Media Matters

On the January 6 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, political analyst Pat Buchanan said of Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate and the Senate leadership's refusal to seat him: "[W]hy does [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid not want this guy? Why can't he get elected? Because he's an African-American." Host Chris Matthews responded that Illinois has previously elected African-Americans to the Senate; however, neither Matthews nor Buchanan mentioned that Reid stated -- well before Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) appointed Burris -- that the Senate would consider rejecting any Blagojevich appointee because of accusations that Blagojevich attempted to trade the seat for personal or political favors. Further, Reid previously denied that his opposition to Burris was based on race, saying that "as long as Blagojevich has done the appointing, it's really a tainted appointment" -- a denial that neither Buchanan nor Matthews acknowledged.

On December 9, three weeks before Blagojevich appointed Burris, Reid issued a statement saying, "It is clear that anyone Governor Blagojevich appoints to the Senate will fairly or unfairly be tainted by questions of impropriety. A different process to select a new Senator must be put in place -- and that process should not involve Governor Blagojevich." Also, the Senate Democratic Caucus -- headed by Reid -- issued a letter to Blagojevich on December 10 that stated: "Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated." Further, on December 30, shortly after Blagojevich announced his intention to appoint Burris, Reid's office issued another statement on behalf of the caucus that said:

We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris's ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.

Moreover, during a January 4 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Reid expressly denied that Burris' race was a factor after host David Gregory asked him about a Politico article that said, "[T]op advisers to Burris are suggesting that Reid doesn't want an African-American to succeed [President-elect Barack] Obama." In response, Reid touted his work to get several African-Americans elected and said: "So anyone to suggest anything racial is part of the Blagojevich spin to take away from the corruption that's involved his office in Illinois." Earlier, Reid echoed his previous statements that Blagojevich's appointment would be tainted, saying: "There is a cloud over Blagojevich, and at this stage a cloud over the state of Illinois. They don't have a vote. And if -- as long as Blagojevich has done the appointing, it's really a tainted appointment."

From the January 6 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

SUSAN PAGE (USA Today Washington bureau chief): Hey, one interesting cross tab in this poll: no racial divide. Black opinion, white opinion -- virtually identically.

MATTHEWS: Despite [Rep.] Bobby Rush [D-IL] --

PAGE: Despite --

MATTHEWS: -- who I think we might have on tomorrow.

PAGE: Despite the racial angles of this appointment.

MATTHEWS: Bobby Rush, who's from the South Side, says that this is plantation politics, the denial of this seat. Do you agree with that assessment?

BUCHANAN: I disagree --

MATTHEWS: Not your language, I don't think.

BUCHANAN: I disagree with Rush's statement about lynching and all that stuff. But look, why do you say they -- why does Reid not want this guy? Why can't he get elected? Because he's an African-American.

You know it as well as I: If Miss [Lisa] Madigan [Illinois' attorney general] had been picked, do you think Reid and all these guys would say --

MATTHEWS: No, because Illinois has elected [former Sen.] Carol Moseley Braun [D-IL] and Barack Obama. It's one of the two states that has elected African-Americans.

BUCHANAN: Why do you say he can't get elected, then?

MATTHEWS: I'm not saying -- you said it.

BUCHANAN: Well, why would you hold -- why -- I mean --

MATTHEWS: I didn't say -- you just posited the fact that they don't want him because they don't think he can get elected, and I'm saying I don't think there's evidence to that.

BUCHANAN: I've talked to a number of Democrats that say, "We can't win with this guy." Why did --

MATTHEWS: Not because he's black or African-American, because they figure he's lost five straight primaries statewide, Pat. Would you laugh once in a while? That's why he's not electable, because he's lost five in a row, not because he's black.

After the Minnesota Canvassing Board certified the recount in the state's U.S. Senate race, showing Al Franken finishing 225 votes ahead of incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, the January 5 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight baselessly included Franken in a segment on, in host Lou Dobbs' words, "Democratic Party scandals and downright bad behavior." During both Dobbs' teaser for and introduction of a report by CNN correspondent Casey Wian, CNN ran on-screen text reading "Dems Behaving Badly" over video footage that included Franken. Later, during the portion of Wian's report on the Minnesota recount, on-screen text read, "Dems behaving badly: Democrats rocked by party scandals."

From the January 5 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

DOBBS: With only 15 days remaining before the presidential inauguration, the Obama transition team is being distracted by a number of serious issues, being forced to deal with Democratic Party scandals and downright bad behavior. The scandals have forced a Cabinet nominee to step down and tainted the nomination of a new senator from Illinois. Casey Wian has our report.

[...]

WIAN: [Roland] Burris says the Lord has ordained his selection. A less lofty authority, Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, has now declared fellow Democrat and former Saturday Night Live cast member Al Franken as the winner of that state's Senate race.

RITCHIE: We will declare the results of the November 4th election.

WIAN: On election night, Franken trailed incumbent Republican Norm Coleman by 215 votes. After weeks of counting, recounting, and according to the Coleman campaign, double counting, Franken now has a 225-vote lead.

[...]

WIAN: All of this makes Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville seem prophetic. On Friday, he wrote that, quote, "Political scandals happen in clusters," and he expects plenty involving Democrats this year -- Lou.

DOBBS: He exempted, however, we should point out, the president-elect from that, correct?

WIAN: Absolutely, and you know, people who study the issue of ethics in government we spoke with today said that they don't expect any of these scandals, at least so far, to impact President-elect Obama's ability to govern, but they certainly are disturbing.

DOBBS: And unfortunately seem like a continuation of what the Democrats were just -- was it just a little over two years ago? -- calling the Republican culture of corruption. Thank you very much, Casey Wian.

Claiming the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota is "being openly stolen in front of our faces," author and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter asserted on the January 6 edition of Fox & Friends that "the inestimable economist" John Lott Jr. has said the "500 corrections" made to unofficial Senate election returns prior to the beginning of the recount is a "statistical impossibility." In fact, in a November 10 column on FoxNews.com, Lott -- a discredited senior research scholar at the University of Maryland -- wrote that the "sizes of the errors" in some Minnesota precincts that led to the 504-vote correction were "surprisingly large," but did not claim they were statistically impossible. Further, an election analysis by Minnesota Public Radio has shown that changes in vote totals of up to 1,000 votes after polls close are "fairly typical in Minnesota."

During the broadcast, Coulter stated, "The morning after the election, Coleman was ahead by 725 votes. And suddenly, two counties in Democratic areas 'discover' more corrections benefiting Al Franken than for any other election in the state." After co-host Gretchen Carlson said, "Well, I'm not so sure that [incumbent Republican Norm] Coleman didn't do anything about that, and [Minnesota Gov. Tim] Pawlenty's in a tough position because if he doesn't say that his state is run well, he is in fact the governor, so--," Coulter added, "Well, when 500 corrections, which John Lott, the inestimable economist, has said is a statistical impossibility -- I mean, for every other election -- ."

Contrary to Coulter's suggestion that the correction of 504 votes made after Election Day was evidence the election had been "stolen," Minnesota Public Radio reported on November 13, "A look at elections in the last 10 years shows that the vote totals typically change by about 1,500 votes in statewide elections in the days after the polls close":

Even the 1,200-vote lead Norm Coleman had at one point in this election might seem comfortable by now. Since the day after the Nov. 4 election, the first-term senator's margin of victory over his DFL rival Al Franken has fallen to just 206 votes.

But an analysis of election returns by Minnesota Public Radio shows a change of 1,000 votes is fairly typical in Minnesota. A look at elections in the last 10 years shows that the vote totals typically change by about 1,500 votes in statewide elections in the days after the polls close.

That average post-election change falls to just over a thousand if you don't count the 2002 U.S. Senate race. That election happened on separate, hand counted ballots that were handed out after the death of incumbent Paul Wellstone.

Coulter previously called the corrections "statistically impossible" in a December 5 column, in which she similarly cited "the inestimable economist John Lott":

In all, Franken picked up 459 votes and Coleman lost 60 votes from these alleged "corrections."

As the inestimable economist John Lott pointed out, the "corrections" in the Senate race generated more new votes for Franken than all the votes added by corrections in every race in the entire state -- presidential, congressional, state house, sanitation commissioner and dogcatcher -- combined.

And yet the left-wing, George Soros-backed secretary of state, Mark Ritchie, stoutly defended the statistically impossible "corrected" votes. There's something fishy going on in Minnesota besides the annual bigmouth bass tournament.

However, Lott's November 10 assertion that "the 504 total new votes for Franken from all the precincts is greater than adding together all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, and state house races combined," which was cited in a November 12 Wall Street Journal editorial, have been disputed by Star Tribune editor for computer-assisted reporting Glenn Howatt, who wrote: "Based on my analysis, this is wrong. I compared the precinct results for the presidential and the senate races. There are more corrections in the Obama race and the net result is bigger."

Media Matters for America previously noted that on the same day the Minnesota Canvassing Board certified the results of the November 4 election, both nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh and Fox News contributor Dick Morris baselessly claimed Franken stole the election.

From the January 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Ann, let's talk about what you did talk about, right in Gretchen's home -- former home --

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): State.

KILMEADE: -- of Minnesota. Al Franken's about to win. He's got a 225-vote advantage. He was once trailing by 700 votes. What happened there?

COULTER: Right. What always happens. Unless a Republican wins an election by at least 1,000 votes, by an astounding majority, Democrats will cheat and steal, and this is exactly what happened in the gubernatorial election in Washington state -- I think it was in 2004. I've been writing about this over and over again. Bits and pieces here and there -- 100 votes here, 200 votes there, 46 votes. And each one is a theft, and the Republicans just sit back and watch it happen.

KILMEADE: Governor Pawlenty has not said a word --

COULTER: Oh yeah. Well, at the beginning when I was hysterically writing about this -- "they're stealing it, they're stealing it, they're stealing it" -- Pawlenty was on TV saying "No, everything is under control." Well, OK, it's been stolen. Congratulations, Republicans.

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): Well, now Coleman's going to fight this in the courts, so what are his chances there?

COULTER: Well, it should have been fought all along. It should have been fought -- the morning after the election, Coleman was ahead by 725 votes. And suddenly, two counties in Democratic areas "discover" more corrections benefiting Al Franken than for any other election in the state.

DOOCY: Mm-hmm. Coincidence.

CARLSON: Well, I'm not so sure that Coleman didn't do anything about that, and Pawlenty's in a tough position because if he doesn't say that his state is run well, he is in fact the governor, so --

COULTER: Well, when 500 corrections, which John Lott, the inestimable economist, has said is a statistical impossibility -- I mean, for every other election --

CARLSON: Right, but who are the people in charge of the canvassing board and that sort of thing? If they're Democrats, then you would expect it to go towards Al Franken.

COULTER: Well, OK, but you shouldn't have Republicans saying, "Oh, yes, everything's fine," when it's being openly stolen in front of our faces.

CARLSON: Right.

DOOCY: Crazy.

COULTER: But that's the problem as I describe in the book with conservatives. They don't fight back, they believe -- I mean, the way the liberal victimization always works is it's such a lovely country. Americans are so charitable, shockingly charitable, that they're -- you know, when they see the crocodile tears of the left, they just collapse and, "Oh, OK, you're a victim, whatever you want, here."

DOOCY: Here's the brand new book, it is called Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America.

Following reports that her January 6 appearance on NBC's Today had been canceled, author and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter -- who reportedly told CBS News that her new book is "about the rewards and praise you get for being a victim and the way liberals use victimhood" -- complained during January 5 appearances on Sean Hannity's radio and television programs that "the Today show thing was a hoax from the beginning" and "a setup to block me from other TV shows." Coulter also asserted of NBC,"They try to turn conservatives like me into a pariah, into David Duke," and said: "I had a best-selling book, so now the MSM [mainstream media] will just ignore conservatives like me, which is why, you know, writing this book, it ended up being a lot more about the media than I planned on it being." The next day, CBS' Harry Smith told Coulter: "[T]he more I listen to your complaints, the more I kept thinking, well, you're the whiner. You're the one who's claiming victimhood here. That you're the victim of this great left-wing conspiracy." According to a January 6 post on her website, Coulter is now scheduled to be interviewed during both the 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. ET hours of the January 7 broadcast of Today.

Notwithstanding Coulter's claim to having been set up by NBC, the network and its affiliated channels have interviewed her at least 194 times on at least 13 different programs from April 28, 1997, to October 1, 2007, according to a Media Matters review.

A January 6 article on CBSNews.com reported that Coulter said of her new book, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America: "(The book is) basically about how victimhood is rewarded and everyone wants to be a victim. ... It's about the rewards and praise you get for being a victim and the way liberals use victimhood and they oppress others." While discussing President-elect Barack Obama and singer Alicia Keys during her January 5 appearance on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Coulter similarly claimed, "[A]ll of these children of a black father who abandoned them and a white mother who raised them, they all identify with the ethnicity of their black fathers to establish victimhood status in America. Because that is how you get ahead in America, by being a victim."

Despite her criticism of how Obama and "liberals" use "victimhood," Coulter suggested on Hannity & Colmes that she herself had been victimized when NBC canceled her January 6 appearance on Today. Coulter asserted, "[T]he whole thing was a setup from the beginning. It was to book me so that I wouldn't go on, which I will be on, CBS News, The Early Show." Coulter later added, "I know the whole thing was a setup to block me from other TV shows. I know that their one conservative host, [Joe] Scarborough [co-host of MSNBC's Morning Joe], the head producer told the publicist, 'No, I think we'll pass on this book.' Just the best-selling conservative author in America. So, I knew this was a setup."

Earlier that day on Hannity's radio program, Coulter similarly claimed, "I do think the Today show thing was a hoax from the beginning, and they never planned on having me on." She then added:

They try to turn conservatives like me into a pariah, into David Duke, as with the Katie Couric interview on Slander and Matt Lauer on Godless and his hysteria for what I said about the Jersey girls, and it didn't work.

They're Q ratings went down. My Q rating went up. I had a best-selling book, so now the MSM will just ignore conservatives like me, which is why, you know, writing this book, it ended up being a lot more about the media than I planned on it being. And I realized about halfway through, you know, it would be as if -- as if I'm living in Nazi Germany, and I'm trying to write a book on bird-watching, and yet it turns into yet another book on the Nazis.

The media are everything. They control information, and -- and I'm reminded more than ever of the importance of Fox News right now. If Roger Ailes ever goes, we are finished, and if you ever go, Sean Hannity. I mean it really is stunning, their control of the information.

During her January 6 appearance on CBS' The Early Show, co-host Harry Smith confronted Coulter about whether she is in fact "claiming victimhood" herself. Smith stated: "You talk about victims and victimhood in America, which I think is a serious problem. On the other hand, the more I listen to your complaints, the more I kept thinking, well, you're the whiner. You're the one who's claiming victimhood here. That you're the victim of this great left-wing conspiracy." Coulter replied: "No I'm not. But there are real victims." Among the purported "real victims" Coulter cited were President Bush, former Sen. Joseph McCarthy, former Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork, and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Moments later, Smith added: "[Y]ou should have a cross. You should put yourself up on a cross." Coulter responded: "No, but I'm not citing me. I'm citing the real victims whom I'm defending and demanding that this perpetual-motion machine of the liberal-victimization machine, playing victim while oppressing others, the millions of illegitimate children born every year, the people who are mugged by the millions of illegitimate children every year. They are the genuine victims."

From the January 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: First of all, the headline on Drudge. What's going on? You were scheduled for how many weeks to be on the Today show tomorrow morning?

COULTER: For a long time, but the whole thing was a charade and a setup. It's clear now.

HANNITY: They canceled you.

COULTER: Yeah, well, I was never listed in the promo. People are wondering about that. I was never on their web page, though their no-name guests were all listed. The interviewer -- the interviewer forget we had a pre-interview, and said he didn't know who the interviewer was going to be. So the whole thing was a setup from the beginning.

It was to book me so that I wouldn't go on, which I will be on, CBS News, The Early Show. I love you, Harry Smith. But it's going to be hard having an interview with an MSN reporter and -- and, you know, letting -- having an argument with him. I'm going to love him so much for having me on. "I agree, Harry. I was wrong."

HANNITY: Well, I can hardly wait to see it, but -- all right, but you've had a few run-ins with Matt Lauer over the years. I mean, you've had --

COULTER: I don't know why NBC -- well, there was the Katie Couric thing. She's not at NBC.

HANNITY: Yeah, what was the Katie Couric thing, again?

COULTER: The affable Eva Braun of morning TV.

HANNITY: Yeah.

COULTER: But she's not there. She's at CBS, and I will be on CBS tomorrow morning --

HANNITY: Well, that's true.

COULTER: -- at 7:30 in the morning. No, I'm very upset about this. This is --

HANNITY: All right, but so -- but they're now denying -- they're now denying that you're banned for life. So are they backing off out of pressure, or were you told you're banned?

COULTER: I know the whole thing was a setup to block me from other TV shows. I know that their one conservative host, Scarborough, the head producer told the publicist, "No, I think we'll pass on this book." Just the best-selling conservative author in America. So, I knew this was a setup.

I've now heard -- you know, I've been kind of busy. The book comes out tomorrow, not today.

HANNITY: All right. But NBC --

COULTER: But now they're backing down, so I guess Matt Drudge gets results. That's what we know. And this is very upsetting. This is like being fired from Chrysler. Because NBC, I mean, they are just chugging along.

HANNITY: Now wait -- wait --

COULTER: I think if this book does well, I can buy NBC.

HANNITY: But now wait a minute. Chris Matthews had on the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. So here's a guy that blew up the Pentagon and the Capitol, but they won't let Ann Coulter on because you are too controversial? You dare to -- look, I read the whole book cover to cover, and I love it, and it's thoughtful. And you're right: Liberals do make themselves out to be victims when they are the victimizer all the time.

[...]

ALAN COLMES (co-host): You go after single motherhood, and then you go after Barack Obama and Halle Berry and Alicia Keys and what you call "matinee idol Barack Obama" --

COULTER: Matinee idol.

COLMES: -- for dissing their fathers and having their mothers raise them.

COULTER: No, dissing their mothers who raised them while -- right --

COLMES: Well, insulting the women who struggled to raise them --

COULTER: Right.

COLMES: -- when you insult single mothers by saying they're strippers and they're --

COULTER: I don't insult single mothers.

COLMES: -- it's a recipe to create criminals.

COULTER: It is a recipe --

COLMES: You're insulting them.

COULTER: -- no, it is a recipe to create criminals, strippers, rapists, murderers --

COLMES: So you're insulting them.

COULTER: No, I am insulting single motherhood, which is avidly promoted by the left. And they are --

COLMES: But that's what you are accusing Barack of doing.

COULTER: No, those are different chapters and completely different points. You are conflating two things that have nothing to do with one another. The point is, in -- on the Alicia Keys and Barack Obama, it is that all of these children of a black father who abandoned them and a white mother who raised them, they all identify with the ethnicity of their black fathers to establish victimhood status in America.

COLMES: And you accuse them of insulting --

COULTER: Because that is how you get ahead in America, by being a victim.

From the January 5 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: Well, let's talk a little bit about some of this stuff, because, you know, it's only a matter of days now before, you know, the onslaught, you know, starts against you, but --

COULTER: I hope so. It looks like they're gonna try to ignore me. It may be that you will be the only outlet I will ever have when a new book comes out, although I can say that I will be on the CBS Early Show tomorrow at 7:30 a.m. I do think the Today show thing was a hoax from the beginning, and they never planned on having me on. They try to turn conservatives like me into a pariah, into David Duke, as with the Katie Couric interview on Slander and Matt Lauer on Godless and his hysteria for what I said about the Jersey girls, and it didn't work.

They're Q ratings went down. My Q rating went up. I had a best-selling book, so now the MSM will just ignore conservatives like me, which is why, you know, writing this book, it ended up being a lot more about the media than I planned on it being. And I realized about halfway through, you know, it would be as if -- as if I'm living in Nazi Germany, and I'm trying to write a book on bird-watching, and yet it turns into yet another book on the Nazis.

The media are everything. They control information, and -- and I'm reminded more than ever of the importance of Fox News right now. If Roger Ailes ever goes, we are finished, and if you ever go, Sean Hannity. I mean it really is stunning, their control of the information. And in chapter three, for example, I talk about their hysteria over the Republican attack machine, because as the title of the book indicates, the basic theme of the book is how liberals are always pretending they're being victimized, oppressed by right-wingers and fascists, and, you know, frat boys with rich daddies. And yet they are, of course, always the oppressors.

They're the ones creating genuine victims, and the Republican attack machine hysteria is an example. What is the Republican attack machine? What? Some -- some little, you know, Republican National Committee putting up little web videos? I mean, that doesn't even compare -- forget the counterpart. They use that to throw you off and make you think that the counterpart would be the Democratic National Committee. No, no, no, no. The only attack machine in America is the mainstream media. They destroy people for sport.

HANNITY: I -- I think this was the chapter I probably enjoyed the most. It's interesting you brought it up right away, and that is the rage against the machine. You made the point in this book -- in this book, which is just coming out today, and I made this point many, many times.

You know, they had this website that they put up I guess in June of this past year before the election, Fight the Smears. And literally, I don't -- and I kept raising the point. I'd read the smear, and I'd say, "There's no prominent Republican or conservative that ever made this point."

COULTER: Right.

HANNITY: Nobody's making these points, but yet they created this, you know, these false smears and defended them.

COULTER: Yes, yes. We're on the attack, we're on -- or we're on the defense. We're being attacked horribly. I mean, the only way you would have ever heard the smear is by hearing someone in the MSM or on the website denouncing the smear. And meanwhile, the genuine defamatory remarks, outrageous remarks, the smears being said against, for example, our beauteous Sarah, those were all coming from the media, not even from the Democratic National Committee, from the Democrats.

One of the -- one of the reasons, well the story, for example, about at Sarah Palin rallies people yelling out, when she mentioned Obama, "Kill him." That didn't come from a Democrat operative; that came from the media. And it turned out to be a fraud after, you know, a massive investigation by the Secret Service interviewing hundreds of people there, other Secret Service officers, people who had tape-recorded the speech. Nobody heard "kill him," and, by the way, the Secret Service takes things like that very, very seriously.

From the January 6 edition of CBS's The Early Show:

SMITH: Here's my only other real serious point about this. You talk about victims and victimhood in America, which I think is a serious problem. On the other hand, the more I listen to your complaints, the more I kept thinking, well, you're the whiner. You're the one who's claiming victimhood here. That you're the victim of this great left-wing conspiracy.

COULTER: No, I'm not.

SMITH: And if there --

COULTER: But there are real victims.

SMITH: If there was a real, live left-wing conspiracy --

COULTER: Well, it's not a conspira --

SMITH: -- how do you account for a Republican president being elected and then re-elected.

COULTER: It's amazing it happens, because of the great wisdom of the American people. But the point is, I'm not saying I am the victim. I'm saying that by playing victim, real victims are created. You have millions of unborn babies -- they are -- they are real victims. You have the Duke lacrosse players -- real victims. You have George Bush, the most persecuted, attacked -- and assassination movies and books -- president, I think, since Richard Nixon. You have Joe McCarthy, you have Robert Bork, you have Tom DeLay. Everyone who is identified --

SMITH: Tom Delay is a victim?

COULTER: -- as an oppressor -- Sarah Palin.

SMITH: Tom Delay is a victim?

COULTER: Yes, and all the ones --

SMITH: Of what?

COULTER: -- who are identified as oppressors -

SMITH: Right.

COULTER: -- are always genuinely the victims. And the ones who are the play victims are, in fact, the oppressors.

SMITH: You should -- you should have a cross. You should put yourself up on a cross.

COULTER: No, but I'm not citing me. I'm citing the real victims whom I'm defending and demanding that this perpetual-motion machine of the liberal-victimization machine, playing victim while oppressing others, the millions of illegitimate children born every year, the people who are mugged by the millions of illegitimate children every year.

SMITH: Are the -- it's the liberals' fault?

COULTER: They are the genuine victims.

Hours after the Minnesota Canvassing Board certified the recount in the state's U.S. Senate race, showing Al Franken finishing 225 votes ahead of incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Dick Morris baselessly claimed of the election that Franken and the Democrats are "stealing it right in front of our eyes" and asserted that both disputed ballots and their duplicates were counted, resulting in votes being counted "twice." Discussing the race on the January 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Morris and co-host Sean Hannity echoed claims made in a Wall Street Journal editorial that day, alleging double counting of duplicate ballots during the recount. As Media Matters for America noted, the editorial simply asserted that there was double counting, echoing an accusation by the Coleman campaign; it did not cite reporting to support its claim.

Morris and Hannity also echoed the Wall Street Journal editorial in claiming that "177 more ballots than people voted" were counted in Ramsey County. In fact, according to a December 14 article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which cited a city clerk explaining human and technological errors in the voting process, a "machine jammed in Maplewood, resulting in 177 ballots going uncounted until the final day of the recount in Ramsey County."

Media Matters further documented radio host Rush Limbaugh and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough also echoing the Journal editorial's unsubstantiated claims during their January 5 broadcasts.

From the January 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Here's what we have. We've got 25 precincts in Minnesota -- 25, ladies and gentlemen -- 25 where there were more, believe it or not, ballots than voters who signed in to vote. Now, we can take it a step further. Even the state Supreme Court Justice Barry Anderson, on the canvassing board, said it's very likely that there was double counting. We've got one county -- ended up with 177 more ballots.

MORRIS: Yeah, Ramsey County -- 177 more ballots than people voted.

HANNITY: Yeah.

MORRIS: Duh.

HANNITY: So, how is it possible that they can come to this conclusion?

MORRIS: Well, what they did was that whenever there was a ballot that was in dispute, they copied it. But they forgot to put "duplicate" on it, so they not only counted the disputed ballot --

HANNITY: Twice.

MORRIS: -- they counted it twice.

HANNITY: Great for Franken. All right, do we have a problem with [Illinois Gov. Rod] Blagojevich choosing [Roland] Burris, considering --

MORRIS: No, but --

HANNITY: -- he hasn't been indicted?

MORRIS: -- but stay on Minnesota. There should be a special election.

HANNITY: You've got 30 seconds, so --

MORRIS: But stay on Minnesota. DickMorris.com, you can link to the law committee that is litigating this, and if we let them get away with the stuff they're pulling in Minnesota --

HANNITY: They're stealing this election.

MORRIS: They're stealing it right in front of our eyes.

HANNITY: Right in front of everybody's eyes.

MORRIS: And by the way, Minnesota law says you can't --

HANNITY: Could you imagine a --

MORRIS: You can't certify an election if the other party opposes it.

HANNITY: So they can't do it.

MORRIS: So a legal suit could stop this.

HANNITY: Well, it's supposed to happen tomorrow. Dick --

MORRIS: But, you know, we're not George Soros, so --

HANNITY: Congrats. Nineteen weeks in a row --

MORRIS: -- can't write a check.

HANNITY: -- for crying out loud, that book.

MORRIS: Thank you.

HANNITY: It just never goes away. Nineteen -- anyway, coming up next, Ann Coulter, brand-new book, just out today.

MORRIS: A great book.

HANNITY: She's under fire. She'll join us.

MORRIS: A great, great book, by the way.

On the January 5 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs again questioned the impact of humans on global warming and suggested that solar activity may be far more responsible for global warming than humans, stating, "[M]any scientists are saying, 'My gosh, compared to what our sun can do, man has minuscule influence.' " However, Dobbs ignored the conclusion by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that "it is extremely likely [>95% chance] that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate" and that this "estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes."

During the segment, Dobbs aired a report from CNN correspondent Ines Ferré, which included a clip of meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo stating of global warming: "We are too short-sighted or certainly the -- those who believe in it are not looking at all the big picture, which needs to include other factors than natural cycles in the ocean and of the sun that are the real drivers." Following the report, Ferre stated, "There are also more questions over claims that so-called global warming is manmade. Scientists are looking at sunspot activity. They're linking the presence or absence of sunspots to warmer or cooler temperatures on earth." Dobbs responded, in part, that "what we're watching now -- we're in what, the second year of the solar sunspot activity cycle, an 11-year cycle, and many scientists are saying, 'My gosh, compared to what our sun can do, man has minuscule influence.' "

However, as Media Matters for America has noted, the IPCC's 2007 "Synthesis Report" concluded that "[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level" and that "[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [defined in the report as a ">90%" chance] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations." The IPCC report specifically rebuts the suggestion that nature is primarily responsible for global warming in the last 50 years:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely [<5% chance] that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely [>66% chance] have produced cooling, not warming.

In comparing human-caused and natural "radiative forcing," (which is defined as "an index of the importance of [a] factor as a potential climate change mechanism"), the IPCC's February 2007 Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" concluded that since 1750, "it is extremely likely [>95% chance] that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely [<1% chance] that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF."

From the January 5 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

DOBBS: Up next, new indications that the hype over global warming may be based on inexact science and inexact assessment of facts. We'll have that report. Hold your breath, don't get excited, all of you enthusiasts for or against global warming. Just the facts coming up.

[...]

[begin video clip]

FERRÉ: New data from the University of Illinois says ice levels are roughly the same as those seen 29 years ago. But after decades of ice melt in the Arctic, that may be of little comfort. The increase is because of the formation of thin ice, which melts easily once the winter is over.

Even so, one climatologist skeptical of global warming feels the entire debate is muddled with selective data.

D'ALEO: We are too short-sighted or certainly the -- those who believe in it are not looking at all the big picture, which needs to include other factors than natural cycles in the ocean and of the sun that are the real drivers.

FERRÉ: NASA scientists report that more than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, the Arctic, and Antarctic have melted since 2003.

Some farmers fear future regulations on greenhouse gas emissions could include what could amount to a cow tax. The United Nations calculates livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

PAT MICHAELS (Cato Institute senior fellow): Extremism in the pursuit of climate policy is certainly no virtue. And what's really going on is we have rather a moderate increase in temperature, so why would one jump off the bridge and take money away from people?

FERRÉ: The Environmental Protection Agency says methane, a greenhouse gas associated with livestock, is not being considered for regulation at this point.

[end video clip]

FERRÉ There are also more questions over claims that so-called global warming is manmade. Scientists are looking at sunspot activity. They're linking the presence or absence of sunspots to warmer or cooler temperatures on earth. Lou?

DOBBS: Yeah. The one -- the one issue here, and as we have examined and reported on the issue of global warming, it is so clear that on both sides, but particularly the pro-global warming, if there is such a thing, if I can put it that way, they are -- they bring this thing to a personal belief system. It's almost a religion, without any question. And what we're watching now -- we're in what, the second year of the solar sunspot activity cycle, an 11-year cycle, and many scientists are saying, "My gosh, compared to what our sun can do, man has minuscule influence."

FERRÉ: And there's some scientists that say that, for example, last year there were 266 days out of all of last year that there was no sunspot activity.

DOBBS: Wow.

FERRÉ: And so they're saying now this is going to indicate cooler temperatures on earth. But yeah, I mean, people are very passionate about this topic.

Responding to reports that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former congressman and Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta as CIA director, Michael Savage asserted on the January 5 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show that "maybe [former Weather Underground member] Bill Ayers picked Leon Panetta," later asking, "Is it Bill Ayers and his crowd in Chicago who said 'Pick Panetta. He's a man we can trust'?"

Earlier, responding to a caller's assertion that Panetta will be a "puppet" for Obama, Savage stated: "All right, so you're saying Panetta was appointed by Obama because he'll be a useful puppet. And then the CIA, instead of being an independent agency, will wind up being an arm of the executive branch. That's what worries me. That is Hitlerism." Savage continued: "Shall I be very clear? When Hitler aggrandized all the power in Germany and all of the agencies reported to him and there was no independence, it was called a dictatorship. Panetta must not be confirmed as the director of the CIA."

Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, says that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.

From the January 5 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

CALLER: Yes, Doctor Savage, a comment on the new appointee for the CIA. I believe that that's exactly what they want is someone who doesn't know what they're doing. I believe -- the word I can only think of now is "puppet" -- but I believe no matter what --

SAVAGE: All right, so you're saying Panetta was appointed by Obama because he'll be a useful puppet. And then the CIA, instead of being an independent agency, will wind up being an arm of the executive branch. That's what worries me. That is Hitlerism. Shall I be very clear? When Hitler aggrandized all the power in Germany and all of the agencies reported to him and there was no independence, it was called a dictatorship.

Panetta must not be confirmed as the director of the CIA. This is an outrage. Outrage. Biggest story -- biggest story of the year. Biggest story of the year, picking an unknown hack. An unknown hack. No intelligence experience to run the CIA in an age of terror. I've never seen anything like this. Even Dianne Feinstein was caught off guard. She don't believe it herself. She doesn't believe it herself.

CALLER: And that's what got me, is when someone like Feinstein herself is even surprised at it. That's what got me. I believe --

SAVAGE: Right. Now, if Feinstein, a certifiable, bona fide liberal, was not consulted -- and she's the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- who, then, picked Leon Panetta?

CALLER: [unintelligible] I believe Ayers, Farrakhan, and the whole rest of that gang is --

SAVAGE: Yeah, maybe Bill Ayers picked Leon Panetta. Maybe everything we feared about Obama can be seen in the head of a pin here.

CALLER: Absolutely, you know --

SAVAGE: Something is wrong. The CIA position is the most important selection of all, perhaps next to the secretary of state -- even more important. Because the CIA has access to secret data that I don't even think the State Department has. Why would they pick a hack like Panetta? A college teacher. Why?

CALLER: 'Cause --

SAVAGE: Because -- because Obama wants all information flowing only to him, and he wants a useful puppet in the CIA, and this man must not be confirmed.

You know, what's interesting and very important for the American people to know -- because thus far, they haven't heard this story because it just happened today -- is this: The man originally selected by Obama to be the head of the CIA was a good man with great experience. He was rejected by the left-wing blogosphere. Obama then goes and picks a man with no experience? Who is advising Obama on this? Who? Who? Is it the very left wing that we feared in the background? Is it Bill Ayers and his crowd in Chicago who said, "Pick Panetta. He's a man we can trust"? This is no good.

Thanks for the call.

On the January 5 broadcast of United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show, host Lou Dobbs baselessly suggested that Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton and Democratic strategist James Carville "ratcheted up" the federal investigation that led New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to withdraw as President-elect Barack Obama's designate to be commerce secretary. Dobbs stated: "What, an investigation into the New Mexico governor? Maybe he messed with Senator Hillary Clinton one time too many. When James Carville calls you 'Judas,' look out -- things tend to happen. They ratcheted up an investigation."

According to a January 5 Bloomberg News article, the FBI's investigation concerns "how Beverly Hills, California-based CDR Financial Products won $1.5 million of work from the New Mexico Finance Authority in 2004" and is part of a "nationwide inquiry by U.S. prosecutors into so-called pay-to-play practices in the municipal-bond market." In a January 4 statement, Richardson wrote that "I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and ... this investigation will bear out that fact."

From the January 5 broadcast of United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show:

DOBBS: I can guarantee you on this broadcast we're going to be working very hard for truth, justice, and the American way as always. Are you listening, Governor Richardson? I don't mean to pry, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, but my goodness, what is going on with you out there in the -- in the Land of the Sun? Right there in New Mexico, the governor decided he'd rather be governor of New Mexico than secretary of the Department of Commerce for President-elect Barack Obama.

Now, what's going on? Well, what's going on is an investigation. What, an investigation into the New Mexico governor? Maybe he messed with Senator Hillary Clinton one time too many. When James Carville calls you "Judas," look out -- things tend to happen. They ratcheted up an investigation. My goodness, what is going on? Well, we're gonna find out what's going on with Governor Richardson. He is a long-standing -- obviously a public servant, a man with a distinguished service record, and also now a man involved in an investigation of pay-for-play, as they say with increasing frequency in this country.

In a January 5 article about President-elect Barack Obama's meetings with members of Congress to discuss a stimulus package, The Hill's Mike Soraghan asserted, "To the surprise of some, congressional liberals offered up little initial resistance to the sudden turn to tax cuts, which has been a conservative mantra since Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter." But in referring to Obama's purported "sudden turn to tax cuts," Soraghan did not note that Obama, as he reportedly pointed out in response to suggestions that he was trying to win over Republicans, promised tax cuts during the campaign. Additionally, Soraghan did not quote or name one person expressing "surprise" that "congressional liberals" would support tax cuts as part of a stimulus plan.

On January 6, The Washington Post reported, "After a lunchtime session with his economic advisers, Obama rejected suggestions that the tax cuts were designed to win over GOP votes." The Post quoted Obama saying, "The notion that me wanting to include relief for working families in this plan is somehow a political ploy, when this was a centerpiece of my plan for the last two years doesn't make too much sense." Indeed, during his campaign, Obama proposed, in part, to "[c]ut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples," as well as to "cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan."

From Soraghan's January 5 Hill article:

But the overall size of the package remains a big question mark, and a potential disagreement between the two chambers. House aides say there's a general agreement around the amount of $775 billion.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), pressed for a figure on the overall size, said that Obama was talking about much larger numbers from his discussions with economists.

"He has indicated that there's at least 20 economists that he's talked with," Reid said, "and all but one of those believe it should be from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion."

To the surprise of some, congressional liberals offered up little initial resistance to the sudden turn to tax cuts, which has been a conservative mantra since Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who comes from the liberal wing of her party, spent the day repeatedly praising the changes Obama was making.

"I commend President-elect Obama for agreeing to work in a bipartisan way," Pelosi said.

One labor leader offered support for having 40 percent of the package go to tax cuts as long as the size of the overall package was large -- in the $675 billion to $775 billion range that has been discussed on Capitol Hill.

"It's not a problem if the package is big enough," said Bill Samuel, legislative director for the AFL-CIO. He noted that some have called for a larger stimulus package, and suggested the AFL-CIO would not be opposed to something bigger.

On the January 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter defended inflammatory and offensive comments she makes about single mothers and children whose parents divorce in her new book, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America. Coulter referred to one statement in the book -- that children whose parents divorce are "future strippers" -- as "something that needs to be said," later saying of her book's contention that the children of divorces would become strippers: "Yes, and they will be, and that is a fact." Also during her Hannity & Colmes interview, immediately after saying, "I don't insult single mothers," Coulter referred to single motherhood as "a recipe to create criminals, strippers, rapists, murderers," echoing her statement in Guilty that "[s]ingle motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts." After co-host Alan Colmes challenged Coulter by saying of single mothers, "So you're insulting them," Coulter replied, "No, I am insulting single motherhood, which is avidly promoted by the left."

According to her website, Coulter is scheduled to be interviewed during both the 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. ET hours of the January 7 edition of NBC's Today, after reports on January 5 that her scheduled January 6 appearance on that show had been canceled. Media Matters for America has documented that NBC has repeatedly provided Coulter a platform to spew her inflammatory rhetoric even as NBC-affiliated hosts and anchors -- including Today co-hosts Meredith Vieira and Matt Lauer -- have expressed disapproval of her statements or criticized the media for promoting her.

From Coulter's website:

From the January 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

COLMES: Now, look, let's talk about -- let's talk about your book. How about that?

COULTER: I would love to.

COLMES: All right. Now, you talk about "Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and --

COULTER: Yes.

COLMES: -- social outcasts."

COULTER: Yes.

COLMES: So you're putting down single mothers.

COULTER: What I am saying --

COLMES: "We have a term for youngsters involved in children of divorces, or as I call them, future strippers."

COULTER: What I am saying is --

COLMES: How sensitive of you.

COULTER: Yes, it's very sensitive. Well, and it's something that needs to be said. What I'm saying is there is no better example of victimizers who are treated like victims than single mothers. This was not an accident that the illegitimacy rate has gone up 300 percent since 1970. This was a plan by liberals. Liberals claim --

COLMES: Wait, wait. Liberals want the rates to go up?

COULTER: They hate marriage, yes. And as I document --

COLMES: Liberals hate marriage. Wait a minute. Let me just take my ring off, OK?

[...]

COLMES: You go after single motherhood, and then you go after Barack Obama and Halle Berry and Alicia Keys and what you call "matinee idol Barack Obama" --

COULTER: Matinee idol.

COLMES: -- for dissing their fathers and having their mothers raise them.

COULTER: No, dissing their mothers who raised them while -- right --

COLMES: Well, insulting the women who struggled to raise them --

COULTER: Right.

COLMES: -- when you insult single mothers by saying they're strippers and they're --

COULTER: I don't insult single mothers.

COLMES: -- it's a recipe to create criminals.

COULTER: It is a recipe --

COLMES: You're insulting them.

COULTER: -- no, it is a recipe to create criminals, strippers, rapists, murderers --

COLMES: So you're insulting them.

COULTER: No, I am insulting single motherhood, which is avidly promoted by the left. And they are --

COLMES: But that's what you are accusing Barack of doing.

COULTER: No, those are different chapters and completely different points. You are conflating two things that have nothing to do with one another. The point is, in -- on the Alicia Keys and Barack Obama, it is that all of these children of a black father who abandoned them and a white mother who raised them, they all identify with the ethnicity of their black fathers to establish victimhood status in America.

COLMES: And you accuse them of insulting --

COULTER: Because that is how you get ahead in America, by being a victim.

COLMES: And you accuse them of insulting the women who struggled to raise them.

COULTER: Correct.

COLMES: Yet you have insulted them by calling them strippers.

COULTER: No, I didn't call the mothers strippers.

HANNITY: Oh, my goodness.

COULTER: I said that this is a recipe for creating -- and it is, it is a fact --

COLMES: Oh, their kids are strippers. OK.

COULTER: Yes, and they will be, and that is a fact. You liberals pretend you care about facts.

COLMES: I am "you liberals."

COULTER: We have 30 years of analysis on what -- on what single motherhood produces, and it produces crime.

During a January 5 ABC World News report, described by anchor Charles Gibson as a "closer look at the intersection of money and politics," correspondent David Wright said, "Questions have ... been raised about Senator Hillary Clinton, who pushed through a $5 million earmark that benefited a New York developer who gave $100,000 to Bill Clinton's foundation. Senator Clinton's office insist there was no connection. But, again, the question is: Did the developer pay to play?" Wright reported that "Senator Clinton's office insist there was no connection," between the 2004 donation by developer Robert J. Congel and the earmark, but did not point out that, according to The New York Times, Hillary Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines said that she "did not solicit the donation from Mr. Congel or discuss it with him or anyone on his behalf, and that she was unaware of its timing and size until last month." Wright also did not note that Hillary Clinton reportedly supported tax breaks for Congel's project during her 2000 campaign, four years before Congel's donation to Bill Clinton's foundation. Nor did Wright note that both Democratic and Republican members of Congress from New York supported the project.

In a January 4 article, the Times reported:

Mrs. Clinton, who as a Senate candidate in 2000 supported other tax breaks for a Carousel mall expansion to create jobs, did not work alone in getting the subsidies through Congress. The measures had other supporters in the New York delegation, including Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat, and James T. Walsh, Syracuse's Republican representative at the time.

And the "green bonds" were backed by lawmakers from three other states with projects that would qualify for it.

Similarly, in a July 28, 2000, article (retrieved from the Nexis database), The Post-Standard of Syracuse, New York, reported, "Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton today endorsed the proposed expansion of Carousel Center mall, saying its economic benefits would likely outweigh 30 years of property-tax concessions." Earlier that year, in a March 23, 2000, article, The Post-Standard described Congel as "the man behind the Carousel Center mall." In the July 28, 2000, article, The Post-Standard also reported of the mall project:

"I think, on balance, it does make sense...," said Clinton, whose knowledge of the project comes primarily from news reports. "Obviously, retail alone, the service industry alone, is not what's going to bring new jobs for New York. But that doesn't mean you should be against them as a possible means for increasing economic activity, and there's the multiplier effect of what a large, retail destination like that would mean."

From the January 5 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:

GIBSON: Tonight, a closer look at the intersection of money and politics, a gray area where financial favors sometimes cross the line. But exactly where is that line? When does business as usual become improper or illegal?

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is caught in that intersection right now. And today, he spoke out about withdrawing his nomination to be commerce secretary, as a grand jury investigates how a major political donor landed lucrative state contracts. Here's David Wright.

[begin video clip]

WRIGHT: Today, as he explained his decision to withdraw from the Obama cabinet, Governor Bill Richardson sounded almost high-minded.

RICHARDSON: Sometimes your own dreams and plans must take a backseat to what is best for the nation.

WRIGHT: But the New Mexico governor faced the appearance of impropriety -- a multimillion dollar state contract awarded to a firm whose president gave thousands of dollars to Richardson's political action committees. Federal investigators are trying to determine, did the company pay to play?

ALLAN LICHTMAN (American University history professor): Pay to play means that you've got to give something to get something in politics.

WRIGHT: Questions have also been raised about Senator Hillary Clinton, who pushed through a $5 million earmark that benefited a New York developer who gave $100,000 to Bill Clinton's foundation. Senator Clinton's office insist there was no connection.

But, again, the question is: Did the developer pay to play?

BILL BUZENBERG (Center for Public Integrity executive director): Money is exchanged for, you know, being able to be in the mix. Where it goes over the line is when it's actually for a real earmark.

WRIGHT: You might well say, "That's simply how politics works. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Of course, that's not how it's supposed to work. Still, most contributions are perfectly legal. To be illegal, a prosecutor has to be able to prove the quid pro quo. And that's extremely difficult.

LICHTMAN: If we were to prosecute every time someone steered a contract or a favor to a campaign contributor, we'd be prosecuting virtually every politician in this country.

JAMES STEWART (as Jefferson Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington [1939]): I guess this is just another lost cause.

WRIGHT: As Mr. Smith goes to Washington, Jimmy Stewart played an idealistic young senator appointed by a corrupt party boss. Sound familiar?

BURRIS: That's legal. I am the junior senator from Illinois.

WRIGHT: Roland Burris is a highly regarded public servant, but the governor who appointed him stands accused of earlier trying to sell the seat -- pay to play. So, when Mr. Burris comes to Washington tomorrow, the Senate may refuse to seat him. David Wright, ABC news, Washington.

On the January 6 broadcast of CBS' The Early Show, co-anchor Harry Smith teased an interview with author and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter by saying, "Ann Coulter is in the studio this morning. She has a brand new book. It's called Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America, and in it, she says that I am certifiably insane. Perhaps I am, for having her on the program this morning. So we'll get to that in a little bit."

Smith joins other media figures who have expressed disapproval for Coulter's comments while giving her a platform to promote those comments, as Media Matters for America has documented. Indeed, NBC has repeatedly provided Coulter a platform to spew her inflammatory rhetoric even as NBC-affiliated hosts and anchors have expressed disapproval of her statements or criticized the media for promoting her. Coulter's latest book is rife with such inflammatory and offensive comments.

From the January 6 edition of CBS' The Early Show:

SMITH: Ann Coulter is in the studio this morning. She has a brand new book. It's called Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America, and in it, she says that I am certifiably insane. Perhaps I am, for having her --

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ (co-anchor): Really?

SMITH: -- on the program this morning. So we'll get to that in a little bit.

On the same day that the Minnesota Canvassing Board certified the results of the November 4 election, resulting in Democrat Al Franken's apparent victory in the state's U.S. Senate race by 225 votes, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh baselessly claimed that Franken "stole the race" and asserted that "The Wall Street Journal has a story on this. They're counting votes twice -- votes that were rejected, all kinds of things." However, as Media Matters for America noted, the Journal "story" Limbaugh referred to was an editorial, which simply asserted that there was double counting, echoing the accusation by the incumbent, Republican Norm Coleman; it did not cite reporting to support its claim, only quoting State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, a member of the canvassing board, who the Journal said "has acknowledged that 'very likely there was a double counting.' "

From the January 5 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

CALLER: Thanks, and many other of them. Hey, Rush, the reason I'm calling is when you started talking about Caroline Kennedy -- I'm starting to really get pissed off about a lot of different things going on here. And -- and, you know, we talk about Caroline Kennedy, we talk about Al Franken, and it's been building up for a while.

You talk about the Blago thing. You talk about everybody else. And what's really starting to frustrate me is the lack of accountability on the American electorate. We can't keep blaming Blago. We've gotta start blaming the people that are putting these people in office, and start holding us to accountability. And that's what has me frustrated. It hasn't been talked about a lot. And Rush, I tell you, you've told me one thing that I've always held to heart.

LIMBAUGH: Yes.

CALLER: Is you said you always have faith -- always have faith in the American people.

LIMBAUGH: I do.

CALLER: And I -- and I'm trying to believe in that. But we keep electing -- we keep electing these officials, and help me dissect that.

LIMBAUGH: We did not elect Al Franken. He stole the race. They are stealing the race up there blind in front of everybody's nose. They are counting absentee ballots. The Wall Street Journal has a story on this. They're counting votes twice -- votes that were rejected, all kinds of things. That's just -- the Democrats are stealing the election up there. The Democrats run Illinois and Chicago. Of course they elected Blago and Obama and everybody else. That is -- that's not gonna change.

In a January 5 update to her website, author and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter announced that the appearances she was scheduled to make on the January 6 edition of NBC's Today had been canceled, but that she would be appearing that day on CBS' The Early Show. As Media Matters for America has noted, Coulter recently announced that she was scheduled to appear on Today to promote the release of her new book, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America, which Media Matters found to contain numerous falsehoods and inflammatory statements. As Media Matters noted, hosts and anchors on NBC itself and affiliates -- including Today co-hosts Meredith Vieira and Matt Lauer, Tonight host Jay Leno, Hardball host Chris Matthews, Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, and CNBC's Big Idea host Donny Deutsch -- have expressed disapproval of, in Leno's words, Coulter's "harsh" and "nasty" statements, or criticized the media for promoting her.

For instance, discussing Coulter's October 8, 2007, appearance on The Big Idea -- during which Coulter asserted that "we" Christians "just want Jews to be perfected" -- Deutsch said on the October 12, 2007, edition of Today: "And I think that's what -- we're playing dangerous with words in our society that there's no accountability. There's a glibness that we in the media kind of elevate, and I'm here to kind of say I'm personally tired of it, and I think America is tired of it also." Deutsch later told Vieira that someone might ask, "Aren't we part of the problem?" Vieira responded: "Of course we are. We're perpetuating it."

In a January 5 blog post, Politico staff writer Michael Calderone also noted Coulter's announcement that her Today appearance had been canceled, writing: "Media Matters has been picking apart the book, and last week asked the following: "Is NBC going to help Coulter sell this book?" Seems like they're not."

From Coulter's website:

On the January 5 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough falsely suggested that assertions in The Wall Street Journal about the Minnesota Senate race -- including the Journal's reference to "double counting" of ballots -- were the result of "reporting." Scarborough stated, "The Wall Street Journal is saying that there's some irregularities they need to investigate, double vote counts. I'm sure there's going to be a big debate about that," and later said, "The Wall Street Journal is writing today, reporting today, that there are a lot of discrepancies, a lot of inconsistencies, double votes being counted." But the Journal simply asserted that there was double counting, echoing the accusation by the incumbent, Republican Norm Coleman; it did not cite reporting to support its claim, only quoting State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, a member of the canvassing board, who the Journal said "has acknowledged that 'very likely there was a double counting.' "

Moreover, as Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall noted, at no point in the editorial did the Journal note that the canvassing board, which reached a unanimous decision rejecting "challenges to unmatched original damaged ballots," is bipartisan and has, in Marshall's words, "at least as many Republicans as Democrats, and may actually have more Republicans than Democrats":

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is an elected Democrat. He serves on the canvassing board automatically. For the rest he picked two Republican state Supreme Court Justices (justices appointed by Gov. Pawlenty (R)), one Independent judge appointed to the bench by former Gov. Jesse Ventura, and a fourth county judge who may be a Democrat or an Independent (we don't know because it was a non-partisan election).

Needless to say, the Journal doesn't mention this, but hints at it in this feeble excuse, claiming that the rest of the canvassing board has been "meek" in the face of Ritchie's "machinations."

The January 5 Journal editorial stated:

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted onl