Channelhannity Videos

On the December 20 edition of Fox News Hannity s (D-NY) brother is behind on child support payments demonstrates "Rodham family values." A December 20 New York Post article reported that Clinton s brother, Anthony Rodham, "is a deadbeat dad who owes tens of thousands of dollars in child support" to his ex-wife, Nicole Boxer, the daughter of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Referring to the article, guest co-host Mark Steyn asked Bruce: "Is Clinton fatigue already setting in early, Tammy?" Bruce responded: "Well, I think we had Clinton fatigue quite a while ago. This is obviously Rodham family values." Later, Bruce asserted: "But, you know, this isn t good for Hillary s campaign. I do think it speaks about the Rodham family itself. And I think it reflects on her just like Hillary s husband reflects on her. It s not good, neither one of them." Bruce also said: "But Nicole married this fellow, I think, pretty much knowing what she was getting. She knew who her sister-in-law was and the nature of that marriage. I don t think anybody should be surprised." Also during the segment, referring to the Post s report that Rodham "stiffed" Boxer "out of $75,000 in child support," Steyn asked Democratic strategist Bob Beckel: "It makes you, it makes you wonder, Bob, if they are such smart campaigners -- this is $75,000. Couldn t the Clinton campaign have settled all this quietly when the campaign got going before it all became public?" Beckel responded: "The answer to your question is you legally can t do that." From the December 20 edition of Fox News Hannity s get back to good old negative stuff. The New York Post, Tammy, had a story today about Anthony Rodham being a deadbeat dad. He owes $75,000 to his ex-wife. If you can t keep track of the Clinton brothers -- this is the guy we last heard from I think six or seven years ago when he was involved in a hazelnut scam in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, which is not an order of words one has cause to use terribly often. Is Clinton fatigue already setting in early, Tammy? BRUCE: Well, I think we had Clinton fatigue quite a while ago. This is obviously Rodham family values. And here you ve got the Boxer family, which has yet to say anything. But Nicole married this fellow, I think, pretty much knowing what she was getting, and she knew who her sister-in-law was and the nature of that marriage. I don t think anybody should be surprised. Also, at the same time, of course, the Boxer family is not suffering. They are not living in poverty. Some people might argue that that s a heck of a lot of money to be arguing to pay someone for alimony when they are doing moderately well themselves. That s a whole another argument. But, you know, this isn t good for Hillary s campaign. I do think it speaks about the Rodham family itself. And I think it reflects on her just like Hillary s husband reflects on her, and it s not good, neither one of them. STEYN: It makes you, it makes you wonder, Bob, if they are such smart campaigners -- this is $75,000. Couldn t the Clinton campaign have settled all this quietly when the campaign got going before it all became public? BECKEL: I m still getting over the nuts in Georgia. The answer to your question is you legally can t do that. The other point here, is this is much ado about nothing. Everybody has known about Rodham from the beginning. This guy has been a problem. If you had every sibling who caused a problem for a candidate for president to cause a real problem, you wouldn t have any candidates for president. There s always one, you know? So I don t think it means anything.

On the December 19 edition of Fox News Hannity s [D-IL] pastor... has this whole list of the Black Value System. It seems like he s supporting a segregated church." Hannity then asserted that "[t]here s no questions about it, except here on this program," and, after stating that there has been "scrutiny" over the positions of Republican presidential candidates and former Govs. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, asked: "Why the double standard?" Coulter responded: "No, you re absolutely right, because everyone realizes that when the Democrats cite religion, it s a joke. So, you know, why ask them about it. It s -- you re just putting on a show for the voters." During the segment, Hannity provided no evidence to support his suggestion that the church of which Obama is a member, the Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago, is "segregated." According to an April 2 article on the website for The Martin Marty Center -- the institute for advanced research in all fields of the study of religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School -- professor emeritus Martin E. Marty wrote of Trinity: "My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed." From the April 2 post on the Marty Center s website, which also appears as an April 2 guest column in the online publication The Christian Post: So Trinity is "Africentric," and deals internationally and ecumenically with the heritage of "black is beautiful." Despite what one sometimes hears, Wright and his parishioners -- an 8,000-member mingling of everyone from the disadvantaged to the middle class, and not a few shakers and movers in Chicago -- are "keepin the faith." To those in range of Chicago TV I d recommend a watching of Trinity s Sunday services, and challenge you to find anything "cultic" or "sectarian" about them. More important, for Trinity, being "unashamedly black" does not mean being "anti-white." My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed. As Media Matters for America documented, Hannity has previously asserted that the Trinity Church of Christ and the church s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. are "separatist" (here, here, and here). On the March 20 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Hannity claimed that he "discovered" via the church s website "that the pastor of the church has very Afro-centric and separatist views." Hannity proceeded to air an audio clip of an interview from the March 1 edition of Fox News Hannity s 12-point "Black Value System." After the brief clip concluded, he stated: "[I]t got very heated later in the interview, but I won t play that now." Additionally, on the June 25 edition of Fox News Hannity s June 23 speech on religion in politics, Hannity claimed that Wright, "has a very black-separatist point of view" and claimed that the church is "all about the black community. ... [I]t s a black-separatist agenda." Then, on the June 26 edition of Hannity s March 1 Hannity s philosophy does not "assume superiority nor does it assume separatism." Wright stated: "We have no hierarchal arrangement. When you say an African-centered way of thinking -- African-centered philosophy, African-centered theology -- you re talking about one center. We re talking about something that s different, and different does not mean deficient ... nor does it mean superior or inferior." From the December 19 edition of Fox News Hannity s pastor -- COULTER: Yes. HANNITY: -- has, you know, this whole list of the Black Value System. It seems like he s supporting a segregated church. COULTER: Right. HANNITY: And there s no questions about it, except here on this program. COULTER: Right. HANNITY: And I had an opportunity to interview him. Why all the scrutiny -- Mike Huckabee s submission of wives, his position on gays. We obviously have been through Romney. COULTER: Right. HANNITY: Why the double standard? COULTER: No, you re absolutely right, because everyone realizes that when the Democrats cite religion, it s a joke. So, you know, why ask them about it. It s -- you re just putting on a show for the voters. HANNITY: Are you concerned at all about -- Hillary wins the nomination, Barack Obama wins the nomination -- COULTER: It s going to be Hillary. HANNITY: I think it is too. But, are you concerned that she can win? COULTER: Not particularly. HANNITY: Do you think she ll be defeated easily? COULTER: I kind of do. We ll see, but --. HANNITY: Anything can happen, you know that. COULTER: The one thing I do think is that all of this business about the Obama surge, Obama surge is the Clintons famous lowering of expectations like they did with his grand jury testimony. Remember, he was supposed to -- his face turned purple, there was spittle coming out. And then, OK -- that didn t happen, though that s when did get the, "It depends on what the meaning of is is." They did the same thing when he was running in the primaries. He was the comeback kid coming in second. And they are doing the exact same thing with Hillary now. I think she s ahead. They re pretending, "Oh, she ll never win Iowa."

On the October 18 edition of Fox News Hannity s veto of a bill to expand the State Children s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), co-host Alan Colmes told guest Rush Limbaugh: "You feel you were attacked by certain people. You claim that liberals as a whole lie and can t defend themselves. I debate conservatives every night. But you have attacked people like the family, for example, of Graeme Frost ... using the words of somebody from the Free Republic. Should this family be the victim of barbs from anybody because they re trying to do best for their kid?" As Think Progress noted, Limbaugh responded: "You know, Alan, that s an interesting question. I never once attacked this family. I attacked the Democrats for exploiting them. I attacked the Democrats for putting lies into the head of a 12-year-old -- a 12-year-old they send out before microphones and cameras to sit there and say," and mimicking Frost s voice, continued, " I only want health care for the rest of American children like I got, and George Bush is against it. The 12-year-old can t write that garbage!" The Frost family relied on SCHIP to pay for the treatment of injuries Graeme and his sister Gemma suffered in a car accident in 2004. In an October 6 post on the Free Republic website titled, "The Not So Poor 12 Year Old Who Rebutted Bush on SCHIP Veto," user "icwhatudo" disclosed that Graeme "is a middle school student at the exclusive $20,000 per year Park School," and that "Gemma ... attended the same school prior to the accident. " The post went on to include additional details about the family s finances. As Media Matters for America documented, following Graeme s radio address, conservative bloggers aimed several attacks at his family, from questioning their financial status to referring to Graeme s parents as "mostly spoiled brats who became parents and never felt compelled to take responsibility for themselves." Other media outlets then echoed or cited the bloggers attacks. For example, on the October 10 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh said that the Frosts "can clearly afford [health insurance]. They just choose not to." During a report on the October 11 edition of CNN s American Morning, as the blog Think Progress noted, anchor John Roberts said of the controversy: "Conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin pounced, claiming the Frost family is a fraud, too wealthy for government assistance. One accusation: that Graeme attends a $20,000-a-year private school. The family insists scholarships cover most of that bill." He added: "Some of the accusations may be exaggerated or false, but did the Democrats make a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster child?" On Hannity t want to expand the program." In fact, Graeme did not suggest anywhere in his address that he and Gemma "would not get covered because Bush didn t want to expand the program." Rather, as Limbaugh noted earlier, Graeme specifically stated that he and his sister "got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program," adding, "But there are millions of kids out there who don t have CHIP, and they wouldn t get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt." From Graeme s September 29 address: Hi, my name is Graeme Frost. I m 12 years old and I live in Baltimore, Maryland. Most kids my age probably haven t heard of CHIP, the Children s Health Insurance Program. But I know all about it, because if it weren t for CHIP, I might not be here today. CHIP is a law the government made to help families like mine afford healthcare for their kids. Three years ago, my family was in a really bad car accident. My younger sister Gemma and I were both hurt. I was in a coma for a week and couldn t eat or stand up or even talk at first. My sister was even worse. I was in the hospital for five-and-a-half months and I needed a big surgery. For a long time after that, I had to go to physical therapy after school to get stronger. But even though I was hurt badly, I was really lucky. My sister and I both were. My parents work really hard and always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but the hospital bills were huge. We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program. But there are millions of kids out there who don t have CHIP, and they wouldn t get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. Their parents might have to sell their cars or their houses, or they might not be able to pay for hospital bills at all. Now I m back to school. One of my vocal chords is paralyzed so I don t talk the same way I used to. And I can t walk or run as fast as I did. The doctors say I can t play football any more, but I might still be able to be a coach. I m just happy to be back with my friends. I don t know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. All I know is I have some really good doctors. They took great care of me when I was sick, and I m glad I could see them because of the Children s Health Program. I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me. This is Graeme Frost, and this has been the Weekly Democratic Radio address. Thanks for listening. From the October 18 edition of Fox News Hannity s Alan once again. You feel you were attacked by certain people. You claim that liberals as a whole lie and can t defend themselves. I debate conservatives every night. But you have attacked people like the family, for example, of Graeme Frost, and quoting -- using the words of somebody who posted on the Free Republic. Should this family be the victim of barbs from anybody because they re trying to do best for their kid? LIMBAUGH: You know, Alan, that s an interesting question. I never once attacked this family. I attacked the Democrats for exploiting them. I attacked the Democrats for putting lies into the head of a 12-year-old -- a 12-year-old they send out before microphones and cameras to sit there and say, "I only want health care for the rest of American children like I got, and George Bush is against it." The 12-year-old can t write that garbage! The fact of the matter is, Graeme Frost was covered and got the health care -- he and his sister both got the health care they needed under the current circumstances of the program. The Democrats sent those two little kids out there to make the American people think that they would not get covered because Bush didn t want to expand the program. The Democrats are amazingly brazen in this at using kids, using seasoned citizens. I never attacked this family. I simply reported what their financial circumstances are. I actually feel sorry for them to be used. This is another thing. If you would turn on my radio show and listen to me, you would know I never once attacked -- I would not attack a 12-year-old kid. I feel sorry for the fact that the kid is having words put in his mouth. He s sent out before the whole country to lie, when he can t know any better, because he s 12 years old, simply to advance another lie that the Democrats want to put forth, because the SCHIP program is nothing more than a stealth attempt to get socialized medicine inculcated over as much of America as possible. You can t tell me that children are 25 years and younger. You can t tell me that a family of four making 82 grand is poverty-stricken -- and that s what this program would have done. It is obscene. HANNITY: Hey, Rush, Sean -- last question. I d be negligent if I didn t ask you. I remember a while back, Matt Drudge on his website had up there, "Limbaugh: 80 percent chance Hillary becomes the next president." Do you -- assess the presidential election in the short time we have left, and do you really think she has that good a chance of winning?

During an interview on the October 18 edition of Fox News Hannity re losing, why don t I just admit we re losing? Why can t we get out of there and save the soldiers, and so forth?" Limbaugh then said that a second "guy calls after that and says, you know, I hate these guys. The media always goes and finds these guys that do not support the mission. And these guys that never served, and they re just fake. And I said, yeah, the phony soldiers." In fact, at no point preceding his "phony soldiers" comment in the September 26 conversation did either Limbaugh or the caller mention "guys that never served" who are "just fake." While Limbaugh subsequently posted a transcript of the Hannity re just fake" do not appear within quotation marks, Limbaugh gave no indication on Hannity t understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that s over there, it d take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we d have to go right back over there within a year or so." After Limbaugh said that "it s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people," the caller replied: "No, it s not, and what s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." Limbaugh then interjected, "The phony soldiers." Neither mentioned "guys that never served" or said "they re just fake" before Limbaugh s reference to "phony soldiers." On Hannity m still amazed how long this has survived. And two days prior to that, NBC -- or ABC s World News Tonight had done a story on Jesse MacBeth, the phony soldier, one of the many people who s never served, didn t even survive through boot camp, and claimed he had been in Iraq, claimed he had been a Green Beret, and a Purple Heart and all this, and saw all these atrocities, sort of like John Kerry in Vietnam. And on the day of the questionable call, I had done a morning update on Jesse MacBeth. And I think this is Wednesday when this all happens. The guy calls and claims to be a Republican and claims to be a soldier, that we re losing, why don t I just admit we re losing? Why can t we get out of there and save the soldiers, and so forth? Another guy calls after that and says, you know, I hate these guys. The media always goes and finds these guys that do not support the mission. And these guys that never served, and they re just fake. And I said, yeah, the phony soldiers. Two words that I uttered have been now magnified and blown up into, like, hundreds of thousands of words by now. A transcript (subscription required) of the Hannity s website punctuates his description of the conversation as follows: LIMBAUGH: Another guy calls after that and says, "You know, I hate these guys. The media always goes and finds these guys that do not support the mission." And these guys that never served, and they re just fake. And I said, yeah, "the phony soldiers." The actual conversation went as follows: LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello. CALLER: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call. LIMBAUGH: You bet. CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly. LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir. CALLER: And, you know, I m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don t understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that s over there, it d take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we d have to go right back over there within a year or so. And - LIMBAUGH: There s a lot more than that that they don t understand. They can t even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I m gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What s in it for the United States to pull out? They can t -- I don t think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home." CALLER: Yeah, and, you know what - LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people. CALLER: No, it s not, and what s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media. LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers. CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they re willing to sacrifice for their country. LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined -- As Media Matters for America documented, Limbaugh has previously offered several inconsistent explanations for his September 26 comments. Later in the Hannity s "phony soldiers" comment and his mention of Jesse MacBeth, an anti-war activist who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran. Limbaugh did not disclose on the September 28 show that the audio had been spliced. Limbaugh replied to Colmes that the edits had been made "for the purposes of my website," and asserted that the editing was done because the caller, "after discussing the phony soldiers, went into a discussion of weapons of mass destruction. At the time he s doing that, I am talking to my producer on the other side of the glass on the IFB [intercom], I m saying, Find the commentary I did yesterday morning on Jesse MacBeth, who, by the way, whose birth name is Jesse Al-Zaid." Limbaugh continued: "This guy is going on. He s got diarrhea of the mouth about weapons of mass destruction. I m asking people to find this commentary so I can illustrate what I mean by phony soldiers." Limbaugh added: "I finally told this guy, I said, look, weapons of mass destruction is a moot point now. Whether they re there or weren t there, it s not relevant because the situation in Iraq has gone way beyond that. We just edited that out. It had nothing to do -- there was nothing hidden. There was nothing I was trying to cover up." Contrary to his assertion that "there was nothing hidden," during the September 28 broadcast of his radio show Limbaugh said that his selectively edited audio clip of the exchange was "the entire transcript" of the segment. Prior to airing the edited clip, Limbaugh said: "Here is, it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy." After the clip ended, Limbaugh stated: "That was the transcript from yesterday s program, talking about one phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose, which is exactly the way the website Media Matters generated this story." As Media Matters documented, the transcript (subscription required) of the September 28 broadcast posted on Limbaugh s website does not make clear how much time elapsed between his "phony soldiers" remark and his discussion of MacBeth on September 26 -- or even that any time did elapse: Limbaugh s September 28 transcript does not provide any notation or ellipsis to indicate that there is, in fact, a break in the transcript of the September 26 clip he used. By not indicating this gap, Limbaugh made it appear as though his MacBeth remarks came almost immediately after his "phony soldiers" remark, falsely supporting his claim that his "phony soldiers" comment was a reference to MacBeth. In addition, Limbaugh falsely asserted that "on the day of the questionable call, I had done a morning update on Jesse MacBeth." Later in the interview, Limbaugh correctly noted that after his conversation with the caller to whom he made his "phony soldiers" remark, he "started in repeating a commentary on Jesse MacBeth that I had aired the previous morning." Further, Limbaugh asserted that Media Matters "is a Hillary Clinton front group, which is designed to get her elected president." In fact, Media Matters is an independent, progressive organization and is not affiliated with any candidate or political party. From the October 18 edition of Fox News Hannity ve got to tell us, what s the update here, in terms -- I understand it s up to $851,000, this smear letter that you re auctioning off. LIMBAUGH: Eight hundred and fifty-one thousand, one hundred dollars. It s amazing. It s just absolutely -- this is more fun than I ve ever had in my life. HANNITY: Look, you know, for those that don t fully and completely understand the whole story here, Rush, why don t you just explain it to them? LIMBAUGH: All right, let me make it as brief as I can. I had a call on my program on a Wednesday. I guess this was about two weeks ago now. I m still amazed how long this has survived. And two days prior to that, NBC -- or ABC s World News Tonight had done a story on Jesse MacBeth, the phony soldier, one of the many people who s never served, didn t even survive through boot camp, and claimed he had been in Iraq, claimed he had been a Green Beret, and a Purple Heart and all this, and saw all these atrocities, sort of like John Kerry in Vietnam. And on the day of the questionable call, I had done a morning update on Jesse MacBeth. And I think this is Wednesday when this all happens. The guy calls and claims to be a Republican and claims to be a soldier, that we re losing, why don t I just admit we re losing? Why can t we get out of there and save the soldiers, and so forth? Another guy calls after that and says, you know, I hate these guys. The media always goes and finds these guys that do not support the mission. And these guys that never served, and they re just fake. And I said, yeah, the phony soldiers. Two words that I uttered have been now magnified and blown up into, like, hundreds of thousands of words by now. I have, in 20 years of my broadcast career, have never denigrated a serving serviceman, regardless his political opinions whatsoever. I was strictly talking about these fakes, these phonies that never served and claimed that they did, saw all these atrocities that they didn t see. And it happened to happen a week or so after the "General Betray Us" ad, so the left totally had that backfire on them, after [Gen. David] Petraeus showed up at the congressional hearings, the Senate and the House. The American people loved the guy. The MoveOn.org ad in The New York Times just backfired totally. So they had to deflect that, and they thought they would focus on me. And this led to Senator [Harry] Reid [D-NV] accepting the words of an organization called Media Matters for America, which is a Hillary Clinton front group, which is designed to get her elected president, and went to the floor of the Senate, read a letter, asked as many senators as possible to sign it condemning me, and asking the syndication partner of mine, Mark Mays, the CEO of Clear Channel, to also condemn me, make me apologize, spank me, this sort of thing. And we got hold of the original letter. Mark Mays gave it to me. We put it on eBay to auction it off. We re up to $851,000 because this -- Sean, this is just a -- one of the most -- in my lifetime, one of the most focused abuses of power that I ve ever seen. [...] COLMES: Let me talk to you for a second about the phony soldiers comment, because those who criticize you have pointed out you said "soldiers," plural, and that when you played it back a couple of days later, you edited out about a minute and 35 seconds of time. So it wasn t clear initially you were talking about one particular soldier. LIMBAUGH: I did not edit -- here s what we edited out, for the purposes of my website. You know, Alan, brevity is the soul of wit. That is what Shakespeare said. The second caller, after discussing the phony soldiers, went into a discussion of weapons of mass destruction. At the time he s doing that, I am talking to my producer on the other side of the glass on the IFB, I m saying, "Find the commentary I did yesterday morning on Jesse MacBeth," who, by the way, whose birth name is Jesse Al-Zaid. Find me that commentary. This guy is going on. He s got diarrhea of the mouth about weapons of mass destruction. I m asking people to find this commentary so I can illustrate what I mean by phony soldiers. We edited -- that was about a minute and a half or a minute and 45. When we put the transcript up -- and I finally told this guy, I said, "Look, weapons of mass destruction is a moot point now. Whether they re there or weren t there, that s not -- it s not relevant because the situation in Iraq has gone way beyond that." We just edited that out. It had nothing to do -- there was nothing hidden. There was nothing I was trying to cover up. You ve got to stop listening to these partisans and these propagandists at Media Matters for America. They are nothing but a bunch of hacks who are producing the prime time at MSNBC. If they ever went dark, MSNBC -- er, Media Matters, MSNBC would have nothing to say. They do -- Alan, you have a radio show, and I have a radio show. You have a website. I have a website. All you have to do is turn on the radio to listen to each of us or go to our websites. The drive-by media does not listen to my show, does not go to my website. They take for granted whatever Media Matters says about what I said is true. It is irresponsible. It s journalistic malpractice, and it s silly. We edited that out simply for the sake of brevity and to stay on point. When we got to the -- when I found the commentary, when they printed it out to my printer behind me, that s when I got rid of the call, and that s when I started in repeating a commentary on Jesse MacBeth that I had aired the previous morning.

On the October 15 edition of Fox News Hannity s Eric Deggans assertion that former MSNBC host Don Imus is "returning to the air essentially without fully apologizing for what he actually did wrong," co-host Alan Colmes said that Imus "did apologize" and went on to say: "The team that he allegedly insulted -- I would say satirized -- they accepted his apology. Why can t you?" When Deggans asserted, "What he did wrong was build a 25- to 30-year broadcasting career on humor that s racist and that exaggerates stereotypes," Colmes responded, "Well, that s what satire is." Colmes and Deggans were discussing recent reports that Imus will be hired to host a nationally syndicated radio show on WABC in New York. As Media Matters for America documented at the time, on the April 4 edition of MSNBC s Imus in the Morning, Imus referred to the Rutgers University women s basketball team, which included eight African-American and two white players, as "nappy-headed hos" immediately after the show s executive producer, Bernard McGuirk, called the team "hard-core hos." Earlier in the Hannity s New York City chapter, said that Imus is "a bigot and a racist ... and a misogynist," Colmes asserted, "He s not a bigot and a racist," and added: "He s a satirist. He s doing humor. He s doing satire." Later, Deggans said, "This is about a 25- to 30-year history of cracking these kind of jokes," and claimed that Imus "admitted in an interview with 60 Minutes that he had a producer on his staff to make n-word jokes." Co-host Sean Hannity replied, "Yeah, but jokes. Jokes. You may not like the humor." Hannity then asked, "Should Chris Rock, who says far worse on a regular basis -- have you ever come out and demanded that he be taken off the air?" When Deggans noted that "Chris Rock is not a news and information person," Hannity said, "He s a comedian." From the October 15 edition of Fox News Hannity s your objection to putting him on the air? OSSORIO: It s not a decision I would have made. COLMES: Why not? OSSORIO: ABC, we ll see if it works out for them. COLMES: But why not? OSSORIO: Because, you know, he s had 30 years to be on the air. He s been a bigot and a racist -- COLMES: He s not a bigot and a racist. OSSORIO: -- and a misogynist. COLMES: He s a satirist. He s doing humor. He s doing satire. He takes pokes at everybody. OSSORIO: A lot of people don t find it humorous anymore. [...] COLMES: How long is the right amount of time? DEGGANS: He was basically off for a few months -- he was basically off for a few months. He negotiated a very lucrative end to his contract with CBS Radio, and now he s returning to the air essentially without fully apologizing for what he actually did wrong. COLMES: Well, first of all, he did apologize. He went on Al Sharpton s show and apologized. Al Sharpton accepts him back. Jesse Jackson accepts him back. The team that he allegedly insulted -- I would say "satirized" -- they accepted his apology. Why can t you? DEGGANS: I think Don Imus hasn t really apologized for what he s done wrong. What he did wrong was build a 25- to 30-year broadcasting career on humor that s racist and that exaggerates stereotypes. COLMES: Well, that s what satire is. But you call it racist -- DEGGANS: There s examples going back 15 years, 20 years, where he s called Gwen Ifill, who was then with The New York Times, a cleaning lady. He called another person of color who was an official a quota hire. He s called Howard Kurtz from Washington Post a "beanie-wearing, hook-nosed Jew." I mean, he s used the kind of humor that has been abandoned by other -- COLMES: He also goes after people from the South, on Oklahoma, Okies like he is. He goes after everybody. That s his act. Everybody knew that was his act. They knew that was his act when they hired him. It was in his contract. If they decided to act on letting him go because of those things, he ought to get a warning, which he didn t get, which is why he got a settlement. And, again, what about the free marketplace? You don t like that kind of humor, you don t find it humorous, don t tune out [sic]. Other people have the opportunity to hear what he s got to say if they choose to listen. If advertisers choose to support it, and if ratings will substantiate his appearance, what s wrong with that? [...] DEGGANS: That s the mistake that you re making, is that you re boiling this down to one comment. This is not about one comment. This is about a 25- to 30-year history of cracking these kind of jokes. HANNITY: You keep repeating it, but -- DEGGANS: He admitted in an interview with 60 Minutes that he had a producer on his staff to make n-word jokes. I mean, this is a longstanding-- HANNITY: Yeah, but jokes. Jokes. You may not like the humor. DEGGANS: This is a long standing history. HANNITY: Wait a minute. I was watching Chris Rock over the weekend. Should Chris Rock, who says far worse on a regular basis -- have you ever come out and demanded that he be taken off the air? DEGGANS: First of all, Chris Rock is not a news and information person. HANNITY: He s a comedian. DEGGANS: Secondly, there s a difference between when somebody is inside a group and they make a joke about that group and when somebody is outside of a group. If you look at "The Daily Show" and you watch Jon Stewart... HANNITY: Oh, so if you re inside -- OK. DEGGANS: ... he makes jokes about being a Jewish man that somebody who s not Jewish could not make. There s a difference. HANNITY: Eric, the person that Don Imus made most fun of was Don Imus. The next person he made the most fun of -- and even kiddingly called his wife a ho -- was his wife, his own family, the people on his own show. So it wasn t applying a double standard here, but I find it interesting that you re willing to give Chris Rock a pass.

While discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton s (D-NY) presidential campaign during the October 15 edition of Fox News Hannity re not going to find out what Hillary Clinton believes. She s not doing any kind of interviews." In fact, in the past month, Clinton has given interviews to newspapers, television shows, and radio programs. For instance, on October 15 -- the same day as Santorum s appearance on Hannity Face the Nation, NBC s Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday, ABC s This Week, and CNN s Late Edition) all aired separate interviews with Clinton. Neither co-host Sean Hannity nor co-host Alan Colmes challenged Santorum s false assertion. From the October 15 edition of Fox News Hannity s changing here on very specific issues that she s making, you know, a month ago, two weeks ago, not on a significant, heart-wrenching, soul-searching issue like abortion, right? SANTORUM: No, this is what you re going to expect to see from Hillary from here on out. She s playing to try to do two things. She s sort of moving from running a primary campaign to running a general election campaign, and she s finding herself now where she thinks she s won the nomination, and so she s trying to play both sides. You re not going to find out what Hillary Clinton believes. She s not doing any kind of interviews. She has no access to the press when they travel with her. She s going to be very, very scripted. She s going to try to keep everybody happy, both in the primary and for the general. This is all about politics. She does not want you to know what she really thinks. She s not going to give you access to dig to what she really thinks -- COLMES: Hey -- SANTORUM: She s trying to just keep everybody happy until she gets to the last few months of the campaign. COLMES: Hey, Rick, this is going to surprise you. I don t always agree with Hillary Clinton. In fact, I m very upset that she voted to declare the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. I think that moves us a step closer to war, so I object to her position on that. However, in this case, I do not see it as an exact flip-flop. She was -- in the first instance, the question was, would you engage directly with leaders of other countries? She said no. Here she says, there would be negotiations with Iran. It wouldn t necessarily be between her and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, but that there would communication between the countries. They re not exactly the same thing. SANTORUM: Well, what she did was criticize Barack Obama for saying that he would negotiate without conditions with Iran - COLMES: Directly, himself. SANTORUM: -- directly. Well, and saying that she would negotiate without conditions with Iran generally, that is a very nuanced -- if that s not a flip-flop, that s about as nuanced as it gets off the cuff in New Hampshire. I just don t buy it. I think what it is, is she s trying to appeal to both audiences. She s trying to play it down the middle. And, you know, when you re in a campaign where everybody s watching every word you re saying, you can t do that and get away with it. COLMES: Well, I do see a difference between her directly engaging with the leader of other countries and having negotiations between countries. But, [Democratic strategist] Rich Masters, you know, Sean is correct. You cannot, they cannot paint her as a flip- flopper if Rudy Giuliani -- because he knew I was going to say this -- or Mitt Romney will be the nominee when they have flip-flopped on every key -- in fact, I m going to let him do my stuff from now on -- on every single key issue, which are serious, important, mainstream issues. They flip-flopped on everything.

On the October 8 edition of Fox News Hannity s comment came after Hannity, referring to the leading Republican 2008 presidential candidates, asserted: "You know what? On the defining issue of our time, all of them have taken a strong position on terrorism," adding, "If we don t have a country because the country s been blown up by people who want to kill us, that s an important campaign issue." Later during the segment, co-host Alan Colmes told Coulter that "if Hillary s elected, we re not going to be wearing burqas, OK? I don t think that s going to happen." Media Matters for America noted that an October 2 New York Observer blog post featuring excerpts of an interview with Coulter quoted her as saying: "If we took away women s right to vote, we d never have to worry about another Democrat [sic] president. It s kind of a pipe dream, it s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don t think it s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women." From the October 8 edition of Fox News Hannity t like Fred. You don t like Rudy. You sort of like Mitt. You don t like McCain. If the Republicans split, doesn t she win? COULTER: Well, as my family used to say, let s burn that bridge when we get to it. Right now, it s probably going to be Giuliani or Romney, and I d rather not have to defend someone who had a sanctuary city and supports -- HANNITY: Why don t you like Fred Thompson? I like Fred Thompson. I like Mitt. I like Rudy. I like -- COULTER: You re easy. HANNITY: I m not easy. You know what? On the defining issue of our time, all of them have taken a strong position on terrorism, and I believe all of them will -- you know what? We want to have all these debates? If we don t have a country because the country s been blown up by people who want to kill us, that s an important campaign issue. COULTER: Yes, and I do not want to be fitted for a burqa, so I will join you in fighting President Hillary Clinton. [...] COLMES: He s [Berger] not advising the Clinton camp -- by the way, if Hillary s elected, we re not going to be wearing burqas, OK? I don t think that s going to happen. He is not advising -- COULTER: That was 10 minutes ago. COLMES: -- he s not advising the Clinton campaign.

On the October 1 edition of Fox News Hannity s recent characterization of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," right-wing radio host and co-chairwoman of Move America Forward (MAF) Melanie Morgan asserted: "What s clear to me is that this is a manufactured controversy by Media Matters for America, an organization that has been determined to take down conservative talk-show hosts for many, many years now." She added: "Rush Limbaugh is a man who is a truth-teller and one of the most effective communicators of our generation." Later in the segment, following co-host Sean Hannity s assertions that "they know this is a phony issue" and "[t]hey know the context in which Rush was talking," Morgan asserted: "This is what [right-wing pundit] Michelle Malkin has been writing about at her blog for a long time now. A number of soldiers who are fake or who are embellishers or who are posers, who go out there -- or soldiers like Jon Soltz of VoteVet.org [sic], who go out there and use their far-left, anti-American agenda, political agenda to undermine the real mission of our troops, our heroes who are out there, who are fighting in a hot war, who are fighting for our lives and for our security and safety." As Media Matters has documented, Morgan has attacked Soltz in the past. For example, on the May 8 edition of PBS The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, correspondent Judy Woodruff hosted a segment titled "Grassroots Groups Seek to Influence Iraq Policy" featuring Soltz and Morgan. During the show, Morgan claimed that she would like to see Soltz "say to the troops in the field" "that they are failing, that they have failed, miserable performance, that they are losing." She also said that Soltz was "shameful and really disrespectful to our troops." In an August 17 column published on the conservative website WorldNetDaily, Morgan called Soltz a "hypocritical cockroach," stating that "[h]e needs to be stomped on and neutralized before he and his ilk can silence military support for the mission in Iraq." From the October 1 edition of Fox News Hannity s comments to the [Gen. David] Petraeus-MoveOn.org ad and the heat some of them got for not condemning the advertisement. And with us now, radio talk-show host and author of the book American Mourning -- that s with a "u" in there -- Melanie Morgan. And radio talk show Stephanie Miller. Now, Melanie, I just don t understand because we actually played the tape. He said "phony soldiers" -- plural. And then he claimed that he was talking about one soldier, but that particular soldier, his name didn t come up until about two minutes later. So it wasn t clear to me, at least, that he was talking about one soldier two minutes prior to that soldier s name coming up. Can you help me understand this? MORGAN: What s clear to me is this is a manufactured controversy by Media Matters for America, an organization that has been determined to take down conservative talk-show hosts for many, many years now. Rush Limbaugh is a man who is a truth-teller and one of the most effective communicators of our generation. And that s why they are continuing. COLMES: That doesn t answer my question, though. MORGAN: They are continuing to attack him. COLMES: I m trying to understand the explanation. [...] SEAN HANNITY (co-host): Melanie, what they re trying to do here, they know this is a phony issue. They know the context in which Rush was talking about here. They know his history of supporting the military. But they re trying to distract from their positions on the war. And Harry Reid literally said on the Senate floor today -- he called Rush unpatriotic. Does that mean we can call him unpatriotic for sending kids to war and telling them they lost? Or John Murtha, who accused Marines of murder, and now many of them have been vindicated, and he hasn t apologized? Is he unpatriotic? Was Obama patriotic -- unpatriotic when he said our troops are air-raiding villages, when they don t do any such thing? Now are they going to open that door? MORGAN: This is what Michelle Malkin has been writing about at her blog for a long time now. A number of soldiers who are fake or who are embellishers or who are posers, who go out there -- or soldiers like Jon Soltz of VoteVet.org [sic], who go out there and use their far-left, anti-American agenda, political agenda to undermine the real mission of our troops -- HANNITY: You know -- MORGAN: -- our heroes who are out there, who are fighting in a hot war -- HANNITY: You know something -- MORGAN: -- who are fighting for our lives -- HANNITY: Stephanie -- MORGAN: -- and for our security and safety. HANNITY: The bottom line is these same Democrats that couldn t condemn the "General Betray Us" ad, these same guys that want to cut off funding -- bullets, armor, Humvees, and supplies -- MILLER: Oh, I m sorry. HANNITY: -- the same guys that accused them of murder and, as [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] said, being terrorists. You know what? Why don t we have a resolution for each and every one of them and their statements? Would that be fair?

On the October 1 edition of Fox News Hannity s new book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They d Be Republicans (Crown Forum): "[Y]ou re quoted as saying, Maybe I m winning the camel jockeys over, " to which Coulter responded: "Yes ... That s actually in the book. That s not a made-up quote." Colmes then asked: "So you have no problem referring to Arabs as camel jockeys?" Coulter responded: "Oh. Yeah. No. They killed 3,000 Americans. I ll be very careful with my language." In response, Colmes said: "[W]hen you refer to an entire ethnicity as camel jockeys, it sounds bigoted," to which Coulter again asserted: "Yes, and it s so mean after they killed 3,000 Americans, and I shouldn t be mean to them," adding, "We have sure moved away from the day when we called them Krauts and Nips." The description of Coulter s book by publisher Crown Forum states: "Now you can read all the quotes that have so outraged her enemies and so delighted her legions of fans. More than just the definitive collection of Coulterisms, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They d Be Republicans includes dozens of brand-new commentaries written by Coulter and hundreds of never-before-published quotations." Later in the segment, Coulter said that her "camel jockeys" comment "was a quote on [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad." Colmes responded: "You were talking about camel jockeys. That s plural." As Media Matters for America documented, Coulter did refer to Ahmadinejad as a "camel jockey" in her February 15, 2006, nationally syndicated column, but she also used the plural version of the phrase "camel jockey" in her book without referring to any individual. From her February 15, 2006, column: If you don t want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don t point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that s offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what d I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you? From If Democrats Had Any Brains, They d Be Republicans, in a passage recounting Coulter s attacks on former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta and the criticism that ensued: One curious thing about the ensuing outrage is that Hollywood Liberals denounced me faster than the Arabs did. Maybe I m winning the camel jockeys over! After all, they get Christmas presents under my plan. " ANN COULTER S RECENT ATTACK ON NORMAN MINETA IS DESPICABLE, SAID PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION PRESIDENT RALPH G. NEAS. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS TO SAY THAT THIS LONG-TIME PUBLIC SERVANT HATES AMERICA. BUT IT IS UNFORTUNATELY NOT SURPRISING, GIVEN COULTER S HISTORY OF SIMILARLY RABID COMMENTARY, " - Statement, People For the American Way Foundation, March 1, 2002. [Page 10] As Media Matters for America has documented, Coulter has a history of making disparaging comments toward Arabs and Muslims: In a November 30, 2006, syndicated column about the removal of six imams from an airplane in Minnesota after other passengers saw them praying prior to boarding, Coulter claimed that "profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan" than it is like profiling African-Americans, "because of the history of discrimination against blacks in this country." Coulter added: "What did we do to the Arabs? I believe Americans are the victims in that relationship." In her February 8, 2006, column, Coulter suggested that Islam is "a car-burning cult," and wrote that Muslims have "a predilection for violence." Coulter was commenting on the rash of violence linked to cartoons in European newspapers that satirized the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. After lauding the elections in Iraq as "one of the grandest events in the history of the world" in her February 3 column, Coulter cited reports of Iraqis celebrating in the streets on Election Day and added parenthetically: "Isn t it great to see Muslims celebrating something other than the slaughter of Americans?" On September 12, 2001, responding to the September 11 attacks, Coulter wrote of Muslims in the National Review: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." She was later fired from the conservative National Review Online as a result of those comments. In her book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (Crown Forum, October 2004), Coulter wrote: "I am often asked if I still think we should invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever!" As Media Matters also noted, Coulter s latest book was released on October 2. Following her appearance on the October 1 edition of Hannity Fox s Today. From the October 1 edition of Fox News Hannity re quoted as saying, "Maybe I m winning the camel jockeys over." COULTER: Yes. COLMES: So you have no problem referring to -- COULTER: That s actually in the book. That s not a made-up quote. COLMES: That s why I m talking to you about it. So you have no problem referring to Arabs as camel jockeys? COULTER: Oh. Yeah. No. they killed 3,000 Americans. I ll be very careful with my language. COLMES: Wait a minute. All Arabs? All Arabs killed 3,000 Americans? COULTER: The point is, they were a little slower to attack me for that than the Jews were. COLMES: All right, but when you refer to an entire ethnicity as camel jockeys, it sounds bigoted. COULTER: Yes, and it s so mean after they killed 3,000 Americans, and I shouldn t be mean to them. COLMES: But "they" were not all Arabs. COULTER: We have sure moved away from the day when we called them Krauts and Nips. COLMES: You re very proud of yourself, aren t you? COULTER: No, I m making a point. We re at war. And what liberals are concerned about is what language we re using -- COLMES: You know what? Wait a minute -- COULTER: -- to describe the enemy. COLMES: You make your living on language. Language is very important. And, in fact, if you re going to try to prosecute a war or if you re going to try to win a war, you don t win it by using nasty language towards your opponent or calling everybody who s an Arab or everyone who s a German COULTER: You don t win it by whining, when that is a quote about Ahmadinejad. That was a quote on Ahmadinejad. COLMES: You were talking about camel jockeys. That s plural. COULTER: And what they re worried about is language being used toward him. And you pretend you re just worried about the language, but as we know from last week, you weren t just worried about the language. Columbia University invites Ahmadinejad to speak there. He is an honored guest there. I m not. The Minutemen are not. COLMES: The Minutemen were invited there. COULTER: This isn t just a question of language. You use language to change the substance of what people are talking about. COLMES: No, I m quoting your language, as you pointed out. SEAN HANNITY (co-host): I want to talk about -- the band is back together. You ve got George Soros funding John Podesta s group, Think Progress, which is attacking the structural imbalance of talk radio. You ve got George Soros funding MoveOn.org, George Soros funding Harold Ickes in Americans Coming Together. We need Media Matters to open up their books. But all these groups are now designed to hurt people like you. They have this phony battle and total mischaracterization of Rush Limbaugh s comments to hurt him. And it seems like they re trying to pick off one conservative after another. COULTER: Right. HANNITY: It s all the Clinton machine, to prepare for her run and hurt anybody that might be an opponent of hers. COULTER: Right. I think the point of my book is -- I wouldn t be too worried if I were a conservative - oh wait, I am a conservative -- because, I mean, that is the cure you sang about, the first chapter of my book. You go through these 10 years of defamation campaigns against me, taking something I ve said or making up something entirely that I never did say, twisting it, changing it, becoming hysterical, leading the news with it. And in every one of the battles, you don t even know -- HANNITY: But isn t the goal -- COULTER: Wait, but not only am I still here, but everyone I went up against has a reputation that has not gone up since that fight.

During the October 1 edition of Fox News Hannity s going to do is either double the capital gains tax, so it s 30 percent, not 15, or repeal it entirely so it s ordinary income taxed at 40, because that will be the new rate." Morris continued: "As her election gets closer, as it becomes more likely she s going to win, there s going to be a stock market crash. And when she wins, it s going to be Black Wednesday, because what s going to happen is that Americans will want to sell their stocks so they can get 15 percent tax, not 30 percent tax." From the October 1 edition of Fox News Hannity s a dour, cold, and calculating -- with the phrase you used -- or you re going to ridicule her for laughing. So this is a no-win situation for her. Let me just finish, and then I ll give you a chance to respond. Newt Gingrich coming on the show in a few minutes will say, "You ve got to fight this battle ideologically. If you re going to go after Clinton on personal issues, you re going to lose." MORRIS: Yeah, I think that s absolutely right. You know, one of the things that I think needs to be said about Hillary Clinton -- and I want to say it now -- is that if she is elected president, one of the first things she s going to do is either double the capital gains tax, so it s 30 percent, not 15, or repeal it entirely so it s ordinary income taxed at 40, because that will be the new rate. As her election gets closer, as it becomes more likely she s going to win, there s going to be a stock market crash. And when she wins, it s going to be Black Wednesday, because what s going to happen is that Americans will want to sell their stocks so they can get 15 percent tax, not 30 percent tax. COLMES: All right, so you re predicting a stock market crash based on what Hillary s going to do. Now, it s fair to debate capital gains. That s a fair debate. But you want to make the issue about a calculated laugh and make that and ridicule her for that, that s not going to help Republicans win.

On the September 5 post-presidential debate edition of Fox News Hannity s assertion about needing to not "lose our honor," declared: "Clearly, principle won out in this exchange." Luntz made his declaration about which side "won" the exchange in the opinion of the focus groups after showing a video clip of part of the exchange with lines on the screen showing the focus group s response to have been more favorable to Huckabee. He did not cite any comments from focus group participants or any other evidence that the participants favored Huckabee s comments because they thought that the comments -- in contrast with Paul s -- were based on "principle." Nor did he explain his suggestion that Paul s position on the war was not based on principle. In fact, Paul s position on the Iraq war has been consistent, though originally sharply at odds with public opinion. On October 8, 2002, Paul said, "There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war." He was only one of only six Republicans in the House to vote against the resolution authorizing war with Iraq. Paul has also been calling for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq for more than two years. Reporting on the same exchange during the debate, the September 6 edition of CNN s Your World Today aired only Paul s statement that "[w]e ve dug a hole for ourselves, and we ve dug a hole for our party. We re losing elections, and we re going down next year if we don t change it," followed by Huckabee s assertion that, "[e]ven if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor. And that is more important than the Republican Party." By cropping Paul s quote to leave out his substantive arguments for withdrawing from Iraq, CNN suggested that Paul s argument was entirely about electoral politics. CNN did not broadcast Paul s remarks that, "when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake" or his claim that he did not believe the U.S. should remain in Iraq just to "save face." Nor did CNN note that Paul -- contrary to the initial desires of a majority of the electorate -- opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. In response to an announcement in April by PBS that, immediately after the June 28 Democratic presidential forum, "public feedback on the performance of the candidates will be conducted by noted pollster Frank Luntz, who will also appear on Tavis Smiley on PBS the following evening to discuss his findings," Media Matters for America criticized Luntz s involvement and noted his history of partisan GOP activity and record of reported reprimand and censure by this peers. In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research reprimanded Luntz for comments he made to the media regarding his polling work on the Contract with America, according to a 2000 Salon.com article. Similarly, Washington Post polling director Richard Morin reported in 2000 that the National Council on Public Polls "censured pollster Frank Luntz for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention." As Media Matters has also documented, Luntz has worked for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), a primary election opponent of Paul and Huckabee s, and has heaped praise on Giuliani this year. In September 2004, MSNBC dropped its plans to include Luntz in coverage of that year s presidential forum following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz s GOP ties and criticism from his peers for misrepresenting and withholding results of his research. From the September 5 post-debate edition of Fox News Hannity ve been doing dial groups and focus groups. In fact, you went to the FoxNews.com website earlier tonight, you can see the dials as they were turning upward or downward as the candidates were speaking earlier this evening. LUNTZ: It was a very interesting response. The reaction was not as positive this time as it had been for the other debates that we d been testing. And it was interesting that our group was a little bit disappointed with what they heard and, in some cases, what they didn t. They thought that the candidates were not as clear as they were expecting, there wasn t quite enough specifics as to what they were going to do. But even the style itself seems to be just a little bit short on -- on -- on a communicative nature. I want to show you the one exception to that. The single most interesting reaction was between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Now, you can see these dials go up and down. The red line represents moderates turning their dials. The yellow line represents conservatives. Watch what happens when the two of them go back at each other. Clearly, Mike Huckabee was the winner, and Ron Paul was the loser. Let s take a look. [begin video clip] HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country. The United States of America, not the divided states of America. PAUL: No -- when we make a mistake -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake. HUCKABEE: And that s what we do on the floor of the Senate. PAUL: No. We ve dug a hole for ourselves, and we ve dug a hole for our party. We re losing elections, and we re going down next year if we don t change it. And it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor. And that is more important than the Republican Party. PAUL: We re losing -- we ve lost over -- [end video clip] LUNTZ: Not losing our honor. Clearly, principle won out in this exchange. But this wasn t actually the -- Mike Huckabee did quite well. But this wasn t the top response. [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ], who had not been doing well in the sessions that we ve done up to this point, exceeded expectations. From the transcript of the September 5 Republican presidential primary debate at the University of New Hampshire s Whittemore Center: CHRIS WALLACE (moderator and Fox News Sunday host): Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who had staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any Al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave? PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be a slam-dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They ve been wrong on everything they ve said. So why not ask the people -- why not ask the people who advised not to go in -- into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit. Yes, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? It was the fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia -- was the -- one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9-11. So why leave them in the region? They don t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula. And going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security. I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It s the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five -- totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that says we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend our borders -- WALLACE: So if -- so, Congressman Paul, and I d like you to take 30 seconds to answer this. You re basically saying we should take our marching orders from Al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? PAUL: No. I m saying -- I m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We ve committed the invasion of this war. And it s illegal under international law. That s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. [...] CHRIS WALLACE (moderator and Fox News Sunday host): Governor, if that s the best we can hope for, should we continue the surge? HUCKABEE: We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don t pick something off the shelf I can t afford to buy. Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It s our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. Because something is at stake. Senator McCain made a great point -- and let me make this clear: If there s anybody on this stage that understands the word "honor," I ve got to say Senator McCain understands that word because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don t even comprehend. And on this issue, when he says we can t leave until we ve left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we re there. We bought it because we broke it. We ve got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve. PAUL: Can I respond -- WALLACE: Go ahead. You wanted to respond? He just addressed you. You go ahead and respond. PAUL: The American people didn t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy. They re responsible, not the American people. They re not responsible. We shouldn t punish them. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country. The United States of America, not the divided states of America. PAUL: No. when we make a mistake -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake. HUCKABEE: And that s what we do on the floor of the Senate. PAUL: No. We ve dug a hole for ourselves, and we ve dug a hole for our party. We re losing elections, and we re going down next year if we don t change it. And it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor. And that is more important than the Republican Party. PAUL: We re losing -- we ve lost over -- we have lost -- we have lost over 5,000 Americans killed in -- we ve lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more you want to lose? How long are you going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That s all we re doing is saving face. It s time we came home. BRIT HUME (moderator and Special Report anchor): Gentleman, thank you. From the September 6 edition of CNN s Your World Today: ISHA SESAY (co-anchor): Well, speaking a little bit more now on that GOP debate that [CNN national correspondent] John [King] and [co-anchor] Jim [Clancy] were just talking about. As we were saying, the rest of the GOP candidates squared off for their fifth debate in New Hampshire. There was plenty of passion about Iraq. Most of the eight Republicans defended the war -- that is, except for Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who said the troops should be withdrawn. Well, that led to this fiery exchange with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. [begin video clip] PAUL: We ve dug a hole for ourselves, and we ve dug a hole for our party. We re losing elections, and we re going down next year if we don t change it. And has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important than the Republican Party. PAUL: We re losing -- we lost over -- [end video clip] SESAY: Both sides got applause from the crowd in Durham, New Hampshire.

On the August 29 edition of Fox News Hannity s [William and Alice Paw] grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to attendance liaison at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund." Additionally, as Media Matters for America documented, half of the $200,000 in political contributions came from Winkle Paw, an adult son. According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Winkle Paw made $100,550 in contributions to political committees since 2004. (The bulk of Winkle Paw s contributions were made in 2005, 2006, and 2007 -- his donations totaled $3,000 in 2004.) Additionally, Winkle Paw has donated $2,800 to joint fundraising committees -- which raise money to be distributed to other committees and are listed separately by the FEC -- since 2005. Earlier in the segment, Fund had asserted that "[t]he [Paw] family there has contributed over $250,000 to Democratic candidates in the last three years. They never contributed before 2004 to anyone." Fund also stated that "[William Paw] makes $49,000 a year," that "his wife is a homemaker," and that "[t]here s very little other income in the family." On Hannity, co-host Alan Colmes began the segment by asking Fund: "Is there any evidence that ... Hillary Clinton knew anything of what Hsu was doing, if indeed he did anything illegal, that she had any knowledge ... that this was going on?" Fund replied: "At this point, no. But ... I think we need to learn more." Later, when Colmes asked, "[D]o you have any public record or indication that Hsu reimbursed the Paw family?" Fund responded: "No, but I have strong suspicions of it," adding: "[T]he Paw family should come forward." But, as Media Matters also noted, Hsu s lawyer, Larry Barcella said in an August 28 statement posted on Talkleft.com, that in addition to making the comments published by the Journal, he had offered to provide financial information showing that the Paws were able to make such donations: "I told the reporter [presumably Mullins] and his editor that I had reviewed the Paw s [sic] financial records, which clearly demonstrated that they easily had the financial wherewithal to make any level of contributions. ... I asked the reporter, in the presence of his editor, if I got permission to let them see the Paws financial information, which shows their resources, would they not run the story? His editor responded 3 times that they were running the story anyway." The Journal article did not address the purported offer of the Paws private financial information. Instead, the Journal simply reported: Lawrence Barcella, a Washington attorney representing Mr. Hsu, said in a separate email: "You are barking up the wrong tree. There is no factual support for this story and if Mr. Hsu s name was Smith or Jones, I don t believe it would be a story." He didn t elaborate. The Journal also reported: People who answered the phone and the door at the Paws residence declined requests for comment last week. In an email last night, one of the Paws sons, Winkle, said he had sometimes been asked by Mr. Hsu to make contributions, and sometimes he himself had asked family members to donate. But he added: "I have been fortunate in my investments and all of my contributions have been my money." Colmes also stated during the show: "[G]enerally, you know, the candidates are not aware, day to day, of what s happening with people who may contribute, who are buying contributions." As Media Matters noted, the Journal article reported: "In the wake of a 2002 law that set ... limits [on campaign donations], federal and state regulators and law-enforcement officials said they have seen a spike recently in the number of cases of individuals and companies illegally reimbursing others for campaign donations. Those cases don t necessarily implicate the candidates, who sometimes don t even appear to be aware of such payments executed on their behalf." From the August 29 edition of Fox News Hannity s a warrant out for his arrest on grand theft. I think he should be brought in and should be asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. COLMES: What -- she should be brought in? FUND: No, Mr. Hsu -- COLMES: He should -- FUND: -- should be brought in. COLMES: Mr. Hsu should probably -- but you want to pin this on Hillary Clinton because of his behavior? FUND: No! No, no. The only concern with the Clinton campaign is we have seen strange campaign contribution scandals before. The 1996 campaign saw 120 people connected to the Clinton fundraising efforts either flee the country to avoid questioning or plead the Fifth Amendment. [...] FUND: I want questions and answers. COLMES: There s no evidence of it. In fact, there s no public record or indication that Hsu reimbursed, for example, the Paw family, the family in California -- FUND: No. COLMES: -- that gave like-minded contributions to the Hillary Clinton campaign. FUND: -- we also have this gentleman who has just fled to Pakistan because he gave illegal campaign contributions. He has fled the country. I m saying there are ominous parallels with exactly what went wrong in the 1996 -- COLMES: Right. FUND: -- Clinton campaign, and we never got the answers to what was the [inaudible]. COLMES: But, generally, you know that candidates are not aware, day-to-day, of what s happening with people who may contribute, who are buying contributions. FUND: Except, in 1996, we do know Bill Clinton was aware. COLMES: But, did you -- but, what does that have to do with now, John? FUND: He was aware of the Lincoln bedroom. He was -- COLMES: John, what does it have to do with this? You want to keep going back to 1996 -- FUND: Because the Clintons have a modus operandi. This is a pattern, here, Alan. COLMES: You want to go back to 96 -- FUND: It s a pattern. HANNITY: Wait, hang on a second. COLMES: -- and it has nothing to do with this. HANNITY: You know what? You guys are arguing. I want to go through this step by step and explain exactly, especially as it relates to the Paw family, where you have a gentleman that only makes $45,000 per year -- FUND: And his wife is a homemaker. HANNITY: -- and his wife is a homemaker. Why don t you explain in detail what s happening here and why this is significant? He s a fugitive, by the way. FUND: Absolutely. We can t find him. Although he s sponsoring a Clinton fundraiser September 30, Mr. Hsu is. The Paw family is very interesting. They live in a house that Mr. Hsu used to own in Daly City, California. HANNITY: Right. FUND: The family there has contributed over $250,000 to Democratic candidates in the last three years. They never contributed before 2004 to anyone. HANNITY: Right. FUND: He makes $49,000 a year. There s very little other income in the family. HANNITY: Right. FUND: They apparently have all of this money. The suspicion is that, like with a lot of campaign finance scandals, Mr. Hsu may have been reimbursing them in order to make those contributions to evade the campaign contribution limits. That would be the suspicion. HANNITY: All right, so in other words, that they would be funneling the money from Mr. Hsu, FUND: Laundering. HANNITY: -- basically, through the Paw family -- FUND: Right. HANNITY: -- to get it into the Clinton coffers there. All right. FUND: Exactly. [...] COLMES: Whose in jail because of this? FUND: In jail? The investigation goes on. The Federal Election Commission says they re continuing the investigation. COLMES: All right -- do you have any public record or indication that Hsu reimbursed the Paw family? FUND: No, but I have strong suspicions of it. COLMES: Suspicions. All right. FUND: Oh, well, where are -- the Paw family should come forward. HANNITY: Where did they get the money? They only make $49,000 a year. Where did they get $250,000? COLMES: Greta is here to tell us what s coming up next On the Record right after Hannity & Colmes.

During the August 27 edition of MSNBC s Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News host Sean Hannity the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, refusing to disavow musician and right-wing activist Ted Nugent s smears of Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama (IL) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY). Olbermann stated: "After noted owner and user of machine guns, former rock star Ted Nugent, said, quote, Hey, Obama, you might want to suck on one of these, you punk, and made similar suggestions to Senator Clinton, Mr. Hannity described Nugent as a friend and frequent guest and refused to repudiate even those remarks." Olbermann observed: "[Hannity] then asked a guest, quoting, I see you liberals more upset about that, but I don t hear anybody criticizing Barack Obama for accusing our troops of killing civilians, air-raiding villages, et cetera, et cetera. What s more shocking to you? What s more offensive to you? Is it Barack Obama s statement about our troops or Ted Nugent? " Olbermann later concluded: "In those remarks, Sean, swap in George Bush for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, what do you think that is then if not threat of bodily harm? It isn t liberals who are upset at Nugent, Sean: It s humans. Sean Hannity, today s Worst Person in the World! " Additionally, Olbermann named Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume the "runner-up" for, as Media Matters also documented, distorting two University of Washington professors recently published research in the August 9 issue of New Scientist, which Olberman described as "very complex findings about the solar activity and the heating atmosphere." Quoting from the article, Olbermann noted: "It writes, Climate change skeptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun s variability can explain global warming, but Professor Tung says quite the contrary is true. So, of course, Brit Hume seizes on the findings as evidence that the sun s variability can explain global warming." Olbermann then added: " Skeptics, Hume mumbled, are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown. New research by University of Washington mathematicians shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of global warming. Come on, Brit, don t make these so easy for me." From the August 27 edition of MSNBC s Countdown with Keith Olbermann: OLBERMANN: The runner-up, good old Brit Hume of Fixed News. New Scientist magazine reporting University of Washington mathematics and atmospheric science Professor Ka-Kit Tung s very complex findings about solar activity and the heating atmosphere. It writes, "Climate change skeptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun s variability can explain global warming, but Professor Tung says quite the contrary is true." So, of course, Brit Hume seizes on the findings as evidence that the sun s variability can explain global warming. "Skeptics," Hume mumbled, "are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown. New research by University of Washington mathematicians shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of global warming." Come on, Brit, don t make these so easy for me. But our winner, Sean Hannity of Fixed News. After noted owner and user of machine guns, former rock star Ted Nugent, said, quote, "Hey, Obama, you might want to suck on one of these, you punk," and made similar suggestions to Senator Clinton, Mr. Hannity described Nugent as "a friend and frequent guest" and refused to repudiate even those remarks. He then asked a guest, quoting, "I see you liberals more upset about that, but I don t hear anybody criticizing Barack Obama for accusing our troops of killing civilians, air-raiding villages, et cetera, et cetera. What s more shocking to you? What s more offensive to you? Is it Barack Obama s statement about our troops or Ted Nugent?" Let s see, Sean. Senator Obama says we need a different strategy in Afghanistan so we re "not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians," which the Bush administration is doing, and Ted Nugent suggests he d like to see Senator Obama suck a machine gun and Senator Clinton "ride one off into the sunset." In those remarks, Sean, swap in George Bush for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton: What do you think that is then if not threat of bodily harm? It isn t liberals who are upset at Nugent, Sean: It s humans. Sean Hannity, today s "Worst Person in the World!"

On the August 24 edition of Fox News Hannity s comments to recent statements by Obama, which Hannity again distorted by claiming Obama "accus[ed] our troops of killing civilians." Hannity then asked Democratic strategist Bob Beckel: "What s more offensive to you? Is it Barack Obama s statement about our troops or Ted Nugent?" Beckel responded by asking Hannity if he was "prepared to disavow this lowlife," to which Hannity responded: "No, I like Ted Nugent. He s a friend of mine." When Beckel said that Nugent "ought to never come on your show again, and if you have him on, you ought to be ashamed of yourself," Hannity responded: "Not at all. We have you on." According to Nugent s biography on his personal website, he has been a member of the National Rifle Association s board of directors since 1995. In addition to his attacks on Clinton and Obama, Nugent, in a portion of the video clip not aired on Hannity s claims of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" as "hate speech." On the March 11 edition of Fox News Hannity s America, Hannity devoted an entire segment to a "list of the worst examples of liberal hate speech," during which he attacked Clinton, National Public Radio s Nina Totenberg, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), comedian and Democratic Senate candidate Al Franken, actor Alec Baldwin, and others. As Media Matters documented, Hannity has repeatedly mischaracterized Obama s August 13 statement that "[w]e ve got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan], and that requires us to have enough troops so that we re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." Obama did not "accus[e]" American troops of anything, but instead expressed support for increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan so the U.S. military is not so reliant on airstrikes in the region. From the August 24 edition of Fox News Hannity s a piece of [bleep]. And I told him to suck on my machine gun. Let s hear it for it. And I was in New York. I said, "Hey, Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless [bleep]!" HANNITY: That was friend and frequent guest on the program Ted Nugent expressing his feelings towards Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Joining us now, Democratic strategist Bob Beckel and Republican strategist Karen Hanretty. You know, Bob, we may actually agree here. Here is Ted Nugent. He s saying, you know, the "Wang Dang" song, "Cat Scratch Fever," wears a loincloth on stage, fires, you know, an arrow at targets on stage. I see you liberals more upset about that, but I don t hear anybody criticizing Barack Obama for accusing our troops of killing civilians, air-raiding villages, et cetera, et cetera. What s more shocking to you? What s more offensive to you? Is it Barack Obama s statement about our troops or Ted Nugent? BECKEL: You know, only you could figure out a way to ask a question like that. First of all, Nugent, this is a boy who s missing a couple dogs from under his front porch. This guy has been pimping for Republicans for years now. They want him to run for Senate against Obama. I can t believe -- when the Dixie Chicks said something about George Bush, which was mild compared to this jerk, and the religious right, the Dobsons and the Robertsons, rose up in fury. You rose up in fury. [crosstalk] HANNITY: You know, typical Bob Beckel. But you can t answer the question. I didn t ask you that. BECKEL: I want to see -- [crosstalk] BECKEL: Are you prepared now, Sean -- are you prepared to disavow this lowlife or not? HANNITY: No, I like Ted Nugent. He s a friend of mine. BECKEL: You do, after did he that? After he did that? HANNITY: But he s a rock star. Yes, here s my point. If you don t like it, don t go to the concert, don t buy his new albums. [crosstalk] BECKEL: I can t believe you re defending this lowlife. HANNITY: Here s my question again, and hopefully your liberal brain can absorb it. [crosstalk] BECKEL: The question is not even a close call. I think Nugent was far over the line and Obama was not. HANNITY: I want to know. Barack Obama accused our troops of killing civilians and air-raiding villages. What is more offensive to you, which statement? BECKEL: Because I know the context in which Obama said it. This Nugent is more offensive. This guy ought to be knocked off the air. He ought to never come on your show again, and if you have him on, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. He s a bum! HANNITY: Not at all. We have you on.

On the August 23 edition of Fox News Hannity re not careless when you drive a car." Coulter was apparently referring to conservative allegations that the Clintons were somehow involved in the death of Clinton deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, and here), numerous investigations have determined that Foster s death was a suicide. The Office of the Independent Counsel -- then headed by Republican Kenneth Starr -- completed its inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Foster s death with a report issued on October 11, 1997, which concluded that "based on investigation and analysis of the evidentiary record ... Mr. Foster committed suicide by gunshot in Fort Marcy Park." Coulter made her comments following co-host Sean Hannity s assertion that Michelle Obama, Sen. Barack Obama s (D-IL) wife, and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) have recently attacked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) but "won t admit it." Hannity then asked, "Why are they all afraid to mention Hillary Clinton by name when they have, you know, differences with her?" Media Matters has documented numerous instances of conservative allegations that the Clintons were behind Foster s death. Specifically, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly suggested (here, here, here, here, and here) that the Clintons were involved in Foster s death, often invoking the location of Foster s suicide, Fort Marcy Park in Northern Virginia, in his allegations. Additionally, on the July 22 edition of Fox News Hannity s America, Hannity teased a segment on "the mysterious death of Vince Foster" by asking: "Did a close friend of Hillary Clinton commit suicide, or was it a massive cover-up?" Responding to Hannity s question about "[w]hy [political opponents] are ... all afraid to mention Hillary Clinton by name," Coulter also stated: "Because if you attack Ann Coulter, you don t end up with your cat killed or your tires slashed," adding: "Of course they re afraid." Coulter was apparently referring to allegations made by Kathleen Willey that were documented in the final report on the Monica Lewinsky matter by independent counsel Robert W. Ray. In the report, Ray, a Republican, wrote of Willey s deposition in the case Jones v. Clinton, in which Willey testified about allegations that President Clinton made sexual advances toward her: Willey also alleged that in the period immediately preceding her January 1998 Jones deposition, her cat disappeared, her tires were punctured, and a male jogger who she did not recognize approached her at her rural home, called her by name, and asked about her tires, cat (which he named), children (whom he named), attorney, and her attorney s children (whom he also named), saying I hope you re getting the message or You re just not getting the message, are you? ... At her Jones deposition, however, Willey testified no one had tried to discourage her from testifying. Moreover, Hannity, apparently referring to remarks Michelle Obama made in an August 16 speech, stated: "Michelle Obama attacks Hillary Clinton. We all know who she s talking about. They won t admit it." As Media Matters has noted, numerous media figures have asserted that Obama was attacking Clinton when she said, "Our view is that if you can t run your own house, you certainly can t run the White House." However, immediately after her comment about the ability to "run your own house," Obama went on to discuss measures her family was taking to keep their children "grounded" while campaigning and the efforts the Obamas are making to ensure that their children will continue to "come first." From her August 16 remarks: MICHELLE OBAMA: That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can t run your own house, you certainly can t run the White House. So, so we ve adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he s traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I m home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don t care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that s why we re doing this. We re in this race for not just our children, but all of our children. As Media Matters has also noted, the Obama campaign has denied that Michelle Obama was attacking Clinton or anyone else. From the August 23 edition of Fox News Hannity s an amazing thing. We got away from the "Two Americas" speech. But in the new speech, he attacks Hillary Clinton. It s clear he attacks Hillary Clinton, but he won t admit it. Michelle Obama attacks Hillary Clinton. We all know who she s talking about. They won t admit it. Why are they all afraid to mention Hillary Clinton by name when they have, you know, differences with her? STEVE MURPHY (Democratic strategist): You got me. I don t know what you get out of -- go ahead. You answer it, Ann, because I have no idea. COULTER: Because if you attack Ann Coulter, you don t end up with your cat killed or your tires slashed. Or being audited by the IRS, as happened to, oh, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, all the other ones who attacked the Clintons. Of course they re afraid. MURPHY: All these -- all of these -- all of these attacks, these like nameless attacks don t get anybody anything. This country is in a total mess right now. HANNITY: But wait a minute. Here s the thing -- MURPHY: We re in terrible shape. Here and abroad, the voters want the candidates to address how they re going to get out of that mess. HANNITY: All right, Steve -- MURPHY: That is why John Edwards is dropping. He s not dropping because he s attacking you, Ann. He s dropping because he s not attacking the issues. HANNITY: Let me throw this to Ann Coulter. Ann, the AP had a story last week. They interviewed 40 prominent Democrats, every region of the country. And they all said that their internal polling shows that Hillary Clinton, if she s the nominee, is going to be a drag on the ticket. They re all scared to death. Only one guy from Indiana, a guy by the name of Crook, would speak out and go on the record. The other 40 Democrats, the AP cited, for fear of retribution, they don t want to attack Hillary Clinton or the Clinton machine publicly. I mean, they seem -- they seem to instill real fear in people. COULTER: Right, and if you attack the Clintons publicly, make sure all your friends know that you are not planning suicide, that you re not careless when you drive a car. COLMES: By the way, Ann, how do you know Obama was -- Michelle Obama was not attacking Rudy Giuliani when she talked about family values? She said nothing about Bill Clinton. You have no evidence that that s who she was attacking -- COULTER: Because we re in the primary now, Alan.

On the August 21 edition of Fox News Hannity s (D-IL) statement that "our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages" is "not true." As co-host Alan Colmes suggested later in the program, Hannity was apparently referring to Obama s August 13 remark that "[w]e ve got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." Hannity provided no evidence to support his assertion that Obama s comments are "not true." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted in response to Hannity s earlier mischaracterization of Obama s comments, U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. Additionally, as the Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" responding to conservative attacks on Obama, "Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents." Further, in a July 7 article on NATO and U.S. air strikes reported to have killed more than 100 Afghan civilians, Reuters cited the assessment of military analysts that "a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power." Also during the segment, Hannity mischaracterized two of Obama s earlier statements on foreign policy, claiming that Obama "says he takes nukes off the table," and that Obama said he "is going bomb an ally in the war on terror, [Pakistan President] General [Pervez] Musharraf, and possibly invade them." From this, Hannity concluded that Obama is "finished" as a presidential contender. As Media Matters noted, Hannity made similar claims on the August 14 edition of Hannity ve had in this country." However, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Obama never said he would "bomb an ally in the war on terror, General Musharraf," nor has he claimed that he would "invade Pakistan." Rather, Obama stated in an August 1 speech: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President Musharraf won t act, we will." Further, Obama never stated that he would "take[] nukes off the table" entirely, nor did he claim that he would "take away the nuclear deterrent that we ve had in this country." Rather, Obama said he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, specifically. From the August 21 edition of Fox News Hannity s finished. He s done. She s got the nomination. I wish he were a stronger candidate, because now Hillary will just be after the Republicans. DAVIS: Well, first of all, I have a great deal of admiration for Senator Obama s theme which is the theme of my book, that gotcha politics is destroying America and that both parties have to learn to have civil debate the solve people s problem. I think Hillary has the experience to make change happen as opposed to Senator Obama, who is a future great candidate but not right now. HANNITY: You know something, I m listening to Lanny Davis, Michael, and I believe he s sincere. But it s kind of hard to believe the Democrats are capable of it: The president is a liar, Barack Obama saying our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages, not true. [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] made some other statements, [Rep. John P.] Murtha [D-PA] has made them. The most vitriol is coming from the left and from high-ranking Democrats today. STEELE: Well, that s always the case. And, you know, I quite frankly took Hillary Clinton s flip- flop, if you will, to heart. I think as Republicans we should be lauding her, you know, coming around to common sense and waiting to see the surge unfold and in fact acknowledging, begrudgingly, but acknowledging, that there has been progress made. So I m less concerned about that part of it. [...] COLMES: Michael, you know, the Republicans -- I should say Democrats keep getting blamed for accusing the troops of doing these horrible things. Barack Obama said we have to get the job done in Afghanistan. And that requires us to have enough troops so we are not air raiding villages and killing civilians. That was what Barack Obama said. What John Kerry said was backed up by the Red Cross, that there were civilians who were being terrorized. But, you know, Hillary Clinton was quite clear and she said that it s working in Anbar Province. She said, "But we have to make sure that the Iraqi government is involved doing the right thing or there is no point, and we have to start getting our troops out of a civil war." And that is no different than what she said in January when she said pursuing a strategy that under present circumstances cannot be successful, those circumstances being the Iraqi government. There was no flip-flopping here, Michael.

On the August 20 edition of Fox News Hannity Hannity s America by stating that "The Wall Street Journal reported that [former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC] had invested in and worked for a company that is foreclosing on residents of New Orleans," adding: "The Edwards campaign has since announced that the senator will divest from the company. But we wanted to hear from the actual people who are losing their homes in foreclosure." Hannity was referring to an August 17 Wall Street Journal article that reported that "subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC" had filed foreclosure actions against New Orleans homeowners. While Hannity did note that Edwards said he would divest from the any Fortress Investment Group funds "that have a stake in the subprime lenders that filed the foreclosures," according to the Journal article, he did not note that the Journal also reported that Edwards "pledged that he would personally provide financial assistance to New Orleanians who are facing foreclosure by Fortress-affiliated businesses or have lost their homes already." According to the washingtonpost.com blog The Trail, Edwards campaign spokesman Eric Schultz stated on August 17 that Edwards "has taken personal responsibility by cleansing his portfolio of any investments that may have ties to these practices, and he [is] also personally committing to helping people who may have lost their homes." From the August 20 edition of Fox News Hannity s America. What s going on? HANNITY: Yeah, thanks, Alan. Listen, last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that John Edwards had invested in and worked for a company that is foreclosing on residents of New Orleans. Now, considering that Edwards spends so much time talking about, quote, "two Americas," and even launched his presidential campaign with a speech in New Orleans, the story came as a shock to most of America. The Edwards campaign has since announced that the senator will divest from the company. But we wanted to hear from the actual people who are losing their homes in foreclosure. So we sent our cameras to New Orleans and found some of the people whose homes are in foreclosure, thanks to John Edwards company. Take a look. SHERLENE ROBINSON [video clip]: Due to the storm, we wasn t able to pay the mortgage down here. We were living in Texas, off housing out there. And they sent us a foreclosure letter. We started picking back up, paying the loan. It was $700 a month. They broke it down to $421 a month. And we have been paying that. We can t do anything, because we re still in foreclosure. They have us in foreclosure on our credit account. I called and asked them, could they get that off my credit, and they told me no, even though I m paying them every month. I m still in foreclosure with them. HANNITY: Two Americas, $1,200 haircuts, 28,000-square-foot mansions, and $55,000 speeches on poverty. We re going to have more of that interview on a very special edition of Hannity s America this Sunday night at 9 p.m. Eastern, so don t miss it. From the August 17 Journal article: As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims. The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through 2006. Asked about the matter, Mr. Edwards yesterday pledged that he would personally provide financial assistance to New Orleanians who are facing foreclosure by Fortress-affiliated businesses or have lost their homes already. "I intend to help these people," the former North Carolina senator said. He also promised to cleanse his portfolio of any investments that may be profiting from their losses. "I am going to divest" from any Fortress funds that have a stake in the subprime lenders that filed the foreclosures, he said in a telephone interview. "I will not have my family s money invested in these firms." From the August 17 entry on The Trail: Edwards campaign spokesman Eric Schultz sought today to frame Edwards latest response to his Fortress link as proof that he cared for the people of New Orleans. He "believes that nobody in New Orleans should lose their home because of Hurricane Katrina," Schultz said. "Edwards has taken personal responsibility by cleansing his portfolio of any investments that may have ties to these practices, and he [is] also personally committing to helping people who may have lost their homes. For John Edwards, the tragedy in New Orleans is not just about politics. They have been abandoned by the federal government and deserve a strong advocate. As president, he will be that fighter, but he s not waiting until then. He s taking responsibility, because for him that is the meaning of leadership."

On the August 15 edition of Fox News Hannity s (D-IL) August 13 remark that "[w]e ve got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there," an on-screen graphic read: "Obama criticizes U.S. troops for air-raiding villages and killing civilians. " Earlier in the show, co-host Sean Hannity teased the segment by asserting that Obama was "slamming U.S. troops" and, during the segment, suggested that Obama had "attack[ed] our troops as murderers." In fact, as the video clip aired before the segment indicated, Obama did not "attack[] our troops as murderers" in the statement, nor did he "criticize[]" them; rather, he expressed support for increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan so the U.S. military is not so reliant on airstrikes in the region. As Media Matters for America noted in response to Hannity s earlier mischaracterization of Obama s comments, U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. Additionally, as the Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" responding to conservative attacks on Obama, "Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents." Further, in a July 7 article on NATO and U.S. airstrikes reported to have killed more than 100 Afghan civilians, Reuters cited the assessment of military analysts that "a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power." Also during the segment, Fox News contributor and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) asserted: "[I]f you look at the statement made by [Obama s] press secretary afterwards, which was very clear, saying that the policy of this administration is to bomb civilians. What he -- what his press secretary and, obviously, in conjunction with that, what Barack Obama are doing, is saying that we are targeting civilians, which is against the Geneva Convention, which says that our troops are war criminals." Santorum was presumably referring to an August 14 article in the Nashua Telegraph which originally reported: "[Obama] Campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said Obama was not endorsing the current Bush policy, which consists solely of air raids and bombing of civilians." However, the article has since been updated -- without a correction -- and now reads: "Campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said Obama was not endorsing the current Bush policy in Afghanistan." Both versions of the article also quote Cherlin saying, "Senator Obama believes that the Bush administration sent our troops to fight on the wrong battlefield and that we ve got to make sure we have the resources and troop strength in Afghanistan to root out al-Qaida and counter the threat posed by the Taliban. ... Right now, that s not happening. Nowhere in either version is Cherlin quoted saying that "the policy of this administration is to bomb civilians," as Santorum asserted. The on-screen graphic shown throughout the Hannity s August 13 comments: Earlier in the show, Hannity teased the segment by asserting that Obama was "slamming U.S. troops." During the segment, guest co-host Kirsten Powers stated that the August 13 comments have "caused Senator Barack Obama nothing but trouble," adding "I think that this was obviously a sloppy thing to say." Powers continued, "But it s very hard for me to believe that he was really attacking the troops, which is now what all the Republicans were saying. I mean, it seems pretty clear, even President Bush has talked about how badly he feels about all the civilians that are being killed in Afghanistan. And this is not in dispute." Hannity then referred to Obama s remarks as "disgusting" and "despicable," and said to Democratic strategist Michael Brown: "What is it about your party that you lecture us how much you support the military, and every time we turn around, you embolden the enemy and stab these guys in the back and defend it?" Later, in response to Brown s assertion that Republicans "continue[] to defend a flawed policy," Hannity asserted, in reference to Obama s statement: "You re a broken record. That s how you defend attacking our troops as murderers?" From the August 15 edition of Fox News Hannity s comments slamming U.S. troops: it continues to haunt the presidential contender. When is the apology coming? We re going to look at some of the damage this may do to his campaign, straight ahead. [...] OBAMA [video clip]: We ve got to get the job done there. And that requires us to have enough troops that we re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there. POWERS: Welcome back to Hannity m Kirsten Powers, sitting in for Alan [Colmes] tonight. That was the comment that s caused Senator Barack Obama nothing but trouble. Joining us now is Democratic strategist Michael Brown and former senator and Fox News contributor Rick Santorum. Thank you for being with us. Senator, I think that this was obviously a sloppy thing to say. And I am not afraid to criticize Democrats and in fact have been somewhat critical of Obama on some of his other foreign policy statements. But it s very hard for me to believe that he was really attacking the troops, which is now what all the Republicans were saying. I mean, it seems pretty clear -- even President Bush has talked about how badly he feels about all the civilians that are being killed in Afghanistan. I mean, this is not in dispute. SANTORUM: Certainly, civilians are being killed. Unfortunately, that s one of the consequences of war. The civilians get killed. But you look at his statement -- if you look at the statement made by his press secretary afterwards, which was very clear, saying that the policy of this administration is to bomb civilians. What he -- what his press secretary and, obviously, in conjunction with that, what Barack Obama are doing is saying that we are targeting civilians, which is against the Geneva Convention, which says that our troops are war criminals. Calling our troops war criminals is not a way to move forward, in my opinion, to say that I m worthy of being the commander in chief of this country. And that s what he did today and yesterday. POWERS: I completely agree with the fact that you shouldn t be calling them war criminals. I don t think that s what he did. Michael, I want to bring you in. I mean, is this how you heard what he was saying? BROWN: Of course not. And I think the senator knows that. The senator s good, though. He s looking at his Republican talking points, and he s following them line by line. And so he s doing a good job with that. [...] POWERS: I want to just go to the substance of what he was talking about, what was going on in Afghanistan. I mean, what he s talking about is that there has -- there has been a disproportionate number of civilians killed. And it s not just that civilians are being killed. And I think that this is an issue that certainly is worth raising. SANTORUM: Well, it certainly is worth raising. But you notice that there was no response to what -- to defend what Barack Obama said. What he said was not well-honed. What he said was not a substantive policy. What he said was just trying to take a cheap shot at our president and take a cheap shot at the -- at the effort being put forth by our troops. And again, that s been sort of part and parcel of the Democratic attack, is just go after the activities that are going on there in a very difficult situation, offer no credible alternative but to cut and run, which is what the major candidates on the Democratic side are doing -- BROWN: But Senator -- SANTORUM: -- and calling our -- in this case, calling our -- BROWN: Senator -- [crosstalk] HANNITY: Hold on. Michael Brown, you know what? The senator is far too nice a person here. What he said is disgusting, despicable. He said our troops are just air-raiding villages and killing civilians. He said that about American soldiers. Just like Dick Durbin compared them to Nazis. Just like John Kerry said that they re terrorizing women and children in the dark of night. And just like John Murtha said they re killing innocent civilians. What is it about your party that you lecture us how much you support the military? BROWN: Sean, what is it -- Sean, what is it about your party that they re -- HANNITY: And every time we turn around, you embolden the enemy and stab these guys in the back and defend it? BROWN: Sean, what is it -- what is it about your party -- what is it about your party that continues to defend a flawed policy when -- HANNITY: You re a broken record. BROWN: -- the safest way to protect our troops -- HANNITY: That s how you defend attacking our troops as murderers? [...] BROWN: And you re talking -- you re talking about -- you re talking about a broken record, when the best defense you have to this flawed policy is that no one wants to defend the troops on the Democratic side? HANNITY: Let me tell you something. What he said is despicable -- BROWN: It s not true, and it s irresponsible that you say that. We all care about the troops. HANNITY: -- and if you had an ounce of intellectual honesty and integrity, you should defend our brave men and women that are risking their lives for your freedom -- BROWN: Sean, we are -- HANNITY: -- and being called murderers.

On the August 14 edition of Fox News Hannity s August 13 campaign appearance in Nashua, New Hampshire, during which Obama said, "We ve got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." During the interview with Mendell, Hannity referred to Obama s purported "political missteps" and characterized Obama as "accusing" U.S. forces of "air-raiding villages and killing civilians." However, U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. The Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" responding to conservative attacks on Obama that "Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents."Hannity claimed that Obama has stated his "willingness to invade an ally against their will," referring to Pakistan. However, as Media Matters for America repeatedly noted, Obama never said he would "invade Pakistan." Rather, Obama stated in an August 1 speech: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President [Pervez] Musharraf won t act, we will."Hannity also claimed that Obama has said "he would take away the nuclear deterrent that we ve had in this country" and later claimed that Obama said he would use nuclear weapons "under no conditions." However, Obama actually said he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, specifically. Air strikes and civilian deaths in Afghanistan During the interview with Romney, Hannity prefaced the video of Obama s August 13 comments in New Hampshire by asserting, "One of the big controversies emerging today are the comments of Barack Obama, and I want to play this for our audience because I think this is very critical. He s now made a number of misstatements in the last number of days." After playing the video, Romney asserted: "It s an extraordinary statement, a disappointing statement. He s now -- how many times -- three or four or five times said many things that he must badly recognize as being a huge error, bad misstatements." Later, during the interview with Mendell, Hannity again played the video of Obama s comments and asked, "Would you think he s making some political missteps here?" Mendell replied: "I think he would like to have some of those comments back. I think he s been, yeah, a little bit all over the place with his foreign policy. He s doing a lot of talking out there on the stump. This is something that he s not done before in a presidential campaign. So he seems to be making a few missteps with his speeches." However, as the AP reported in its "Fact Check," "Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents," a trend that reportedly led Karzai to "express[] his concern about the civilian deaths" during a recent meeting with President Bush. From the August 14 AP article: "We ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama said. [...] A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians. The U.S. and NATO say they don t have civilian casualty figures, but The Associated Press has been keeping count based on figures from Afghan and international officials. Tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task because they often occur in remote and dangerous areas that are difficult to reach and verify. As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can t be attributed to one party. Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern about the civilian deaths during a meeting last week with President Bush. Bush said he understands the agony that Afghans feel over the loss of innocent lives and that he is doing everything he can to protect them. He said the Taliban are using civilians as human shields and have no regard for their lives. "The president rightly expressed his concerns about civilian casualty," Bush said of Karzai. "And I assured him that we share those concerns." Further, in a July 7 article on NATO and U.S. airstrikes reported to have killed more than 100 Afghan civilians, Reuters cited the assessment of military analysts that "a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power": President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly called for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the separate U.S. force in Afghanistan to coordinate more closely with his troops to curb a spate of civilian deaths from airstrikes. But Western unwillingness to accept casualties among their own soldiers and a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power to beat the Taliban, and that almost inevitably leads to civilians deaths, military analysts say. Casualties are also boosting Taliban numbers, analysts say. Action against terrorists in Pakistan Hannity also claimed that Obama has stated his "willingness to invade an ally against their will," referring to Pakistan. However, Obama never said he would "invade an ally against their will." Rather, he stated in an August 1 speech that "Al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan," adding that "[t]he first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan." Obama went on to assert: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President Musharraf won t act, we will," but he did not elaborate on the nature of this action. Obama has since pointed out that he "never called for an invasion of Pakistan." From his August 1 speech: As president, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan. I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an Al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won t act, we will. And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my administration will increase America s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally. [...] According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from al Qaeda is "persistent and evolving." Iraq is a training ground for terror, torn apart by civil war. Afghanistan is more violent than it has been since 2001. Al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan. Israel is besieged by emboldened enemies, talking openly of its destruction. Iran is now presenting the broadest strategic challenge to the United States in the Middle East in a generation. Groups affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda operate worldwide. Six years after 9/11, we are again in the midst of a "summer of threat," with bin Laden and many more terrorists determined to strike in the United States. [...] It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland. The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The nuclear option Speaking with Romney, Hannity asserted that Obama "would take away the nuclear deterrent that we ve had in this country." Hannity later told Mendell that Obama stated "under no conditions" would he use nuclear weapons. Hannity was apparently referring to Obama s statement during an August 2 interview with the AP that "it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." However, Hannity did not note that Obama was responding to a question specifically regarding whether he would use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Indeed, according to a transcript of the interview obtained by Politico senior political writer Ben Smith, Obama was asked, "In Afghanistan or Pakistan, is there any circumstance where you would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden?" From the AP article on the interview: Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That s not on the table." Obama was responding to a question by the Associated Press about whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. "There s been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that s not a hypothetical that I m going to discuss," Obama said after a Capitol Hill breakfast with constituents. From the August 14 edition of Fox News Hannity s now made a number of misstatements in the last number of days. But let s roll this tape about what he had to say about our troops air-raiding villages and killing civilians. OBAMA [video clip]: But we ve got to get the job done there. And that requires us to have enough troops that we re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there. HANNITY: What s your reaction to that, Governor? ROMNEY: It s an extraordinary statement, a disappointing statement. He s now -- how many times -- three or four or five times said many things that he must badly recognize as being a huge error, bad misstatements. I think he s, in some respects, shown that he just hasn t given his words careful enough thought. And I think it s dispiriting to our troops, it is disrespectful of our troops to say such a thing. The only people who say things like that are people on the other side of this issue. HANNITY: Well, let me ask you this. He said without preconditions he d meet with people like Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad. Then Hillary said that that was naive and irresponsible. And then his reaction to that was he would bomb an ally, General Musharraf in Pakistan. And he would take away the nuclear deterrent that we ve had in this country. And now he makes this. And here s a tough question for you. Does that, coupled with these remarks here, in your mind say that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States? ROMNEY: Well, I don t think the people of America are going to select Barack Obama, and I think this is an evidence as to why they should not and cannot. I think they re not going to select Hillary Clinton or John Edwards either because America is not going to turn left. America is not going to say that we re going to abandon our support of our troops. The comments he s made have gone beyond the idea of, "Look, we have different views about what to do in Iraq." They go to the foundation of whether we support our troops and stand behind our military. What he said in this latest round -- I hope he apologizes for and says it was a misstatement. He has to do that. Otherwise, what he s letting stand is a suggestion that somehow our troops are not noble and dignified. I mean, it s an outrageous thing, and I have to anticipate he s going to retreat from it. [...] HANNITY: Joining us now to analyze all of this, we have the author of the brand new book From Promise -- Obama: From Promise to Power, David Mendell is with us. David, thank you for being with us. MENDELL: Thank you, Sean. HANNITY: Would you agree with my assessment? Starting with the YouTube debate and his willingness, without preconditions, to talk to people like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il, you know, leading up to his willingness to bomb an ally, Pakistan, you know, followed by his statement that under no conditions we use nuclear weapons, and now, today, saying our troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians. Would you think he s making some political missteps here? MENDELL: I think he would like to have some of those comments back. I think he s been, yeah, a little bit all over the place with his foreign policy. He s doing a lot of talking out there on the stump. This is something that he s not done before in a presidential campaign. So he seems to be making a few missteps with his speeches. HANNITY: Are these a few missteps, or is this going to kill his candidacy here? MENDELL: I can t answer that question. You know, the voters can answer that question. At the end of the day, it s going to depend whether -- there are five more months in this campaign until we get to Iowa. He will probably be competitive in Iowa. He s got enough money to compete there. Hillary, Senator Clinton, she s got five months to make some missteps. He -- certainly Senator Obama has had a couple of bad weeks here, but we ll see. I don t think it ll end his candidacy, no. HANNITY: Well, let me ask you this. I m thinking here, if I m a family member of a brave troop that s serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I hear one of the major presidential candidates accusing my son and his colleagues of air-raiding villages and killing civilians, on top of a willingness to invade an ally against their will and sit down with Ahmadinejad, I m thinking, "This guy doesn t have a clue and has no business, you know, running for president. Why would I conclude anything else?" MENDELL: Well, I m not here to defend his candidacy or defend him. I m an author of a book about him. I think his remarks probably he would have to take back. I think his campaign is probably -- they re having conversations now as to how to try to come back from this.

On the August 7 edition of Fox News Hannity question, "Most people want national health care. Don t they?" with a flat "No." Colmes said he wanted guest Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, to answer his question. Luntz did not answer whether the public wanted "national health care," instead claiming that people want "control. What they want is the ability to determine their doctor, their hospital, their pharmaceutical plan, and their insurance company." In fact, polling from May and June found that a majority of the public wants a national health insurance program. Moreover, one of those polls, conducted by a Democratic polling firm, found that a majority of likely voters favored universal health insurance even if it limited choices among health care providers. Several polls taken in May and June found that a majority of respondents favored a government program to provide health insurance to all Americans: In a May 4-6 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 64 percent of respondents said they "think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes." In a May 31-June 5 poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International for the Kaiser Family Foundation, 53 percent of respondents said they wanted a presidential candidate to propose "a new health plan that would make a major effort to provide health insurance for all or nearly all of the uninsured," even if it "would involve a substantial increase in spending," in contrast with 21 percent in favor of a "new health plan that is more limited and would cover only some groups of the uninsured BUT would involve less new spending" and 17 percent in favor of "[k]eeping things basically as they are." A May 29-31 poll conducted by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that a majority of likely voters favored: A "proposal that provided every American with health insurance, even if it meant your taxes or health care premiums would increase as a result." A "single-payer health care plan." A plan that would "require businesses to either cover their employees or make a contribution to a pool that help fund health care coverage for the uninsured. It would require all Americans to get health insurance and provide subsidies for Americans who could not afford it. It would also make insurance more affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and taking steps to contain health care costs." The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll also found that a majority of its respondents placed a higher priority on national health care or access to "health care coverage" than the kind of "control" Luntz described. Given the choice between two statements, 57 percent of those polled said that "[k]nowing I will always have health care coverage is the more important thing to me" compared with 38 percent who said "maintaining choices and seeing my own doctor is the more important thing to me." Fifty-five percent of respondents said they would "favor ... a proposal that provided every American with health insurance, even if it meant you may have to change your current health care provider and insurance" compared with 41 percent who said they would oppose that proposal. From the August 7 edition of Fox News Hannity s a winning formula. No? LUNTZ: But it still has to be done in a positive way. It cannot just be about what s wrong with the Democrats. HANNITY: I agree with you. LUNTZ: It has to be why the American -- HANNITY: Their vision. LUNTZ: -- people can do it better. HANNITY: Yes. COLMES: And don t -- people want national health care. Don t they? HANNITY: No. COLMES: I think I was asking Mr. Luntz. LUNTZ: What they want is -- Dr. Luntz to you, by the way. COLMES: Because they want what? LUNTZ: Dr. Luntz. COLMES: Well, thank you. LUNTZ: What they want is control. What they want is the ability to determine their doctor, their hospital -- COLMES: Right. LUNTZ: -- their pharmaceutical plan, and their insurance company. COLMES: Thank you, Dr. Luntz. LUNTZ: And if you take away their control, they re not going to be happy. COLMES: You re going to be Hannity s pollster when he runs, right? LUNTZ: I would take that job in a second. COLMES: All right, coming up, country-music superstar Brad Paisley is out with a brand new album, gearing up for a summer tour, his first stop right here in this studio.