that gave the impression that there was a link between the "Let's Move!" campaign begun by first lady Michelle Obama and increased pedestrian deaths.
Rush Limbaugh promoted the version of the story appearing on his affiliate in the DC region, WMAL. That story was headlined "Michelle Obama's 'Get Moving' Program Linked to Pedestrian Deaths." Serial misinformer Jim Hoft wrote on his blog Gateway Pundit, "Michelle Obama's 'Get Up & Get Moving' Program Linked to Increase in Pedestrian Deaths," while Clarice Feldman of Pajamas Media wrote that "Michelle's 'Get Moving' Led to Increases in Pedestrian Deaths." The Daily Caller didn't want to be left out of the story, and produced a story with the headline "First Lady's anti-obesity campaign could be causing more pedestrian deaths."
From the Examiner:
First lady Michelle Obama's campaign to get people to exercise outdoors might be a factor in an increase in the number of pedestrian deaths during the first half of last year, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association.
GHSA executive director Barbara Harsha said her organization doesn't know why there were more deaths in the first six months of 2010 than in 2009, but the increase is notable because overall traffic fatalities went down 8 percent during this period, and the increase ends four straight years of steady declines in pedestrian deaths.
But the "get moving" movement, led by Obama's "Let's Move" campaign to eliminate childhood obesity, could be to blame, Harsha told The Washington Examiner.
The Examiner had this tidbit four paragraphs in, however:
"There's an emphasis these days to getting fit, and I think people doing that are more exposed to risk [of getting hit by a vehicle]," said Harsha, who conceded to having no scientific evidence that the Let's Move campaign has led to an increase in walkers and runners, or deaths. (our emphasis)
In comments to Media Matters, GHSA spokesman Jonathan Adkins called the story a "total sham," and said, "some people have an agenda" to tie the non-partisan group to a "partisan" story, and noted that more mainstream outlets like USA Today reported the story accurately. Adkins said that GHSA "support[s]" the Let's Move program. Adkins also told Media Matters that none of their research showed any connection at all between the Let's Move program and pedestrian deaths.
TBD.com spoke to Harsha after the story gained traction:
Well, the folks at GHSA were awfully surprised when they read this morning's paper. In fact, Harsha tells us, she didn't tell the Examiner that at all. "It's ridiculous," she says. According to Harsha, the first lady's fitness campaign never even came up in her discussion with [Scott] McCabe. "Absolutely not," she says, adding that she actually supports the "Let's Move" campaign.
But as McCabe points out to us, the Obama nugget came from the GHSA's pitch to him for the story, which he passed along: "Why the increase? We don't really know but speculate that it could be a couple factors. One is the possible increase in distracted pedestrians and distracted drivers. We've been focusing on the drivers, but perhaps we need to focus some attention on distracted walkers! Additionally, Mrs. Obama and others have been bringing attention to 'get moving' programs, so perhaps pedestrian exposure has increased."
Harsha says her theorizing to the Examiner never went beyond the predictable and mundane: More people seem to be walking and running, particularly while listening to music or fiddling with their smartphones, and not paying attention to traffic signals. "What we were trying to say is if people do walk more, there's more risk," says Harsha. "We're concerned with the increase in pedestrian fatalities, and we need to monitor it. Maybe some education needs to be done for people who are into physical fitness."
Conservative media figures have blamed the recent increases in oil and gas prices on President Obama's drilling policies. However, experts point to expectations of increased demand and other factors.
Nobody does "disingenuous" quite like Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, as this column opposing filibuster reform reminds us.
Start with the byline: "Elizabeth B. Letchworth is a retired, elected United States Senate Secretary for the Majority and Minority. Currently she is a senior legislative adviser for Covington & Burling, LLC and is the founder of GradeGov.com." Wow, she worked for both the Majority and the Minority. Sounds nice and nonpartisan, doesn't it?
In fact, Letchworth is a hard-core Republican who served as Secretary for the GOP in the Senate. In previous Daily Caller columns, Letchworth has cheered on the Tea Party and subtly advocated Christine O'Donnell's primary campaign against Mike Castle. None of that disqualifies her or her views, of course -- but if you're going to run a column in which a far-right Republican attacks Democrats, it's poor form to omit her partisan credentials.
The substance of Letchworth's opposition to filibuster reform consists almost entirely of repeatedly insisting that things continue to be done the way they've always been done:
Efforts in the Senate Rules Committee last year, lead by Sen. Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Udall (D-CO), are pushing the Senate leader to end over two hundred years of tradition and set a precedent by declaring that the Senate is NOT a continuous body.
Where does Sen. Reid get the idea that the Senate is not a continuous body? Maybe he should read the U.S. Senate website, which clearly states what the Senate has lived by for over 200 years.
If these 23 Democratic senators vote to destroy over 200 years of Senate tradition in order to advance their agenda, where will this abuse of power end?
Stay tuned to see if Harry Reid will ruin over 200 years of Senate procedure when the Senate opens the 112th Congress on Wednesday.
Of course, if Letchworth was really concerned with the Senate functioning the way it has historically, she'd have at least mentioned the fact that the current constant use of the filibuster is entirely without precedent in American history -- something she, as former Secretary to the Senate majority, certainly knows. But she never once mentions the fact that the GOP's current use of the filibuster is inconsistent with precedent, making her constant invocations of 200 years of tradition seem more than a little disingenuous. (For more on this "continuous body" business, see this post by David Waldman of Congress Matters.)
Finally, Letchworth offers this train-wreck of an argument:
The special election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) back in early 2010 is a perfect example of how the Reid rules change would disenfranchise the American electorate. Remember, Candidate Brown focused much of his campaign on being the GOP's 41st vote in the Senate. The significance of being the 41st GOP vote was to deny Sen. Reid the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster of Obamacare.
What does that even mean? It requires an odd definition of "disenfranchisement" to complain that it is accomplished via a move towards majority rule. Unfortunately, Letchworth doesn't explain. The gap between her first-sentance assertion and the rest of the paragraph is quite large, so it isn't surprising Letchworth fails to bridge it -- but it would have been nice to have seen her at least try.
In the days since the New York Times' report that beginning January 1, Medicare will cover voluntary discussions between patients and doctors about end-of-life planning, conservatives (with help from media like the Times and the Associated Press) have been claiming that "death panels" are back and Sarah Palin was right. This is false. There are no death panels.
When PolitiFact named Palin's "death panels" claim the 2009 "lie of the year," it noted the obvious implications of the term -- that the government would kill people:
History professor Ian Dowbiggin, who has written several books on medical history, euthanasia and eugenics, said he had never heard the term before Palin used it. He said the phrase invokes images of Nazi Germany, which denied life-saving care to people who were not deemed useful enough to broader society. Adolf Hitler ordered Nazi officials to secretly register, select, and murder handicapped people such as schizophrenics, epileptics, disabled babies and other long-stay hospital patients, according to Dowbiggin.
Palin's death panel lie clearly referred to the government denying medical care in such a way: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
That -- obviously -- is very different from Medicare covering completely voluntary counseling sessions in which doctors discuss end-of-life care options with patients. Indeed, "different" seems inadequate; the two concepts are "different" in the way that an airplane is "different" from an orangutan. Even if you set aside Dowbiggin's sensible explanation of the implications of the term "death panel" and look only at Palin's literal words, what she said was the opposite of what is actually happening. In Palin's version, the government decides what care people will receive. The new Medicare regulation simply pays for voluntary sessions in which doctors discuss with patients what care they want to receive.
But in the up-is-down, black-is-white, Sarah-Palin-is-a-truth-teller fantasyland of right-wing media, giving patients resources to make end-of-life treatment decisions -- if they want those resources -- is the same thing as not allowing them to make such decisions at all. And to the truly unhinged -- that would be Daily Caller columnist Tim Daniel -- Medicare coverage for voluntary counseling sessions is nothing less than a dystopian nightmare. Here's Daniel:
Whether or not grandma is run over by a reindeer, Obamacare death panels will finish her off
If grandma narrowly escaped being run over by a reindeer this Christmas, she may still suffer a worse New Years Day fate.
Sarah Palin has once again been proven correct — death panels are back, surprisingly exposed the day after Christmas in the Sunday pages of the New York Times
"Spooky Dudes" behind end-of-life Medicare "incentives":
– The Chief Spooky Dude himself: President Barack Obama. Obama kept this insidious regulation a secret and is more insistent of grandma facing a grinning doctor death panel than defending anything that makes America great. Imagine if this man fought for liberty as fervently as he obviously fought for this onerous issue and other visions of his American dystopian future.
Again: What Daniel is talking about here is a doctor and a patient talking through options for treatment and care -- if the patient wants to have such a conversation. And the government picking up the tab. That's all. You have to wonder what kind of person would try to scare sick senior citizens out of talking about treatment options with their doctor by convincing them that if they do so, a "grinning doctor death panel" will kill them. On second thought, the answer is pretty obvious.
Daily Caller columnist Darin Selnick is not happy about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. After some pro forma lying about the public's attitudes towards DADT repeal ("Democrats once again imposed their left-wing San Francisco values on America … it is about jamming the Democrats' left-wing, radical social agenda down the throats of the American people") Selnick gets around to his point: Attempting to rally social conservatives to fight for the repeal of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
Social conservatives know that the military is the last line of defense in the culture war and if it falls, so does the rest of the country.
Social conservatives are already fighting back. Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall is in the process of drafting a bill for Virginia's 2011 legislative session that would ban gays from serving in the Virginia National Guard. It is only a matter of time before social conservatives begin to fight back against DADT's repeal at the federal level as well. Just as abortion has not gone away, DADT will not go away and will be a rallying cry as social conservatives draw the line in the sand and finally say enough is enough.
I have no doubt Selnick and a handful of others like him will continue to make similar noises going forward. When they do, it is important for the news media to keep in mind that not only do they represent a small minority of the American people, they represent only a small minority of conservative Republicans and white evangelicals, as well. There's no reason to treat them like serious leaders of a large movement, because they just aren't. (I'm talking to you, Washington Post.)
Writing at the Daily Caller, wildly disreputable right-wing activist David Bossie issues a stern -- and stupid -- warning about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Under the headline "The Inevitability of the Draft," Bossie writes that the repeal will come to be seen as "a day of infamy for our military" because now that gay soldiers will no longer have to hide their sexual orientation, Marines are going to abandon the service in droves and the government will have to draft Americans to replace them.
Nearly forty percent of the Marines in the official Department of Defense survey said that they may leave the service early if "don't ask, don't tell" is repealed. Four out of ten! That is a staggering number that could degrade one of the most lethal fighting forces in the world. With our military already stretched to capacity with many of our warriors being asked to sign up for multiple tours of duty, how could the Democrat leadership and some Republicans take this risk? Pushing this legislation during a global war on terror is a dereliction of duty. If forty percent of our Marines do in fact leave the service early, we will have to fill those boots somehow.
And -- wouldn't you know it? -- Bossie's op-ed is paired with a slickly produced and confusingly ominous video about how gay people are to blame for you being drafted, or something. I especially like the disarmingly straightforward slogan: "Be careful what you rally for because Uncle Sam may end up drafting you."
But this is no mere gimmick intended to raise money by capitalizing on lingering fear and resentment of the gay community -- no sir! This is a "serious" issue!
This issue has not been talked about much, but is a serious unintended consequence nonetheless. Statistics indicate that retention and recruitment will be a problem if "don't ask, don't tell" is repealed. We are at war, and war is no time to take a chance with our armed forces just to appease the liberal special interests. Unbelievably, Harry Reid tweeted to Lady Gaga, "We did it," after the repeal was passed. I guess we know now that Reid is beholden to Lady Gaga and not those young Marines on the front lines protecting our freedom.
So yeah, we're all going to be drafted into the Marines because all those gay people had the nerve to demand equal treatment. In the meantime, be afraid, and donate generously to Citizens United, or else Harry Reid and Lady Gaga will conquer us all.
Yesterday, Media Matters noted that Daily Caller scribe Carey Roberts denounced "the Abuse Mavens" of the "domestic violence industry" who "ginned up this grand scheme: Let's exponentially broaden the definition of domestic violence" because they "don't want to see their generous paychecks trimmed."
In a statement to given to Media Matters today, National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) communications director Brian Namey took Roberts to task saying:
Anyone who has a mother, sister, friend, or colleague who has been abused knows that Carey Roberts' claims are completely outlandish. Domestic violence is all about controlling an intimate partner through a combination of tactics – physical, sexual, emotional, or financial.
According to NNEDV's website, the organization "was founded more than 15 years ago to be the leading voice for survivors of domestic violence and their allies."
How can I be sure the Daily Caller is merely pretending to find analogies to violence troubling? Well, first of all, note that the Caller's headline analogizes speech to explosive devices that kill people. Pro Tip: When trying to make a big deal out of rhetorical invocations of violence, it's best to avoid describing that rhetoric as "throwing bombs."
The Daily Caller's headline isn't the only thing that thoroughly undermines its efforts to make a mountain out of a rhetorical molehill: So too does its previous ho-hum coverage of Republicans invoking the specter of hostages to make political points.
Just last week, for example, the Caller reported John Kasich's use of the hostage metaphor without pretending the metaphor was some huge scandal:
"Our children are being held hostage," said a fiery Ohio governor-elect John Kasich in reference to the expanding federal debt. "If we have to be responsible and balance our books, they better get their books in order in Washington."
And just yesterday, the Caller ran a column by two Republican members of congress who claimed "the administration is now holding hostage the modernization of our dilapidated nuclear arsenal."
In June, the Daily Caller re-published a National Review piece headlined "Politicizing Aid at the G8 Summit." But the Caller apparently didn't find that headline sexy enough; on the Caller's site, the piece was headlined "OPINION: Hillary holding infant aid hostage for abortion rights."
Q: How twisted do you have to be to distort domestic violence guidelines in order to argue for loosening the definition of domestic violence?
A: Twisted enough to write for the Daily Caller.
Under the header "Yippee, we're all abusers now!," Carey Roberts denounces "the Abuse Mavens" of the "domestic violence industry" who "ginned up this grand scheme: Let's exponentially broaden the definition of domestic violence" because they "don't want to see their generous paychecks trimmed."
Roberts' entire column is a litany of purportedly-ridiculous things treated as "domestic violence" by "Big Sister." Here's a taste:
Go to the website of the federal Office of [sic] Violence against Women. The OVW informs us domestic violence is a "pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control."
Maintain power and control?
Ladies, if you nag your husband to mow the lawn, that's power and control. Men, quit telling your wife to not overdraw the ATM — same thing. If you get into a disagreement over the TV remote control, you guessed it, that's proof of an obsessive need for power and control. That's a heinous offense, according to Big Sister.
It goes on like that at some length. The most obvious sign that Roberts is blowing smoke is that he doesn't offer a single example of anyone ever being unjustly charged with domestic violence. He pretends that merely reminding a spouse not to "overdraw the ATM" will result in jack-booted government thugs kicking down your door (no joke: Roberts compares the Office on Violence Against Women to the KGB.) But he doesn't identify any example of anything even remotely like that ever happening, which is a pretty good indication that he's bitterly denouncing straw.
But Roberts doesn't stop at absurd caricatures of domestic violence definitions: He tells clear falsehoods about them as well. Here's Roberts:
But domestic violence runs rampant and proto-abusers need to be held accountable — or so the domestic violence industry claims — so why not swell our definitions even more?
Now, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, partner violence also includes "getting annoyed if the victim disagrees" and "withholding information from the victim." If that doesn't suffice, "disregarding what the victim wants" also counts as a punishable offense.
Well, no. According to Roberts, CDC will punish people for "partner violence" simply for being annoyed. But in reality, CDC lists "getting annoyed if the victim disagrees" and "withholding information from the victim" as potential elements of "Psychological/emotional abuse" -- not "violence." That doesn't mean that "getting annoyed" is automatically abuse, just that it could occur in a way that constitutes abuse. Perhaps more importantly, while Roberts pretends that CDC considers annoyance a form of "violence," CDC makes clear that it does so when emotional abuse comes in the context of prior physical or sexual violence:
The panel made the decision to classify psychological/emotional abuse as a type of violence only when it occurs in the context of prior physical or sexual violence, or the prior threat of physical or sexual violence. The panel suggested that "prior" be operationalized as "within the past 12 months."
Basically, Roberts is defending emotionally-abusive conduct by people who have already been physically abusive. But he doesn't dare come out and say that, so he pretends that the part about prior physical violence or threats of violence doesn't exist.
Again: You have to be pretty twisted to make a dishonest case for weakening domestic violence laws. But not so twisted that Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller won't publish you.
Oh, and just a week ago, Roberts took to the Caller to denounce restraining orders, arguing that instead, women should avoid "late-night strolls in public areas."
When Tucker Carlson launched the Daily Caller with a former aide to Dick Cheney and a multimillion dollar bankroll from a big GOP donor, Howard Kurtz reported that Carlson "insists this won't be a right-wing site." Every day since then, Carlson's staff has done its best to make a liar out of him.
Yesterday's example: The Daily Caller's interview with James O'Keefe, which made it through exactly one full sentence before telling a right-wing-friendly lie. Sentence two broke that impressive streak by claiming that "O'Keefe (dressed as a pimp) … found ACORN employees seemingly willing to facilitate shady dealings." False! O'Keefe was not "dressed as a pimp" during his interactions with ACORN employees, unless the Caller thinks khakis and a dress shirt constitute "dressing like a pimp."
Next, here's how the Daily Caller described another O'Keefe dirty trick: "After one botched stunt, O'Keefe was charged with (and later cleared of) trying to tap the phones in one of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's Louisiana offices." By noting only that O'Keefe was "cleared" of trying to tap the phones, the Caller suggests he did nothing wrong. In fact, O'Keefe pled guilty to breaking the law. Details!
Now, check out the questions -- all of the questions -- the Caller asked O'Keefe:
Do you consider yourself an activist or a journalist? Can someone be both?
Do you have role models? If so, whom?
Is there someone on the political scene you would like to see run for president in 2012?
You've attracted some controversy. Do you have any regrets for any of the actions you've taken?
What political cause would prompt you to chain yourself to the White House fence?
That's some hard-hitting, pull-no-punches journalism!
The Daily Caller blows the lid off of … nothing much:
Three of the "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength," a group of 90 plus millionaires who signed a letter to President Obama asking him to allow the tax cuts on people with an income of $1 million or more each year to expire, say that despite their call to raise taxes, they will not pay the government more than they are required to, nor will they cut the government a personal check.
Later, the Caller suggested it was "hypocrisy" to call for higher taxes without voluntarily sending a larger check to the government. (It isn't. It would be "hypocrisy" for a rich person to say rich people should voluntarily send the Treasury contributions, but refuse to do so himself. That isn't what's happening here. But then, the word "hypocrisy" rarely means what reporters think it means.)
I eagerly await the Daily Caller's expose of conservatives who want to cut government spending but refuse to voluntarily stop using government-funded bridges, hospitals and schools.
The Daily Caller's Amanda Carey details the "Rise of conservative displeasure over Politico/NBC debate," quoting several conservative activists who worry (or pretend to worry) that Republican presidential candidates won't be treated fairly in a debate hosted by Politico and NBC.
Carey quotes conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt: "Can we be honest? They are all liberals. All of them. Not one of the questioners that could or would be proposed by Politico or NBC would be remotely in touch with the cares, concerns, and passions of the GOP's primary electorate." And Grover Norquist: "All the debates should be open to the media, but they should be held for the purpose of letting Republicans explain to Republicans why they should vote for them in the primary. … Instead, we'll get nitpicking from left-of-center journalists asking questions that will impress their fellow journalists." And Mark Levin: "There's no question that Politico and NBC are leftist and I'm not excited about their participation."
As usual, Media Research Center Brent Bozell out-shrilled them all: "When, oh when will Republicans learn? Every four years the presidential debate season takes place. Republicans dutifully line up for debates moderated by liberal 'moderators' except there's nothing moderate about these moderators who mercilessly attack them."
If this really takes place "every four years," there should be plenty of examples. And yet neither Carey nor anyone she quoted offered a single example of inappropriate questioning during debates moderated by Politico or NBC journalists. Certainly no "merciless attacks."
In fact, Carey never got around to mentioning that both Politico and NBC participated in GOP presidential debates during the 2008 campaign. This being the Daily Caller, it is of course possible that neither Carey nor her editors are aware of this basic fact, and that neither thought to check. And this being the Daily Caller, it's also possible Carey never mentioned those debates because they completely undermine the inane premise that Politico and NBC would attack Republican candidates during a debate.
Consider the May 3, 2007 Republican presidential debate moderated by Chris Matthews and Politico's John Harris and Jim VandeHei. Matthews kicked things off by asking Rudy Giuliani "Mayor Giuliani, how do we get back to Ronald Reagan's morning in America?" Then he moved on to John McCain: "Let me go to Senator McCain. We're in the house of Ronald Reagan. Every cab driver in America knew what Ronald Reagan stood for: defeat communism abroad; reduce big government at home. Can you, Senator McCain, restore that kind of unity of purpose?" That, apparently, is what Brent Bozell considers a merciless attack: Asking Republicans if they'll be like Reagan.
Later in the debate, Matthews invited the Republican candidates to "mention a tax you'd like to cut, in addition to the Bush tax cuts, keeping them in effect." He never asked how they'd pay for those tax cuts -- though during a Democratic debate a week earlier, NBC's Brian Williams demanded to know how the Democratic candidates would pay for their health care proposals (while never actually asking them to explain the proposals.)
That wasn't the only double-standard apparent in those two debates. During the Democratic debate, Brian Williams asked Barack Obama a loaded question about his personal finances -- a question that managed to smear the other Democrats on stage as well. A week later, Matthews, VandeHei and Harris failed to ask the Republicans a single question about their business dealings, personal finances, or ties to controversial figures. Those types of questions were reserved for Democrats only -- and this in spite of the fact that Giuliani's close relationship with the breathtakingly crooked Bernie Kerik was very much in the news.
The last time NBC and Politico participated in presidential debates, they lobbed softballs to the Republicans and held Democrats to a higher standard of fiscal responsibility. That's just a fact. It's what happened. And so, in whining about NBC and Politico participating in a 2011 Republican debate, the Daily Caller, Brent Bozell, and several other conservative media critics don't mention a single thing about those 2007 debates. Because conservative media criticism isn't about reality, it's about blind hatred of the media -- and about working the refs.
The slow-witted thirteen-year-olds Tucker Carlson has apparently hired to run The Daily Caller strike again:
Get it? Rosie O'Donnell, who is gay, is therefore half a man. Hahahahaha!
When The Daily Caller launched with $3 million in seed money from Republican financier Foster Freiss, the GOP donor said: "Tucker and Neil [Patel] present a huge opportunity to re-introduce civility to our political discourse. They are mature, sensible men who are very thoughtful and experienced with pleasant senses of humor and do not take themselves too seriously. They want to make a contribution to the dialogue that occurs in our country that has become too antagonistic, nasty and hostile."
I'll give Freiss this much: His quote is funnier than any of the Daily Caller's gay jokes.
Did you hear Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller site posted big readership numbers? It's true because I read the press release [emphasis added]:
The Daily Caller Shatters Traffic Predictions
WASHINGTON - (BUSINESS WIRE) - The Daily Caller has shattered all traffic estimates in its first 10 months since launch. By October, The Daily Caller, a 24-hour online news publication, reported that monthly unique visitors exceeded expectations by more than 100%. The Daily Caller also saw more than 7.5 million page views from visitors in October alone. Traffic for the third quarter, running from July through September, surpassed well over 1.5 million unique visitors per month.
I don't mean to rain on the Daily Caller parade, but I couldn't help chuckling reading all about how its online traffic is way ahead of "predictions" and "expectation" and "estimates." (Up more than 100%!) I'm chuckling because we never find out whose "predictions" and "expectations" the release was based on. Was it Carlson sitting around his kitchen table making "predictions" about what Daily Caller's traffic would be, and now the site's issuing proclamations because it exceeded those "predictions"?
Note to Daily Caller: If you're going to issue press releases based on unknown "predictions" and "expectations," why stop at 100% increases? Why not just say traffic is up 300% or even 1000% based on anonymous "estimates"? Sounds better that way, don't you think?
Right-wing media have been hyping reports from an Indian news agency that President Obama's upcoming trip to India will cost $200 million a day and will require 34 warships to be stationed off the Indian coast. In fact, the White House, the Secret Service and the Pentagon have called the claims false, and numerous U.S. media sources question the numbers.