Colorado Media Matters

Will Rocky report Bush reform of Marianas worker program Schaffer backed?

As The Denver Post reported in a May 13 article and The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction noted in a May 13 "Political Notebook" blog entry, U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall (D) held a news conference call to discuss the enactment of legislation that "includes reform of the immigration policies and working standards in the Northern Marianas Islands," as his announcement noted. The Post further reported that the role of Udall's opponent, former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R), in opposing reforms "has been a campaign issue for weeks" and that Udall "for the first time took him to task on the issue" during the call with fellow U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA). Similarly, the Daily Sentinel reported that "[f]or the first time," Udall "directly criticized" Schaffer for "his work on labor issues" in the Marianas. Will the Rocky Mountain News, which has published incomplete reports featuring Schaffer's response to a series of Post articles about his controversial involvement in Marianas issues, report on the enactment of S. 2739 and its significance for the campaign?

As of the afternoon of May 13, the News had not reported, in either its print or online editions, on President Bush's May 8 signing of S. 2739 or on Udall's news conference.* Controversy over Schaffer's 1999 trip to the Northern Mariana Islands, made when he was a U.S. Congressman, arose after an April 7 Post profile in which Schaffer "pointed" to the islands "as a successful model for a guest-worker program that could be adapted nationally." Follow-up Post articles on April 10, April 11, and April 13 have raised questions about Schaffer's trip and its purported connections to now-jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whom the government of the U.S. protectorate reportedly hired "to fight congressional attempts at worker reforms."

As Colorado Media Matters has noted, in previous articles about the controversy the News has failed to report that, according to the Post, Schaffer met with several of Abramoff's clients during the Marianas "fact-finding" trip that was partially arranged by Abramoff's firm. Additionally, the News did not report that afterward Schaffer "was one of the key players" in a House Resources Committee hearing in which Republican members shifted the focus of the investigation from charges of labor abuses to questions about the motivations of those making the charges.

Further, the News has failed to report that, according to the Post, after the trip Schaffer was "among several Republican U.S. lawmakers who stepped in to lend their support "at key junctures to Benigno Fitial, "governor of the Northern Mariana Islands and a powerful former ally" of Abramoff." The Post further claimed that "Schaffer was part of a concerted and public campaign by Republicans on the House Committee on Natural Resources to boost Fitial's public career when he became key to extending a multimillion-dollar lobbying contract for Abramoff from the island's government."

From The Denver Post's May 13 article "Bush's signature gives Dems target: The bill is designed to end sweatshops in the Marianas. Udall uses the opportunity to criticize GOP opponent Schaffer":

Democrats Monday used President Bush's recent signing of a bill that supporters say will eliminate sweatshops on the Northern Mariana Islands to settle a few political scores, including one in Colorado.

Democrats have been trying since the mid-1990s to revoke the protectorate's exemptions from U.S. labor and immigration laws but had long been outflanked by powerful Republicans in the House and the islands' now-jailed lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.

Former Congressman Bob Schaffer's role in those efforts has been a campaign issue for weeks, and Monday his Democratic opponent for the first time took him to task on the issue.

"I know that from what I read and the people I listened to, it was clear that there were abuses there .... I don't understand how you could leave the Marianas thinking everything was perfect," said Rep. Mark Udall, referring to a fact-finding trip Schaffer took in 1999 that was partly arranged by Abramoff's lobbying firm. Schaffer said he found problems in only one out of 20 factories he visited.

Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, and Republican Schaffer are vying for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican Wayne Allard.

Udall made his comments in a press call Monday with Rep. George Miller, the California Democrat who has made a personal crusade out of reforming the islands' textile industry.

Udall's comments and even more harsh words from Miller virtually guarantee that the Mariana sweatshops will be a salient issue in what's expected to be a bitterly fought campaign, and the Schaffer campaign immediately struck back.

From the entry "Udall directly confronts Schaffer on the Northern Mariana Islands," by reporter Mike Saccone, published May 13 on the "Political Notebook" blog of The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction:

For the first time this election cycle, U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall, D-Colo., directly criticized his opponent, Republican Bob Schaffer, R-Colo., for his work on labor issues in the Northern Mariana Islands.

"I know that from what I read and the people I listened to, it was clear that there were abuses there. ... I don't understand how you could leave the Marianas thinking everything was perfect," Udall said, according to The Denver Post.

Udall and Congressman George Miller, D-Calif., held a press conference Monday to celebrate President George W. Bush's decision to sign into law a bill to reform worker and immigration policies for the U.S. commonwealth. [boldface in original]

*Searches of Nexis database and Rocky Mountain News.com for: "Bush" AND "Miller" AND "Mariana"; "Bush" AND "Miller" AND "Marianas"; Miller" AND "Mariana"; "Miller" AND "Marianas" for the month ended May 13.

Noting Corry's leadership of anti-affirmative action campaign, KNUS' Andrews omitted that she is an Independence Institute staffer

Discussing the anti-affirmative action ballot measure Amendment 46 on the May 11 broadcast of KNUS 710 AM's Backbone Radio, host John Andrews and guest Ward Connerly extolled Jessica Peck Corry as the leader of the campaign for the measure -- known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative -- without identifying her as a policy analyst and political strategist with the "free-market" Independence Institute. Corry also serves as director of the think tank's Campus Accountability Project.

Connerly, who is founder and chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, described Corry as "well-informed about the issue" of affirmative action, while Andrews called her "a good friend of this radio program." But both failed to mention that Corry supported a controversial anti-affirmative action bake sale held by College Republicans in 2004 at the University of Colorado in Boulder that charged different prices for baked goods depending on the customer's skin color, as Colorado Media Matters has noted.

From the May 11 broadcast of KNUS 710 AM's Backbone Radio:

ANDREWS: Here in Colorado, I wouldn't be surprised if you have essentially a lonely battle as far as elites not rallying to your flag either, but if the people are just given a chance to vote on this, if judges will step back as the other side sometimes wants to de-legitimize you with litigation -- I'm confident we can get a result as we did in Michigan.

CONNERLY: I think we will. And we're very, very tickled to have leading the effort now Jessica Corry, who is very bright, well-informed about the issue, as was Valery Pech Orr [Colorado Civil Rights Initiative executive director]. Jessica is going to carry this ball across the goal line.

ANDREWS: Well, she's a good friend of this radio program. She wrote a terrific piece; I just looked it up in the Rocky, and we'll make sure it's linked on BackboneAmerica.net, telling the goals of the initiative and some of the lies and dirty tricks put up by the other side. But Jessica's a fighter; she has in you the example of a very well-seasoned fighter, a general for the whole national effort, Ward Connerly. And we're with you all the way. We'll check in with you again in a month and continue to advocate for it in the meantime.

Oliver let GOP U.S. Senate staffer misrepresent Udall on Roan, make inaccurate claim about ANWR oil reserves

On her May 9 1310 KFKA broadcast, Amy Oliver, director of operations for the "free-market" Independence Institute, uncritically allowed frequent guest Sean Conway to misrepresent Democratic U.S. Senate candidate and current U.S. Rep. Mark Udall's position on energy development on Colorado's Roan Plateau by stating that Udall "want[s] to prohibit all development" there. In fact, on April 17, U.S. Rep. John Salazar (D) introduced on behalf of himself and Udall legislation "[t]o provide for orderly and balanced development of energy resources within the Roan Plateau Planning Area of Colorado."

Conway further asserted inaccurately, referring to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), that "there is more oil reserves (sic) in ANWR than in Saudi Arabia." In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Saudi Arabia contains about 260 billion barrels of proven oil reserves," while at the upper end of its estimates, EIA gives "a 5 percent probability that at least 16 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain."

Conway, who is chief of staff for Colorado U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard (R), included Salazar among Colorado members of Congress who "want to prohibit all development on the Roan Plateau."

From the May 9 broadcast of 1310 KFKA's The Amy Oliver Show:

CONWAY: Your caller just said, "When are we gonna get Congress out of the business of regulating and allowing us to produce this oil and gas domestically?" In Colorado there's a big division. In fact, in the United States Senate race this year, there's gonna be a big distinction between Mark Udall and his approach in terms of trying to deal with $4-a-gallon gasoline and Bob Schaffer's -- i.e., the Roan Plateau. You even saw a transformation with Governor [Bill] Ritter on exploration, which still Mark Udall and John Salazar want to prohibit all development on the Roan Plateau in this state.

CALLER: Can we make that, you know, a large part of the campaigning, to point out the differences?

Contrary to Conway's assertion that Udall and Salazar "want to prohibit all development on the Roan Plateau," on April 17 Salazar "for himself and Mr. Udall of Colorado" introduced H.R. 5851, which "provide[s] for balanced development of the energy resources of the Roan Plateau in a manner that minimizes the adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitats and environmental resources and values while increasing the financial returns to the United States and the State of Colorado." Grand Junction's NBC affiliate KKCO 11 News reported April 5 after Udall toured the Roan Plateau that he voiced his support for phased development of the Roan, consistent with an approach that Ritter had advocated:

During a visit to Grand Junction Saturday, U.S. Representative Mark Udall took an airplane tour over the Roan Plateau.

The Congressman has been at the center of the firestorm surrounding natural gas drilling atop the natural landmark. Udall says he's in favor of drilling, but not at the expense of damaging the environment.

He says he supports the plan laid out by Governor Bill Ritter, which calls for leasing out sites in specific areas, and only leasing out so many at one time. That plan was rejected by the Bureau of Land Management, but Udall says he hopes push it through Congress and turn it into federal law.

"It's truly a unique resource," said Rep. Udall. "It really defines all of us who love Western Colorado. There's no reason we can't develop the gas in a responsible way and also protect surface areas at the top of the Roan."

In an April 18 article about H.R. 5851, the Rocky Mountain News similarly reported, contrary to the distinction Conway drew between the Ritter and Udall positions on Roan energy development, that the plan favored by Udall, John Salazar, and U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar (D) "mirrors most of the provisions Gov. Bill Ritter has said he wants in place before more gas drilling begins."

Further distorting energy issues, Conway falsely asserted that "[t]here is more oil in ANWR than in Saudi Arabia," later restating the claim as "there is more oil reserves (sic) in ANWR than in Saudi Arabia":

OLIVER: And you know what, Progress Now -- I don't know if you've seen these, [caller] -- but Progress Now, which is the uber-leftist, just radical leftist group that is trying to smear Bob Schaffer. They have put "Big Oil Bob" -- they have it all over websites and everything else. You know what -- what's funny about it, I'm thinking, "Big Oil Bob," like, it should have some sort of negative connotation. I'm thinking thank you, thank you, thank you, for looking domestically at sources for energy as opposed to, you know, those who would like to, first of all, halt economic growth. I think that's the number-one reason why enviros don't want domestic drilling. As far as they're concerned, they don't care if we go backwards economically.

CONWAY: Well, here's a statistic that isn't said enough, so I'm gonna say it. There is more oil in ANWR than in Saudi Arabia. If you, do you hear that in the mainstream media? Do you hear that discussed?

OLIVER: No, 'cause you're gonna destroy the tundra. [laughs]

CONWAY: Think about that for a second. We are not allowing ANWR -- and we've all talked about the small imprint that that represents in terms of exploration, from domestic exploration -- and there is more oil reserves in ANWR than in Saudi Arabia. But environmentalists say, "Oh, it'd only be a trickle." Well, if it's only a trickle, why are we so dependent on imported oil from Saudi Arabia?

OLIVER: Well, the other thing you hear, "It's gonna take forever." Hey, [caller], good call.

Conway did not cite the source for his "statistic" about oil reserves in ANWR compared with those in Saudi Arabia. According to information from the EIA, estimated oil reserves in ANWR are a fraction of Saudi Arabia's proven oil reserves. Regarding ANWR, the EIA states:

The 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest unexplored, potentially productive geologic onshore basin in the United States. The primary area of the coastal plain is the 1002 Area of ANWR established when ANWR was created. A decision on permitting the exploration and development of the 1002 Area is up to Congress and has not been approved to date. Also included in the Coastal Plain are State lands to the 3-mile offshore limit and Native Inupiat land near the village of Kaktovik.

The USGS estimated:

a 95 percent probability that at least 5.7 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain,
a 5 percent probability that at least 16 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain, and
a mean or expected value of 10.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil in the ANWR coastal plain. [emphases added]

In contrast, the EIA notes of Saudi Arabia:

According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Saudi Arabia contains about 260 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (including 2.5 billion barrels in the Saudi-Kuwaiti Divided, or "Neutral" Zone), or around one-fifth of proven, conventional world oil reserves. Around two-thirds of Saudi reserves are considered "light" or "extra light" grades of oil, with the rest either "medium" or "heavy." Although Saudi Arabia has over 100 oil and gas fields (and more than 1,500 wells), over half of its oil reserves are contained in only eight fields, including the giant 1260-sq mile Ghawar (the world's largest oil field, with estimated remaining reserves of 70 billion barrels) and Safaniya, including Khafji and Hout (the world's largest offshore oilfield, with estimated reserves of 25-35 billion barrels). [emphases added]

KOA's Rosen again declared drilling "would have little or no impact" on ANWR

Newsradio 850 KOA's Mike Rosen asserted on his May 9 broadcast that drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) "would have little or no impact on the Alaskan wildlife reserve," but omitted that the federal government has stated that the 1.5 million-acre 1002 Area coastal region targeted for oil drilling "is the most biologically productive part" of ANWR.

Rosen similarly claimed on March 27 that drilling in ANWR "is not going to affect wildlife," as Colorado Media Matters pointed out.

From the May 9 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

ROSEN: It costs billions to explore, discover, extract, and transport oil. It takes a lot of lead time as well. Congress has for decades refused to permit the extraction of vast oil reserves in ANWR despite the fact that it would have little or no impact on the Alaskan wildlife reserve. In addition, Congress has declared 85 percent of the nation's coastal offshore areas off-limits to any exploration for oil or natural gas. And we should also note that governments own three-quarters or more of proven oil reserves. That's worldwide.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's website about ANWR:

The 1002 Area, 1.5 million acres of the refuge's coastal plain, has long been a subject of controversy. The area includes habitat important to the Porcupine and Central Arctic Caribou Herds, as well as many other species. It may also contain significant quantities of oil and gas. In 1980, the U.S. Congress mandated studies of the petroleum potential and biological resources of the area. Today, the refuge conducts ongoing biological studies of the 1002 Area as the development debate continues.

Further, according to the "Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement" issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior to Congress in April 1987, "The 1002 area is the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and is the center of wildlife activity." The assessment continued:

It serves as an important calving ground for the Porcupine caribou herd; it contains a high percentage of the refuge's observed muskoxen range; it is an important fall staging area for lesser snow geese; it provides nesting habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds; and it is frequently used by denning polar bears from the Beaufort Sea population. Migrating caribou and the postcalving caribou offer an extraordinary spectacle. The area presents many opportunities for scientific study of a relatively undisturbed ecosystem.

On KFKA, Independence Institute's Oliver failed to identify guest as energy industry operative

On her May 8 1310 KFKA broadcast, Independence Institute Director of Operations Amy Oliver uncritically allowed guest Greg Schnacke, president and CEO of Americans for American Energy (AAE), to promote the group as "a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the public about the importance of greater energy independence for America and promoting public policies that support that goal." However, as Colorado Media Matters has pointed out, The Denver Post reported on August 16, 2007, that AAE was created "to advocate for increased energy development and less regulation." Further, in a May 29, 2007, article, the Anchorage Daily News (accessed through the Nexis database) stated that the organization was "an empty front, set up by a political ad agency," rather than the "grassroots-based group" it had claimed to be. Oliver also failed to mention that Schnacke formerly headed the Colorado Oil & Gas Association (COGA), as Colorado Media Matters also noted.

After Oliver introduced Schnacke as being from AAE, she later remarked, "And Greg, of course, your résumé is pretty long. You worked for, I think it was when Bob Dole was still in the Senate, you were there. You have a long time doing public policy." However, Oliver never disclosed that Schnacke, who is also vice president of the lobbying firm Policy Communications Inc., for 13 years led COGA, the energy industry's main trade group in the state. Oliver also did not disclose that Policy Communications actually created AAE, as the firm notes on the "successes" page of its website:

Our team founded and currently manages Americans for American Energy, a ground-breaking grassroots coalition that advocates aggressively at the state and federal levels for increased reliance on all forms of American energy.

Additionally, Oliver failed to ask Schnacke about the allegation, reported by the Post on October 25, 2007 (accessed through Nexis), that AAE is "a front for the oil-and-gas industry." According to the article about AAE's advocacy of natural-gas drilling on Colorado's Roan Plateau, "Because of its nonprofit status, AAE does not have to disclose many details about itself, including the names of donors. But its positions, political ties and involvement in an ad campaign promoting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska have led some to conclude it's more than a grassroots nonprofit." The Post further reported:

Besides the Roan, AAE's objectives include supporting greater access to minerals in Alaska; opposing "anti-production elements" in the House energy bill; opposing over-regulation of produced coal bed methane water in Colorado; and pushing back on over-regulation of air emissions from oil and gas operations.

Last month, Gov. Dave Freudenthal, D-Wyo., cut off relations with AAE after they made "highly inappropriate assertions" about his support for its campaign. The group said it was unintentional.

AAE's creation stemmed from a $3 million contract last year that Pac/West Communications, an Oregon-based consulting firm, had with the state of Alaska to educate Americans about oil drilling in Alaska's arctic refuge, or ANWR.

Using Pac/West money, AAE became the message center for pushing Congress to approve opening up ANWR for drilling, according to the Anchorage Daily News. Sims said the money was a "contribution" to the group.

The president and chief executive of the group is Greg Schnacke, who until a month ago was head of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, an industry group. [emphasis added]

The Associated Press also noted that AAE's founder, Jim Sims, "is the former director of communications for President Bush's National Energy Policy Task Force," which was embroiled in controversy over Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to disclose details relating to the role oil and gas industry figures played in the task force.

From the May 8 broadcast of 1310 KFKA's The Amy Oliver Show:

OLIVER: Question to all of you: Are your energy bills high enough for ya? Or would you like them just a little bit higher? Would you like to rely a little bit more on unpredictable foreign sources for your energy? Don't those seem reasonable? Well, I got to tell you, there are plenty of people in Colorado who would like just that, or who are -- they are promoting policies that will ultimately lead to that. That's why I'm pleased to be joined by somebody I consider a friend, Greg Schnacke, who, he is from the -- well, he's from Americans for Energy Independence -- or Americans for American Energy. But energy independence is part of your mission. Is that correct?

SCHNACKE: That's correct. Nice to see you -- or nice to talk to you again.

OLIVER: And Greg, of course, your résumé is pretty long. You worked for, I think it was when Bob Dole was still in the Senate, you were there. You have a long time doing public policy.

SCHNACKE: Well, yeah, and the gray hair to show for it.

OLIVER: [laughs] Oh, no, your picture on the website does -- I mean, you look like a young guy. And it's AmericansForAmericanEnergy.org. And quickly, Greg, just refresh listeners' memories, what is your mission?

SCHNACKE: Well, we're a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the public about the importance of greater energy independence for America and promoting public policies that support that goal. So it's a pretty big mission, but we're, we really think that that's where the public is and what we need to be focused on as a nation.

OLIVER: Yeah, well, it seems like a big mission, but it also seems pretty natural, pretty easy. I mean, we want to be more energy independent. That would make sense. So, naturally, we are promoting policy that would do just that, are we not?

SCHNACKE: Well, I'd say right now that the politics of energy is about as messed up as I've ever seen it. And the, certainly the partisan attack on our traditional sources of energy -- oil and gas and coal and, to some degree, nuclear -- are really misplaced, and, certainly from a national economic standpoint, we're getting to a point where we're really going to start doing some serious damage to this nation, and we need to pay attention to that. And that's why we are focused on mostly federal issues in Congress. But, frankly, we're focused on a couple of states that are really, really got the bull's-eye on them right now in terms of energy policy. And Colorado happens to be one of them, and it's really -- as I've told people, if we were based in Atlanta, Georgia, I think we'd be focused on Colorado because of what's going on here.

OLIVER: Because it's so bad.

SCHNACKE: It really has got, it's really just been turned upside down in the last couple years.

KOA's Rosen parroted McCain's "maverick" label despite evidence to the contrary

On his May 8 broadcast, Newsradio 850 KOA's Mike Rosen repeated the talking points that Sen. John McCain has a "maverick record" and that "his softness on some issues is exactly what makes him more appealing to some swing voters who aren't committed to Republicans and conservatism." In referring to McCain's purported "maverick record," Rosen echoed what The Arizona Republic labeled a "popular narrative" about "McCain's maverick tendencies." The Republic reported that according to an analysis it conducted of McCain's record on highly contested votes, McCain "almost never thwarted his party's objectives."

Further, in citing McCain's purported "softness on some issues" important to Republicans and conservatives, Rosen followed a pattern, documented repeatedly by Media Matters for America, in which the media label McCain a "maverick" despite his shifts and reversals on issues such as immigration and tax cuts that have more closely aligned him with the mainstream of the Republican Party.

As Colorado Media Matters has noted, 630 KHOW-AM's Craig Silverman similarly referred to McCain as a "moderate" who's been "willing to buck the Republican establishment," despite a February 7 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in which McCain stated, "My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative."

From the May 8 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

ROSEN: People were very angry with the direction that a liberal president and a liberal majority in both houses of Congress had taken the country, and they were very receptive to a conservative alternative. Well, it's not 1980 anymore. The Soviet Union has been defeated, thanks to Ronald Reagan, at least for now. The top marginal tax rate isn't 70 percent, it's 35 percent; and rightly or wrongly, George W. Bush is perceived as a failed president. And swing voters -- I'm not talking about loyal Republicans now -- swing voters are inclined to change, and the kind of change they want is not in a more conservative direction. I don't celebrate that observation, but I make that observation; and a rock-solid conservative, a Ronald Reagan conservative, probably couldn't win in 2008. John McCain's maverick record and his softness on some issues is exactly what makes him more appealing to some swing voters who aren't committed to Republicans and conservatism. That's the reality that we're facing, even though some people on the right don't want to recognize that reality.

CALLER: That was gonna be my whole point, actually.

Contrary to Rosen's statement that McCain has a "maverick record," the Republic's May 7 article reported that its "analysis of his Senate votes on the most divided issues in the past decade shows that McCain almost never thwarted his party's objectives." The Republic further reported:

The presumptive Republican nominee arguably cast the decisive vote 14 times since 1999 to ensure Republicans got their way, and he had five other close cases where his vote may have made a difference, Senate records show. By comparison, McCain effectively handed Democrats a win on roll-call votes four times in the same period. On one of those occasions, Republicans could still have won if Vice President Dick Cheney had cast a tie-breaking vote.

The numbers are based on a review of Senate roll-call votes since 1999 that ended in a tie or were settled by one vote. The closest votes in that period included momentous, partisan-charged legislation, such as President Bush's tax cuts. More often, they were procedural votes on deal-breaking amendments to bills that would otherwise pass.

[...]

The voting pattern seems at odds with the popular narrative that McCain's maverick tendencies make him an unreliable conservative.

The Republic also reported that McCain's record of voting with or against his party on close votes suggests a pattern that reflects whether he was running for president at the time:

During the 10 years The Republic examined, McCain crossed over to vote with Democrats 19 times in 82 close votes. He did so just once in the four years he was running for president: 1999, 2000, 2007 and 2008. All 12 of the close votes he missed happened in those years, too.

Even so, in 59 of the 82 close votes, Republicans got what they wanted regardless of McCain's position. In those 59 cases, McCain broke with his party 16 times.

Contrary to Rosen's suggestion that McCain exhibits "softness on some issues" that differentiates him from conservatives, in a sidebar to a February 5 article, The Washington Post listed as "Top McCain Flip-Flops" his shifts toward more conservative positions on such issues as taxes, the religious right, and immigration:

Top McCain Flip-Flops

1. Taxes. John McCain was one of two Republican senators to vote against President Bush's tax cuts of 2001, saying that he could not support cuts that benefited the rich rather than the middle class. He now favors making the tax cuts permanent.

2. The religious right. During the 2000 presidential campaign, he attacked Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance." He withdrew that remark in a 2006 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying that the Christian right has a "major role to play in the Republican Party."

3. Immigration. Last year, he sponsored a bill that would combine a temporary-worker program and a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants while also increasing border security. He now emphasizes securing the borders first.

PoltickerCO again omitted Post context about Schaffer's Marianas trip in quoting him about Abramoff ties

In a May 8 article, the political news website PolitickerCO uncritically reported Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer's dismissal of allegations that as a U.S. congressman he assisted now-jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff in fending off congressional attempts to combat alleged human rights abuses in the Northern Mariana Islands. The article concerned a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee press release that "blasted" Schaffer on the occasion of President Bush's signing of "a bill extending US labor and immigration laws" to the Marianas. Although it reported that Schaffer "has said that he's done nothing wrong and has never met Abramoff," PolitickerCO did not mention or link to reporting in The Denver Post on alleged ties between Schaffer and Abramoff's lobbying agenda on behalf of the Marianas government and garment industry to thwart reforms.

PolitickerCO also omitted Schaffer's comments to the Post regarding the Northern Mariana Islands' previous immigration and labor policies; the newspaper on April 7 reported that Schaffer in an interview "pointed" to the islands "as a successful model for a guest-worker program that could be adapted nationally." PolitickerCo did not provide any comment from Schaffer regarding his past support for those policies, given Bush's approval of sweeping changes in the American protectorate's labor and immigration laws following widespread complaints about labor conditions.

PolitickerCO's May 8 article -- whose author was identified only by the pseudonym Wally Edge -- followed an April 28 interview with Schaffer that, as Colorado Media Matters noted, also distorted issues related to a 1999 trip Schaffer took to the territory. As Colorado Media Matters has documented, controversy over that trip arose after the April 7 Post profile, and follow-up Post articles on April 10, April 11, and April 13 that raised questions about Schaffer's trip and its purported connections to Abramoff.

From the May 8 PolitickerCO report by Wally Edge, "DSCC trumpets Mariana Islands legislation":

As President Bush signed a bill extending US labor and immigration laws to the US-governed Mariana Islands, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in a press release today blasted US Senate candidate Bob Schaffer for his role in allegedly helping a now-jailed former lobbyist prevent such legislation while Schaffer served in the US House of Representatives.

Schaffer campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, countered that Schaffer's opponent never even inquired about labor conditions in the Mariana Islands while serving in the US House at the time.

Schaffer is the Republican candidate running against Democrat Mark Udall to replace retiring US Senator Wayne Allard.

"The exploitation of workers on the Mariana Islands comes to a close today, but only because Congress finally rejected attempts by jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his crony Bob Schaffer to allow the human rights abuses to continue," DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said in the release.

Schaffer took a fact finding trip paid for by Abramoff in 1999 to the Mariana Islands. Under Congressional rules, such trips are legal. However, a widely circulated picture of Schaffer and his wife on a boat getting ready to parasail during the trip, along with allegations of labor abuse in the islands, has contributed to the impression of complicity by Schaffer in another congressional scandal.

"Now that an overwhelming bipartisan majority and the president have endorsed this reform," continues the DSCC release, "maybe Bob Schaffer will apologize for his shameful assistance of a corrupt lobbyist who was helping the factories exploit their workers."

Schaffer has said that he's done nothing wrong and has never met Abramoff.

The Rocky Mountain News reported that Schaffer's trip included viewing "a number of factories during his four-day free trip" apparently to inspect working conditions and human rights abuses.

"We found varying conditions," Schaffer told the Rocky's Lynn Bartels. "We found some unsafe working environments and some were very well run."

Despite referencing the News' follow-up reporting on Schaffer's trip, PolitickerCO omitted references to any of the Post's early reporting about the trip or Schaffer's citation of the Mariana Islands as a "model" for a national guest worker program. Similar to its April 28 interview with Schaffer, the May 8 PolitickerCO article also reported that Schaffer "has said that he's done nothing wrong and has never met Abramoff," but neglected to report the substance of the connections between Schaffer and Abramoff that the Post reported and that Colorado Media Matters pointed out. For instance, on April 13 the Post reported that according to a "secret memo" sent to a "textile tycoon on the Northern Mariana Islands," Abramoff had "mapped out" a strategy for congressional oversight hearings on labor issues in the Marianas. The article further reported that "Schaffer was one of the key players" in a hearing of the House Resources Committee that "provides a key context for a trip to the islands that Schaffer had taken a month before, partly arranged by Abramoff's lobbying firm and now an issue in Schaffer's campaign for the U.S. Senate."

PolitickerCO also did not address the Post's April 11 report that after the trip Schaffer was "among several Republican U.S. lawmakers who stepped in to lend their support" at key junctures to Benigno Fitial, "governor of the Northern Mariana Islands and a powerful former ally" of Abramoff. The newspaper further claimed that "Schaffer was part of a concerted and public campaign by Republicans on the House Committee on Natural Resources to boost Fitial's public career when he became key to extending a multimillion-dollar lobbying contract for Abramoff from the island's government."

Caplis again made inaccurate claim about Obama's statements regarding Wright

On the May 7 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show, Dan Caplis disagreed with co-host Craig Silverman's statement that Sen. Barack Obama "repudiated the statements" of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Caplis asserted, "If you really go back and read what" Obama said, "[h]e never took 'em on, one by one, and specifically in any detail unpacked 'em and repudiated 'em." However, according to the transcript of an April 29 news conference, after specifically addressing Wright's controversial remarks about AIDS and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Obama stated that Wright's comments "rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today." Also, Obama previously had specifically disagreed with Wright's controversial remarks about the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Colorado Media Matters has documented numerous instances in which Caplis has made false or misleading statements about Obama.

From the May 7 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show:

SILVERMAN: Here's another big difference: Barack Obama has repudiated the statements of Reverend Wright. I have not heard John McCain repudiate [the late Rev. Jerry] Falwell and [700 Club co-host Pat] Robertson blaming the ACLU and other -- gay people and feminists -- for 9-11.

CAPLIS: Well, first of all, you're wrong about Obama. If you really go back and read what he said, and I know that you have -- you know, he edged up to it. He alluded to it. But this business that "Obama separates himself from Reverend Wright," or "Obama repudiates this and that" -- I think when you get right down to what he said, no. He never took 'em on, one by one, and specifically in any detail unpacked 'em and repudiated 'em. Just as he's never given a laundry list, to the best of my knowledge, of different reasons to love America and great things America has done. Now, I'm not aware one way or the other whether John McCain has been asked to repudiate the comments we just heard from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson -- the late Jerry Falwell. I don't know one way or the other; you apparently do. Have you heard McCain asked that question, and has McCain refused to criticize those remarks, because I know as soon as he found out about the [televangelist John] Hagee remarks about Catholics, he criticized those remarks.

SILVERMAN: I don't have the answer. But the thing is, anybody who listens to our show knows how we feel about Reverend Wright, and we again got to state our opinions. I do think the more interesting topic -- maybe Robertson, and Falwell, and the Reverend Wright are correct. Maybe God does choose sides. Maybe even in political campaigns and the direction of a country. I'm kind of dimissive, but maybe I'm wrong. After all, it is in the Bible.

In fact, during his April 29 news conference, Obama stated that he was "outraged" by Wright's comments and denounced them as "divisive and destructive," "offensive," "appalling," and contradictory of "everything that I'm about and who I am." Moreover, contrary to Caplis' claim that Obama never "specifically in any detail" repudiated Wright's remarks, Obama asserted during the news conference:

But when he [Wright] states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.

From "Obama's Remarks on Wright," published April 29 in The New York Times:

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Before I start taking questions I want to open it up with a couple of comments about what we saw and heard yesterday. I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That's in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That's who I am. That's what I believe. That's what this campaign has been about.

Yesterday, we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday.

You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I have known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought, either.

Now, I've already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said, I had not heard them before. And I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church. He's built a wonderful congregation. The people of Trinity are wonderful people. And what attracted me has always been their ministry's reach beyond the church walls.

But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.

Let me just close by saying this: I -- we started this campaign with the idea that the problems that we face as a country are too great to continue to be divided, that, in fact, all across America people are hungry to get out of the old divisive politics of the past.

I have spoken and written about the need for us to all recognize each other as Americans, regardless of race or religion or region of the country; that the only way we can deal with critical issues, like energy and health care and education and the war on terrorism, is if we are joined together. And the reason our campaign has been so successful is because we had moved beyond these old arguments.

What we saw yesterday out of Reverend Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of those old divisions. Whatever his intentions, that was the result. It is antithetical to our campaign. It is antithetical to what I am about. It is not what I think American stands for.

And I want to be very clear that moving forward, Reverend Wright does not speak for me. He does not speak for our campaign. I cannot prevent him from continuing to make these outrageous remarks.

But what I do want him to be very clear about, as well as all of you and the American people, is that when I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything that I'm about and who I am. [emphases added]

Further contradicting Caplis' claim that Obama never "separate[d] himself" from Wright, an April 30 Times article reported that Obama "broke forcefully" with Wright during the April 29 news conference:

Senator Barack Obama broke forcefully on Tuesday with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., in an effort to curtail a drama of race, values, patriotism and betrayal that has enveloped his presidential candidacy at a critical juncture.

At a news conference here, Mr. Obama denounced remarks Mr. Wright made in a series of televised appearances over the last several days. In the appearances, Mr. Wright has suggested that the United States was attacked because it engaged in terrorism on other people and that the government was capable of having used the AIDS virus to commit genocide against minorities. His remarks also cast Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, in a positive light.

In tones sharply different from those Mr. Obama used on Monday, when he blamed the news media and his rivals for focusing on Mr. Wright, and far harsher than those he used in his speech on race in Philadelphia last month, Mr. Obama tried to cut all his ties to -- and to discredit -- Mr. Wright, the man who presided at Mr. Obama's wedding and baptized his two daughters.

Obama also publicly has disagreed with Wright's statements regarding the 9-11 attacks, as Media Matters for America has noted. As the Times reported on April 30, 2007:

On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that "people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Provocative Assertions

Such statements involve "a certain deeply embedded anti-Americanism," said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy. "A lot of people are going to say to Mr. Obama, are these your views?"

Mr. Obama says they are not.

"The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification," he said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but "it sounds like he was trying to be provocative." [emphases added]

KOAA, AP reported on allegations of El Paso County DA's drinking, but omitted his GOP affiliation

In a May 6 article published on its website, NBC affiliate KOAA News First, which broadcasts in Colorado Springs and Pueblo, reported that the station had conducted a "hidden camera investigation" that "found 4th Judicial [District] Attorney John Newsome drinking alcohol during work hours and driving an El Paso County vehicle after he'd been drinking." However, the report did not identify Newsome as an elected Republican official. A May 7 Associated Press article based on the KOAA report and posted on The Denver Post's website also omitted Newsome's Republican affiliation. In contrast, an article published May 7 in The Gazette of Colorado Springs (accessed via the electronic edition) noted that Newsome won election in 2004 after prevailing in the Republican primary and "has no Democratic opponent for the post" as he runs for re-election this year.

Colorado Media Matters has documented numerous instances in which media outlets have omitted the Republican affiliation of elected officials connected with scandals or accusations of wrongdoing.

From the article "News First Investigates D.A. drinking during work hours, later drinking and driving," published May 6 on the website of KOAA News First:

In a hidden camera investigation, News First found 4th Judicial Attorney John Newsome drinking alcohol during work hours and driving an El Paso County vehicle after he'd been drinking.

The story is part of an investigation News First started more than a month ago, after receiving tips from inside and outside the District Attorney's office. Sources told us when and where we could find Newsome drinking. News First employees saw Newsome drinking beer during work hours four times.

Shortly after 4 o'clock one recent afternoon, he walked into a downtown Colorado Springs bar and at 4:15 ordered a 20-ounce beer. He was soon joined by his second in command, Assistant District Attorney Amy Mullaney.

Then, at 4:41, Newsome has another 20-ouncer. Then another at 5:23. He then quickly downed a small mug of beer at 5:44 p.m. Mullaney also had 4 beers during that time. Newsome then headed back to his office where at 6 p.m. the "Citizen's College" began. That group is made up of a few dozen citizens who regularly meet to learn about the judicial system. He usually speaks at the beginning of those meetings.

At 7:23 p.m. he drove out of the county parking garage in his county-owned vehicle. We followed him to another bar. There, at 7:49 he has a 16 ounce beer. Then another at 8:03 and another at 8:48. He quickly drinks one more at 9:15 p.m. Mullaney is with him and in that time she has two beers.

At 9:28, the two of them leave the bar. Newsome walks out and gets into his county vehicle. Mullaney leaves in her vehicle; Newsome drives away after her.

During that five-hour span Newsome had roughly 130-ounces of beer. That's nearly as much as a 12-pack. He then drove home in an El Paso County-owned vehicle.

News First employees watched him engage in similar behavior three other times.

From the May 7 Associated Press article as posted on the website of The Denver Post, "Report: DA drove after drinking 8 beers":

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- A Colorado Springs TV station says the El Paso County district attorney drank eight beers in a little over five hours, then drove home in a county-owned vehicle.

KOAA-TV reported Tuesday it videotaped District Attorney John Newsome drinking at two bars between 4:15 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on a "recent" day. It didn't give the date.

The station says Assistant District Attorney Amy Mullaney drank six beers with Newsome in that period and also drove afterward, but it wasn't clear if she was in a county vehicle or her own.

Both deny driving drunk.

In contrast with KOAA News First and the AP, the Gazette reported that Newsome is a Republican:

Fourth Judicial District Attorney John Newsome has been caught on tape drinking and then driving his county-owned vehicle, KOAA reported Tuesday.

The television station had hidden cameras following Newsome on a "recent afternoon" as he drank three 20-ounce beers and a 10-ounce beer during "work hours" over the course of less than two hours at a downtown Colorado Springs bar.

Newsome was then shown heading back to his office. An hour later, he drove his El Paso County owned SUV out of a county parking garage to another bar, according to KOAA.

There, Newsome was reportedly seen drinking four more pints and then driving away.

In all, Newsome was shown drinking about 134 ounces of beer in five hours.

"Over a period of weeks, News First employees watched him engage in similar behavior three other times," the station reported.

Newsome, elected in 2004, is running for re-election. He has no Democratic opponent for the post.

[...]

KOAA reported that all of its anonymous sources are attorneys who have "more concerns" about the district attorney that the station is investigating.

"All our sources have various reasons for not coming forward at this time, but they do have one reason in common: It's an election year, and Newsome is the lone candidate for DA, and none of them want the district attorney as an enemy for the next four years," KOAA said in its 10 p.m. broadcast Tuesday.

El Paso County Attorney Bill Louis said the county's policy on using government vehicles doesn't apply to Newsome because it excludes elected officials.

"It's pretty shocking, pretty surprising," said Dan May, a former prosecutor in the 4th Judicial District Attorney's Office who lost to Newsome in the 2004 Republican primary. "But until we see all the facts I don't want to comment further than that." [emphases added]

Post's Greene selectively cited record, minimizing Democrats' legislative accomplishments

In her May 6 Denver Post column, Susan Greene misleadingly stated of the Democratic majority in the Colorado General Assembly that it "ends its session tomorrow having punted on most of its priorities" and suggested that "if lawmakers want [media] coverage of weightier issues" than scandals involving members of the legislature "they should think about tackling some." However, Greene omitted legislative passage of a variety of measures that, based on a May 6 article in the Rocky Mountain News, represented priorities in the agendas that Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff (D-Denver) and Gov. Bill Ritter (D) announced at the opening of the session.

After citing some bills she suggested were insubstantial, Greene noted examples of Democratic initiatives that would not be passed in the current session.

From Susan Greene's May 6 Denver Post column "Legislative spin can't hide do-nothing session":

With each dispatch, Colorado Democrats send members a Quote of the Day, including this zinger last Wednesday:

"Getting reporters to write about issues is like getting kids to eat their vegetables."

The source of such media astuteness? None other than the fictional Josh Lyman, the cocky White House adviser from TV's "West Wing."

Ben Marter, press secretary for the Senate Dems, says he dredged up the quote in "a friendly dig" at the Capitol press corps.

[...]

After citing budget reform as a top priority, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff has tabled the issue without even a vote in committee. Better to let voters decide than force lawmakers to get their hands dirty, especially in an election year.

After working to raise severance taxes on oil and gas drilling, the legislature has dropped the effort without explanation.

After a blue-ribbon panel met for eight months on transportation funding, lawmakers passed none of its major recommendations.

And after promising voting reform before November's election, they rubber-stamped a bill to recertify voting machines that the state recently decertified, then called it a day.

The Democratic majority ends its session tomorrow having punted on most of its priorities. Still, it has the nerve to whine about reporters (read Marter's martyrlike rant about the veggies).

If lawmakers want coverage of weightier issues, maybe they should think about tackling some.

In contrast to Greene's suggestion that lawmakers have not "[thought] about tackling" weighty issues, the News reported that this session "Democrats were successful passing the cornerstones" of an agenda that "focused on education, the environment, health care and a 'new energy economy.' " The article, which was headlined "Legislature going out on 'high note,' " was accompanied by a sidebar listing "highlights" of the session:

The highlights

EDUCATION

* SB 218: Reallocates to higher-education construction projects hundreds of millions of dollars from federal mineral leases on land the state owns

* SB 212: Realigns K-12 content standards to better prepare students for college

* HB 1335: Allows the state to loan up to $1 billion to repair Colorado's crumbling schools

ENVIRONMENT

HB 1160: Requires power companies to credit customers for producing their own wind and solar power

HB 1353: Prevents fraud and misuse of the state's conservation easement program

HEALTH CARE

SB 160: Provides coverage to 50,000 of the state's 150,000 uninsured children during the next three years.

HB 1407: Forces insurance companies to pay benefits

HB 1228: Allows commissioner of insurance to collect damages for misled consumers

HB 1389: Allows state Division of Insurance to deny unjustified insurance rate hikes

ECONOMY

HB 1225: Eliminates the business personal property tax for small businesses

HB 1001: Makes $26.5 million available in grants to incubate bioscience technologies and jobs

TRANSPORTATION

Not much accomplished. Two plans to toll Interstate 70 were killed. A vehicle registration and rental car fee-hike proposal died. Democrats acknowledge they must do something about state's "quiet crisis" next session. [boldface in original]

Furthermore, much of the recent legislation the News cited matched the agendas Romanoff and Ritter announced at the beginning of the session:

Senate Bill 218, which on May 6 was pending final Senate approval after receiving final House approval, followed Ritter's commendation in his January 10 State of the State address of bill sponsors Rep. Bernie Buescher (D-Grand Junction) and Sen. Gail Schwartz (D-Snowmass Village) "for their leadership on a revision of the Federal Mineral Lease formula." Ritter stated that in addition to protecting communities impacted by natural resource development, the measure should "look at whether other capital needs in the state can be met with increasing FML dollars" and noted, "We have a unique opportunity to build for the future, one we cannot miss."

Senate Bill 212, which on May 6 awaited final approval in the House and Senate after being approved by a conference committee, followed Ritter's announcement of "the 'Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids,' " which he said would "put our education emphasis where it belongs: on helping kids learn, on measuring knowledge and skills, on connecting what is taught in high school with exactly what is expected in college."

In his speech at the opening of the session, Romanoff previewed House Bill 1335, which on May 6 was awaiting final reconciliation between House and Senate versions. Romanoff stated that his "Build Excellent Schools Today" plan, by directing "nearly $1 billion in state and local resources" to school construction, "will allow us to meet our schools' most critical health and safety needs."

Ritter highlighted House Bill 1160, enacted March 26, stating: "We also will be working with Representative [Judy] Solano [D-Brighton] and Senator [Brandon] Shaffer [D-Longmont] on a net-metering, or home-grown energy, program. If you have solar panels on your roof and your electric meter runs backwards as you put energy back onto the grid, you should get credit for that."

House Bill 1353, which on May 6 had passed the Senate and was awaiting final passage in the House, followed Ritter's thanks to Rep. Alice Madden (D-Boulder) for her work "to address abuses of the state's conservation easement program" and his statement that "I look forward to additional legislation that will stem fraud and protect this important conservation tool."

The health care bills the News cited were not specifically mentioned in either Ritter or Romanoff's speeches at the opening of the session, but Ritter did express support in his address for the goal of Senate Bill 160, sponsored in the Senate by Bob Hagedorn (D-Aurora) and in the House by Anne McGihon (D-Denver), to increase insurance coverage for children. In the speech Ritter said, "My Fiscal Year 08-09 budget request calls for enrolling 17,000 more eligible children into CHP+, and we'll be undertaking major efforts to enroll more eligible families in Medicaid by simplifying, streamlining and modernizing the application and administrative processes." The other bills the News cited in the "health care" category -- House Bill 1407, House Bill 1228, and House Bill 1389 -- were sponsored by Democrats.

Both Ritter and Romanoff in their opening-of-session speeches also called for the elimination of the personal property tax for small business and for investments in bioscience industries, which are the goals of House Bill 1225 and House Bill 1001, respectively. Ritter signed HB 1001 into law on April 24, and the Senate has given third reading approval to HB 1225, which the House passed on April 14. In his address, Ritter spoke of "an economic-development package" that "will exempt 30,000 companies from the Business Personal Property Tax over time, and it will increase state investments in bioscience and clean energy projects." Romanoff declared in his address that "we should support homegrown industries like aerospace, bioscience and renewable energy -- industries in which Colorado is already gaining a competitive edge." He also stated, "And as for our smallest employers -- the 45,000 entrepreneurs who form the backbone of Colorado's economy -- we should spare them the burden of the business personal property tax once and for all."

KHOW's Silverman omitted McCain's own words in touting him as a "moderate"

On the May 5 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show, co-host Craig Silverman claimed that Republicans "have a moderate candidate in John McCain, a guy who's been willing to buck the Republican establishment." However, Silverman did not address McCain's comments during a February 7 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in which McCain stated, "My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative." McCain also said in the speech: "If I am so fortunate as to be the Republican nominee for president, I will offer Americans, in what will be a very challenging and spirited contest, a clearly conservative approach to governing," as Media Matters for America has noted.

Media Matters has further noted that respected studies of McCain's voting records have ranked him among the most conservative members of the Senate during the current and the two previous Congresses. Moreover, the American Conservative Union (ACU) gave McCain a rating of 80 in 2007, as well as a lifetime rating of 82.16, on a scale of zero to a "perfect" 100.

Silverman also stated that McCain was "[w]illing in the past, and a lot of us still believe it's his true sentiment, to call [out] the wacky preachers on the right." Silverman referred specifically to statements McCain reportedly made criticizing 700 Club co-host Pat Robertson and others who, according to Silverman, asserted that "God was punishing us on 9-11 for licentiousness and sin." However, Silverman did not mention that McCain actively solicited televangelist John Hagee's endorsement in the 2008 presidential race, despite Hagee's derogatory statements about Islam, women, and homosexuality. When asked on the April 20 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos whether it was "a mistake to solicit and accept" Hagee's endorsement, McCain answered, "Oh, probably. Sure," but still went on to say he was "glad to have his endorsement," as Media Matters pointed out.

Silverman and co-host Dan Caplis were discussing whether the Democratic Party will "come together" after the primary season.

From the May 5 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show:

CAPLIS: We have some interesting poll results today; really want to dig into with you. But one number that stays very high is the number of Clinton supporters who say they are not gonna support Obama. And obviously that number is gonna go down significantly after Obama is the nominee and wounds have time to heal, et cetera. But it starts so high, if any -- if any, you know, decent chunk of those folks stick to it, Obama doesn't have a prayer. And I think you're gonna get at least a decent amount of those people who say, "Naw, it was her turn; our shot for the first woman president, he's young, he's got a future, this was her last pop, he took it away from her," and they're not gonna like it a bit.

SILVERMAN: Well, here's the thing: I would say, wishful thinking. After all, wasn't there a Newsweek cover two or three months ago, "There Will Be Blood," showing all the right-wing talkers who hated John McCain, and they'll never come together, and the Republican Party is roiled with dissension? Well, the Republican Party came together. Now, will the Democratic Party come together as easily? I think it could be more difficult. Beyond that, you guys have a moderate candidate in John McCain, a guy who's been willing to buck the Republican establishment. Willing in the past, and a lot of us still believe it's his true sentiment, to call the wacky preachers on the right -- and Lord knows there are a lot of wacky preachers on the right, Frank Rich in The New York Times wrote an excellent column about that. Rather than Reverend Wright being replayed, how about Pat Robertson, who every Republican candidate wanted his endorsement? He said that God was punishing us on 9-11 for licentiousness and sin. Katrina too, with Falwell, Robertson, and a host of others on the right.

But it's hard to put that on John McCain; yes, he accepts their endorsement now, but eight years ago he talked about them with derision, as "agents of intolerance." So that's one reason why this Democratic rift won't be as easily repaired, because you guys nominated a Republican that isn't as conservative as a lot of people in your party would like, and that's why he has a good chance of winning in what should otherwise be a Democratic year.

In characterizing McCain as a "moderate," Silverman did not mention that McCain has promised "a clearly conservative approach to governing" and that McCain's voting record in the current and two previous Congresses is solidly conservative. According to its website, the ACU "tracks a wide variety of issues before Congress, ranging from taxes to spending and national security to abortion ... in order to obtain a balanced, comprehensive picture of an individual member's ideological predisposition based upon recorded records." The ACU further notes, "The purpose of the 'Rating' is to inform the public, in as unbiased a method as possible, exactly where individual Senators and Members of the House stand on the ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative."

Further, in contrast with Silverman's assertion that McCain has been "willing to buck the Republican establishment," Media Matters repeatedly has documented that McCain has abandoned his previous support for comprehensive immigration reform legislation to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party, and conservatives have noted McCain's rightward shift on the issue with approval. McCain also has reversed his position on taxes to more closely align himself with the mainstream of his party.

Later in the broadcast, Silverman said, "[T]he bottom line is, Hagee to McCain is not the same as Wright to Obama," before stating that McCain "accepted the support of these right-wing religious people":

SILVERMAN: Yeah, he's [Obama's] got a problem. And a lot of people are saying that it is unfair, and the Frank Rich column in The New York Times was the good one, showing how many wacky right-wing preachers are out there. And a lot of people emailed me that column. Look, I read Frank Rich usually at about 10 o'clock on Saturday night, when The New York Times post it. There are a lot of good points, but the bottom line is, Hagee to McCain is not the same as Wright to Obama. McCain did not go to Hagee's church. McCain, even though now he's accepted the support of these right-wing religious people, the people who said we brought, in effect, 9-11 on ourselves and Katrina because of sinful behavior. That was ridiculous and wrong-headed, just like Reverend Wright. But John McCain is not joined at the hip the way Barack Obama is with Reverend Wright.

Silverman, however, omitted that McCain actively solicited Hagee's endorsement.

Face the State headline distorted News article to suggest Ritter "violated TABOR"

On May 6 the "news" website Face the State linked to a May 6 Rocky Mountain News article with a headline asserting that Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter "violated TABOR with statewide property tax hike." In fact, the article, which was headlined "Ritter violated TABOR, say foes at trial on property tax measure," reported that "[o]pponents argued Monday that Gov. Bill Ritter and legislative Democrats violated Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights by deciding last year to increase tax revenue."

From the "Latest Headlines" section of the May 6 Face the State home page:

Ritter violated TABOR with statewide property-tax hike RMN

Contrary to Face the State's misleading headline, the News article made it clear that "foes" and "opponents" of Senate Bill 199 -- a measure enacted in May 2007 that shifts much of the burden of K-12 education funding to the local property tax base -- claimed that Ritter violated TABOR's restrictions on retaining and spending state revenue:

Opponents argued Monday that Gov. Bill Ritter and legislative Democrats violated Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights by deciding last year to increase tax revenue.

The 2007 bill, SB 199, will produce $117 million more in local property taxes this year.

Opponents argue that under TABOR any measure that brings in more tax money must go before voters.

Backers say voters in 175 school districts had already exempted themselves from parts of the 1992 tax limitation measure.

The issue is before Denver District Court Judge Christina Habas in a trial that could last all week.

Face the State's use of a misleading headline to link to an article from another news source continues a frequent practice that Colorado Media Matters repeatedly has documented.

Face the State describes itself as "the 'go-to' news resource for Coloradans interested in state and local politics." The website's founder and managing editor, conservative political activist Brad Jones, defended Face the State's journalistic practices in a February 6 News guest editorial and in an article published in the February 7 issue of the weekly Westword, which stated that "Jones resents the insinuation that he'd sacrifice accuracy and journalistic credibility if given the chance to spatter political opponents."

In coverage of McCain's Denver visit, News and Post omitted remarks about oil, war

Reporting on Sen. John McCain's May 2 appearance in Denver, the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post omitted reference to McCain's reported suggestion that, as the Associated Press wrote on May 2, "the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil." According to the AP article, during comments he made at the "town hall-style meeting," McCain said that his energy policy "will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East." The article further reported that McCain was later "forced to clarify his comments" by saying that "he was talking about the first Gulf War and not the current conflict."

As of May 5, the News and the Post had yet to independently report on the initial statement McCain made in Denver or his clarification. Although the Post on May 2 posted the AP article on its website, an article about the meeting published in the newspaper's May 4 local edition did not mention the remark that McCain later clarified. Colorado Media Matters has previously noted that reporting in the News and the Post about a McCain fundraising visit omitted significant background context regarding two issues mentioned in the articles.

According to the AP article:

Republican John McCain was forced to clarify his comments Friday suggesting the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil. He said he was talking about the first Gulf War and not the current conflict.

At issue was a comment he made at a town hall-style meeting Friday morning in Denver.

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.

The expected GOP nominee sought to clarify his comments later, after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn't mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.

"No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons," McCain told reporters.

One reason was Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, he said. "But also we didn't want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it's more important than any other part of the world," he said.

"If the word 'again' was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that's all I mean," McCain said.

"The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction," he said.

It was the second time in as many days that McCain had to clarify his comments. On Thursday, he backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year's deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

McCain's remarks also were noted on the May 2 broadcast of CNN's The Situation Room by anchor Wolf Blitzer and reporter Dana Bash, who covered the Denver event:

BLITZER: And right at the end of that event earlier, Dana, he said something about war and oil. It's raising eyebrows. I'm going to play the clip. And then we will discuss.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: Senator Obama and Senator Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal. That's what they want to do, is get everybody out.

I believe that that would lead to catastrophe and chaos and that we would have the whole region, including the country, in such turmoil, that we would be required to come back to the region. And I just want to promise you this.

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East, that will that will then ...

(APPLAUSE)

MCCAIN: ... prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. You can interpret that as the U.S. went to war in Iraq, perhaps, for oil, which is not exactly what the administration and John McCain had said originally. What are they saying?

BASH: Absolutely.

And as soon as I heard this, I thought, because it was so much in the context of the discussion of the current war in Iraq, because you heard him talking about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, as soon as I heard that, I e-mailed one of his top advisers and said, does that -- did he just say we want to war because of oil?

They got on the plane from Denver and immediately they started realizing that what Senator McCain said was -- left a lot of question marks. So, Senator McCain himself came back to talk to reporters on his plane, Wolf. And what he said is, first of all, he said that he was talking about the first Gulf War, the war, as you remember, to liberate Kuwait.

And the other thing he said is that he said 1,000 times we went to war because of weapons of mass destruction. McCain said it's clear in the congressional record. And he said, for me to change that would be -- would not make a lot of sense right now. So, that's the way he's explaining it.

BLITZER: So, he's suggesting the first Gulf War in 1991 was done for oil; is that what he's now saying?

BASH: Apparently, apparently, but, to be honest with you, it's still a little bit unclear what he was saying, because it was so much there, as we just heard it, in the context of the current war.

But he has said, as you just pointed out, many times that he believed at the time and he believes now that the United States went to war for weapons of mass destruction. But that was quite a confusing comment that he made there, to say the least.

The News' May 3 article about McCain's appearance reported his remarks about the economy, health care, and Iran, but did not include his reported comments about oil and war in the Middle East. In a May 3 article posted on its website, the Post noted that during the meeting McCain "fielded questions from the audience" regarding "health care ... election politics, oil independence, the war in Iraq and how best to deal with Iran's growing influence." But the article similarly failed to report McCain's comments about "our dependence on oil from the Middle East" and its relationship to "send[ing] our young men and women into conflict again." The May 4 Post article reported that McCain's campaign "faces big obstacles" in the Western region, but also failed to mention his original May 2 remarks regarding war in the Middle East and oil dependence or his subsequent clarification.

A tip from reader C.M. contributed to this item. Thanks, and keep them coming.

Raising Obama-Wright "flap" in article about McCain, Post again omitted Republican's ties to controversial pastors

In a May 4 article about Sen. John McCain's chances of winning Western states in November, The Denver Post reported that the "drama over the breakup between Barack Obama and his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has complicated the Illinois senator's chances among those independent voters who also like McCain." As in its May 1 editorial questioning whether Obama was "fit to be president" because of his association with Wright, the Post failed to mention controversial remarks by McCain endorsers such as televangelist John Hagee and World Harvest Church senior pastor Rod Parsley.

Colorado Media Matters on May 1 asked whether the Post would raise concerns about McCain similar to those it expressed about Obama in the editorial preceding McCain's May 2 appearance in Denver. The editorial also questioned whether Obama "is a good judge of character" because of his past relationship with Wright.

From the May 4 article by Chuck Plunkett in The Denver Post, "McCain faces a wild West":

Political scientists say McCain's quest for the West also is hampered by national issues.

"He has an uphill battle, and that uphill battle has several fronts," said Robert Eisinger, a political science professor at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Ore. "One is a troubling economy. Two is an unpopular war. Three is an energized Democratic Party. Four is Republican Party elites who don't like him. Those four things collectively make winning many Western states a challenge.

"That said, the only way Sen. McCain can become President McCain is to win many of those Western states," Eisinger said.

Weighing McCain's chances without a clear Democratic opponent is tricky, experts say. Last week's drama over the breakup between Barack Obama and his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has complicated the Illinois senator's chances among those independent voters who also like McCain.

The pastor flap and Obama's now-infamous "bitter" comments regarding rural voters have made him "substantially weaker with the independents," said Kenneth Bickers, chairman of the University of Colorado's political science department.

After commenting on the Democratic race in local papers, Bickers said that he's "even gotten e-mails from people I don't even know who are expressing buyer remorse" about Obama. "That's interesting because I don't usually get those.

"I think McCain looks much, much stronger against Obama right now than anyone would have thought three months ago," Bickers said.

Even aside from the problems with Wright and "bittergate," Obama has struggled with Latino voters in Western states, setting up another possibility for McCain because of his moderate stance on the issue of immigration reform, said Lonna Rae Atkeson, a political scientist at the University of New Mexico.

Colorado Media Matters previously pointed out that a March 28 Rocky Mountain News front-page article omitted information about McCain's connections with Hagee and Parsley. Media Matters for America also has documented the disparity in national reporting on controversial statements made by Wright versus those made by Hagee and Parsley.

Despite Hagee's statements about Islam, women, and homosexuality, McCain acknowledged on the April 20 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos that he solicited Hagee's endorsement. While McCain answered, "Oh, probably. Sure" when asked whether it was "a mistake to solicit and accept" Hagee's endorsement, he went on to say of Hagee, "I'm glad to have his endorsement," as Media Matters has noted.