
[Update, 3:05 pm: Transcript of Toobin's remarks added below.]
For two straight days, CNN repeated liberal rumors about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s political record – rumors that had already been debunked by their own correspondents, as well as the respected FactCheck.org, a group led by former CNN reporter Brooks Jackson.
During Monday evening’s Election Center program, CNN’s senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin claimed that Palin "wants to ban all abortions," despite a September 2 report by his own network which included a quote from the Alaska governor that she is "pro-life... [w]ith the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued." Toobin also claimed that Palin "wants to treat -- to have creationism taught in public schools." This isn’t the entire story. A FactCheck.org report released on Monday, which aimed to refute "dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain's running mate," clarified that Palin "supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor."
Less than ten hours later, during Tuesday’s American Morning, correspondent Jessica Yellin, in a report purporting to give the "facts" about Palin’s fiscal record at the beginning of the 6 am hour of the program, stated that "Palin has used her line-item veto to cut funds for special interest programs called earmarks, but Democrats criticize her for slashing programs, even for people with disabilities, a group she's vowed to defend." Yellin, like Toobin, didn’t tell the whole story. The same FactCheck.org report began by stating that Palin "did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn't cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three year." The report cited CNN’s Soledad O’Brien’s use of the supposed 62 percent figure on September 4 as an example of how far these "dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages" had gone.
The FactCheck.org report, titled "Sliming Palin," included transcript of O’Brien citing the 62 percent figure to McCain campaign spokesperson Nicolle Wallace. During the interview segment, O’Brien went further than merely citing the figure. She pressed Wallace on the matter, and went so far to ask if Palin would "completely contradict what she did as governor when it comes to special needs?"
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: One are that has gotten, certainly, people sending to me a lot of e-mails is the question about, as governor, what she did with the special needs budget, which I'm sure you're aware, she cut significantly -- 62 percent, I think, is the number from when she came into office. As a woman who is now a mother to a special needs child -- and I think she actually has a nephew which is autistic as well -- how much of a problem is this going to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?
NICOLLE WALLACE: Well, you're -- you're a woman who does it all and so is she, and I think that when she is in the White House -- and her message last night was that -- that if she and Senator McCain have the privilege and honor of serving in the White House, that -- that special needs, the special needs advocates in the community will have someone in the White House who will not only listen and fight for them, but who knows exactly what every parent of a special needs child is going through.
O'BRIEN: But those -- those advocates have said -- those advocates have actually said the opposite of that. Those advocates have said, as a woman who is now a mother of a special needs child, she's not fighting -- she's cut the budget by 62 percent since she came into office, and doesn't that show a contradiction?
WALLACE: Well, she put down a marker last night that -- you know, I've spent some time with her over the last five days, and this is a woman who is true to her word. So she put down the marker last night, and no one in this country should doubt anything that she said. I mean, she means what she says and she says what she means. I think we saw that in many, many, many instances of her speech last night.
O'BRIEN: So you think she'll completely contradict what she did as governor when it comes to special needs?
WALLACE: Soledad, I think she's a woman of her word, and I think that when she said last night that the special needs communities and moms and dads of special needs kids will have an advocate in the White House, she meant what she said.
O'BRIEN: We will see. Nicolle Wallace is a McCain spokesperson. Nice to see you, Nicolle. Thanks for being with us. We appreciate it.
The transcript of Toobin’s remarks from Monday’s Election Center program:
CAMPBELL BROWN: ...Democrats gunning now for Sarah Palin, who's shown enough star power to lift John McCain up in the polls. We want to go back to our panel, Bay Buchanan, Roland Martin, and Jeffrey Toobin, and Jeff, this is important, because we know women voters are key to winning this election. If John McCain can increase the number of women supporting him, he can beat Barack Obama here. Some people wondering whether Hillary Clinton should be the one to take on Sarah Palin, whether she could be a real weapon for Barack Obama. But her former communications director Howard Wolfson wrote in The New Republic today that people are 'just jonesing for a catfight,' in his words, 'and it ain't going to happen.' But why couldn't Hillary Clinton be the one to go after Palin? Does she just not want to get mucked up in all this?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Well, I think it is a terrible idea to assign this to Hillary Clinton. I think Hillary Clinton is a major national figure. She should be dealing with John McCain, dealing with the issues. Yes, she can deal with Palin in the same limited way. But I just think --
BROWN: But if you -- isn't the threat here -- I mean, look what has energized and excited Republicans -- Sarah Palin. So, if you're a Democrat, aren't you saying, well, this is our real problem? Who do we send to deal with this?
TOOBIN: Maybe I'm naive, but I think, if Hillary Clinton talks about the issues that matter to women -- if she's talking about the fact that Palin wants to ban all abortions, wants to treat -- to have creationism taught in public schools, if that -- those are the issues she should be talking about. But the idea of setting, you know, the Democratic woman against the Republican woman -- I think it's demeaning to Hillary Clinton and it's not a good idea.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Shaking in their boots!
September 9, 2008 - 13:24 ET by iveseenitallOn and on it goes. The left is scared stiff by little Sarah. What a hoot!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
OBRIAN is an empty......
September 9, 2008 - 13:25 ET by billbObrian is an empty bra.
Category--Spreading Lies
September 9, 2008 - 13:31 ET by JayTeethis falls under the "Spreading Lies" category. Did you say this was CNN ? ? Oh, OK, nothing's changed then.
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
So this is proof positive of CNNs incompetence or bias
September 9, 2008 - 13:34 ET by c5thenIt can be only either one of the two. They either do not fact check anything (even for a fact check story) or they are biased and know that they are reporting lies as facts.
Come on CNN, whiche is it? Are you biased or incompetent?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Both?
September 9, 2008 - 13:54 ET by Chris NormanHow 'bout "incompetently biased"?
McNotObama '08
What really gets my goat...
September 9, 2008 - 13:35 ET by SpockWhat really gets my goat is when a reporter throws crap like that into someone's face and expect them to have all the straight answers off the top of their head. The reporters calculate and plan what they are going to ask and then blind side people all the time. They claim its a great tactic to get to the "real facts". She throws this number out that for all we know she pulled out of her ass and states it as fact. And then because the person they are talking to acts like they have no idea what the reporter is talking about (big suprise there) then they go on to something else, leaving the listeners with the opinion that the person being interviewed is a complete moron and can only speak to the "talking points".
Of course, this is something they only do to Conservatives. Liberals probably help plan their own questioning, thus all the "softball" interviews.
Addition
September 9, 2008 - 13:50 ET by JDWBoston Herald 9/9: Archived Palin documents reveal critics were debating recall in first few months of first year as mayor... federal lawsuit, friends became enemies...
JDW
DAILY WAVE
As I scroll down the
September 9, 2008 - 13:57 ET by lehmanAs I scroll down the Newsbusters headlines, I have to chuckle at all the ludicrous ways the liberal media is attacking Sarah Palin. They are so afraid that Sarah is going to help McCain win the White House and they have a right to be scared.
Last night Campbell Brown was salivating over turning Sarah's religious beliefs into something ugly. I was going to email CNN and ask why Campbell didn't research Obama's Muslim faith, but I couldn't find their contact info.
I think these attacks are only going to backfire on them. I know I'll never change my mind about voting for McCain/Palin.
insulting the vast majority
September 9, 2008 - 14:25 ET by TruthMongerinsulting the vast majority of Christian america
it's just plain old good business
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
slander and libel. Arrests, raids, and lawsuits need to be filed
September 9, 2008 - 13:58 ET by UndercoverConservativeit's hard to call it "spin" or an "honest mistake" when repeated sources (that they have turned to before as legit, and set precedent) have told them that they are incorrect.
That they choose to repeat and print the same falsehoods over and over again, is by even the most forgiving standards, slander and libel. Plus, there seems to be plenty of evidence of electioneering and criminal conspiracy to defraud the public.
Funny, they say "Bush Lied" without more proof than a biased sensationalist book. But when their own sources show them the error of their ways, where's the cry of "lies!" now? Hmm?
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"
FactCheck.org's protecting the MSM, just the same.
September 9, 2008 - 14:11 ET by Gary HallThis is a very refreshing post, Matthew. However, the way I see it:
The MSM has an ethical responsibility not to simply pass anything and everything along to the voting public, that ole uncle Walley had to say after 3 beers and two shots of whiskey.
We do remember what Barnicle and Mika had to say last week, right? It the reporters who want this stuff out.
It's the MSM that is pushing - shrilling - all of this crapola to the public, and it's for the purpose of putting their candidate in the White House. Same ole thing. (;~> gary
You can tell a lot about a
September 9, 2008 - 14:12 ET by Chris NormanYou can tell a lot about a news network by the "expert" guests they have on regularly to discuss issues. CNN has an absolute rogues gallery of liberal creeps, like Toobin, on to provide "analysis". Even without their liberal hosts and reporters - they are unwatchable.
McNotObama '08
CNN
September 9, 2008 - 16:03 ET by totalkaosdaveTotalKaosDave
Of course they're not going to believe the stories of their own network, it's CNN!
Media resources and Responsibility
September 9, 2008 - 16:07 ET by 1984TigersWith all the resources the media has at its disposal to research these now debunked myths, why is this allowed?
Of course we know know why, but at what point does this become slander when they keep reporting lies to hurt a citizen, public servant or not?
Even the media with the first amendment must be held to a civil responsibility!
Facts and accuracy have
September 9, 2008 - 17:31 ET by Captain RepusFacts and accuracy have never been an interest of CNN. Just this afternoon I watched as Captain Drone (Wolfie) had a lengthy segment with Michael Wierd (part time reporter, part time terrorist supporter, part time female correspondent screwer) in which Wierd got his nose all out of joint telling us that no troops will come out of Iraq this year and that Bush has the AQI on his personal payroll.
Wolfie let these ridiculous accusations stand until much later in the show when one of Gen Patreus(sp) people called them on these lies.