10/7/2005 - MMFA Angry Over Accurate Representation of Republican Opinion on Meiers

Media Matters for America, in an article entitled "NY Times again ignored concerns from the right about Bush cronyism in Miers pick; Wash. Post followed suit," used out-of-context statements and tricky wording to dispute claims made from the papers when, in fact, the papers were more on target than MMFA.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510070005

MMFA reports:

For the second time this week, The New York Times, in an October 7 article, ignored concerns expressed by conservatives and Republicans that President Bush was motivated by cronyism in nominating White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Rather, the Times again attributed concerns that Miers is a Bush "crony" only to "the left." Similarly, The Washington Post reported on October 7 only that "Democrats" believe that Miers, Bush's former personal attorney, "may have been picked more for her loyalty to Bush over the years than for her intellectual heft or constitutional insights."

First, let us look very carefully at the articles. The New York Times article begins by stating that "Amid uproar among conservatives over the candidacy of Harriet E. Miers for the Supreme Court, one of the most ardent abortion opponents in the Senate said Thursday that Ms. Miers had not persuaded him to vote to confirm her." It continues:

But the selection has drawn intense criticism from both ends of the political spectrum, with the left labeling Ms. Miers a crony and the right complaining that Mr. Bush has squandered a chance to pick a candidate with demonstrable conservative credentials.

This is the sentence MMFA says the Times is wrong on. They give examples conservatives allegedly condemning Bush for picking Meiers for cronyism.

Well, they're wrong. NYTimes has it just right.

Let's look at the examples:

Some Republicans in Congress have expressed concern that cronyism influenced Bush's nomination of Miers. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said on the October 6 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country that he "do understand" why the Bush administration has "taken this extraordinary step of naming someone who is just simply a 'FOG.' That is to say, a Friend of George." And former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) questioned Bush's claim that Miers was "the best person I could find" for the Supreme Court. As the Post reported on October 6:

"Is she the most qualified person? Clearly, the answer to that is 'no,' " Lott said on MSNBC's Hardball , contradicting Bush's assertion. "There are a lot more people -- men, women and minorities -- that are more qualified, in my opinion, by their experience than she is."

Other Republican senators, including Sam Brownback (R-KS), George Allen (R-VA), and John Thune (R-SD), have voiced similar concerns about Miers's record. Brownback declared that "'[t]here is a lot of skepticism around about her," and that he is "not yet confident that Ms. Miers has a proven track record."

MMFA gives a few others but they are largely by little-leaguers on the political scale.

Now, let's get to work.

Starting with the Brownback statements that he isn't confident in Miers, read it in full context:

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today commented on Harriet Miers, President Bush´s nominee to succeed Sandra Day O´Connor on the Supreme Court.

"I congratulate Harriet Miers on her nomination to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and I look forward to learning at her confirmation hearing whether she possesses a firm commitment to the Framers' Constitution and to the rule of law," Brownback stated. "I am hopeful that Ms. Miers will be, as President Bush promised, a qualified nominee in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas who will strictly interpret the law and will not create law."

Brownback, a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, previously commented that he hoped the President would nominate a jurist who would strictly interpret the Constitution and who has a well-formed judicial philosophy and stated positions on important issues.

Brownback continued, "I have said in the past that I would like a nominee with a proven track record on important issues to all Americans and whose judicial philosophy is well-formed. I am not yet confident that Ms. Miers has a proven track record and I look forward to having these questions answered. President Bush has a long-standing working relationship with Ms. Miers and I trust the President knows her heart and her mind. Even so, the confirmation process has just begun and questions about her views on the Constitution need to be answered. As President Bush and President Reagan have commented in the past, in this regard I feel we must trust but verify."

Miers currently serves as Counsel to the President and previously served as President of the State Bar of Texas and as Co-Managing Partner of Locke, Liddell & Sapp in Dallas, Texas.

Brownback was not calling her a crony, but rather stating that he wished to see a track record on "important issues." MMFA took him out of context....

This entry will be finished by tonight, so come back later.

10/7/2005 - MMFA Angry Over Accurate Representation of Republican Opinion on Meiers

Media Matters for America, in an article entitled "NY Times again ignored concerns from the right about Bush cronyism in Miers pick; Wash. Post followed suit," used out-of-context statements and tricky wording to dispute claims made from the papers when, in fact, the papers were more on target than MMFA.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510070005

MMFA reports:

For the second time this week, The New York Times, in an October 7 article, ignored concerns expressed by conservatives and Republicans that President Bush was motivated by cronyism in nominating White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Rather, the Times again attributed concerns that Miers is a Bush "crony" only to "the left." Similarly, The Washington Post reported on October 7 only that "Democrats" believe that Miers, Bush's former personal attorney, "may have been picked more for her loyalty to Bush over the years than for her intellectual heft or constitutional insights."

First, let us look very carefully at the articles. The New York Times article begins by stating that "Amid uproar among conservatives over the candidacy of Harriet E. Miers for the Supreme Court, one of the most ardent abortion opponents in the Senate said Thursday that Ms. Miers had not persuaded him to vote to confirm her." It continues:

But the selection has drawn intense criticism from both ends of the political spectrum, with the left labeling Ms. Miers a crony and the right complaining that Mr. Bush has squandered a chance to pick a candidate with demonstrable conservative credentials.

This is the sentence MMFA says the Times is wrong on. They give examples conservatives allegedly condemning Bush for picking Meiers for cronyism.

Well, they're wrong. NYTimes has it just right.

Let's look at the examples:

Some Republicans in Congress have expressed concern that cronyism influenced Bush's nomination of Miers. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said on the October 6 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country that he "do understand" why the Bush administration has "taken this extraordinary step of naming someone who is just simply a 'FOG.' That is to say, a Friend of George." And former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) questioned Bush's claim that Miers was "the best person I could find" for the Supreme Court. As the Post reported on October 6:

"Is she the most qualified person? Clearly, the answer to that is 'no,' " Lott said on MSNBC's Hardball , contradicting Bush's assertion. "There are a lot more people -- men, women and minorities -- that are more qualified, in my opinion, by their experience than she is."

Other Republican senators, including Sam Brownback (R-KS), George Allen (R-VA), and John Thune (R-SD), have voiced similar concerns about Miers's record. Brownback declared that "'[t]here is a lot of skepticism around about her," and that he is "not yet confident that Ms. Miers has a proven track record."

MMFA gives a few others but they are largely by little-leaguers on the political scale.

Now, let's get to work.

Starting with the Brownback statements that he isn't confident in Miers, read it in full context:

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today commented on Harriet Miers, President Bush´s nominee to succeed Sandra Day O´Connor on the Supreme Court.

"I congratulate Harriet Miers on her nomination to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and I look forward to learning at her confirmation hearing whether she possesses a firm commitment to the Framers' Constitution and to the rule of law," Brownback stated. "I am hopeful that Ms. Miers will be, as President Bush promised, a qualified nominee in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas who will strictly interpret the law and will not create law."

Brownback, a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, previously commented that he hoped the President would nominate a jurist who would strictly interpret the Constitution and who has a well-formed judicial philosophy and stated positions on important issues.

Brownback continued, "I have said in the past that I would like a nominee with a proven track record on important issues to all Americans and whose judicial philosophy is well-formed. I am not yet confident that Ms. Miers has a proven track record and I look forward to having these questions answered. President Bush has a long-standing working relationship with Ms. Miers and I trust the President knows her heart and her mind. Even so, the confirmation process has just begun and questions about her views on the Constitution need to be answered. As President Bush and President Reagan have commented in the past, in this regard I feel we must trust but verify."

Miers currently serves as Counsel to the President and previously served as President of the State Bar of Texas and as Co-Managing Partner of Locke, Liddell & Sapp in Dallas, Texas.

Brownback was not calling her a crony, but rather stating that he wished to see a track record on "important issues." MMFA took him out of context....

This entry will be finished by tonight, so come back later.

10/4/2005 - Open Letter to Media Matters

Since MMFA CEO David Brock often sends letters to people in the media who he believes are distorting facts for conservative purposes, and then posts them on his website for everyone to enjoy, I have decided to do the same. I sent the following e-mail to MMFA:

To whom it may concern,

As someone whom, I hope, holds an important role in the organization Media Matters for America, I was wondering if you could explain what constitutes "conservative misinformation"-- or anything, for that matter-- in a recent item posted on your website.

"Following NewsMax's lead, Limbaugh called Sheehan an 'anti-American war protester' " was the title of the item. There was no explanation as to what made this quote deserving of a post on Media Matters. There was nothing given to the reader that exposed any sort of lie or false indication in Limbaugh's comment. Before you answer the question (if you do), I would mind you that this woman, Cindy Sheehan, once said that America is not worth dying for. I realize that several people from the left have tried to dismiss this claim as "out of context," but I do not believe that, when read in its entirety, that the comment was taken out of context. I will provide you with the full quote so you can decide:

"I take responsibility partly for my son´s death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I´m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for.' If we´re attacked, we would all go out. We´d all take whatever we had. I´d take my rolling pin and I´d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq... and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. {applause}"

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm

Please explain to the readers of Media Matters what makes Limbaugh's statement wrong in any way, given the outrageous statements made by Cindy Sheehan. I believe this would be helpful to the readers of Media Matters.

9/28/2005 - MMFA Uses Laughable Standard to Prove Ronnie Earle Not Politically Motivated in Delay Indictment

In an item from September 22, 2004, Media Matters for America used a certain standard to prove that Travis County, Texas' District attorney Ronnie Earle's recent indictment of Republican Tom Delay on corruption charges were not partisan.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409220004

MMFA says:

FOX News Channel correspondent Brian Wilson echoed allegations by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) that the September 21 indictments of three top aides to DeLay by Ronnie Earle, district attorney in Travis County, Texas, were politically motivated. But evidence shows otherwise.

MMFA then cites articles showing Earle indicting Democrats.

What MMFA failed to note, is that most of these Democrats were conservative Democrats.

They note that Earle looked into Dem. Rep. Martin Frost.

Martin Frost, as the ultra-liberal DailyKos blog has noted, consistently stands by conservative values and distances himself from the core of the Democratic Party. The DailyKos quotes the Dallas Morning News: "So who loves President Bush the most?

9/27/2005 - MMFA Cites Lowly Studies To Back Up False Global Warming Claims

In a September 26, 2005 item, Media Matters for America used low-quality studies and misleading statistics to dispute a claim made by George Will that hurricanes were not increasing due to global warming.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509260004

"Will's comments on hurricane frequency ignored the heart of the current scientific debate that postulates a link between hurricane intensity -- not frequency -- and warming trends," says MMFA. Let's play their game...

MMFA claims that the "are becoming increasingly powerful, a trend identified in research on hurricanes worldwide." They cite a study conducted by the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which states that  "he number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years..."

But this still does not answer the question, "Is hurricane intensity increasing or decreasing?" While that sounds like a stunning statistic, it must be compared to the number of Cat 4's and 5's before that time period to be an actual statistic. Relative to earlier time periods, of course, the number of Cat 4's and 5's has been less since 1970 since the thirty years before that.

A chart from the National Weather Service proves this:

DECADE (ex. 1921-1930)              NUMBER OF CAT 4'S AND 5'S

1970                                                0

1980                                                1

1990                                                1

2000                                                1

Now, take a look starting at the 1930s:

1930                                                 2

1940                                                 1

1950                                                 3

1960                                                 2

Notice the pattern?

The last thirty years, yes, we have seen more since 1970. We have yet however to match the 30s-60s, in which hurricanes struck at both a frequency and intensity of enormous proportions.

This is, of couse, a count of hurricanes to strike the U.S. We could go back and look at every single hurricane to strike anywhere (even just the middle of the ocean.) So, we will. Below is a graph using data from the National Weather Service, counting all storms (not just hurricanes but also tropical depressions and storms) and their pressure (lower pressure=more intense). Notice the pattern:

Hmmmmm.....notice the green line going "up." Remember how I said lower=more intense?

And heres another chart with wind speeds for intensity:

Hmmmmm... I'ts going uuup and doooownnn.... notice how the line is more up during the 1940s-60s.

Furthermore, more official data from the United Nations Environment Programme - World Meteorological Organization in a report stated that "Reliable data from the North Atlantic since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased."

Decreased. Yes, decreased. Decreased decreased decreased.

MMFA really hit it on the head this time. Get it right!

Note: Special props to our friends down at the Seixon blog, who feature the graphs I linked to that were created using data from the NWS. Go over and give 'em some traffic! And if ya wanna validate the graphs, make one yourself using Excel and the data from NWS.

9/25/2005 - MMFA Refuses to Retract False Claim About Kinclaid

For this, we link you to our buddies at The Media Report :

http://www.themediareport.com/mediamatters.htm

9/25/2005 - MMFA Disputes MRC's Brent Bozell's Claim that Neil Cavuto's Interview with Bush Months ago Was Not a "puff-job"

MMFA, in an attempt to put out hypocrisy on the part of Brent Bozell, President of the Media Research Center, said this in a Sept. 21 item:

 September 21 column by criticizing the media for lobbing softball questions at Clinton, claiming that they offered him "shoeshines" and "backrubs" and that "he public deserves better." But in his June 15 column, Bozell defended Fox News host Neil Cavuto against accusations that he "wasn't tough enough" during a June 8 interview of President Bush. Bozell claimed that Cavuto's interview "was no puff job" and that Cavuto asked "some challenging questions." Among the questions Cavuto asked Bush that Bozell defended were "Do you think you get a bum rap in the media on the economy?" and "Do you ever get mad at your fellow Republicans?"

Hmmm.... Some other questions to Bush?

CAVUTO: Speaking of civil liberties, one of your predecessors, Jimmy Carter, was very critical of our operations at Guantanamo Bay, saying they should be shut down, that abuses there, if proven true, are dragging our name through the mud globally. What do you make of that?

CAVUTO: But now President Carter has said, sir, shut it [Guantanamo] down. Joe Biden said shut it down. Do you think it should be shut down?

CAVUTO: But you've been warning about this [depebdency on foreign oil], Mr. President. Four years ago, you said this. But you've had a Republican Congress to push these things through, and nothing.

CAVUTO: So when you see these polls that show your popularity ebbing a bit, it doesn't frustrate you?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158960,00.html

To reiterate Bozell, it was no "puff-job"...

9/24/2005 - MMFA Falsely Claimed Washington Post "Omitted" Democrats' Reason for Not Joining Republican Probe into Katrina

A September 22, 2005 item from Media Matters for America, the writer falsely suggested that, the Washington Post, "reported that House Democrats are boycotting the 'bipartisan' investigation but failed to provide the reasons Democrats have given for the boycott..."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509220008

The article claimed that the Post ommitted the facts that "[Democrats] would be outnumbered by Republicans on the panel and would not have subpoena power." In fact, the Washington Post has  reported the Democrats whining about this and their reasons, and Media Matters has  previously noted this. They may not have reported it in this specific article, but the Post has previously reported it. It is a bit crazy to think that they are "ommitting" things for "conservative misinformation" because they will not repeat the same reasons for Democrats crying about things every time they write an article.

In a September 8 article from the Wash. Post, they reported Nancy Pelosi sniffing about the facts that Democrats would not have subpoena power and that Republicans would outnumber the Democrats. As the Post says:

House and Senate GOP leaders announced the "Hurricane Katrina Joint Review Committee," which will include only members of Congress, with Republicans outnumbering Democrats by a yet-to-be-determined ratio.

[...]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the new commission "is not truly bipartisan, will not be made up of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, cannot write legislation and will not have bipartisan subpoena power."

Oddly enough, Media Matters featured this article in a previous item as proof of these facts.

Is MMFA getting sloppy?

Furthermore, in the former mentioned item, Media Matters cried about an Amy Goldstein article in the Post because it "failed to explain, however, why Democrats object to the current makeup of the inquiry. She instead reported that Democrats are 'saying that a GOP-led Congress could not be trusted to carry out a thorough investigation of mistakes by a Republican administration,' and that Pelosi 'renewed the Democrats' calls for an independent commission, similar to the one that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- a proposal that polls suggest most of the public supports.' "

Of course, Amy Goldstein is absolutely correct. Nancy Pelosi has said this herself in a press release. After the Republicans offered this commission, which, admittedly, gives Republicans more power than Democrats, Nancy Pelosi announced publicly that she now was going to fight for an independent, 9/11 commission-style probe:

"The American people want Democrats and Republicans to put their differences aside and work together to address the emergency assistance and recovery needs of the victims of Hurricane Katrina and to investigate why the initial federal response compounded the disaster...

"For nearly a week, I have urged the Speaker to establish a bipartisan task force that is truly bipartisan...

"The partisan proposal that Republican leaders outlined yesterday is completely unacceptable. House Democrats will not participate in a sham that is just the latest example of congressional Republicans being the foxes guarding the President´s hen house.

"Americans want an objective assessment of what went wrong during the federal government´s response to Hurricane Katrina. Now that Speaker Hastert and Leader Frist have decided to form a partisan committee, the only way to get Americans the truth about what went wrong and correct how we respond to future disasters is by creating an independent commission. It could be modeled after the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which did a huge service to our country with its excellent report detailing the urgent task before us to make our nation safer."

This has been echoed by many Democrats elsewhere, including Sen. Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader.

The overall point is that Democrats want an independent 9/11 commision-type investigation. Reporting it this way would seem accurate, especially when the Post had previously announced the anger at the Republican proposal. Why do they need to repeatedly recycle the same story? Does this really fall under "conservative misinformation"?

9/24/2005 - MMFA Spreads Falsehood About Poverty Rates.

Media Matters for America has been recently repeating a certain lie about poverty during the Bush/Clinton administrations.

In several items, MMFA has repeated the following lie, in different forms:

"...the poverty rate declined every year of the Clinton presidency and has increased every year under the Bush presidency."

This is, of course, a false claim. As the historical poverty table from the U.S. Census website reveals, poverty increased in 1993, the first year Clinton took office. Poverty rose from 14.8%  in 1992 to 15.1% in 1993.

Of course, some would argue that, this does not count on Clinton´s official tenure, and is technically still carryover from the Bush administration. Alright, fine. Then we must apply that same rule to George W. Bush, who took office in 2001. Poverty rose in 2001 from  11.3% to 11.7%. If we applied that rule to Clinton and then apply it to Bush, then Clinton is responsible for the jump in 2001. Either way, MMFA´s claim is patently false.

UPDATE-- Caught something in the item I linked to. It refers to the year 2000 as the "the last year of the Clinton administration." So apparently, using MMFA's standards, 2001 was the beginning of Bush and 1993 was Clinton. With these standards, Clinton should be responsible for the 1993 jump in poverty.

9/22/2005 - We may have went down-- but don't count us out! MDMTA IS BACK!!

In a September 22, 2005 item, Media Matters for America left out key information concerning U.S. judges, leaving the impression that the courts hold a Republican stance.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509220005

The item, entitled "O'Reilly wrong again: 'Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch," argues that claim on the grounds that the majority of federal judges have been appointed by Republicans. In their words, O'Reilly "falsely asserted that 'the Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch.' " While MMFA is correct in stating that the majority of federal judges were nominated by Republicans, this in no way means that the courts are ruled by Republicans. This does not mean all Republican-appointed judges are conservative Republicans.

To demonstrate this, here is a list of current/retiring/soon-to-be-replaced Supreme Court judges appointed by Republicans:

William Rehnquist (now deceased)

David Souter

John Paul Stevens

Sandra Day O' Conner (waiting for retirement)

Anthony Kennedy

Clarence Thomas

Of those, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O' Connor, and Anthony Kennedy are all in favor of the decision in Roe v. Wade, not exactly a favored position by most Republicans. In Bush v. Gore, Republican-appointed judges Stevens and Souter voted in the dissent. Now that's being a true Republican!

The party a judge was appointed by does not necessarily mean the judge his/her self is a member of that party.