On the July 22 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, while airing portions of an interview anchor Katie Couric conducted that day with Sen. John McCain, CBS News did not air McCain's response to a question in which he characterized the Iraq war as "the first major conflict since 9/11," apparently disregarding the war in Afghanistan, which Couric addressed in her question and which began in October 2001. As Media Matters for America and others documented, CBS News also did not air McCain's false assertion that the 2007 U.S. troop surge "began the Anbar Awakening" and instead aired spliced video of McCain's interview with Couric, expunging the false statement and tacking on a response he gave to a different question.

Couric asked: "Sen. [Barack] Obama also told me, Sen. McCain, that the money spent on those additional troops, on the surge, might have been more effective had it gone to Afghanistan or even to a better energy policy in the United States. What's your response?" McCain replied: "The fact is we had four years of failed policy. We were losing. We were losing the war in Iraq. The consequences of failure and defeat of the United States of America in the first major conflict since 9/11 would have had devastating impacts throughout the region and the world." In fact, nearly a year and a half before the Iraq war, the United States initiated Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in order to "counter terrorism and bring security to Afghanistan." According to the Department of Defense, 554 Americans had lost their lives as a result of OEF and 2,257 had been wounded as of July 19.

In an entry on the Huffington Post website headlined "Another John McCain Gaffe -- Iraq Was the First Major Conflict After 9/11," Cenk Uygur wrote:

There is one more John McCain gaffe that the media missed from the now famous CBS interview with Katie Couric.

This is the same interview in which McCain claimed the surge led to the Anbar Awakening, which is demonstrably false.

[...]

Was Afghanistan not major enough for him?

From the transcript of Couric's interview with McCain posted on CBSNews.com:

Couric: Sen. Obama also told me, Sen. McCain, that the money spent on those additional troops, on the surge, might have been more effective had it gone to Afghanistan or even to a better energy policy in the United States. What's your response?

McCain: The fact is we had four years of failed policy. We were losing. We were losing the war in Iraq. The consequences of failure and defeat of the United States of America in the first major conflict since 9/11 would have had devastating impacts throughout the region and the world.

Thanks to a great general, thanks to a lot of courage and bravery on the part of American men and women in the military, we succeeded. And we are on the path to an honorable withdrawal and ... victory. Not having to return, as Sen. Obama said we might have to, if his strategy of straight dates for withdrawal didn't succeed.

So, of course it's been enormous sacrifice. And Americans are all saddened by it. But the consequences of failure would have been devastating. And that would have been the result if we had done what Sen. Obama wanted to do. Which would have meant our troops were out by last March, much less anytime soon, according to an arbitrary date.

And, again, the future is bright for the people of Iraq. The future is bright for stability in the region, for strengthening our alliances and succeeding in Afghanistan. And it's gonna be long and hard and tough struggle. If we had done what Sen. Obama had wanted, we would have been defeated. Now, we have the chance and opportunity for a very bright future.

From the July 22 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, showing the full extent of Couric's interview with McCain that was actually aired:

[video clip]

COURIC: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni Awakening and the Shiite government going after militias and says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCAIN: Senator Obama has indicated by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. Thanks to General [David] Petraeus, our leadership and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed. There will still be attacks. Al Qaeda's not defeated. But the progress has been immense, and to not recognize that and why it happened and how it happened, I think is really quite a commentary.

COURIC: A commentary on what?

McCAIN: That Senator Obama does not understand the challenges we face, and he did not understand the need for the surge. And the fact that he did not understand that and still denies that it has succeeded, I think the American people will make a judgment.

COURIC: Senator Obama describes Afghanistan as the central front in the war on terror. That is where, after all, Senator, 9-11 was plotted. Why do you believe Iraq is the central front in the war on terror?

McCAIN: Well, one reason is, is because that's what Osama bin Laden said that it was. He said, "Go to the country of the two rivers." That's what General Petraeus says, who I think is extremely knowledgeable, that it is the central battleground. And Afghanistan is very tough. And there's a number of great challenges there. And we have to employ the same strategy there that succeeded in Iraq. And we can succeed there. Now that we've succeeded in Iraq, obviously we will be freeing up troops to go to Afghanistan, and we will urge our NATO allies to send more troops and be more involved as well. We can succeed.

But, you see, Senator Obama doesn't understand -- it's not just troops; it's an overall strategy. It's not just two or three brigades. It's also increased engagement on the part of our NATO allies. But I guarantee you, if we had failed in Iraq and been defeated in Iraq, our challenges in Afghanistan would have been dramatically complicated and worsened.

COURIC: Senator McCain, you sound very frustrated with Senator Obama's perspective.

McCAIN: No, I'm not at all. I respect Senator Obama. I admire his success. He's just has been wrong and is wrong, and therefore, I strongly disagree, and I think the American people will make a judgment about who was right.

[end video clip]

COURIC: The numbers do indicate that Iraq became much safer during the surge. Civilian deaths are down from 2,000 last August to 490 this past June. Attacks against coalition forces, down from 1,500 a week in June of 2007 to about 200 a week now. That's an 80 percent drop. And fewer U.S. troops were killed in May and June in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

I'll be back in a little while with more from the Middle East, but first, here's Harry Smith back in New York. Harry.

SMITH: Thanks, Katie.

None of the three broadcast networks' evening news programs -- ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, and NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams -- has reported on Sen. John McCain's recent misstatements regarding a nonexistent Iraq-Pakistan border and the timing of the Anbar Awakening. In contrast with the networks' ignoring McCain's misstatements in their nightly news broadcasts, both of which have been made during Sen. Barack Obama's trip abroad, media figures from each network warned of what they said would be the great impact of any "mistake," "gaffe," or "misstatement" by Obama during his trip.

For instance:

• In advance of Obama's trip, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos said during the July 18 edition of ABC News' Good Morning America that in his trip Obama has "got to show he can do the job. And above all ... not make any mistakes on this trip. A gaffe could be a killer for Obama." Stephanopoulos went on to say that the "McCain campaign is very frustrated by this" because "[a]ll three evening news anchors going over to -- on this foreign soil with Barack Obama." He added, "I think they will look to take quick hits every day and, of course, pounce on any mistake that Barack Obama makes. That would be the big opening for the McCain campaign."

• On the July 18 edition of the CBS Evening News, senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield said that the "saturation coverage" of Obama's trip "has already led the conservative blogosphere to offer blistering critiques of a liberal media slavishly treating Obama as a pop star, but of course, Katie [Couric], the sheer presence of media in no way guarantees favorable coverage. In some ways, it makes the possibility of a misstep that much more dangerous." In response to anchor Katie Couric's question, "What do you think is the biggest potential landmine for him," Greenfield responded: "You know, I think it's everything from an untoward photo opportunity -- [former Democratic presidential candidate Michael] Dukakis in a tank -- to a misstatement that makes it seem to critics that he really does not know the nature of the terrain that he's -- that he's talking about."

• NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell said that Obama ran the "risk of making a mistake in a very high-profile trip," during the July 18 broadcast of MSNBC's Morning Joe. David Gregory, NBC News chief White House correspondent and host of MSNBC's Race to the White House, teased a discussion on the July 17 edition of his MSNBC show by stating: "Next up, Obama studying the script for his world stage debut next week. He's expected to stick closely to campaign talking points to avoid a potential gaffe that, as we say, could be heard around the world."

Notwithstanding the importance they attached to any potential "gaffe" by Obama during his trip, the three networks have ignored two missatements by McCain in the same time period. None of the networks has reported during its evening news program that in an interview with Couric, McCain falsely claimed that the 2007 troop surge "began the Anbar Awakening." As Media Matters for America has documented, the Anbar Awakening reportedly began in September 2006, months before the surge was even announced. Indeed, as blogger Jed Lewison noted, in the March-April 2008 issue of Military Review, Col. Sean B. MacFarland -- who McCain said "was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks" -- and Maj. Niel Smith wrote: "The 'Anbar Awakening' of Sunni tribal leaders and their supporters that began in September 2006 near Ramadi seemed to come out of nowhere." President Bush announced the surge on January 10, 2007, asserting in an address that he had "committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq."

In the case of CBS News, rather than airing McCain's falsehood in response to Couric's question on Obama's statements regarding "increased security in Iraq," CBS cut out the falsehood completely and instead aired comments by McCain that were spliced together from three separate statements he gave during the interview, one of which was in response to a different question. Couric gave no indication that these comments had been edited in any manner, nor did she otherwise note McCain's falsehood. In a statement reported in The Washington Post on July 24, CBS News acknowledged it erred, but maintained, falsely, that the video as aired did not misrepresent McCain's comments.

In addition, while being interviewed on the July 21 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, McCain referred to "the Iraq-Pakistan border" -- which does not exist -- while discussing the ongoing war in Afghanistan. As Media Matters noted, host Diane Sawyer did not correct McCain's statement or otherwise point out that Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. The ABC News political newsletter The Note stated of McCain's "Iraq-Pakistan border" comment: "[I]t was McCain who owns the first big gaffe of the trip," referring to Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe. But none of the three networks -- including ABC -- reported on the misstatement during its evening broadcast.

From July 18 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Let's talk about Barack Obama's trip overall.

MITCHELL: My pleasure.

BRZEZINSKI: What are the risks that he faces politically along the way here?

MITCHELL: Well, first of all, the risk of making a mistake in a very high-profile trip. Also, the risk of getting involved in Middle East diplomacy.

From the July 18 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:

GREENFIELD: The second part of Obama's trip will be a campaign-funded visit to Europe and the Middle East. He'll meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, walking a fragile diplomatic tightrope.

JOE TRIPPI (CBS News political analyst) [video clip]: This is a high-stakes game for Obama. He doesn't want to make any mistakes. Certainly if he does make one, make a statement that causes a problem, it'll be a huge one.

GREENFIELD: But with voters concerned about the freshman senator's foreign policy and national security experience, Obama has little choice but to take the overseas gamble to shore up his credentials. For its part, the McCain camp was on the attack with a new ad.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE [video clip]: He hasn't been to Iraq in years. now Obama is changing to help himself become president.

GREENFIELD: There's little question that throughout this trip, Senator Obama will be walking a fine line.

TRIPPI [video clip]: You want to look presidential, but you don't want to look like you're president. That could be presumptuous and it could backfire here in -- here with the electorate.

GREENFIELD: This saturation coverage has already led the conservative blogosphere to offer blistering critiques of a liberal media slavishly treating Obama as a pop star, but of course, Katie, the sheer presence of media in no way guarantees favorable coverage. In some ways, it makes the possibility of a misstep that much more dangerous.

COURIC: Of course, he does, as you mention, have to walk some tightropes. What do you think is the biggest potential landmine for him?

GREENFIELD: You know, I think it's everything from a -- an untoward photo opportunity -- Dukakis in a tank -- to a misstatement that makes it seem to critics that he really does not know the nature of the terrain that he's -- that he's talking about.

COURIC: And while the political benefits are -- are many, i.e., you know, visuals of him appearing statesmanlike with a variety of world leaders, can a single trip wipe out the perception in the minds of some that he lacks the credentials in foreign policy?

GREENFIELD: Well, assuming he doesn't come back with a Mideast peace plan that all -- everybody signs on to, which is unlikely, no, but it can neutralize the fears. He doesn't have to equal McCain in that stature; he just has to make voters seem like he's OK, he knows what he's talking about.

From the July 18 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

ROBIN ROBERTS (news anchor): Well, how is he going to kind of change the perception out there? Because our latest poll shows that most Americans, even most Democrats, say that Senator John McCain would be a good commander-in-chief of the military. Fewer than half of those polled feel that way about Obama. So, what does he need to do on this trip to change that?

STEPHANOPOULOS: He's got to show he can do the job, and above all, Robin, not make any mistakes on this trip. A gaffe could be a killer for Barack Obama. In Iraq, he's got a special problem. As Martha hinted at just a couple of minutes ago, he is going to be talking to commanders who disagree with the timeline he's set out for Iraq.

And he -- somehow, he's got to find a way to show that he's listening to the commanders but is not giving up on his principles. That's going to be difficulty number one. Number two, in Israel, he'll face this tricky thicket of -- of questions about the Middle East peace process. Many presidential candidates have made mistakes on -- on that before. He's going to have to avoid that. In Europe, it's slightly different. In Europe, he -- he's -- he's facing a situation where he does have an advantage on foreign policy, improving America's image in the world. And somehow, he's got to express the aspirations for the United States, the aspirations of an Obama policy without appearing to criticize President Bush overseas.

ROBERTS: And finally, how does McCain counter all of this attention that Obama is going to be receiving on this trip?

STEPHANOPOULOS: The McCain campaign is very frustrated by this, as you know. All three evening news anchors going over to -- on this foreign soil with Barack Obama. They know he's gonna get a lot of attention. I think they will look to take quick hits every day and, of course, pounce on any mistake that Barack Obama makes. That would be the big opening for the McCain campaign.

ROBERTS: All right, George, thank you as always for "The Bottom Line," and have a good weekend.

From the July 17 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House:

DAVID GREGORY (host): All right. Next up, Obama studying the script for his world stage debut next week. He's expected to stick closely to campaign talking points to avoid a potential gaffe that, as we say, could be heard round the world. The big challenge is meeting with General Petraeus.

During the 11 a.m. ET hour of the July 24 edition of MSNBC Live, host Alex Witt said that Sen. John McCain's campaign "is responding to reports that Barack Obama has already set up a White House transition team. A McCain spokesman says, quote, 'Before they've even crossed the 50-yard line the Obama campaign is already dancing in the end zone with a new White House transition team. The American people are more concerned with Barack Obama's poor judgment and readiness to lead than his inaugural ball.' " Witt did not challenge the McCain campaign's suggestion that it is unusual or inappropriate for presumptive nominees to plan for a presidential transition, as the Obama campaign is reportedly doing. Indeed, Clay Johnson, the executive director of the Bush-Cheney transition team, reportedly began working on the Bush-Cheney transition during the summer of 2000 after Bush agreed with Johnson's assertion that it would be "irresponsible not to be doing this." Nor did Witt raise the question during the segment of whether the McCain campaign would agree with Johnson that it would be "irresponsible not to be doing this."

In a subsequent segment during the noon hour of MSNBC Live, host Contessa Brewer read the McCain campaign's statement and asked National Journal / NBC reporter Adam Aigner-Treworgy: "Is this a theme that the McCain campaign is going to push, that Obama is getting ahead of himself?" Aigner-Treworgy replied:

John McCain just sat down with NBC's Kelly O'Donnell just an hour ago and she asked him about this transition team. And he said of course every campaign once you get to this stage, and you're on the verge of securing your party's nomination at the convention, you begin to think of how you transition to the presidency. John McCain said that he, himself, was already of course working on policy and then political proposals so that they could hit the ground running. He's spoken with his advisers about how exactly they would enact those proposals and enact the policies that are forwarded to him. Although he said that on a -- on a specific staff level and on an organizational level, they may not be -- be stepping up to the rate -- the place where Obama's stepping up. He said that the American people will have to decide whether that's presumptuous or not.

In a chapter from The Nerve Center: Lessons in Governing from the White House Chiefs of Staff (Texas A&M University Press, 2004), University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill associate professor Terry Sullivan wrote that then-Gov. George W. Bush approved Johnson's program for a White House transition in the summer of 2000. Sullivan sourced the information to a September 2002 interview with Johnson. From Sullivan's chapter:

Beginning in the spring of 1999, Governor Bush reorganized his staff, moving his then Chief of Staff Joe Albaugh into the campaign as director and Clay Johnson, III from Appointments Director to Chief of Staff. Governor Bush then charged Johnson to "develop a plan for what we should do after we win." A year later with the primary season behind him and the prospects of the general campaign settling in, Candidate Bush worried about their planning effort finding its way into the campaign coverage. Having thought through this problem for almost a year, Johnson responded by stressing the necessity of the task. "It has to happen," he recalls telling the Governor, "We just have to figure out the best way to spin it. It's irresponsible not to be doing this." Persuaded and committed to his earlier decision, Candidate Bush took Johnson's advice. Thus, the former Chiefs of Staff reached a second of their goals when, only a few days after the [June 2000, Washington] Forum [on the Role of the White House Chief of Staff] and bolstered by Johnson's own argument, the Bush for President senior campaign staff approved Clay Johnson's program, setting out eight goals for their presidential transition still five months in the future, if at all.

In a March 2002 paper in PS: Political Science and Politics, Johnson wrote:

In the spring of 1999, I was Gov. George W. Bush's appointments director. ... When the governor decided to run for president, he asked me to succeed his chief of staff, who was leaving to direct the campaign. He also asked me to develop a plan for setting up his new administration, or as he put it, "develop a plan for what we should do after we win." ... In the spring of 2000 I also began to visit with the likes of Jim Baker, George Shultz, and Ed Meese, who had been involved in setting up and guiding previous administrations at the highest levels.

During a December 11, 2001, discussion at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), then-White House senior adviser Karl Rove said the Bush-Cheney campaign wanted its transition program "to be very low visibility." Rove further stated: "Clay worked for months before anybody discovered him. And he was looking at how do you go about staffing up an administration? How do you organize a personnel shop? How do you organize a search for the subcabinet? What kind of procedures are there in place?"

From the AEI discussion:

THOMAS MANN (Brookings Institution senior fellow): Let's begin this way. There's a general sense that campaigns typically frustrate good government, rather than enable it. You've been with George Bush for a long time. Could you tell us when you began to think and plan for a Bush presidency as distinct from a Bush campaign?

MR. ROVE: I'm not certain that the distinction is -- that there is a distinction. I mean, Governor Bush -- Candidate Bush, when he ran for governor, talked about four big things he was going to run on for governor, and then proceeded in office to do them. I think his view of a campaign is that the campaign is a prelude to governing, that you talk about in a campaign what you would hope to govern about, and that you seek popular support and a mandate, if you will, to pursue those goals.

So I'm not certain at the distinction between campaigning and governing. When he talked about a tax cut in the campaign, he meant it. When he talked about, went and gave three speeches on education reform, he meant it. So for him there is no distinction between the two. So when he began thinking about running for President, he began to build a rather robust team of advisors on issues for exactly that reason. He believed that campaigning was a prelude to governing, and so he wanted to use the process of campaigning and the development of public policy during that campaign as an integral part of his governance.

MR. MANN: But oftentimes presidential candidates get themselves maneuvered into positions in a campaign that then kind of frustrate what they'd like to do afterwards, and they also end up being reluctant to engage in sort of nuts-and-bolts planning for the presidency because it seems presumptuous to think of aspects of governing while they're still candidates. Were those concerns or difficulties for you at all?

MR. ROVE: Well, there are two different parts of that. The second was a difficulty, I mean, because we did not want to look presumptuous, because this may surprise you, and it may surprise certain members of the audience seated over here, but the members of the press really like to do lots of process stories in campaigns. So they would like to jump on this idea of looking presumptuous. So a lot of what you would do, and to be necessarily prepared for any transition, if you style it as transition, they will cover it as transition, they will turn it into an entire process story. So this is why we were very sensitive about this.

But nonetheless, we recognized, when we began this policy planning process, that this was an integral part of governance, and have transition planning. We hired a policy director for the campaign before we hired a political director. We hired Josh Bolten before we hired a political director for the campaign. And we recognize that these teams of people that we would have in the policy apparatus, you know, people like Rich Armitage, and Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, and Larry Lindsey, would all -- Don Evans -- would necessarily find their -- there was a high likelihood of them finding their way into government -- Glenn Hubbard. We recognized that this was a prelude to transition, but we never called it transition.

MR. MANN: Now, what was the connection between Clay Johnson's operation on the sort of nuts and bolts early on and the broader campaign?

MR. ROVE: Well, it was separate and apart from it. We necessarily wanted it to be so. We also wanted it to be very low visibility, which it was. I mean, Clay worked for months before anybody discovered him. And he was looking at how do you go about staffing up an administration? How do you organize a personnel shop? How do you organize a search for the subcabinet? What kind of procedures are there in place? What kind of rules govern it? What kind of, really, paper flow there's going to be? And one of the early questions was paper flow, because this is an extraordinarily difficult thing to manage. You know, everybody wants to be in government, and how do you simply manage that process and cull out good names from bad and just handle the paper flow? But he began that work during the summer. He's speaking to you at lunch. He'll know exactly when. I was concerned about the Paducah media market at the time, and so I don't remember exactly where it was.

[Laughter.]

MR. ROVE: But he began the work during the summer, and did so, worked for months in stealth mode before he was discovered.

From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the July 14 edition of MSNBC Live:

WITT: John McCain's campaign, everyone, is responding to reports that Barack Obama has already set up a White House transition team. A McCain spokesman says, quote, "Before they've even crossed the 50-yard line the Obama campaign is already dancing in the end zone with a new White House transition team. The American people are more concerned with Barack Obama's poor judgment and readiness to lead than his inaugural ball." Again, this is in response to reports in the media that Obama has already set up a White House transition team, though no confirmation on that yet by NBC News. But we wanted to put the McCain camp statement out there nonetheless.

From the noon hour of the July 14 edition of MSNBC Live:

BREWER: And I know the McCain campaign is also responding to the news that Barack Obama has already set up a presidential transition team. The team that would go from one president to the next, and McCain's statement reads: "Before they've even crossed the 50-yard line the Obama campaign is already dancing in the end zone with a new White House transition team. The American people are more concerned with Barack Obama's poor judgment and readiness to lead than his inaugural ball."

Is this a theme that the -- the campaign is going to push, that Obama's getting ahead of himself?

AIGNER-TREWORGY: Well, that was actually -- the statement that you just read was from a spokesperson from the campaign. John McCain just sat down with NBC's Kelly O'Donnell just an hour ago and she asked him about this transition team. And he said of course every campaign once you get to this stage, and you're on the verge of securing your party's nomination at the convention, you begin to think of how you transition to the presidency. John McCain said that he, himself, was already of course working on policy and then political proposals so that they could hit the ground running. He's spoken with his advisers about how exactly they would enact those proposals and enact the policies that are forwarded to him. Although he said that on a -- on a specific staff level and on an organizational level, they may not be -- be stepping up to the rate -- the place where Obama's stepping up. He said that the American people will have to decide whether that's presumptuous or not.

All right, Adam, good to talk to you. Thanks.

AIGNER-TREWORGY: Thank you.

In a July 23 Wall Street Journal article, reporter Jesse Drucker wrote that Sen. Barack Obama has said he will "seek to raise" the capital gains tax to "at least 20%, the rate before the 2003 cut, and possibly higher." In fact, Obama has said he would not raise the capital gains tax on individuals with income of less than $250,000 -- a fact noted by WSJ reporter Tom Herman in a July 20 "Ask Dow Jones" Q-and-A; Herman wrote, "Sen. Obama also proposes increasing taxes on long-term capital gains and dividends, but only for those people making more than $250,000."

In a videotaped interview with CNBC's John Harwood that aired on June 10, Obama said, "[K]eep in mind on all of these proposals, what I have said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class. I generally define well-off as people who are making $250,000 a year or more, and that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I would exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture the -- those who have done very, very well over the last two decades."

Indeed, Obama's published tax proposal expressly states: "Barack Obama Will Only Raise Taxes for Those Earning Over $250,000 Per Year."

From Drucker's July 23 Wall Street Journal article:

The figures about the relative income and tax rates of the wealthiest Americans come as the presumptive presidential candidates are in a debate about taxes. Congress and the next president will have to decide whether to extend several Bush-era tax cuts, including the 2003 reduction in tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Experts said those tax cuts in particular are playing a major role in falling tax rates for the very wealthy.

Sen. John McCain has proposed extending the lower tax rates of 15% on long-term capital gains and dividends that apply to most taxpayers, while Sen. Barack Obama has said he will seek to raise them to at least 20%, the rate before the 2003 cut, and possibly higher.

From Herman's July 20 Wall Street Journal "Ask Dow Jones" column:

Q: What are the federal income tax brackets and rates likely to be for tax year 2009? If it's too soon to have even somewhat reliable information, when might it be possible to make a prediction?

A.K., Rancho Murieta, Calif.

A: The Internal Revenue Service won't announce official income thresholds and other inflation-adjusted tax numbers, such as the standard deduction and personal exemption amounts, for tax year 2009 until late this year. However, I usually get reliable estimates, calculated by three respected private-sector tax experts, well before the IRS numbers are issued.

Last year, we published an early peek at the numbers for 2008 in late September.

The numbers came from three sources: the Tax & Accounting business of Thomson Reuters; CCH, a Wolters Kluwer business; and Northern Illinois University accountancy professor James Young.

As for tax rates: Under current law, federal income tax rates range from 10% to as high as 35%.

But nobody knows what will happen next year. Sen. John McCain wants to retain these rates. Sen. Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year.

For example, Sen. Obama proposes raising the top ordinary income-tax rate of 35% to 39.6%. He also proposes raising Social Security taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year but hasn't given details, such as how much more those people would be required to pay.

Sen. Obama also proposes increasing taxes on long-term capital gains and dividends, but only for those people making more than $250,000.

Under current law, the top rate on stocks, mutual-fund shares and other securities typically is 15%.

How much higher does Sen. Obama want to make it? An adviser says the rate would be lower than the 28% rate that prevailed during the Reagan presidency and "perhaps as low as 20%."

But for people making less than $250,000, "dividends or capital-gains rates would remain where they are."

All the uncertainty makes tax planning unusually difficult this year.

From the June 10 broadcast of CNBC's Your Money, Your Vote:

OBAMA: I think that we've had an economy that's been out of balance for too long. So the general principle of raising taxes on higher-income Americans like myself, and providing relief to those who haven't benefited as much from this new global economy, I think, is a sound one. And keep in mind on all of these proposals, what I have said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class. I generally define well-off as people who are making $250,000 a year or more, and that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I would exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture the -- those who have done very, very well over the last two decades.

While discussing MoveOn.org's "Petition Against Fox's Racist & Hate-Filled Smears" on the July 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said, "[Sen. Barack] Obama must condemn organizations like MoveOn and the Daily Kos if he truly wants to run without a race component. These are the people that are dividing Americans along racial lines. It is not a stretch to say MoveOn is the new Klan."

As Media Matters for America has documented, O'Reilly has previously called MoveOn.org and Media Matters for America "the most vicious element in our society today" and referred to the staff of both organizations as "assassins." On July 30, 2007, O'Reilly claimed that the Democratic presidential candidates were "afraid of the Daily Kos and MoveOn." O'Reilly has also repeatedly compared the Daily Kos website and its founder, Markos Moulitsas, to the Klan or white supremacist David Duke.

From the July 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Now, in the beginning of this campaign, I told you that any media using the race card would be scrutinized by us, and that includes folks who may attack Senator Obama on that basis. But we have seen little of that.

Instead, the vile, far-left smear machines are trafficking in racial hate, and the MoveOn campaign is a vivid example of that.

To his credit, Barack Obama has not made race an issue and was embarrassed when Jesse Jackson did that a few days ago. But Obama must condemn organizations like MoveOn and the Daily Kos if he truly wants to run without a race component.

These are the people that are dividing Americans along racial lines. It is not a stretch to say MoveOn is the new Klan.

On the July 23 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asserted that there are certain groups of Democrats "that have a problem ... supporting Barack Obama" and asked Kevin Madden, former spokesman for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, "Aren't you working on those groups?" Madden responded by asserting that "McCain, whether he's talking about health care or whether he's talking about the environment or he's talking -- he's talking about what he really likes about Hillary Clinton, how he's worked well with her -- he's trying to hug those voters because he believes that his calculus for victory is right in the middle. It's not playing to the -- to the left." However, Matthews did not point out that, while talking about health care at a recent event, McCain derided Obama's plan as "HillaryCare." At the July 17 town hall, McCain asserted, "My friends, we've seen this movie before," and added, "It was called 'HillaryCare' back in 1993, and we're not going to do it again. We're not going to have the government take over the health care system in America."

From the July 23 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Kevin, let's go. Let's talk turkey here, right? Let's talk ethnic and gender politics. There's three groups of people, I'm sure there are tons of them, but I can think of three that are having a problem, who are Democrats, supporting Barack Obama. There are women voters who feel that Hillary Clinton was the best bet for a woman president in -- ever and that she didn't get the shot she should've gotten.

MADDEN: Right.

MATTHEWS: There are people who are very pro-Israeli, Jewish voters, right-wing Christian voters, some of them, who feel that Barack Obama is not their guy on the Middle East, right?

MADDEN: Right.

MATTHEWS: There are also a lot of rich Clinton supporters who built careers investing in the Clintons --

MADDEN: Well, you are --

MATTHEWS: -- who aren't too thrilled about having the wrong guy become the -- the next Democratic president. Aren't you guys out there trying to get all three of those groups?

MADDEN: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Aren't you working on those groups?

MADDEN: And -- and -- and --

MATTHEWS: Absolutely.

MADDEN: Lunch -- lunch-pail Democrats. I mean, that's essentially that -- where -- your representative of the big middle. And you see McCain, whether he's talking about health care or whether he's talking about the environment or he's talking -- he's talking about what he really likes about Hillary Clinton --

MATTHEWS: Right.

MADDEN: -- how he's worked well with her -- he's trying to hug those voters because he believes that his calculus for victory is right in the middle. It's not playing to the -- to the left.

MATTHEWS: But that thing today about the Holocaust, the second Holocaust. I think -- and saying that --

MADDEN: That's a big risk for him.

MATTHEWS: Barack Obama is willing to lose an elec -- a war so he can win an election. That's pretty raw stuff.

CBS News now reportedly acknowledges that it erred in splicing video of an interview with Sen. John McCain, in which the network expunged a false statement made by McCain and included an answer he gave to a different question from the one he was purportedly answering. But, according to a July 24 Washington Post article, CBS News senior vice president Paul Friedman maintains, falsely, that the video as aired did not misrepresent what McCain said.

The Post reported that Friedman issued the following statement: "The report was edited under extreme time constraints and one piece of tape was put in the wrong order. Fortunately, this did not in any way distort what Senator McCain was saying."

CBS News' initial response to the controversy, as reported by Politico senior political writer Ben Smith, included no such admission of error. According to Smith, CBS spokeswoman Jennifer Farley stated: "As all news organizations do with extended interviews, last night's Obama and McCain interviews were edited to fit the available time and to give viewers a fair expression of the candidates' major differences."

But contrary to Friedman's assertion that the video compilation "did not in any way distort what Senator McCain was saying," the editing of the interview did, in fact, distort McCain's comments by expunging his false statement, as Media Matters for America has documented. On the CBS Evening News, Couric aired comments by McCain spliced together from three separate statements he gave during the interview -- one of which responded to a different question -- rather than airing McCain's direct reply to her question, which included McCain's false claim that the 2007 U.S. troop surge in Iraq "began the Anbar Awakening" -- an agreement by some tribal leaders in western Iraq to accept U.S. aid and cooperate with anti-Al Qaeda operations. In fact, the Anbar Awakening reportedly began in September 2006, months before the surge was even announced.

During the July 23 edition of Fox News' Your World, guest host Stuart Varney misrepresented the cost of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, falsely asserting that the "House, right now, [is] voting on that $300 billion housing bailout bill." During the segment, on-air captions read "$300B Bailout Bill," and "House Voting On $300B Housing Bailout Bill." In fact, while the legislation authorizes the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to insure up to $300 billion in homeownership retention loans for qualified homeowners, among several other provisions in the bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that, in total, the bill "would increase budget deficits (or reduce future surpluses) by about $24.9 billion over the 2008-2018 period."

As Media Matters for America documented, Your World has previously falsely asserted that a separate housing bill, the FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act, which also authorized the FHA to insure up to $300 billion in loans, would cost $300 billion. On the May 7 edition of Your World, host Neil Cavuto said of that bill: "[Congress is] about to spend a lot of capital -- try 300 billion bucks of capital, the price tag of a housing rescue package virtually assured a thumbs up in Congress, and equally assured a thumbs down by President Bush." During the segment, an on-air graphic read, "House lawmakers set to pass $300B housing bill; bailout?" In fact, while the legislation would also have authorized the FHA to insure up to $300 billion in homeownership retention loans for qualified homeowners, the CBO estimated that loans that would be insured under the new program would total about $85 billion, at an estimated cost to the government of $1.7 billion over the 2008-2013 period.

From the July 23 broadcast of Fox News' Your World With Neil Cavuto:

VARNEY: And a live look at Capitol Hill. The House, right now, voting on that $300 billion housing bailout bill. The president just saying he is gonna sign it. [Rep.] Ron Paul [R-TX] is furious and he's here.

[...]

VARNEY: A live look at Capitol Hill, House members inside right now voting on that $300 billion bailout bill. The president saying today will sign it even though Democrats tacked billions on to it. My next guest voting against it. Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas. Congressman, good to have you with us, thanks for being here.

On the July 23 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, guest Ben Stein, while discussing Sen. Barack Obama's plan to deliver his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination at Denver's Invesco Field, stated that he did not "like the idea of Senator Obama giving his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 wildly cheering people" because "[t]hat is not the way we do things in political parties in the United States of America." Stein continued: "Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that's something the Fuehrer would have done. And I think whoever is advising Senator Obama to do this is bringing up all kinds of very unfortunate images from the past."

Host Beck responded that he has "been saying that we're headed towards a Mussolini-style presidency forever. ... I mean it's crazy." Stein then declared, "It's a scary situation. ... But 75,000 people screaming in an outdoor arena, that's just too much. It's just -- it's scarily authoritarian." He continued: "It's like Juan Peron and Evita."

Stein is not the first guest on Glenn Beck to compare Obama to Adolf Hitler. On February 22, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg said: "I think one of the things that is decidedly fascistic, or at least just a bad idea, is looking for silver bullets. You know, when Barack Obama campaigns, he's basically saying, 'I'm a silver bullet. I'm going to solve all your problems just by electing me.' FDR, Hitler, all these guys, they basically said, 'All your problems can be solved.' "

From the July 23 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

STEIN: I want -- I'm glad you brought up this Denver thing. I don't like the idea of Senator Obama giving his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 wildly cheering people. That is not the way we do things in political parties in the United States of America. We have a contained number of people in an arena. Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that's something the Fuehrer would have done. And I think whoever is advising Senator Obama to do this is bringing up all kinds of very unfortunate images from the past.

BECK: Well, yeah, you know what? I've been -- I've been saying that we're headed towards a Mussolini-style presidency forever.

STEIN: Well, I think --

BECK: I mean it's crazy.

STEIN: It's a scary situation. I mean, I think he has to recognize some bounds on his own ego. I understand politicians are politicians because they have ego deficit problems and they try to cure them by having lots of worship and adulation and adoration. But 75,000 people screaming at an outdoor arena, that's just too much. It's just -- it's scarily authoritarian.

BECK: Ben --

STEIN: It's like Juan Peron --

BECK: It's not --

STEIN: -- and Evita.

BECK: It's not gonna make a difference.

In his July 21 podcast, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James Dobson revealed his "moral dilemma" about the 2008 presidential campaign. Though he has repeatedly criticized presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain -- once claiming that McCain "has at times sounded like a member of the other party" -- Dobson said he has become "very concerned" about McCain's presumed opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, whom he called "more liberal and more extreme than most Democrats in the Senate." Dobson further said that while "neither of the candidates is consistent with my views," McCain "seems to understand the Muslim threat."

From Dobson's July 21 podcast, which featured guest Albert Mohler, radio host and president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and was released through Dobson's "cultural action organization," Focus on the Family Action:

MOHLER: I have to tell you, I find Barack Obama to be a very attractive person, a very attractive candidate. I would want to vote for him. But the closer I look at his positions, the more alarmed I become. He is the candidate who bills himself as a candidate of change, and in an odd way he is, just not the kind of change that I think most Americans now understand. So, Doctor, when I look at this, I have to say we're looking at the most liberal candidate, I think, to gain a party nomination probably in the history of this country. And on so many of the issues, far beyond even where a Bill Clinton was. That's what I think most Americans don't understand. Many evangelicals don't understand, particularly younger evangelicals. This is a man who has staked out his positions for the last 20 years in a way that is markedly beyond where most Americans believe he is.

DOBSON: I think he's more liberal and more extreme than most Democrats in the Senate.

[...]

DOBSON: That, and the fact that I'm so very concerned about Senator Obama and what he believes and stands for, as well as the need to rethink some of my views regarding Senator McCain, and that thinking has taken place and continues to do so. This is been the most difficult moral dilemma for me. It's why you haven't heard me say much about it, because I have struggled on this issue. And there's some concerns here that matter to me more than my own life, and neither of the candidates is consistent with my views in that regard. But Senator McCain is certainly closer to them than Senator Obama by a wide margin, and there's no doubt about -- at least no doubt in my mind -- about whose policies will result in more babies being killed or who will do the greatest damage to the institution of marriage and the family. I'm convinced that Senator McCain comes closer to what I believe.

So, I am not endorsing Senator McCain today. I don't even know who his vice presidential candidate will be. You know, he could very well choose a pro-abortion candidate, and it would not be unlike him to do that because he seems to enjoy frustrating conservatives on occasions. But as of this moment, I have to take into account the fact that Senator John McCain has voted pro-life consistently, and that's a fact. That he says he favors marriage between a man and a woman; I believe that. He opposes homosexual adoption. He favors smaller government and lower taxes, and he seems to understand the Muslim threat, which matters a lot to me. I'm very concerned about that. Therefore -- therefore -- I have considered the fact that elections always involved imperfect candidates. There are no perfect human beings, and you always have to choose between two flawed individuals. That's the way we're all made. So, it comes down to this, and I never thought I would hear myself saying this, but it's where I am -- that while I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might, and that's all I can say at this time.

MSNBC Live anchor Alex Witt uncritically repeated a July 23 statement made by McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds in response to criticism Sen. John McCain has received for a false statement he made during a July 22 interview on CBS, the video clip of which CBS edited to expunge the falsehood. In his statement defending McCain's comments from the previous day, Bounds misrepresented the controversy, falsely suggesting that McCain said something different from what he actually said, which itself was false. Witt neither noted that Bounds did not accurately represent McCain's original statement, nor that McCain's statement was false.

As Witt noted, Bounds wrote, "Senator McCain is correct. As General [David] Petraeus has made clear, the surge is the reason why the Anbar awakening was so successful in tearing up Al Qaeda." Bounds' statement falsely suggested that what McCain had said was that the surge was responsible for the "success[]" of what McCain had referred to as the "Anbar awakening" -- an agreement by some tribal leaders in western Iraq to accept U.S. aid and cooperate with anti-Al Qaeda operations. In fact, McCain falsely claimed that the surge "began the Anbar awakening," implying that the surge happened before the "Anbar awakening." But the "awakening" reportedly began in September 2006, months before the surge was even announced.

Rather than note that McCain's original statement was false and that Bounds was purporting to defend a statement McCain did not make, Witt falsely suggested that the inaccuracy of McCain's original statement was in doubt, asserting, "[T]here's been some discrepancies as to what the timing was, what Senator McCain said regarding that."

From the noon ET hour of the July 23 edition of MSNBC Live:

WITT: An MSNBC "Campaign Alert": And this is regarding John McCain's camp, which has issued a statement as a result of the flap, if you will, that's been made over the timing that he alluded to with regard to when the surge in Iraq began to take effect and take hold and help turn things around somewhat. There was a previous effort called the Anbar awakening that was noted to be chronologically prior to the official beginning of the U.S. Army surge there with the forces in Iraq, and there's been some discrepancies as to what the timing was, what Senator McCain said regarding that -- but let me give you right now what the McCain camp is saying and the quote is this:

"Senator McCain is correct. As General [David] Petraeus has made clear, the surge is the reason why the Anbar awakening was so successful in tearing up Al Qaeda." Quote, "The surge strategy that was supported by John McCain and opposed by Barack Obama was responsible for the reduction in violence we have seen over the last year and a half. Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge, or whether the Shiite militias would have unilaterally disarmed without U.S. troops and our Iraqi allies disarming them by force, but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy, because to credit them would be to disparage the judgment of Barack Obama and praise the leadership of John McCain. If John -- Barack Obama had his way, the awakening would have been crushed at the hands of Al Qaeda and U.S. forces would have already left Iraq in defeat."

We're giving that to Tucker Bounds, a spokesperson for the John McCain camp.

On the July 23 edition of Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus asked CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin: "What do you make of this trip and the press coverage of Senator [Barack] Obama?" Toobin responded by noting complaints by Sen. John McCain's campaign that Obama has received more favorable treatment from the press than McCain has. Toobin said: "I don't really think ... the press coverage is much out of -- out of what you would expect, or it's all that outrageous. I mean, frankly, what ... I find kind of appalling is John McCain complaining about media bias. I mean, if there is one public figure in America who has gotten better press over the years than John McCain, I don't know who it is."

From the July 23 edition of ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning:

IMUS: How are things over at CNN, which -- I, of course, hate CNN, but I like you. So -- and a few other people there, so --

TOOBIN: Well, it's -- it's just fine. You know, it's -- it's weird. It's kind of -- it's -- it's been kind of a lull since the end of the -- you know, those of us who talk about politics, it's -- it's sometimes a bit of a struggle to come up with stuff. You know, you can only speculate about the vice presidency so much, and the -- and, you know, I guess Obama's trip has been new, but -- but, you know, frankly since the end of the primaries, it -- it -- it's lost a little of its urgency, I think.

IMUS: What -- what do you make of this trip and the press coverage of Senator Obama?

TOOBIN: Well, I -- I don't really think there is -- the press coverage is much out of -- out of what you would expect, or -- or it's all that outrageous. I mean, frankly, what -- what -- what I find kind of appalling is John McCain complaining about media bias. I mean, if there is one public figure in America who has gotten better press over the years than John McCain, I don't know who it is. I mean, sure, Barack Obama is spending eight days in the Middle East and Europe, of course it's going to get a lot of publicity. I don't think that's any -- that's any reason for the press to apologize.

A rebroadcast of The Savage Nation that aired on the program July 9 further undermines Michael Savage's claim that he was referring on July 16 only to misdiagnoses of autism, and not to the disease itself, when he characterized autism as "[a] fraud, a racket." During the rebroadcast, portions of which previously were included in a YouTube clip posted on June 30 -- more than two weeks before Savage made the "fraud" comments that he now claims were taken "out of context" -- Savage acknowledged having called autism "a phony disease."

As Media Matters for America noted, on the July 16 broadcast of his program, Savage said in reference to autism: "In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out." Media Matters further noted that in response to the extensive criticism Savage received, on his July 21 show, he recast those comments to claim that he was "take[n] out of context," falsely suggesting that in his July 16 comments he distinguished between "the truly autistic" and those he described on July 21 as "the misdiagnosed, the falsely diagnosed, and the outright fakers in the autism field." The comments he made that were rebroadcast on July 9 -- acknowledging that he called autism a "phony disease" -- further undermines his claim to distinguish between the "truly autistic" and those who have been misdiagnosed.

In the edition of his show that was rebroadcast on July 9, Savage said:

SAVAGE: Here, remember two weeks ago, I said to you that autism is a phony disease? Do you remember I said that to you? That how could so many children suddenly have it and there be an autism epidemic? In my day, if a kid was a troublemaker, he was a troublemaker. If he shot his mouth off in a classroom, he wasn't called autistic, he was called a pain in the neck. They sent him to a special school for pains in the neck. Now he needs medication. He's got autism.

He also said of autism:

SAVAGE: [A] lot of it [autism] is a racket to collect disability payments from the government, from basically poorer families who've found a new -- a new way to -- to be parasites on the government, which is if -- if you want to collect a little money and get free medical care, you want to get the kid to take tests with help where the answers are given to him before he takes it, just say he's got an illness -- ADD, DDD, ASA. To me, there is one disease that they all have; it's called S-T-U-P-I-D. That's the main illness most of these kids have.

From the July 9 rebroadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: Talk radio, if it's good, it's about social commentary. I don't know if you understand that. And it is. You have to be a pretty good social analyst to survive in this business. See, anyone could do politics, you know, read -- they read through the 18 papers in the morning, and the next thing is they're a great pundit that evening, or that morning -- read this -- a pundit.

That's easy to do. That's baby talk at talk radio. It's the social commentary and weaving it together in a political format that makes for interesting talk radio. And nobody can beat me at it -- nobody. Nobody. I'm the super heavyweight champion of social commentary in radio. Nobody comes near me; ask anyone who listens. I don't care if they're my detractor. They know I'm better than anybody.

But what I'm getting at is have you noticed that liberals laugh at herbal medicine. They laugh at homeopathy. They laugh at nutrition. They're all gung-ho, all of a sudden AMA-establishment medicine? How did that happen? That only conservatives -- we conservatives -- understand the value of complementary medicine, which is what it was once called, or alternative medicine, which is what it was once called. How can we understand it and these so-called liberals, who are into liberalism and freeing themselves, do not free themselves of the yoke of modern medicine? How come? You have an answer to that one? 'Cause I do, and I understand it very well. I know very well.

Here, remember two weeks ago, I said to you that autism is a phony disease? Do you remember I said that to you? That how could so many children suddenly have it and there be an autism epidemic? In my day, if a kid was a troublemaker, he was a troublemaker. If he shot his mouth off in a classroom, he wasn't called autistic, he was called a pain in the neck. They sent him to a special school for pains in the neck. Now he needs medication. He's got autism.

Today, they've done -- re-diagnosed -- redefined a troublesome children. And now they're calling him autistic all of a sudden. They all have a syndrome.

First of all, a lot of it is a racket to collect disability payments from the government, from basically poorer families who've found a new -- a new way to -- to be parasites on the government, which is if -- if you want to collect a little money and get free medical care, you want to get the kid to take tests with help where the answers are given to him before he takes it, just say he's got an illness -- ADD, DDD, ASA. To me, there is one disease that they all have; it's called S-T-U-P-I-D. That's the main illness most of these kids have.

Now you say, "Well, where do you come up with this? That is so cruel of you, Michael." Guess what? I was right again. MSNBC, which is a super left-wing website, has a new article out, called "Autism 'epidemic' may be all in the label." You hear this? Do you hear this finally again confirmed? Savage was right again.

Dateline: Atlanta, by Mike Stobbe, Associated Press: "A few decades ago, people probably would have said kids like Ryan Massey and Eddie Scheuplein were just odd. Or difficult. Both boys are bright. But Ryan, 11, is hyper and prone to angry outbursts" -- hey, the kid's a born talk-radio show host -- "sometimes trying to strangle another kid in his class who annoys him" -- maybe he's a born martial artist.

"Eddie, 7, has a strange habit of sticking his shirt in his mouth and sucking on it." He's an idiot. That's a different story. "Prone to angry outbursts" and "hyper" means he's probably going to be a good -- either a lawyer or a good talk-show host. "Sometimes trying to strangle another kid" -- he's got to control it. He'd probably be a good martial artist or a good ring fighter.

The brother, though? Hopeless. "Sticking his shirt in his mouth and sucking on it" -- finished. Nothing will help him. Give him as many shirts as he wants.

"Both were diagnosed with a form of autism. And it's partly because of children like them that autism appears to be skyrocketing: In the latest estimate, as many as one in 150 children have some form of this disorder." That's bullcrap.

There's not that many children. What it is, it's a racket. It's the drug companies trying to sell a disease. And the American Academy of Pediatrics, I oughta tell you -- the sickest, just the sickest doctors in the country is the American Academy of Pediatrics. They want every child screened -- screened by the age of 2. "Put them on this. Put them on that."

See, there was a time that pediatricians were the lowest-earning doctors in the constellation of MDs because they didn't prescribe drugs. Then they got the idea that they could become just like the other drug peddlers in the medical industry if they could find diseases that they could sell -- peddle drugs to -- whoa, now they have it.

So, there's your answer. I see it all through the lens of correct -- clarity period. "Autism has always been diagnosed by making judgments about a child's behavior; there are no blood or biologic tests. For decades, the diagnosis was given only to kids with severe language and social impairments and unusual, repetitious behaviors." OK, fine.

"Many children with severe autism hit themselves or others, d[idn't] speak and d[idn't] make eye contact." Sounds like most liberals I've known. Most of the kids in Marin County sound like that. They hit themselves with marijuana once a day or they hit themselves with a spike in the night or they hit themselves -- they don't speak. No, they don't. They're like, hmm. And they don't make eye contact -- absolutely born liberals.

Here's another one: "[E]ight years, been in the day program with intense service, still doesn't talk. He's not toilet-trained" -- 19 years old? He doesn't talk. He's not toilet-trained? And "he has a history of trying to eat anything -- even broken glass"?

My friends, that is not autism, that's insanity. He belongs in a mental hospital. That's what they were built for: poor, unfortunate children like this, so that they could get the proper care that they need. They're not autistic. They need a mental hospital with attendants.

So, now, there it is. Now we got a spectrum of so-called illnesses -- autism. They're mentally retarded. It's a sad thing. It's not anything to laugh at. It's not something to laugh at, but stop diagnosing every idiot, moron, stupid kid with a disease to give them a justification. Somebody doesn't bang his head against the wall. Does that -- does that get you going on the right track? Or not?

Nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity falsely suggested during his July 22 broadcast that Sen. Barack Obama "c[ame] up" with his plan for Afghanistan, including calling for the deployment of more troops there, only after his recent visit to the country, aligning himself with "President Bush, John McCain, the Joint Chiefs, France, Britain, other countries." In fact, in a July 15 speech -- before his trip to Aghanistan -- Obama said, "Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq," and proposed "send[ing] at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions -- with fewer restrictions -- from NATO allies." Moreover, Obama has been calling for an increase of U.S. troops in Afghanistan since at least 2006 and has specifically proposed the addition of at least two combat brigades since 2007.

Hannity said:

President Bush, John McCain, the Joint Chiefs, France, Britain, other countries, you know, they've -- they're out there. They're already have been saying that we need more troops in Afghanistan. They've been saying it for weeks and months. Obama didn't come up with this idea. He's in Afghanistan for two hours and he comes out, "We need more troops on the ground. I can tell, I'm here, I know."

Obama has long talked about the need for more troops in Afghanistan. For instance:

• In a November 20, 2006, speech, Obama asserted:

The President should announce to the Iraqi people that our policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces. ... I am not suggesting that this timetable be overly rigid. We cannot compromise the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground. ... Perhaps most importantly, some of these troops could be redeployed to Afghanistan, where our lack of focus and commitment of resources has led to an increasing deterioration of the security situation there. The President's decision to go to war in Iraq has had disastrous consequences for Afghanistan -- we have seen a fierce Taliban offensive, a spike in terrorist attacks, and a narcotrafficking problem spiral out of control. Instead of consolidating the gains made by the Karzai government, we are backsliding towards chaos. By redeploying from Iraq to Afghanistan, we will answer NATO's call for more troops and provide a much-needed boost to this critical fight against terrorism.

• In a January 19, 2007, statement on the floor of the Senate regarding the proposed troop "surge" in Iraq, Obama argued for "a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces." He stated: "Drawing down our troops in Iraq will put pressure on Iraqis to arrive at the political settlement that is needed and allow us to redeploy additional troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, as well as bring some back home."

• On August 1, 2007, Obama specifically called for the addition of at least two U.S. brigades in Afghanistan during a speech in Washington, D.C., Obama said:

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[...]

Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan. Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need-and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs, and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country. As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

• Obama reiterated his call for adding brigades in Afghanistan during a September 12, 2007, speech, in which he said: "When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves."

• On December 18, 2007, Obama stated during a foreign policy forum in Des Moines, Iowa: "Six years after we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan -- the origin of the 9-11 attacks -- we still don't have our priorities straight. That's why it's time to stop funding a failed policy, to remove our combat brigades from Iraq, and to increase our military, political, and economic commitment to Afghanistan."

• During a March 12 speech, Obama said:

When I spoke out against the war, I said that I was not opposed to all wars. In fact, one of the central reasons why I opposed going to war in Iraq is that we had yet to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban. That remains true today. That is why I have consistently called for an increased commitment to Afghanistan, and why I called last August for at least two additional combat brigades to support our mission there. And that is why I will end the war in Iraq when I am President, and focus on finishing the job in Afghanistan.

From the July 22 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: Don't know what we are seeing. Fake interviews coming from the liberal media, fake interviews. And as for the spin, I demonstrated yesterday: President Bush, John McCain, the Joint Chiefs, France, Britain, other countries, you know, they've -- they're out there. They're already have been saying that we need more troops in Afghanistan. They've been saying it for weeks and months. Obama didn't come up with this idea. He's in Afghanistan for two hours and he comes out, "We need more troops on the ground. I can tell, I'm here, I know." As if, you know, everything is -- is just -- I'm telling you. It's just -- it's frustrating to me because you know what's happening, and yet people are going to buy this, some people hook, line, and sinker.

In his July 22 Los Angeles Times column, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg falsely claimed that "[w]ithin months of the [Iraq] invasion, [Sen. John] McCain was calling for more troops and the head of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, McCain did not call for Rumsfeld to be fired, or for his resignation. The McCain campaign itself admitted to The Washington Post in February that McCain "did not call for his resignation. ... He always said that's the president's prerogative."

While McCain expressed "no confidence" in Rumsfeld in 2004, the Associated Press reported at the time that McCain "said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation." Further, when Fox News host Shepard Smith specifically asked McCain, "Does Donald Rumsfeld need to step down?" on November 8, 2006 -- hours before President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation -- McCain responded that it was "a decision to be made by the president."

As Media Matters noted, The Washington Post reported in a February 9 article that McCain "regularly reminds audiences that he also criticized Bush's management of the war and called for Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation as defense secretary." After Media Matters noted the article's failure to report that McCain's assertion that he had called for Rumsfeld's resignation was false, the Post published an article reporting that McCain "overstate[d] his public position on Rumsfeld" and never called for him to resign. According to the February 16 article: "[D]uring a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., aired on CNN, McCain said, 'I'm the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go.' A McCain spokesman acknowledged this week that that was not correct. 'He did not call for his resignation,' said the campaign's Brian Rogers. 'He always said that's the president's prerogative.' " The February 16 Post article also noted that "McCain's false account has been unwittingly incorporated into the narrative he is selling by some news organizations, including The Washington Post."

Indeed, in addition to the Post, MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, PBS' Charlie Rose, and CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger have all falsely claimed or suggested that McCain called for Rumsfeld to resign or be fired.

From Goldberg's July 22 column:

Yes, McCain heroically pushed for the surge when the war was at its most unpopular point. Even more impressive, he favored a change in strategy back when the war was popular.

Within months of the invasion, McCain was calling for more troops and the head of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Later, when the Iraqi civil war erupted, Al Qaeda in Iraq metastasized and the Iranians mounted a clandestine surge all their own, McCain doubled-down; he argued that we couldn't afford to lose and proposed a revised counterinsurgency strategy for victory. That was the same very month that Obama introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007."

That's all great stuff for McCain's biographers. But the tragic Catch-22 for the Arizona senator is that the more the surge succeeds, the more politically advantageous it is for Obama.

At a July 3 press availability in Fargo, North Dakota, Sen. Barack Obama told reporters: "When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." In covering Obama's comments, the media have reported Republican claims that Obama reversed himself. For example, in a post on The New York Times blog, The Caucus, reporter Jeff Zeleny quoted Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant stating: "There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience. ... Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician." Zeleny quoted Obama saying: "My position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I've always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground." But Zeleny did not note that Obama has in fact said on multiple occasions that he would set Iraq war policy in consultation with military commanders.

Here are some examples:

• In a March 19 speech, Obama said: "Let me be clear: Ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved -- just as there would be dangers involved with staying indefinitely. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure."

• During a March 2 Washington Post foreign policy "Q&A," when asked what size his proposed "over-the-horizon" force in Iraq would be, Obama responded: "The precise size of the residual force will depend on consultations with our military commanders and will depend on the circumstances on the ground, including the willingness of the Iraqi government to move toward political accommodation."

• During an interview on the February 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, when asked, "[I]s there anything that would change your position about pulling out troops ... if he [Gen. David Petraeus] convinces you that we're on the right track?" Obama began his response by saying, "Well, what I've been very clear about is that I will always listen to commanders on the ground":

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Right behind you is the word "change." When General Petraeus comes back in a month, if he talks to Barack Obama privately and shows you what we're doing over there, is there anything that would change your position about pulling out troops if he's convinced -- if he convinces you that we're on the right track?

OBAMA: Well, what I've been very clear about is that I will always listen to commanders on the ground, but ultimately the commander in chief sets the mission. And my strong belief is that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that we are not going to be in Iraq permanently. I mean, I have a fundamental disagreement with John McCain on this.

• Obama also said during an interview on the February 4 edition of CBS' The Early Show that he would "consult with commanders":

HARRY SMITH (co-host): If you were to be elected president --

OBAMA: Mm-hmm.

SMITH: -- and your commanders on the ground there and your secretary of defense said, "Hold back" --

OBAMA: Right.

SMITH: -- "you can't be pulling these people out. We're going to create a civil war and a blood bath." What would you do?

OBAMA: My job as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe. But I firmly believe that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that it is time to withdraw. We will not have a permanent base there. We will not have a permanent occupation there.

SMITH: Even if it --

OBAMA: Within those constraints --

SMITH: Even if it meant the beginning of civil war?

OBAMA: No, no, no, no. Within those constraints, I think there is going to be some flexibility and, obviously, I would consult with commanders. We have to be mindful of the situation on the ground and what the commanders say. Having said that, what we can't do is simply say we are going to leave it open-ended, the way John McCain, for example, suggested. We might be there 50 years or 100 years. That is not going to make the American people safe over the long term, not only because of the loss of life, not only because of the anti-American sentiment that it fans and the constraints it places on our diplomacy, but also because we can't afford it. It's costing us $9 billion per month.

• During a November 1, 2007, New York Times interview, Obama was asked: "You've argued that the United States should leave behind residual force in Iraq and the region. How large would the force be and how much would be inside Iraq versus the Persian Gulf Region?" Obama replied:

I have not ascribed particular numbers to that and I won't for precisely the reason I was just talking to Michael about. I want to talk to military folks on the ground, No. 1. No. 2, a lot of it depends on what's happened on the political front and the diplomatic front. Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator [Hillary] Clinton and I do have a significant contrast.

• During the September 12, 2007, broadcast of National Public Radio's All Things Considered, Obama said: "If commanders came to me and said, 'We are making progress in reducing violence,' and I see continuing political progress taking place, then obviously that's going to be weighed against the need to, I believe, have some additional troops in Afghanistan." From the interview:

MICHELE NORRIS (host): So, in trying to determine what the U.S. footprint in Iraq would look like -- say you're in office, and your commanders, your military commanders, are telling you that progress is being made. If they're saying, "We can win this," are you still going to draw down forces? As a commander in chief, who does not have personal military experience, are you willing to look someone like David Petraeus in the eye and say, "You're wrong. We're going to do it my way"?

OBAMA: If commanders came to me and said, "We are making progress in reducing violence," and I see continuing political progress taking place, then obviously that's going to be weighed against the need to, I believe, have some additional troops in Afghanistan. That's going to be weighed against our homeland security needs in the United States. I think that the overarching question is: What is going to be needed to make the United States more secure, meet our strategic interests around the world, and make sure that we are meeting the obligations that we have towards the Iraqi people?

But that is all part of a decision that the president makes in consultation with his generals, but not in deference to them. And I think one of the unfortunate aspects of the last several days and General Petraeus' testimony is the illusion that, somehow, General Petraeus has been setting policy and the president has simply been accepting those recommendations. That is not what has been taking place. The president has been laying out a mission of continuing this failed course in Iraq and General Petraeus and Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker have been trying to carry out that mission as best they could.

TPM Media's Greg Sargent wrote in a July 3 TPM Election Central entry, "[T]he big news orgs are already getting this wrong":

Here's the Associated Press headline and lede:

Obama opens door to altering his Iraq policy

Democrat Barack Obama opened the door Thursday to altering his plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq in 16 months based on what he hears from military commanders during his upcoming trip there.

That's a reckless distortion. "Alter" is a far stronger word than "refine" is. And worse, when you take the stronger word "alter" and put it next to "plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq in 16 months," it makes a far, far stronger suggestion than Obama did. Obama merely said he would "continue to refine his policies." The tone of this lede makes it sound like Obama is preparing a wholesale junking of his withdrawal plan.

Here's The Washington Post's headline:

Obama Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline

This is way overstated. It states as outright fact that Obama signaled that he'd backtrack on the time-line. But that didn't happen at all. The Los Angeles Times used this formulation, too, but it at least had the decency to pose it as a question, and not state this as established fact.

From Zeleny's July 3 blog post on The Caucus:

Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to "refine my policies" about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.

"I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed," he said. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

[...]

Republicans seized on Mr. Obama's remarks, saying he was stepping away from the position he took in the Democratic primary campaign.

"There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician."

Mr. Obama said such criticism was misguided, saying: "My position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I've always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground."

On the July 2 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, syndicated columnist Robert Novak falsely asserted that, during an appearance on the June 29 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, retired Gen. Wesley Clark joined a group of "Obama surrogates who have been questioning and attacking [Sen.] John McCain's credentials as a war hero." In fact, during his Face the Nation appearance, Clark praised McCain as a "hero" for "his service as a prisoner of war," while, as Zachary Roth wrote at the Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk blog, "question[ing] the relevance of McCain's combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States." Novak further asserted that Clark's comments were part of "a really conscious effort to downgrade him [McCain] as a war hero," adding, "[S]o when you find five, six, seven surrogates, all questioning McCain's war record -- this isn't an accident. This is -- I am sure this is some talking points that were put out secretly in the Obama campaign. But Wesley Clark being such a clumsy, ham-handed person, he just went too far." However, contrary to Novak's assertion that Clark was using "talking points that were put out secretly" by the Obama campaign, Clark has been saying for months that McCain's military service alone does not make him qualified to be president, including while he was speaking on behalf of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

As Media Matters for America has noted, during a March 2 conference call arranged by Clinton's presidential campaign, Clark praised McCain's "service as a fighter pilot" and "his courage as a prisoner of war," but added that "having served as a fighter pilot ... doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved."

From the July 2 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

MICHAEL SMERCONISH [guest host]: Are you surprised by the legs that the General Wesley Clark story appears to have or is this just a July issue?

NOVAK: I -- no. I think this is a very interesting story. You know, there's a whole record of Obama surrogates who have been questioning and attacking John McCain's credentials as a war hero. I think they're very -- I think the Obama campaign is very much worried about this being something that will, when they get to know -- when people who don't follow politics, when they realize that he is a war hero, that this is gonna get the undecided vote to his favor. So, I think they're trying -- there's a really conscious effort to downgrade him as a war hero. And so when you find five, six, seven surrogates, all questioning McCain's war record -- this isn't an accident. This is -- I am sure this is some talking points that were put out secretly in the Obama campaign.

SMERCONISH: But where's the --

NOVAK: But Wesley Clark being such a clumsy, ham-handed person, he just went too far. He was too nasty. He didn't do it in some obscure place. He did it on a national television talk show on Sunday, and he just went too far. And he might have really inhibited the Obama campaign from carrying on this technique.

SMERCONISH: But where would the substance be to go after John McCain on his war record? It's not as if you have, as we saw four years ago, individuals who served with him now coming forward and saying history recorded this in an inaccurate fashion.

NOVAK: Well, it's a -- it's part of politics. If you're a -- if your main attribute as a politician for example, say, is that you're an expert at energy, what your -- what the opposition will try to do is to knock you down as an energy expert. So, the way to do this -- to knock you down as a war expert -- but it has to be done subtly. And Wes Clark was just so ham-handed, and clumsy, and really vulgar about it that he might have spoiled the whole thing for Obama.

SMERCONISH: Robert Novak, a privilege to have you on the Radio Factor. Thank you, sir.

John McCain's "protective barrier"

Nearly four months ago, I wrote that many journalists were going along with John McCain's apparent efforts to declare that, because of his military service, any criticism -- even if it doesn't have anything to do with his service -- is out of bounds. In one early example, McCain attacked Mitt Romney, claiming that Romney (who, McCain noted, "has never had any military experience") had criticized Bob Dole's "service and courage." In fact, Romney hadn't said anything about Dole's service, or his courage. Not even close. But that didn't stop the media from going along with McCain's false claims.

A few weeks later, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer asked if Barack Obama was "taking aim at John McCain's age, an American war hero." Obama hadn't said anything that had anything to do with McCain's status as an "American war hero" -- indeed, he hadn't mentioned McCain at all. Still, Brewer felt compelled to invoke McCain's status as a war hero at the slightest hint (real or imagined) that McCain is being criticized -- even though that (real or imagined) criticism had nothing to do with McCain's military service.

But incidents like that were apparently just trial runs for what has happened this week, as much of the media has abandoned any pretense of neutrality. In the most vivid example to date of media describing any criticism of McCain as criticism of his military service, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell described a television ad that made not a single mention of McCain's service as being a part of "an organized campaign against John McCain's military service."

Here's the ad; watch for yourself. It's an ad about McCain's Iraq policies. It doesn't make any mention of McCain's military record. Doesn't even hint at anything having anything to do with McCain's service. Yet Mitchell suggested it was part of "an organized campaign against John McCain's military service." She may as well have said a giant purple unicorn had called McCain a traitor, for all the truth there was to her statement.

Mitchell's description was deeply dishonest, but what's really remarkable is how well it fit in among the rest of the media's political coverage this week.

On Sunday, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer suggested that the fact that Barack Obama has not "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down" makes him less qualified to be pr