Myths and falsehoods about the Sestak and Romanoff controversies

From Media Matters Research department: Media Matters for America has compiled a list of the myths and falsehoods about the White House's conversations with Democratic Senate candidates Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff concerning those candidates taking positions in the administration.

Myth: Romanoff was offered a job to exit Senate race

CLAIM: White House "involved in a controversial job offer" to get Romanoff to drop out of CO race. Right-wing media -- including Fox News' Gretchen Carlson and Sean Hannity -- have falsely claimed that the White House offered Romanoff a job in exchange for dropping out of Colorado's U.S. Senate election. For example, on the June 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Carlson called Romanoff "another candidate for U.S. Senate involved in a controversial job offer by the White House" after "A new report says the White House offered him a job within the administration if he decided he would not run."

REALITY: Both Romanoff and the White House deny that a job was offered. Both Romanoff and the White House have stated that at no point was a job offered to Romanoff. They have said that a White House aide listed positions that could be available to Romanoff were he not running for office -- one of which Romanoff had previously applied for -- but said that he could not guarantee that Romanoff would receive the position.

FACT: Romanoff stated "At no time was I promised a job." According to The Associated Press, Romanoff said in a statement that Messina contacted him and "suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race" but that Messina "could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions." Romanoff also reportedly stated: "At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina's assistance in obtaining one."

FACT: White House stated that "there was no offer of a job," and Messina was, in part, following up on a job application Romanoff had submitted. According to the AP article, White House official Bill Burton said: "Mr. Romanoff was recommended to the White House from Democrats in Colorado for a position in the administration. ... There were some initial conversations with him, but no job was ever offered." On June 3, the White House released a statement noting that Romanoff "applied for a position at USAID during the Presidential transition" and later "followed up by phone with White House personnel." The statement added that "Messina called and emailed Romanoff last September to see if he was still interested in a position at USAID, or if, as had been reported, he was running for the US Senate." The White House further noted, "As Mr. Romanoff has stated, there was no offer of a job."

Myth: White House committed a crime during Romanoff conversations

CLAIM: White House conversations with Romanoff violated 18 U.S.C. § 600. Right-wing bloggers have suggested that the White House's discussions with Romanoff were in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 600, a federal statute that governs the "promise of employment or other benefit for political activity."

REALITY: Bush ethics advisor repudiated claim that Romanoff discussions were illegal, and legal experts have denied the statute applies in similar cases. Richard Painter, former White House ethics advisor to President Bush, has said that it is a "real stretch" to say the White House's conversations with Romanoff violated the law. Moreover, in analyzing the Sestak case, legal experts have repudiated the claim that 18 U.S.C. § 600 applies even in cases where a job offer was actually made.

FACT: Bush ethics adviser Painter: "a real stretch" to say White House actions violated law. In a June 3 article, the Huffington Post reported of the Romanoff story:

And yet, on the most fundamental question -- whether laws, in fact, were broken -- it remains a non-story. At least according to the chief ethics lawyer for the Bush administration.

"I don't think it violates government ethics," said Richard Painter, now a professor of law at University of Minnesota. "I don't think it's fair for the voters for the White House to intentionally try to take someone out of the running... I don't like it. But does it violate government ethic rules or the Hatch Act? That's a real stretch, and if the bribery statute's off the table, that doesn't work at all."

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Painter said that the while the floating of three administration positions to Colorado Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff is objectionable in obvious ways, claims that it violated the law are baseless. For starters, if Romanoff had taken the position, he would have effectively been prohibited from running for office. The federal government may have affected the course of the campaign by offering him the post. But it didn't meddle in the campaign itself (an important legal distinction).

"The problem with the so-called bribery theory, or quid pro quo theory, is that automatically if you take those jobs, any full-time government job, you're prohibited from running for public office under the Hatch Act," said Painter. "So it's a necessary position subsequent to taking the job... you have to withdraw from the Senate race. So I don't see how you could describe that as a quid pro quo at all."

FACT: Law professor Hasen: "I can't find a case" where statute "has ever been applied in this way." Discussing 18 U.S.C. § 600, Hasen stated on Fox News' On the Record:

HASEN: I went back and looked at this Section 600, the one that says about these job offers. That seems to be a statute that's really aimed at preventing patronage appointments. That is, you know, giving people who have done political favors for you jobs where they make money. I can't find a case where it's ever been applied in this way, and I think there are some good reasons why it probably shouldn't be. What we have here, really, is a political deal. It's a deal to say in order to strengthen the party, one of the two people competing should step aside. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time, and it's the kind of thing that probably is not what the statute was really designed to prevent.

FACT: CREW's Sloan said criminal allegations based on this interpretation of law are "ludicrous." In a May 27 blog post, NBC News' Mark Murray reported:

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that criminal allegations in the Sestak case are "ludicrous." She points out that there has never been a prosecution under the 1972 law cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans. "There's no definition of 'political activity' within the law," she said. "It's really not a very well-written statute."

FACT: The Atlantic's Ambinder said "law has never been used to criminalize low-level political horsetrading." In a June 3 post, The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wrote: "The letter of federal law is designed to prevent direct quid-pro-quo situations where financial incentives are in lay and protect the rival politician from harm should he or she decide to make a decision that goes against the wishes of the powerful executive branch. But that law has never been used to criminalize low-level political horsetrading." Ambinder further wrote:

This is the reason why ethics lawyers can read the text of the statutes, which seem to be clear, and conclude that no prosecutor in his or her right mind would ever bring a case against a White House for doing what the Obama White House did. However, since the Obama White House holds itself as an avatar of ethical excellence, it might have to hold itself to a higher standard than other White Houses. That is an optical problem, not a legal one.

Myth: White House previously "lie[d]" about Romanoff discussions

CLAIM: White House statement that Romanoff "was never offered a position" is a "lie." In a June 2 HotAir.com post, AllahPundit stated: "The news here isn't that Andrew Romanoff was offered a job to help clear the way for Michael Bennet in the Senate primary; the Denver Post reported that allllll the way back in September of last year, citing multiple sources in the state Democratic leadership. The news is that the White House denied it at the time and that unnamed "administration officials" are formally un-denying it now." AllahPundit then cited a White House spokesman's September 2009 comment that "Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration," and commented, "That was the lie, and now comes the truth."

REALITY: White House has consistently said no job was offered, a statement supported by Romanoff's comments. In September 2009, a White House spokesman stated that Romanoff "was never offered a position within the administration." That is consistent with both Romanoff's June 2 statement that he was not "promised a job" by the White House and the administration's June 3 statement that "there was no offer of a job."

Myth: Romanoff is a "liar" for prior comments about WH discussions

CLAIM: Romanoff is a "liar" for previously saying "he never received an offer." In a June 2 post on Romanoff's statement that day as reported by the Denver Post, HotAir.com's AllahPundit wrote: "The Denver Post was strikingly silent about the job offer after their big scoop last year -- until today, when the editorial page declared that it was time for both sides to come clean. (Romanoff told them "unequivocally" that he never received any offer, so now we know he's a liar too.)"

REALITY: Romanoff has consistently said he was not offered a job, a statement supported by the White House's comments. The June 2 Denver Post editorial to which AllahPundit links states that Romanoff "told us unequivocally" in September 2009 "that he had not been offered a position" in the Obama administration. That is consistent with his June 2 statement that Messina "could not guarantee my appointment to any of" the positions they discussed and that "[a]t no time was I promised a job," as well as the White House's statement that "there was no offer of a job."

Myth: Sestak offer violated federal law

CLAIM: White House offer of a panel position to Sestak if he didn't enter Senate race was illegal. Numerous right-wing media figures have suggested that the White House's offer to Sestak of a position on a presidential panel if he did not enter the Pennsylvania Senate primary constituted a violation of the law or even an "impeachable offense."

REALITY: Legal experts have denied that a crime was committed. Numerous legal experts have assessed the Sestak case and concluded that no law was broken. For example:

• Former Justice Department senior attorney Cooper: Allegations don't "sound to me as the sort of thing that any reasonable prosecutor would view as criminal." A May 28 Huffington Post article reported that James Cooper -- formerly a "senior Justice Department attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, where he was the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division" -- stated of the allegations:

"I have seen the White House description of what occurred. ... Certainly, as described, it does not sound to me as the sort of thing that any reasonable prosecutor would view as criminal. It seems to me that this is the political process at work... I don't understand as a legal matter how a prosecutor could sustain a case charging either party in this matter. I don't know of any precedent off the top of my head for anybody being prosecuted in this context."

• Former public corruption prosecutor Bunnell: "I don't see anything criminal about what happened." Huffington Post further reported:

"I looked through it," Steve Bunnell of the firm O'Melveny & Myers, said of the job-offering related document released by the White House on Friday. "I don't see anything criminal about what happened. Basically you are talking about political horse-trading, which strikes me as an inherent part of democracy. There is nothing inherently bad about it unless you think politics and democracy are bad."

Formerly the Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Bunnell has no shortage of exposure with public corruption cases. The Sestak scandal not only passes the smell test, it doesn't really smell, he said. Bunnell isn't alone in his reading of the issue's legal underpinnings.

[...]

Bunnell, for one, noted the firing of U.S. Attorneys during the Bush years, in which officials were dismissed ostensibly for the purpose of benefiting Republican congressional candidates. Compared to that, he added, the Sestak saga "looks silly."

"It may be bad government in some context," he said, "but other then entering an election season, I don't understand what the big deal is."

• Law professor Lowenstein: Situation is "viewed as politics as usual," not something subject to criminal prosecution. In a May 27 blog post, NBC News' Mark Murray reported: " 'As a general matter, this kind of situation is viewed as politics as usual,' added Professor Daniel Lowenstein of UCLA Law School. 'It's just not the kind of the thing that is usually dealt with in a criminal prosecution.' "

• Justice Department Public Integrity lawyer Zeidenberg: "Horrible precedent" to treat "horsetrading" "in the criminal context." In a May 25 post, Talking Points Media's Zachary Roth quoted Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor with the Justice Department's Public Integrity unit, saying "Talk about criminalizing the political process!... It would be horrible precedent if what really truly is political horsetrading were viewed in the criminal context of: is this a corrupt bribe?"

Myth: Sestak offer violated bribery statute

CLAIM: Sestak offer constitutes an illegal "bribe." Right-wing media have repeatedly claimed the White House attempted to "bribe" Sestak. For example, on the May 26 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity said, "news of the White House's alleged attempt to bribe Congressman Joe Sestak into dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race has lingered in the public for four months now and the longer it does so the more bizarre it becomes." Later on the same program, Hannity stated of the offer, "I believe this is a bribe."

REALITY: Legal experts have repudiated idea that the Sestak offer violated the federal bribery statute. For example:

• Painter: Job offer "is hardly a 'bribe.' " In a May 24 blog post, former Bush ethics advisor Painter wrote:

The allegation that the job offer was somehow a "bribe" in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support. Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary. The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3). He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both.

The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter's way, but this also is nothing new. Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President's political party. Many are candidates or are considering candidacy in primaries. White House political operatives don't like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders. For the White House, this is usually a "win-win" situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch. This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying "no". The job offer, however, is hardly a "bribe" when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive.

• Sloan: "There's no bribery case here." Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth reported in a May 25 post that Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor and the executive director of watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, had said of the Sestak offer, "There is no bribery case here... No statute has ever been used to prosecute anybody for bribery in circumstances like this." Likewise, in a May 28 MSNBC appearance, Sloan stated that "bribery is a tough case to prove. You need an official act in exchange for a thing of value. You just don't have that case here." She added: "Mr. Sestak didn't have any kind of official act to trade. Not running for Congress, not running for Senate, can't be an official act, which is the kind of thing he would have to exchange for that thing of value."
• Fox's Kelly: "most people don't even think" bribery statute "is even potentially relevant." Discussing conservative claims that the Sestak offer may have violated the law, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly said, "There's a separate statute for bribery, which most people don't think is even potentially relevant."

Myth: Sestak offer violated law banning "promise of employment... for political activity"

CLAIM: Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 600. Conservative media figures have repeatedly claimed the Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 600, which bans the promise of "any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress" in exchange for "any political activity."

REALITY: Legal experts have rebutted the claim that the Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 600. For example:

• Bush ethics lawyer Painter: "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied" to this case. In a May 28 post, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported of his interview that day with former Bush administration chief ethics lawyer Richard Painter:

Painter also took issue with the notion that the version of events aired by the White House today could in any way be illegal. Republicans point to a Federal statute that prohibits any promises of "employment" as a "reward for any political activity."

But Painter says applying this to the Sestak situation is a big stretch. He argued that the sort of "political activity" referred to in the statute concerns political activity you might do for someone else, not actions you might take on your own behalf, such as dropping out of a race.

For instance, he said, this statute prevents things like the offer of a job to someone in exchange for their support for a particular candidate. "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to a candidate's own decision on whether to run in an election," Painter said.

"Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it's even more apparent that this is a non issue," Painter said. "No scandal. Time to move on."

• Law professor Hasen: "I can't find a case" where statute "has ever been applied in this way." Discussing 18 U.S.C. § 600, Hasen stated:

HASEN: I went back and looked at this Section 600, the one that says about these job offers. That seems to be a statute that's really aimed at preventing patronage appointments. That is, you know, giving people who have done political favors for you jobs where they make money. I can't find a case where it's ever been applied in this way, and I think there are some good reasons why it probably shouldn't be. What we have here, really, is a political deal. It's a deal to say in order to strengthen the party, one of the two people competing should step aside. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time, and it's the kind of thing that probably is not what the statute was really designed to prevent.

• Bush AG Mukasey: Based on White House and Sestak statements, offer "doesn't violate the statute." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' America Live, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that it is "highly questionable there was a crime," adding that positions covered under 18 U.S.C. § 600 have to be "made possible, in whole or in part, by an act of Congress. In other words, it has to be a position that was created by an act of Congress or somehow partially created by an act of Congress. If it's not, then it doesn't violate the statute."

• CREW's Sloan: criminal allegations based on this interpretation of law are "ludicrous." In a May 27 blog post, NBC News' Mark Murray reported:

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that criminal allegations in the Sestak case are "ludicrous." She points out that there has never been a prosecution under the 1972 law cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans. "There's no definition of 'political activity' within the law," she said. "It's really not a very well-written statute."

Myth: Sestak offer violated laws on offers or solicitations to obtain office

CLAIM: Sestak offer was a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 210 and 211. Right-wing media have repeatedly stated that the Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 210, which bans a promise of a "thing of value... in consideration of the use or promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office," and 18 U.S.C. § 211, which bans the solicitation or reception of such a "thing of value."

REALITY: Legal experts have denied the contention that the Sestak offer violated these statutes. For example:

• Ethics attorney Stan Brand: Job offer does not constitute "something of value." May 27 Mother Jones article discussed Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-CA) allegation the Sestak offer had violated three statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 211 a crime has been committed and quoted Stan Brand, a Washington, D.C., ethics attorney, responding that the claim was "far-fetched." Mother Jones further reported:

Those laws, Brand explains, were designed to deal with coercion, fraud, and vote-buying, not "the rough and tumble of political horse-trading." Promising someone a job, he adds, is not the same as exchanging "money or something of value." Moreover, he notes, there have never been any prosecutions of the sort Issa contemplates in this instance.

"This is a nice political ploy," Brand says. "But it has no legal substance. The president can promise Sestak the moon for a political reason. That's the system."

• Sloan: Sestak not running for Senate "offers no monetary value." On MSNBC, Sloan stated: "Mr. Sestak didn't have any kind of official act to trade. Not running for Congress, not running for Senate, can't be an official act, which is the kind of thing he would have to exchange for that thing of value." Likewise, in an interview with CNS News, Sloan reportedly stated, "A quid pro quo has to offer something of value in exchange for something... If you agree not to run for the Senate and we'll make you secretary of the Navy -- that offers no monetary value. It's just the unseemly side of politics."

Myth: Sestak offer violated law governing political "interference" by federal employees

CLAIM: Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 595. On the May 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report, political analyst Karl Rove asserted that the in making the Sestak offer, the Obama administration may have violated "18 U.S.C. 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering, a government employee, interfering with the nomination or election for office."

REALITY: Bush attorney general Mukasey said that analysis "really is a stretch." On the May 28 America Live, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey said it "really is a stretch" to claim the offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 595, adding, "I think that it would have to be something much more direct than what we have here in order for it to violate the statute. I mean, understand that politics is practiced in a variety of ways, including by suggesting to people that there are things that they might better do with their careers than what they intend to do."

Myth: Sestak offer violated Hatch Act

CLAIM: Obama administration officials violated the Hatch Act with Sestak offer. Right-wing media have stated that Sestak offer violated the Hatch Act, which "restricts the political activity of individuals principally employed by state or local executive agencies and who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants."

REALITY: Legal expert Hasen denied Hatch Act applies to case. Asked whether the Hatch Act is relevant to this instance, Hasen stated:

HASEN: Well, you know, I haven't heard -- if you look at letter the Republican senators from the Judiciary Committee sent to Attorney General Holder asking for an investigation, they didn't cite the Hatch Act generally, it cited the Section 600, and I think there's a good reason for that. When you have the president of a particular party, the president is really the head of that party, and the president and the administration, they really wear two hats. This is true whether you're talking about Republican or Democratic administrations. That is, they have the political side, and they have their job as executive. And so long as they take steps to make sure that the two are not mixed -- for example, using government offices or using government resources to further political goals -- that's really been an accepted part of politics for a long time.

Myth: Sestak offer was unusual

CLAIM: Sestak offer was outside the bounds of normal politics. In claiming that the Sestak job offer was illegal, conservative media figures have suggested that the offer was not one typically made in politics.

REALITY: Political and legal experts, historians, have noted that the offer was not unusual. For example:

• AP: "Ethics attorneys in Washington said such offers are common." A February 19 Associated Press article about the Sestak offer reported: "Ethics attorneys in Washington said such offers are common. Melanie Sloan, director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, described it as 'politics as usual.' "

• Bush political director Kaufman: "Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington." The New York Times reported that Ron Kaufman, who served as President George H.W. Bush's White House political director, "said it would not be surprising for a White House to use political appointments to accomplish a political goal. 'Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington,' Mr. Kaufman said."

• Political expert Sabato: Sestak allegations "trivial," "garden-variety politics." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' Your World, University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato called the allegations "garden-variety politics" and "absolutely trivial." He added, "Let's stop criminalizing garden-variety politics, which is what this is." Asked whether the offer gives him the "heebie-jeebies," Cavuto replied, "No," adding, "this is the way politics operates," and, "it seems to me that they're guilty of practicing politics, period, full stop."

• Historian Russell Riley: "It is completely unexceptional." On May 27, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reported, "As the Republican Party works itself into a lather over the Obama administration's offer of a job to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn) in exchange for him not entering the Pennsylvania Senate primary, seasoned political observers, historians, and lawyers are responding with veritable yawns."

• Historian George Edwards: "All this is old news historically." Stein further reported, "George Edwards, a Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M University, says: 'There is no question whatsoever that presidents have often offered people positions to encourage them not to do something or make it awkward for them to do it. Presidents have also offered people back-ups if they ran for an office and lost. All this is old news historically.' "

• Political expert Ornstein: "Such offers are nearly routine across every administration." In a May 28 blog post, American Enterprise Institute scholar Norman Ornstein commented that he was "struck -- and bemused -- by the kerfluffle over the job offer by the Obama administration to Joe Sestak," and stated:

Why am I struck and bemused? Because to any veteran of the political process, such offers are nearly routine across every administration. If what the Obama administration did was impeachable, then Rep. [Darrell] Issa [R-CA] might want to consider retroactive impeachment action against Ronald Reagan, whose White House directly suggested to S.I. Hayakawa that he would get an administration position if he would stay out of the Republican primary for Senate in California; or call for an investigation and special prosecutor of the Bush White House for discussing a Cabinet post with Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska to clear the field for their preferred Republican candidate Mike Johanns in 2006. At the same time, Issa might want to call for expulsion of his Senate colleague Judd Gregg, who insisted before he accepted the post of Commerce Secretary in the Obama administration that there be a guarantee that his successor, appointed by a Democratic governor, be a Republican.

Myth: Sestak was offered position of Secretary of the Navy

CLAIM: There may have been "another conversation" in which Sestak "was offered secretary of the navy." On the June 2 edition of Hannity -- after White House counsel Bob Bauer's May 28 statement that "At no time was Congressman Sestak offered, nor did he seek, the position of Secretary of the Navy," but was instead asked whether he "would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board -- Rudy Giuliani stated, "the question is, was it Bill Clinton's -- was there another conversation which he was offered secretary of the Navy? Which is what everybody believes he was offered."

REALITY: Administration had already nominated a secretary of Navy before they would have wanted Sestak out of the Senate race. As Washington Post's David Weigel noted:

On March 27, 2009, the administration nominated Ray Mabus as secretary of the Navy. It wasn't until April 28 that [Sen. Arlen] Specter became a Democrat, and by Sestak's own recollection, he was literally being courted to run the day that news broke. On May 18, the Senate confirmed Mabus. And on May 29, Sestak entered the Senate race.

It's pretty clear that if Sestak was offered a job, it wasn't secretary of the Navy.

Myth: Sestak and Romanoff discussions analogous to Blagojevich allegations

CLAIM: Romanoff, Sestak, and Blagojevich situations "eerily similar." On the May 28 edition of his Fox News program, while discussing the Sestak offer, Hannity said that "We have a governor, former governor in Illinois, who's being prosecuted for trying to get something of value for a Senate seat." He then referenced the Romanoff cases. Later in the program, he said the Sestak and Romanoff instances were "eerily similar" to the allegations against former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

REALITY: Blagojevich allegedly tried to sell a Senate appointment for money. Blagojevich is on trial on numerous allegations with a possible sentence of 20 years in prison. Blagojevich allegedly tried to sell a Senate appointment for cash or other personal benefits, specifically:

• A substantial salary for himself at a either a non-profit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions.
• Placing his wife on paid corporate boards where he speculated she might garner as much as $150,000 a year.
• Promises of campaign funds -- including cash up front.
• A cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself.

No such allegations have been levied with regard to the Sestak and Romanoff controversies.

M.C.L comment: If there's one thing I love about my counterparts on the right is that they don't let little things like hypocrisy get in the way of a old fashion right wing whine feast. During the eight year tenure of the Bush presidency you had whores from Sean Hannity to Rush Limbaugh defending every illegal action that went on with that White House. I've always said George W. Bush could put a cat in a microwave to blow it up and then giggle like a school girl on national tv Sean Hannity would be on the air that night defending it.

Let's be honest here they don't care if someone in the Obama white house was trying to get Joe Sestak to dropped out of the Democratic primary vs Arlen Specter with a offer to a cabinet position or something higher. The Republicans and their whores in the right wing media need to create any type of scandal to hang on this president because the only people who are believing their attacks are the racists that make up the tea party.

O’Reilly: US won’t run gay ad; Does McDonalds have Qaeda ad, too?

By Ron Brynaert

Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly insists that there is absolutely no way that a gay-themed McDonalds ad -- that has gone viral -- would ever run in America.

As Huffington Post noted on Monday, "McDonald's has released an ad in France welcoming gay people to their restaurants. The spot is titled 'Come as you are,' and shows a young gay man eating in a McDonald's with his father, who doesn't know his son is gay."

Nicholas Graham blogged, "It's commendable of McDonald's to display their inclusiveness, but it's unclear why they felt the need to air such an ad at all. Were French gay people previously feeling unwelcome in McDonald's?"

A commenter at the Think Progress affiliated Ygleisas blog asked, "Were gay folks waiting for permission?"

Wednesday night, Fox News Channel's daytime anchor Jane Skinner explained on The O'Reilly Factor that Nathalie Legarlantezec, the Brand Director for McDonalds in France, had issued the following statement: "We wanted to show society the way it is today, without judging. There’s obviously no problem with homosexuality in France today.”

A Queerty blogger observed, "Bill O'Reilly isn't a stupid man, and he knows that all food advertising isn't about making your salivate."

Sometimes it's about making you feel welcome, which is what McDonald's gay ad in France was trying to accomplish. But of course this is a "political" ad, so let's jump into crazytown with Bill's rhetorical question, "Do they have an Al Qaeda ad?" No, but there is an Iranian one.

"It'll never run in the USA," O'Reilly declared.

Skinner asked, "How do you know it's not coming to the states? Never say never."

O'Reilly then got serious, raised his finger in the air, and shook his head: "No, I guarantee you that will not run here."

This video is from Fox News' O'Reilly Factor, broadcast June 2, 2010.

BP Forced Clean-Up Workers To Sign Contract Forbidding Them From Talking With Media

By Amanda Terkel

In recent weeks, journalists from CBS News, Mother Jones, the New York Daily News, and other media outlets have been reporting that BP has blocked them from photographing the dead animals and environmental degradation on the Gulf Coast as a result of the company’s oil spill. BP and the U.S. Coast Guard, however, have insisted that there are no restrictions on coverage:

Neither BP nor the U.S. Coast Guard, who are responding to the spill, have any rules in place that would prohibit media access to impacted areas and we were disappointed to hear of this incident. In fact, media has been actively embedded and allowed to cover response efforts since this response began, with more than 400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date. Just today 16 members of the press observed clean-up operations on a vessel out of Venice, La. The only time anyone would be asked to move from an area would be if there were safety concerns, or they were interfering with response operations.

The Coast Guard might not have any prohibitions now, but BP sure tried. Powering a Nation, a student journalism initiative sponsored by the Carnegie and Knight Foundations, has obtained a contract BP made with local boat operators helping with the clean-up sign that explicitly barred them from talking to the media:

The contract included a clause prohibiting them and their deckhands from making “news releases, marketing presentation, or any other public statements” while working on the clean-up. It also included an additional section titled “Agreement Regarding Proprietary and Confidential Information,” which states that workers cannot disclose “Data” gathered while on the job, including “plans,” “reports,” “information” and “etc.”

Here are the relevant sections of the contract:

On May 24, however, someone named Tommy G. Mayet sent a letter, “on behalf of BP America Production Company,” to Vessel Opportunity Program members, informing them that Article 22 and Paragraph 5 (as well as other sections) had been deleted from the original contract because of a lawsuit. Nevertheless, the original contract has had a chilling effect on many fishermen, who remain nervous about talking to journalists. “Ultimately, BP is not directly limiting media contact,” writes the Powering a Nation reporters, “but the contract added more uncertainty on top of what the fishermen are already experiencing.”

Recently, a BP contract frustrated with the oil company’s cover-up surreptitiously escorted a New York Daily News crew around some of the affected sites, allowing them to observe a shore “littered with tarred marine life, some dead and others struggling under a thick coating of crud.” “There is a lot of coverup for BP,” said the contractor. “They specifically informed us that they don’t want these pictures of the dead animals. They know the ocean will wipe away most of the evidence.”

Beck Blames One Of Fox News’ Largest Shareholders, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, For 9/11

By Lee Fang On his television program this afternoon, Glenn Beck declared that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the largest stockholder of Fox News outside of the Rupert Murdoch family, “flew … the plane into the trade centers.” Beck started his rant as a defense of Israel’s actions against the aid flotilla to Gaza, but eventually began hypothesizing about if a similar flotilla was sent to Manhattan by Saudi Arabia. Beck said this had already happened essentially, when Prince Alwaleed offered $10 million dollars to then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Beck repeatedly burst into moral outrage, demanding why people are held “to a different standard” and why the media refused to be “consistent” with its reporting. Of course, during his monologue, Beck never mentioned that the very Saudi Prince Beck accused of being behind the 9/11 attacks is a close friend of his own boss, Rupert Murdoch, or that Beck’s employment at Fox News is financed by that same Prince. Without a tinge of irony in his voice, Beck implored his listeners not to trust any offering of money from Prince Alwaleed, despite the fact his own salary depends on him:

BECK: Didn’t we almost kind of do that? Do you remember what happened right after 9/11 with Rudy Giuliani? Do you remember Saudi Arabia came and said, we want to help. This guy [pointing at Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud] came over and said ‘I want to give you a $10 million dollar check.’ Rudy Giuliani said, you see that over there? I don’t think we want your help. You already sent us help. And you flew that help into the plane, into the the trade centers. The same prince later blamed the U.S. policy for the attacks. Giuliani said, take your check, we don’t want your money. There is no way America, that if it was us, that we would allow that to happen. Why do we hold people to a different standard? [...]

BECK: We answered this question on the beating. We just have to be consistent.

Watch it:

Prince Alwaleed has grown close with the Murdoch enterprise, recently endorsing James Murdoch to succeed his father and creating a content-sharing agreement with Fox News for his own media conglomerate, Rotana. As ThinkProgress has reported, many conservative activists have been enraged at Fox News for allowing Prince Alwaleed to dictate its content. For instance, Prince Alwaleed had boasted in the past about forcing Fox News to change its content relating to its coverage of riots in Paris. Curiously, Fox News has also rejected television ads criticizing America’s dependence on Middle East oil, a source of wealth for the Prince Alwaleed family.

Glenn Beck's long history of vicious personal attacks

From Media Matters Research:

Glenn Beck apologized for his attack on President Obama's daughter by stating that he hopes it represents his "bottom." But Beck's attack was hardly out of character, as he has frequently resorted to vicious personal attacks against his perceived enemies and their families.

Beck on attack on President Obama's daughter: "I hope that's my bottom"

Beck adds, "I asked myself, how could it have happened?" On the June 1 edition of his Fox News program, Beck addressed comments he made on his May 28 radio show attacking President Obama's 11-year old daughter. After falsely claiming that he has "never" before dragged "someone's family into the debate," Beck said that he hoped the attack is "my bottom. All Friday, I asked myself, how could it have happened?"

Beck has a long history of resorting to "vicious personal assaults"

Beck reportedly ridiculed rival's wife for having a miscarriage. Salon.com's Alexander Zaitchik quoted a former Beck colleague describing an incident in which Beck was outraged over a rival radio host criticizing a Beck gag. Beck reportedly responded by calling the rival host's wife on air and ridiculing her for having a miscarriage:

The animosity between Beck and Kelly continued to deepen. When Beck and Hattrick produced a local version of Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" for Halloween -- a recurring motif in Beck's life and career -- Kelly told a local reporter that the bit was a stupid rip-off of a syndicated gag. The slight outraged Beck, who got his revenge with what may rank as one of the cruelest bits in the history of morning radio. "A couple days after Kelly's wife, Terry, had a miscarriage, Beck called her live on the air and says, 'We hear you had a miscarriage,' " remembers Brad Miller, a former Y95 DJ and Clear Channel programmer. "When Terry said, 'Yes,' Beck proceeded to joke about how Bruce [Kelly] apparently can't do anything right -- about he can't even have a baby."

"It was low class," says Miller, now president of Open Stream Broadcasting. "There are certain places you just don't go."

"Beck turned Y95 into a guerrilla station," says Kelly. "It was an example of the zoo thing getting out of control. It became just about pissing people off, part of the culture shift that gave us 'Jackass.'" Among those who were appalled by Beck's prank call was Beck's own wife, Claire, who had been friends with Kelly's wife since the two worked together at WPGC.

Beck reportedly called Michael Schiavo a "murderer" who sired two "bastard" children. According to Zaitchik, as documented in his book Common Nonsense, Beck originally "sided with Michael Schiavo" during the Terry Schiavo controversy, going so far as to make "light of Terry's condition." Zaitchik wrote that Beck eventually turned on Michael Schiavo and declared him a "murderer" who had sired two "bastard" children. From Common Nonsense (Pages 72-73):

Shortly before Beck arrived at WFLA in January 2000, the Schiavo story had received a boost when Michael Schiavo took his petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Florida. During Beck's first year on the air, before finding his conservative voice, Beck not only sided with Michael Schiavo but actually made light of Terry's condition. Years later, Beck would describe a Schiavo-themed gag he had produced as "probably the most insensitive bit of all time."

In the early spring of 2001, Michael Schiavo succeeded in his efforts to have the feeding tube removed. By then, Beck had become a partisan. This time he sided forcefully with Terry Schiavo's parents. "After the recount, Beck felt an obligation to do a more serious conservative show," says a former colleague. "Schiavo was an early test."

Beck's idea of doing a serious show involved broadcasting live near Schiavo's hospital bed. He dove into a media circus that included everything from protesting biblical jugglers on unicycles to satellite vans from the major networks. Beck hosted Schiavo's parents on his show and sharpened his personal attacks on Michael Schiavo. Terry's husband, he declared, was a "murderer" who had remarried and sired two young "bastard" children.

Beck's local nemesis on the issue was a liberal Tampa Tribune columnist named Daniel Ruth. Ruth hosted a Saturday afternoon talk show on Beck's station, WFLA. As so often happens with Beck, what began as a political disagreement soon turned viciously personal. Beck accused both Daniel Ruth and Michael Schiavo of "attempted murder." During one show, Beck suggested that he'd like to "murder" Ruth in response to his columns. Beck even gave out Ruth's personal phone number, office address, and e-mail address on the air.

Beck mocked Obama daughters' "level of education." As previously noted, on the May 28 edition of his radio program, Beck mocked President Obama's daughters during an exchange with co-host Pat Gray:

BECK: (laughing) This is such a ridiculous -- this is such a ridiculous thing that his daughter -- (imitating Malia) Daddy?

GRAY: It's so stupid.

BECK: How old is his daughter? Like, 13?

GRAY: Well, one of them's, I think, 13, one's 11, or something.

BECK: "Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?" Is that's their -- that's the level of their education, that they're coming to -- they're coming to daddy and saying 'Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?' " Plug the hole!

Beck mocked Obama's aunt's limp. During the April 2, 2009, edition of his Fox News show, Beck discussed Obama's aunt's visa status and stated, "Obama's aunt, you know -- and I took this cane from her earlier. I -- it's like little Tiny Tim. Oh, I'd like more, please, please. God bless us, every one.' She has a limp, didn't you know that? She should be able to stay."

Beck listed people he'd like to "beat to death with a shovel." As documented by Daily Kos' Jed Lewison, during the March 9, 2001, edition of his radio program, Beck enumerated the various people he'd "like to beat to death with a shovel," including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). During the show, Beck also said: "How many people have I said, 'Let's kill with a shovel, huh?' How many people have I said, 'Let's line 'em up and shoot 'em in the head?' I think quite a few."

Beck attacked Katrina victims as "scumbags," adding: "I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims." On the September 9, 2005, broadcast of his radio program, Beck stated of Hurricane Katrina victims who remained in New Orleans: "And that's all we're hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones that we're seeing on television are the scumbags -- and again, it's not all the people in New Orleans. Most of the people in New Orleans got out! It's just a small percentage of those who were left in New Orleans, or who decided to stay in New Orleans, and they're getting all the attention."

Beck also stated: "[T]his is horrible to say, and I wonder if I'm alone in this -- you know, it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year. And I had such compassion for them, and I really wanted to help them, and I was behind, you know, 'Let's give them money, let's get this started.' All of this stuff. And I really didn't -- of the 3,000 victims' families, I don't hate all of them. Probably about 10 of them. And when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them. And, again, it's only about 10."

Beck's radio station reportedly apologized for Beck and sidekick Pat Gray "mocking Asians." As reported by the Hartford Courant on October, 20, 1995, the New Haven-based radio station WKCI-FM, which employed Beck, apologized for "broadcasting a sketch that offended Asian Americans and for ridiculing a man who called to complain":

Under pressure from activist groups, a New Haven-area radio station agreed Thursday to apologize for broadcasting a sketch that offended Asian Americans and for ridiculing a man who called to complain.

The agreement with New Haven- based WKCI-FM was called an important victory by a coalition of four Asian-American groups, which represent one of Connecticut's smallest but quickly growing ethnic groups.

The negotiations between the station and the groups began as the result of a call to the station in August from Zhihan Tong, a 28-year- old computer network technician.

Tong was driving from his New Haven-area home to his job in Danbury when he tuned in to the station, commonly known as KC101, for a traffic report.

Instead, he heard Alf Papineau, the morning show's executive producer, pretending to speak Chinese to a bewildered Asian-American owner of a Chinese restaurant supposedly for sale. The piece was a canned segment. Neither the restaurant nor the owner was real; they existed only as taped dialogue from a comedy service subscribed to by the station.

When Tong telephoned WKCI- FM to protest the broadcast as a racial slur, disc jockeys Glenn Beck and Pat Grey made fun of him. The two played a gong in the background several times, and Papineau, the executive producer, mocked a Chinese accent.

Beck reportedly resorted to "vicious personal assaults" on overweight rival host in Louisville. Reporting on Beck's "vicious personal assaults on fellow radio hosts," Zaitchik quoted a colleague of a former Beck rival discussing Beck's "exceedingly cruel, pointless" "fat jokes" aimed at rival host Liz Curtis:

Beck's real broadcasting innovation during his stay in Kentucky came in the realm of vicious personal assaults on fellow radio hosts. A frequent target of Beck's in Louisville was Liz Curtis, obese host of an afternoon advice show on WHAS, a local AM news-talk station. It was no secret in Louisville that Curtis, whom Beck had never met and with whom he did not compete for ratings, was overweight. And Beck never let anyone forget it. For two years, he used "the big blonde" as fodder for drive-time fat jokes, often employing Godzilla sound effects to simulate Curtis walking across the city or crushing a rocking chair. Days before Curtis' marriage, Beck penned a skit featuring a stolen menu card for the wedding reception. "The caterer says that instead of throwing rice after the ceremony, they are going to throw hot, buttered popcorn," explains Beck's fictional spy.

Despite the constant goading, Curtis never responded. But being ignored only seemed to fuel Beck's hunger for a response. As his attacks escalated and grew more unhinged, a WHAS colleague of Curtis' named Terry Meiners decided to intervene. He appeared one morning unannounced at Beck's small office, which was filled with plaques, letters and news clippings -- "a shrine to all that is Glenn Beck," remembers Meiners. He told Beck to lay off Curtis, suggesting he instead attack a morning DJ like himself, who could return fire. "Beck told me, 'Sorry, all's fair in love and war,'" remembers Meiners. "He continued with the fat jokes, which were exceedingly cruel, pointless, and aimed at one of the nicest people in radio. Glenn Beck was over-the-top childish from Day One, a punk who tried to make a name for himself by being disruptive and vengeful."

Beck talked about "put[ting] poison" in Pelosi's wine. On the August 6, 2009, edition of this Fox News show, Beck stated:

BECK: So, Speaker Pelosi, I just wanted to -- you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind? Do those eyes not work? There you -- I want you to drink it now. Drink it. Drink it. Drink it.

I really just wanted to thank you for having me over here to wine country. You know, to be invited, I thought I had to be a major Democratic donor or a longtime friend of yours, which I'm not.

By the way, I put poison in your -- no, I -- I look forward to all the policy discussions that we're supposed to have -- you know, on health care, energy reform, and the economy.

Beck has also repeatedly launched personal attacks against Pelosi's looks.

Beck on Hillary Clinton: "She's the stereotypical bitch." On the March 17, 2007, edition of his radio program, Beck claimed that "Hillary Clinton cannot be elected president because ... there's something about her vocal range." Beck went on to comment that "she's the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?"

Beck mimed Hillary Clinton shaving her face. On the December 17, 2007, edition of his CNN Headline News show, after the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Chris Horner referenced senators "who see a president in the mirror when they shave in the morning," Beck asked: "OK. Does that include Hillary? Does she shave? ... Does that include Hillary? Does she -- I mean, she -- she shaves her legs. I'm just saying." After Horner said, "Now who's being naïve?" Beck -- while jutting out his lower jaw and miming shaving his face -- said: "I can see her in there. 'Gimme a pack of Kool cigarettes, will ya?' M.C.L Comment: This what gets me about punks like Beck and Coulter, they can say the most nasty vile things about whomever they want but let someone go after them and they will accuse their political opponents not having the ability to debate without personal attacks or in Beck's case he will sue a website that uses his own tactic against him. Granted I know this is all a act and Beck is just making money off stupid people but this guy is dangerous the guy that killed the cops in Pennsylvania was a Beck fanboy and the holocaust shooter posted clips from Beck's Fox News show. This man say things and his fanboys react to those things

Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill

By John Byrne

Firm's stock sale nearly twice as large as any other institution; Represented 44 percent of total BP investment

The brokerage firm that's faced the most scrutiny from regulators in the past year over the shorting of mortgage related securities seems to have had good timing when it came to something else: the stock of British oil giant BP.

According to regulatory filings, RawStory.com has found that Goldman Sachs sold 4,680,822 shares of BP in the first quarter of 2010. Goldman's sales were the largest of any firm during that time. Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP's stock during the quarter.

If Goldman had sold these shares today, their investment would have lost 36 percent its value, or $96 million. The share sales represented 44 percent of Goldman's holdings -- meaning that Goldman's remaining holdings have still lost tens of millions in value.

The sale and its size itself isn't unusual for a large asset management firm. Wall Street brokerages routinely buy and sell huge blocks of shares for themselves and their clients. In light of a recent SEC lawsuit arguing that Goldman kept information about a product they sold from their clients, however, the stock sale may raise fresh concern among Goldman's critics. Goldman is also a frequent target of liberals and journalists, including Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, who famously dubbed the firm a "vampire squid.

Two calls placed to Goldman Sachs' media office in New York Wednesday morning after US markets opened were not immediately returned, though Raw Story decided to publish the story quickly after the calls since the stock sale had been already noted online.

Others also sold stock

Other asset management firms also sold huge blocks of BP stock in the first quarter -- but their sales were a fraction of Goldman's. Wachovia, which is owned by Wells Fargo, sold 2,667,419 shares; UBS, the Swiss bank, sold 2,125,566 shares.

Wachovia and UBS also sold much larger percentages of their BP stock, at 98 percently and 97 percent respectively.

Wachova parent Wells Fargo, however, bought 2.3 million shares in the quarter, largely discounting Wachovia's sales.

Those reported buying BP's stock included Wellington Management, a large asset firm, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

BP is struggling to cap a massive oil leak at one of its drill sites in the Gulf of Mexico. The firm's myriad safety violations over the years have come to light in lieu of the Gulf disaster.

BP traded on average at $56.86 in the first quarter, according to GuruFocus, a site that monitors the major trading moves of prominent investors. A list of major institutions' sales of BP stock are available at the market research website Morningstar.

It's certainly unknown as to why the firms sold their holdings. In its analysis of the company in mid-March, Morningstar, the market research site, gave the company an average rating of three out of a possible five stars.

"BP's valuation carries more uncertainty than ExxonMobil's or Shell's because the firm is less integrated, with more of its earnings coming from the [exploration and production] business than from potentially offsetting refining operations," the site's analyst wrote. "Like its peers, a sustained drop in oil and gas prices can hurt upstream earnings. Lower crude-oil feedstock costs could help refining margins, but refined product pricing lags could quickly swing refining profits to losses. BP's global business faces potential disruptions caused by political risks, particularly with its heavy exposure to Russia. Disruptions caused by environmental and operational constraints could further limit earnings potential."

The transnational oil company, like other energy giants, was hit with lower oil and gas prices in the past year after the price of oil surged in 2008.

"BP's fourth quarter marked another quarter of year-over-year production gains, with a 3% increase thanks to new field startups," Morningstar's analyst wrote in another note, after BP turned in better than expected fourth quarter results in February. "BP reported fourth-quarter replacement cost profit of $3.4 billion, up 33% from year-ago earnings of $2.6 billion, as upstream earnings growth was more than enough to offset downstream weakness. For the full year, BP's earnings of $14 billion were 45% below year-ago earnings of $26 billion, in part because of lower oil prices earlier in the year. We're encouraged by BP's sequential earnings gains as new projects and cost-cutting efforts drive upstream results."

The SEC filed a civil lawsuit against Goldman Sachs and one of its vice presidents in April, asserting that the firm had committed fraud by misrepresenting a mortgage-investment product inherently designed to fail. The company helped a hedge fund trader create a mortgage investment that gained value as mortgage borrowers defaulted en masse.

In response, Goldman said the SEC's charges were “completely unfounded in law and fact” and averred that it would “vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.”

The firm has also faced criticism over giant bonuses paid to staff amidst the US financial crisis. Goldman reduced the sizes of its staff bonuses this year to $16.9 billion, and said it would pay its chief executive $9 million, far less than the previous year.

Goldman also announced it would create a $500 million program to help small businesses. Critics noted that the figure represented just 3% of the bonus pool.

McCain tries to blame the Gaza flotilla raid on Obama.

By Matt Corley

In response to the Israeli raid of a flotilla of ships in international waters transporting aid to the Gaza Strip on Monday, the United Nations Security Council called for “a full investigation into the matter.” But some conservatives have already arrived at the conclusion that the incident is somehow a fault of the Obama administration. “We have to ask if the Obama administration remains committed to the state of Israel and the right of Israel to exist and defend herself,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) told Politico, adding that “this weekend shows how” the White House’s posture towards the Israeli government “has played out.” On Fox News last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) declared that the deadly flotilla raid was “another step in a chain of unfortunate events beginning with President Obama’s insistence that there be a [settlement construction] freeze”:

MCCAIN: So what I think is, they wanted to provoke an international incident.

HANNITY: Well, they did.

MCCAIN: And possibly a crisis to bring more pressure to bear against Israel. But this is another step in a chain of unfortunate events beginning with President Obama’s insistence that there be a freeze, as a precondition for peace talks, a freeze on settlements in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not a settlement.

Watch it:

Update Media Matters notes how the right-wing media is rushing to blame Obama for the Gaza flotilla incident.

Ted Haggard To Open More Inclusive Church That Will Only Promote ‘Heterosexual Monogamous Relationships’

By Igor Volsky

Before resigning in disgrace after a three-year relationship with a male prostitute, Ted Haggard — the founder and former pastor of the New Life Church — was one of the Christian Right’s most powerful figures and a close confidante of the Bush White House. In 2006, Haggard — who railed against gays — admitted he was a “deceiver and a liar” and confessed to doing meth and engaging in “sexual immorality” with a male prostitute.

Moments ago, Haggard announced that he would be opening a new, more inclusive church, St. James, that would be open to “gay, straight, bi, tall, short” members and would focus on “helping other people going through the most difficult times of their lives.” “I just want to help people,” he said.

Asked if his new church would take a position on homosexuality, Haggard said “we will take positions.” “I’m going to teach the bible, chapter by chapter, verse by verse,” “but I don’t want to be a political activist.” Haggard explained that the church won’t advocate a specific public policy, but would instead “encourage” members to strive towards the ideal of biblical heterosexuality and monogamy:

HAGGARD: We are a church and I believe that God’s ideal plan for marriage is the union of a man and a woman in a heterosexual monogamous relationship, so those are the types of marriages we will do in our church. Now, as for society, working with that question, that is a totally different subject. But within the Church, that’s where we at St. James will be. [...]

Let me say something regarding your question regarding same-sex marriage. … I answered it by saying, ‘it is God’s ideal.’ It is also God’s ideal that people pray continually, it is God’s ideal that all of us have our weight under control. It is God’s ideal that mothers never get so frustrated and heart broken that they yell at their children. It is God’s ideal that there not be any abuse or poverty or shame in people’s lives. … God has ideals, that’s what we discuss. But earth is not heaven. And here on earth, sexuality is very complex and very confusing. Weight issues are a deep struggle that people go through, health issues, prayer issues, whether there is a God issue. … Inside the Church we discuss God’s ideals, but the discussion about public policy is a total separate discussion.

Watch the highlights:

While he has recently claimed that “I was never a religious right, hateful, anti-gay guy,” at his peak, Haggard catered to the Christian Right’s demonization of gays, calling homosexuality a “sin” and arguing, “We don’t have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it’s written in the Bible.” Haggard also said that Western civilization could be devastated by same-sex marriage.

M.C.L Comment: I'm guessing Haggard thought people forgot about him getting busted with a male hooker doing meth.

Anti-Health Reform Davis Loses Alabama Democratic Gubernatorial Primary To Pro-Health Reform Sparks

By Zaid Jilani Last night, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) was soundly trounced in his state’s Democratic gubernatorial primary by Alabama agricultural commissioner Ron Sparks, losing by 24 points. The race is being considered an upset, given that “Mr. Sparks was stunned by his winning margin, considering he was on the verge of leaving the race a few months ago to avoid an embarrassing loss.”

One of the major issues that Davis ran on was his opposition to — and his vote against — federal health care reform, likely thinking that it would help win over conservative voters. The congressman complained that health care reform could be accomplished “at half the cost without a 3,000-page, near trillion-dollar overhaul of the system.” Without offering any alternative, Davis said that he voted the way he did because “we can’t just keep throwing a trillion dollars toward the problem.”

As University of Mississippi political science professor Marvin King wrote of Davis’s campaign, “Essentially, Davis threw his current constituents under the bus for his own political advancement.” Yet, Alabama progressives revolted against Davis’s endorsement of conservative orthodoxy. Four major African American advocacy groups in the state endorsed Sparks, who is white. Some of the groups cited Davis’ vote against health reform.

Unlike Davis, Sparks ran as a strong proponent of federal health care reform. During a debate last year with Davis, Sparks challenged the congressman to support tough federal health care reform, stating, “if I was in Congress, I’d fight for a public option.” And during a later speech before the Democratic Women of Madison County, Sparks was unequivocal in his support for federal health care reform, saying, “Hear me loud and clear. I support President Obama’s health care package. I support the public option. I have been vocal about it.” Watch it:

SPARKS: Hear me loud and clear. I support President Obama’s health care package. I support the public option. I have been vocal about it. … There are 48 million people who are out of health care. Yes we do need health care reform. … I am for any health care program that will give the people of Alabama and America affordable health care. What is a life worth?

Watch it:

As MyDD’s Nathan Empsall writes, “Davis ran to the right in a Democratic primary, fearing a conservative general electorate. Voters said thanks, but no thanks. … Voters aren’t stupid — whether they know the facts or not, they can sense authenticity. That’s an important takeaway for candidates in any race: be genuine. Be yourself.”

Michigan or Moroun? Why Matty Moroun is one of the worst corporate citizens ever

By Jack Lessenberry

Michigan's economic future is at stake right now, in the state Senate. If you think times are bad, imagine what they'd be without the billions in trade that move across the Detroit River every year.

The vast majority of it moves across the Ambassador Bridge, which was built in 1929, is wearing out, and is not adequate for today's monster trucks and the vast payloads they carry. Heavy tractor-trailers can't go through the tunnel. There is essentially no backup route other than Port Huron or Buffalo, and our trade transportation system is being held hostage by one man, an arrogant billionaire named Manuel Moroun.

Now, we have the best chance ever to fix this. Everybody who understands this issue knows that we need to build a new bridge — and we have a golden opportunity to do so.

Meet the proposed new Detroit River International River Crossing, DRIC for short, to be built two miles downriver from the Ambassador. DRIC would be jointly owned by the United States and Canada, funded partly by private investors, and enable us to meet the trade, transportation and security issues of this century.

The United States wants this bridge. The government of Canada needs it. Republicans like Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson are behind it. So are the Ford Motor Co. and the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce. In Ohio, where the economy is closely linked to Michigan and Canada, the GOP-controlled state Senate passed a resolution supporting DRIC — unanimously.

Democrats like Gov. Jennifer Granholm want the bridge. So does state Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a young Muslim woman who represents the area that also includes the Ambassador Bridge. The Detroit News supports it; so, at long last, does the Free Press.

Michigan wouldn't even have to pay a cent. Knowing how cash-strapped and divided our state government now is, Canada made an astounding offer last month: They'll pay our share of the start-up costs needed, as much as $550 million. Later, when the DRIC bridge is up and running, they'll get it back out of the tolls.

What's more, experts say building the DRIC could create as many as 10,000 construction jobs. Voting for this should be the easiest decision our term-limited state legislators ever will have to make. Except for one thing. One man opposes the bridge. Manuel "Matty" Moroun, a short, squat, octogenarian billionaire. After arguing for years that a new span wasn't needed, Matty abruptly changed his mind and said he would build a new bridge.

Right next, that is, to his old one.

Yet Canada has made it clear they won't allow him to do that. They won't give him the permits. Nor, for that matter, will the United States — the U.S. Coast Guard rejected his application last March. Indeed, two bridges in the same place would be an environmental, security and highway-clogging disaster.

This seems to have thrown Moroun into a desperate frenzy. He clearly cannot bear the thought of losing his monopoly. What makes this so puzzling is why he should care. Nobody is talking about taking the Ambassador Bridge away from him. What in hell does Matty have to fear? Moroun is worth much more than a billion dollars. He has only one son, and, to put it gently and delicately, the Old Man is far from immortal.

He turns 83 this month. That means that even if they started the DRIC tomorrow, Matty might easily be dirt-napping before the damn thing is done years from now. My guess is that he's banking that he can keep his evil self going, as he always has, through greed and the excitement of filing lawsuits and fighting for more power and money.

But why would anyone buy into this?

Why are some members of the state Senate acting as his lackeys and stoutly defending preserving his monopoly control? Largely because Manuel J. Moroun understands the fine art of throwing money around, sometimes as campaign contributions, sometimes, the whispers say, in subtler ways.

That's what people have to fight if we hope to see the DRIC bill pass the Senate. This will be an uphill climb. DRIC passed the House last week, but narrowly. Now for the much harder part. Republicans control the Michigan Senate, 22-16. Not a single House Republican backed the new bridge. Dismayingly, several Democrats voted against it.

Supporters of DRIC have to win over some Senate Republicans, if they are to have any chance. The odds are great — but not impossible, if we make it clear to our senators how vitally important this is. And everyone needs to remember this:

Matty Moroun is one of the worst corporate citizens, ever.

Want to see his symbol and monument? Cast your eyes on the great, rotting hulk of the Michigan Central Depot. Matty owns it. He refuses to fix it up or tear it down — though he and his soulmate, Kwame Kilpatrick, once tried to get the city of Detroit to buy it and convert it into a police headquarters.

And he owns hundreds of other slum properties here and in Canada. Some he plainly bought for his new bridge. Some he clearly bought to try to stop any other bridge. But he's done worse. His willingness to show contempt for the law is at least as great as that of the justly rejailed Kwamester. Joel Thurtell, perhaps the best reporter in the state, has for months documented (at joelontheroad.com) how Moroun illegally seized part of Riverside Park for his planned new bridge.

Moroun even seized part of a city street and built a gas station and a duty-free store without permission. When the courts ordered him to tear them down, he refused and appealed. Last Thursday, the Michigan Supreme Court denied his appeal and ordered him to tear it all down. What was truly amazing was his reaction — which got too little notice in the press. Through a spokesman, he said, "Today's decision of the Michigan Supreme Court is not a final determination, only an interim decision on this matter." Does he expect the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn these decisions? They tend to take cases only when lower courts disagree. They haven't disagreed here at all.

City and state officials should now bulldoze his illegal construction, force him to pay for it, and began reviewing and possibly suspending every one of his licenses and permits. For any single senator to vote for the interests of this man, especially against the good of our citizens, would be a betrayal beyond belief. But a majority of them may do exactly that.

Unless we move fast to force them not to.

Surprise! O'Keefe edits out inconvenient footage from new BigGovernment video

From Media Matters: In a video posted on BigGovernment.com, conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe claims that he has uncovered census supervisors in a New Jersey office "systematically encouraging employees to falsify information on their time sheets." Following his pattern of selectively editing videos, O'Keefe excluded a clip -- which was subsequently aired by ABC -- of a census leader telling workers that they must carefully and accurately report on their time sheets the number of miles they drive when they are doing their enumeration work.

O'Keefe removes relevant information from video posted on BigGovernment.com

ABC airs additional clip showing census crew leader stressing need for accuracy in time sheet reporting. On June 1, ABC's Good Morning America interviewed O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart. From the June 1 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): But this was the training program. And you concede that in the actual Census program, they were holding workers to much stricter standards. We have some video tape of that as well.

CREW LEADER (video clip): This is not a big issue here, but when you start doing this enumeration thing, you want to make sure you are watching your miles, OK? Set the odometer and every day record it. Don't estimate it, don't guess it. That's part of their ability to audit you, would be to look at your miles, take a look at the places you went to, if it didn't add up, you know, they'll go crazy.

BigGovernment video omits this relevant clip in claiming that "Census supervisors" were "systemically encouraging employees to falsify information on their time sheets." In the ten-minute video posted on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, O'Keefe stated that he had been hired as a Census worker and attended two days of training. He said, "What I found were Census supervisors systematically encouraging employees to falsify information on their time sheets." The video includes clips of census leaders, who according to O'Keefe, "didn't seem to have a problem with the discrepancy" of the hours recorded on his time sheet versus the hours he claimed to have worked. O'Keefe omitted the clip aired by ABC, which shows a census leader emphasizing the importance of accurately reporting on miles driven by census enumerators.

Breitbart and O'Keefe criticized for selective editing and manipulating previous videos

California attorney general: ACORN videos were "severely edited by O'Keefe." According to the California attorney general's office:

Videotapes secretly recorded last summer and severely edited by O'Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a "pimp" (O'Keefe) and his "prostitute," actually a Florida college student named Hannah Giles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation. Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General's report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O'Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.

Law enforcement sources criticize O'Keefe's and Giles' editing ACORN tape "to meet their agenda." A March 1 New York Daily News article reported that "a law enforcement source" said of O'Keefe and Giles: "They edited the tape to meet their agenda." A March 2 New York Post article, headlined "ACORN set up by vidiots: DA," reported of O'Keefe's and Giles' ACORN tapes: "Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister, sources said."

Breitbart and O'Keefe released "heavily-edited video" of Philly ACORN office. On October 21, 2009, FoxNews.com reported that O'Keefe and Giles released "a heavily-edited video on Wednesday depicting their visit to ACORN's Philadelphia office." Fox reported that a "new eight-minute video depicts O'Keefe and Giles entering ACORN's Philadelphia office and meeting with [ACORN employee Katherine] Conway-Russell. O'Keefe and Giles are seen speaking with Conway-Russell, but audio portions of the video are missing or edited in some portions." Fox News correspondent Eric Shawn stated, "They played that heavily edited tape but did not show the ACORN worker's audio for legal reasons." O'Keefe later wrote: "We muted the audio of the ACORN employees on the video released today due to ACORN's legal attack upon us. We call upon ACORN to state publicly now that it has no objection to the public release of any its employees oral statements to us. If they are interested in the truth, why wouldn't they do so?"

O'Keefe falsely claims he sought advice from DC ACORN on establishing brothel for "prostitution of a dozen underage girls." In a voiceover at the beginning of his Washington, D.C., ACORN video -- which was promoted by Breitbart -- O'Keefe claims that in Washington, he and Giles "sought housing assistance from ACORN in order to establish a brothel where we could profit off the prostitution of a dozen underage girls trafficked in from El Salvador." In fact, at no point in the transcript of Giles and O'Keefe's visit to the Washington, D.C., ACORN office does either Giles or O'Keefe clearly state that they are planning to engage in child prostitution.

O'Keefe falsely labels NY ACORN video a "Child Prostitution Investigation." O'Keefe's YouTube videos of his visit to a New York ACORN office -- videos that are posted on Breitbart's BigGovernment website -- are falsely titled, "ACORN NYC Child Prostitution Investigation." In fact, the transcript posted on BigGovernment shows that O'Keefe and Giles did not clearly discuss with the New York ACORN employees their purported intention to engage in child prostitution.

Friend of O'Keefe reportedly objected to past transcript distortion. A September 18, 2009, New York Times article reported that Liz Farkas, a college friend of O'Keefe's while at Rutgers University, said she "grew disillusioned" after O'Keefe asked Farkas to help deceptively "edit the script" of a video involving a nurse at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Special Report's disparate coverage of Kirk's, Blumenthal's military service statements

From Media Matters In its first respective programs following media reports indicating Democrat Richard Blumenthal and Republican Mark Kirk had made false statements about their military service, Fox News' Special Report devoted nine times as much coverage to Blumenthal's misstatements as it did to Kirk's. Special Report also reported that Blumenthal's statements were "offensive" and his candidacy is "finished."

Special Report gives Kirk story one-ninth of the time provided for Blumenthal story

Special Report gives Blumenthal story 3 minutes 13 seconds of coverage the day after it broke. On May 17, The New York Times reported that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the state's Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, had made comments about his service in the Marine Corps Reserve that were "plainly untrue."

Special Report devoted 3 minutes and 13 seconds to the story in its next edition on May 18.

Special Report devotes 21 seconds to Kirk military service comments in first show after story broke. On May 29, The Washington Post reported that Rep. Mark Kirk, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Illinois, "has admitted to inaccurately claiming he received the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award for his service during NATO's conflict with Serbia in the late 1990s." The Post wrote that Kirk "acknowledged the error in his official biography after The Washington Post began looking into whether he had received the prestigious award, which is given by top Navy officials to a single individual annually."

Special Report devoted 21 seconds to the story on May 31, in the program's first edition after the story broke.

Special Report provides time for opponent to call Blumenthal comments "offensive"

Special Report coverage includes attacks on Blumenthal. In a segment, correspondent Laura Ingle reported that then-Republican Senate candidate Rob Simmons "said Blumenthal's past remarks are a big mistake" and quoted him stating, "I find it offensive that he is still wrapping himself in the veteran flag of those of us who served in Vietnam." Ingle also reported that "critics ... say that they don't understand how he could have made such a mistake being -- having such a sharp legal mind and being a wordsmith by trade and never correcting the record." Additionally, during the "All-Stars" segment, A.B. Stoddard stated of Blumenthal: "I really think he's finished. When he stands there and says he will not allow a few occasions when he misrepresented his service as Vietnam veteran to impugn his actual record, it's impugned his credibility and his legitimacy as a candidate. I think his candidacy is finished. I can't imagine he recovers from this."

Special Report's Kirk coverage includes no statements from critics. By contrast, in its first edition after the Kirk story broke, Special Report did not provide comments from Kirk's Democratic opponent or any other "critic," even though such criticism was included in the Post's article. Instead, in the program's sole coverage of the story, host Bret Baier stated:

BAIER: The Republican Senate hopeful in Illinois is admitting that past claims about his military service are not true. Congressman Mark Kirk concedes he never was the Navy's intelligence officer of the year, despite what his congressional and campaign website said. He says his Navy unit was named unit of the year in 1999.

BP hires Cheney spokeswoman to lead PR effort

By John Byrne

As if the water wasn't deep -- or oily -- enough around British Petroleum's public relations, the company has hired a former spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney to be its public face for the disaster.

Anne Womack Kolton, former head of public affairs at the Department of Energy and Cheney's onetime campaign press secretary, will take the baton from BP this week.

While at Cheney's side, Kolton defended the secrecy of the Vice President's Energy task force, a group which held secretive meetings with energy company executives. When the General Accounting Office -- the research arm of Congress -- sued the Administraton for records relating to Cheney's meetings, Kolton (then Womack) was at his side.

"We are ready to defend our principles in court," she said. "This goes to the heart of the presidency and to the ability of the president and vice president to receive candid, discreet advice."

A blogger at the liberal web site Daily Kos notes that BP was reportedly among one of the companies that Cheney met with.

In 2004, Womack Kolton also drew attention from the left after Cheney made comments suggesting a Democratic victory would precipitate a terrorist attack.

“Whoever is elected in November,” she said, “face[s] the prospect of another terrorist attack. The question is whether or not the right policies are in place to best protect our country. That‘s what the Vice President was saying.”

A Department of Energy press release notes that "Ms. Kolton joined the Bush administration in January 2001 as Assistant Press Secretary in the White House Press Office after serving on the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign as Assistant Press Secretary to then Vice Presidential candidate Dick Cheney."

"Before joining Bush-Cheney 2000," the release continues, "Ms. Kolton was Washington Liaison for Texas Attorney General John Cornyn."

Kolton also appeared in the news when asked for a response about Cheney's apparent difference of opinion with President George W. Bush on the anti-gay marriage amendment.

"The vice president respects the president's right to make that decision," she said.

Fisherman who fell ill during oil spill clean-up alleges BP tried to cover-up evidence.

By Amanda Terkel Last week, the LA Times reported that local fishermen hired by BP to clean up the Gulf Coast spill had “become ill after working long hours near waters fouled with oil and dispersant.” Especially galling was the fact that one of the fishermen said that the company hadn’t provided them with any protective equipment, like gloves. Now, John Wunstell, Jr., one of the fishermen who became sick with “nosebleeds, an upset stomach, and aches,” is filing a restraining order against BP, citing the

treatment he faced from the company after he went to the hospital:

“At West Jefferson, there were tents set up outside the hospital, where I was stripped of my clothing, washed with water and several showers, before I was allowed into the hospital,” Wunstell said. “When I asked for my clothing, I was told that BP had confiscated all of my clothing and it would not be returned.”

The restraining order requests that BP refrain from “altering, testing or destroying clothing or any other evidence or potential evidence” when workers become ill.

BP CEO Tony Hayward has tried to downplay the sicknesses, attributing them to food poisoning. However, Dr. Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, has said that Hayward’s explanation sounds fishy, explaining that the fishermens’ symptoms are more in line with a respiratory illness. On Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called on BP to provide treatment for clean-up workers who become sick. (HT: scorpiorising at DailyKos)

Arizona ‘BUYcott’ organizer: ‘ID-ing everybody’ will make the ‘illegal criminals disappear like cockroaches.’

By Andrea Nill

This weekend, tea party activists gathered in Arizona to express support for the state’s new immigration law, SB-1070, by launching a “buycott” campaign to support state businesses. Tony Venuti, publisher of AZ Tourist News, has spearheaded the “Arizona Buycott” webpage which lists the businesses which want their support of SB-1070 to be documented. The front page of the website features a video in which Venuti lays out his own immigration views. Venuti states that the criminals, or “bad hombres,” need to get their “butts out of town.” According to Venuti, by “ID-ing” everyone, the “illegal criminals” will “disappear like cockroaches”:

Let me tell you something, there’s gonna be procession down into the border South when you see a lot of illegal criminals knowing they are going to be compelled to be ID’d or thrown in jail, you’re gonna see them disappear back south like a bunch of cockroaches. Trust me. The other ones that are here, we’re gonna have to deal with them and I don’t know how that’s going to be dealt with. We don’t need to worry about that now.

Watch it:

Today, the Arizona Republic reported that “the exodus of illegal and legal immigrants predicted by some as a result of Arizona’s tough new immigration law is expected to hurt a variety of businesses that directly and indirectly cater to immigrant populations.” If all of Arizona’s undocumented immigrants “disappeared,” the state could lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs. Rather than worrying about the economic effects of the law itself, Tea Party Nation launched the separate “National Arizona BUYcott” campaign last month at the Winning Back America Conference, which was headlined by Liz Cheney, Fred Thompson, and Sarah Palin. Gina Loudon, the St. Louis tea party supporter who credits herself with coming up the buycott idea, has said “the goal is to render boycotts ineffective.” The personal financing website, mint.com, has estimated that Arizona’s fragile tourism industry has already lost $6-10 million in cancellations since the bill was signed into law.