Category Archives: Bob Schieffer

At the same time, no such outrage was expressed concerning President Obama and Vice President Biden going golfing.

This double standard continued Sunday as the three broadcast network political talk shows all began with Hayward's yacht outing while ignoring the President's R&R on the links.

What follows are videos and transcripts of the opening segments of ABC's "This Week," CBS's "Face the Nation," and NBC's "Meet the Press": 

JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Hello, and happy Father's Day. Joining me this morning, the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel, happy Father's Day.

RAHM EMANUEL, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Thanks, Jake.

TAPPER: Before we start the questions, I'm interested in your reactions to photographs from Saturday's BP CEO Tony Hayward at a yacht race off the Isle of Wight in the clean waters off southern England. What goes through your mind when you see those pictures?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, the wind is pushing the oil to the Panhandle of Florida now. How much worse can it get? And while the oil keeps on gushing, Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, took a break and went yachting in cleaner waters off the coast of England. Is it time for him to go? Is the twenty billion dollars BP has put in escrow enough to meet the damage claims? Just two of many questions for Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, who toured the region yesterday; Florida Senator Bill Nelson; Congressman Joseph Cao of Louisiana and Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment Committee. I'll have a final word today on the high price of gas. But first, Day 62 of the Disaster in the Gulf.

ANNOUNCER: FACE THE NATION with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob

Schieffer. And now from CBS News in Washington, Bob Schieffer.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And, good morning, again. Senator Shelby is joining us today from Mobile. Senator Boxer is in San Francisco. Congressman Cao in New Orleans and Senator Nelson is with us here in the studio. Welcome to you all. Well, Senator Shelby, you were all over the Gulf Coast region yesterday. Did you run into any yacht racing down there? 

MR. DAVID GREGORY: This Sunday, disaster in the Gulf with no end in sight and a looming summer of oil. Was this the defining week in the Gulf Coast crisis? The issues: containment of the oil and cleanup, holding BP accountable, the impact on the Obama presidency, the future of offshore drilling, and will Washington think big about finding other sources of energy? This morning, our special discussion. With us, Kenneth Feinberg, the independent administrator of the BP oil spill victim compensation fund; Mississippi's governor, Republican Haley Barbour; Louisiana senator, Democrat Mary Landrieu; the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts; the former president of the Shell Oil Company, John Hofmeister; and "BBC World News America"'s Katty Kay.

Announcer: From NBC News in Washington, MEET THE PRESS, with David Gregory.

MR. GREGORY: Good morning. After BP's Tony Hayward turned in a poor performance on Capitol Hill this week, he appears to have made matters worse by attending a yacht race over the weekend, drawing yet more criticism from many on the Gulf Coast and beyond who feel that the oil company's chief executive has been sorely out of touch since this disaster began 62 days ago.

That's what hockey fans call a hat trick!

Nice going, folks.

Of course, no one is defending Hayward's poor public relations move here.

Instead, if media are going to spend so much time on his yacht outing making the case that it shows how detached he is from his company's crisis, the same MUST be said of a President that is golfing as millions of gallons of oil slam into HIS nation's coast.

Without similar scorn, our press are just once again demonstrating their infamous double standard -- not that we're at all surprised.

*****Update: Hot Air's Ed Morrissey calls this the Obamateurism of the Day!

Normally, I'd say that Presidents deserve their occasional down time, especially considering the enormous pressures that come with the office. However, Obama himself put the Gulf spill on the level of 9/11 in terms of its impact on the US. If he wants to make that argument, then the President needs to act like he believes it. Golfing more days than Gulfing looks just as bad as yachting while others attempt to stop the damage. 

An Instapundit reader sent Glenn Reynolds the following:

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer provided analysis of Tuesday's primary elections across the country, describing the South Carolina gubernatorial race "where they continue to draw their political plot lines from, you know, 'Desperate Housewives' or something" and how Nevada Democrats were "very happy" with the victory of tea party candidate Sharron Angle.  

Speaking to Early Show co-host Maggie Rodriguez, Schieffer ran down the most watched races in Arkansas, California, South Carolina, and Nevada. When he got to South Carolina, he described gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley as "very conservative." After making the 'Desperate Housewives' comparison, he remarked how the GOP primary in the state was "providing some entertainment, as it were, for the rest of the country. I mean, you had Governor Sanford down there and his adventures. And now these allegations against Nikki Haley." He quickly added that the allegations of adultery against Haley were "without foundation" and that "Nobody has proven anything."

Rodriguez then asked if "Harry Reid is happy or fretting the fact" that tea party-backed Sharron Angle won the GOP senate primary in Nevada. Schieffer declared: "I suspect that Democrats in Nevada are very happy about this....I think the Reid people think that he would have a much better chance beating her than some of the other Republicans in the primaries."

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez's June 9 discussion with Schieffer:

7:04AM EST

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Let's bring in CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation Bob Schieffer. Good morning, Bob.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Hey, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: So there's been this anti-establishment sentiment for awhile in this country. But now – I'm sure it's not helping that no one seems to be able to solve this BP oil spill. Do you think that played into last night's results at all?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Primary Politics; What Message Did Voters Send?]

SCHIEFFER: It probably did. I mean, you know, there's just this general feeling that the government is sort of impotent to do much of anything about anything. And I think there's no question that has something to do with the voter frustration that's being felt out across the country. But it really is hard to draw much deep analysis or deeper meaning from these races last night, because they were all so different.

I mean, Blanche Lincoln barely eked out a primary win over her opponent, who was challenging her from the Left. He was well-financed by labor unions. It's not all that easy for a labor-backed candidate to win in the South, and this time we saw that once again, a labor-backed candidate did not win. But she is still the underdog going into November. She's going to have a very difficult time there.

Out in California, it was just all a question of money. And that's all there was to it. I mean, Meg Whitman, who won out there, won by spending nearly $80 million. Money still talks in politics. And we saw a real example of that.

Down in South Carolina, where they continue to draw their political plot lines from, you know, 'Desperate Housewives' or something, you saw again a very conservative candidate win. I mean, these campaigns down in South Carolina are really providing some entertainment, as it were, for the rest of the country. I mean, you had Governor Sanford down there and his adventures. And now these allegations against Nikki Haley. We should underline and point out, totally, totally-

RODRIGUEZ: Allegations.

SCHIEFFER: -without – without foundation.    

RODRIGUEZ: Right.

SCHIEFFER: Nobody has proven anything. But it just shows, I mean, kind of the nature of politics down there this year. It's really, really kind of extraordinary.

RODRIGUEZ: We've been talking a lot about the tea party. And in Nevada, we had the tea party favorite Sharron Angle win last night. Do you think that majority leader Harry Reid is happy or fretting the fact that she won?

SCHIEFFER: I suspect that Democrats in Nevada are very happy about this. She was the tea party-backed candidate. The other part is, she is one of the few people in the state of Nevada who has endorsed, I understand, storing nuclear waste in Nevada. Nevada politics has always been about putting the nuclear waste someplace else. Now she has endorsed that. That's going to be very difficult for her. I think the Reid people think that he would have a much better chance beating her than some of the other Republicans in the primaries. Still going to be very, very close. He has a lot of work to do out there.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright. Bob Schieffer, as always, thank you so much, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you. Thank you, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: You're welcome.

On Sunday’s Face the Nation, CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford revealed how the Obama White House is “strongly” pushing back against her unsurprising report last week that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan “stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left” when she clerked for liberal Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Crawford says the White House reaction to her report “has been astonishing....Their reaction has been to push back so strongly on allegations, as they would put it, that she’s a liberal. Like there’s something wrong with that, like it’s a smear to say their nominee is a liberal.”

To Crawford, Team Obama’s strategy reeks of phoniness: “They’re putting enormous pressure on Elena Kagan who, as you said, is qualified. She’s an intellectual superstar. They’re putting pressure on her to portray herself in these hearings as something other than what she is. They’re thinking short-term politically and not long-term for the Court and the law and liberal judicial philosophy.”

Last week, MRC’s Brad Wilmouth detailed Crawford’s June 3 CBS Evening News report on the documents from Kagan’s Supreme Court clerkship in the late 1980s: “Documents buried in Thurgood Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress show that, as a young lawyer, Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion.”

It’s hardly surprising that President Obama would choose a liberal to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. But it’s bizarre that the White House would strenuously object when a correspondent for CBS News — not exactly the epicenter of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy — would say as much, citing Kagan’s own words as evidence. Crawford told Schieffer she, too, was baffled by the White House response: “The suggestion that it’s somehow a smear to call her a liberal is just baffling to me.”

Here’s the relevant exchange as it took place on the June 6 edition of Face the Nation:

HOST BOB SCHIEFFER: Jan, you unearthed some documents this week that certainly gave the White House something else to think about because — while she’s eminently qualified and nobody questions that — there’s no question that one reason Elena Kagan was nominated as their nominee to the Supreme Court was because if there’s anything the President doesn’t need right now, it’s a fight, a knock-down drag out over that. And now — so they thought she would be easily confirmed, I think. But you unearthed these documents that show that maybe she is not exactly how the White House had pictured her, that in fact she might be a lot more liberal than people realized.

CRAWFORD: Right, and these documents have her squarely within mainstream liberal thought. She’s worried about the conservative Supreme Court undoing rulings that would give a woman a right to an abortion. She’s worried about gun rights, saying she’s not sympathetic to an individual’s right to own a handgun. She’s concerned about some conservative rulings scaling back rights of criminals. That’s basic mainstream liberal thought. But the White House’s reaction to this, to these revelations, I think, has been astonishing. And, it goes I think to kind of the week that they’ve had. Their reaction has been to push back so strongly on allegations, as they would put it, that she’s a liberal. Like there’s something wrong with that, like it’s a smear to say their nominee is a liberal.

And I think that suggests one of two things. Number one, they’re either so weakened right now politically, the President’s numbers are in the tank, that they just do not want to fight. So, they’re trying to portray her as something other than what she is. Or number two, they think Americans don’t want a liberal justice and maybe are more sympathetic to conservative outlook on the law. Regardless —  I mean whatever one it is, and there’s one of the two — they’re doing Elena Kagan an enormous disservice.

And it’s also insulting to Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, who’ve written eloquently and passionately about why a liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the right way to go. It is a dangerous game this White House is playing. They’re putting enormous pressure on Elena Kagan who, as you said, is qualified. She’s an intellectual superstar. They’re putting pressure on her to portray herself in these hearings as something other than what she is. They’re thinking short-term politically and not long-term for the Court and the law and liberal judicial philosophy.

SCHIEFFER: We should point out that these memos that you unearthed are memos that she wrote when she was a young clerk for Thurgood Marshall, who, of course was a liberal lion. And all of this is now coming out. Now, during her confirmation for Solicitor General, she talked about her views in those days as saying, “Look, I was a pipsqueak. I was just a kid, basically, and I was working for this, you know, liberal icon.” I suppose that is the defense that the White House is going to take. But this is, at the least, is going to give Republicans something to ask a lot of questions about.

CRAWFORD: Oh, absolutely. I mean, these hearings have now gotten much more interesting than a lot of people thought they were going to be going into the summer when it was going to be a yawn. Republicans have a lot — she’s taken on every social issue in these documents. And, there’s more to come. We’re going to get another hundred thousand or so documents from the Clinton Library when she worked there as a young lawyer. But the suggestion that it’s somehow a smear to call her a liberal is just baffling to me.

This is probably what a lot of people suspected, but couldn't tie it all of it together until documents and memos from President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan were made available to the public - that she is beyond a shadow of a doubt liberal.

Still, the White House has insisted Kagan's judicial philosophy doesn't line up ideologically - that she is neither liberal nor conservative. But according to documents unearthed by CBS Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford, Kagan holds some very liberal views.

"These documents have her squarely within mainstream liberal thought," Crawford said on the June 6 broadcast of CBS's "Face the Nation." "She's worried about the conservative Supreme Court undoing rulings that would give a woman a right to an abortion. She's worried about gun rights saying she's not sympathetic to an individual's right to own a handgun. She's concerned about conservative rulings scaling back rights of criminals. That's basic mainstream liberal thought."

However, Crawford noted the White House wasn't quick to embrace Kagan's liberalism and she gleaned one of two conclusions from that.

"The White House's reaction to this - to these revelations I think has been astonishing," Crawford continued. "It goes to the week they've had. Their reaction has been to push back so strongly on allegations, as they would put it, that she's a liberal. Like there's something wrong with that, like it's a smear to say their nominee is a liberal. And I think that suggests one of two things. Number one they're either so weakened right now politically the president's numbers are in the tank, that they just do not want to fight. So they're trying to portray her as something other than what she is. Or number two they think Americans don't want a liberal justice and maybe are more sympathetic to a conservative outlook on the law."

And this strategy by the White House - to conceal liberal thought is disappointing to Crawford, which she said was an insult to Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg

"Regardless, whatever one it is and it's one of the two - they're doing Elena Kagan an enormous disservice," Crawford said. "And it's also insulting to Justices Breyer and Ginsburg who have written eloquently and passionately about why a liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the right way to go. It is a dangerous game the White House is playing. They're putting enormous pressure on Elena Kagan, who as you said is qualified. She's an intellectual super star. They're putting pressure on her to portray herself in these hearings as something other than what she is. They're thinking short term politically and not long term for the Court and the law and the liberal judicial philosophy."

Instead, Crawford argued the White House should tout Kagan's liberalism in this politically tough time for the Obama administration.

"But the suggestion that somehow a smear to call her a liberal is just baffling to me," Crawford said.

On Friday's CBS Early Show, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer argued that if the Gulf oil spill could be stopped, the scandal of the Obama administration offering jobs to Democratic senate candidates would suddenly disappear: "...all of this business about offering jobs to candidates if it they won't run, all of that, all of that stuff is going to go away if you can get this thing capped..."

Schieffer didn't elaborate on his theory, but later complained about the sloppiness of the corrupt backroom deals: "I mean the first rule here is if you're going to do this sort of thing, you better figure out a better way to do it than the Obama administration has figured out. It turns out it's kind of, you know, amateur hour here with this kind of stuff." Though he defended the practice itself: "...this sort of thing's been going on for a long, long time. I mean, it's a real question as to whether this is even illegal. But it's the odor that comes from it....That's what's hurting the President."

When asking Schieffer about the controversy, Early Show co-host Harry Smith remarked how it "not so particularly unusual" and simply might "smack up against a promise of no more business as usual" by President Obama. Schieffer concluded his thoughts on the matter by once again lamenting that the administration did not do a "better" job of hiding its corruption: "...if you're going to do it, you better be better at it than they've shown us they are."

Smith and Schieffer began the segment by discussing the Gulf oil spill and Obama's response. Smith wondered: "Do you feel like this President and this White House is still playing catchup with this oil?" Schieffer replied: "I don't know what else could happen right now unless the air conditioning went out at the White House or something. I mean, everything that could go wrong seems to have gone wrong."

Schieffer commented that the Obama administration and BP should stop worrying about PR and just "focus on getting this well capped and getting this thing done. In the end, that's going to be the best public relations for all concerned..." He later added: "...find a way to get this thing capped and save the Gulf coast because this is – we're at a national emergency stage here." Smith concluded the topic by declaring: "I think the problem is that that wasn't recognized on day one as opposed to day 50."  

Here is a full transcript of the June 4 segment:

7:11AM EST

HARRY SMITH: According to the latest CBS News poll, 44% of Americans disapprove of President Obama's handling of the spill [38% approve]. 68% disapprove of BP's actions [21% approve]. And the President is also taking heat over jobs apparently offered by his administration to certain political candidates if they did not run against other Democrats. And joining us now to talk about all of these issues, CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, how are you doing this morning?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I'm just fine. Thank you, Harry.

SMITH: Good to have you with us. The President is heading back to the Gulf again today. It's almost 50 days and we hear the word 'furious' come from the President's mouth last night on Larry King. Do you feel like this President and this White House is still playing catchup with this oil?            

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Gulf Oil Disaster; "Furious" President Returns to Region Today]

SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, I don't know what else could happen right now unless the air conditioning went out at the White House or something. I mean, everything that could go wrong seems to have gone wrong. And that's the way things happen sometimes.

But, you know, this – all this focus, at both the White house and at BP, on the public relations of this thing, is the President appearing furious enough? I mean, is BP appearing, you know, caring enough? And all of that. I think the best policy is always to get this thing fixed. I mean, I think both the company and the administration need to focus on getting this well capped and getting this thing done. In the end, that's going to be the best public relations for all concerned and it's the only thing that's going to work. I mean, all of this business about offering jobs to candidates if it they won't run, all of that, all of that stuff is going to go away if you can get this thing capped, figure out some way to do it.

And as yet, they have at least gotten this dome on top of the thing now. Maybe we can all hope that that's going to be the thing that works. But until they get that done, they're going to have all kinds of problems and they should have all kinds of problems. Because, you know, it's not an original thought with me, Harry, but the other day, I think it was Bob Herbert in the New York Times said if a well is too deep to cap, then it's too deep to drill.

SMITH: That's a good line.

SCHIEFFER: That's what's wrong here. And we know what the problem is here. But what has to be done is find a way to get this thing capped and save the Gulf coast because this is – we're at a national emergency stage here.

SMITH: Without question. And I think the problem is that that wasn't recognized on day one as opposed to day 50. I want to move on to this dangling job possibilities in front of would-be candidates who were trying to run against incumbents. That's not so particularly unusual, but does this not at least smack up against a promise of no more business as usual?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Real Deal; The President & Back Door Political Dealmaking?]

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think it does, Harry. And I mean the first rule here is if you're going to do this sort of thing, you better figure out a better way to do it than the Obama administration has figured out. It turns out it's kind of, you know, amateur hour here with this kind of stuff. I mean, in the first place, this sort of thing's been going on for a long, long time. I mean, it's a real question as to whether this is even illegal. But it's the odor that comes from it. It's the idea that you come to office and say we're going to change things and this sort of thing starts leaking out. That's what's hurting the President. But if you're going to do it, you better be better at it than they've shown us they are.

SMITH: Bob Schieffer, great to see you. We will look forward to seeing on you Face the Nation on Sunday.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Harry.

On Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer interrogated Republican Senator Lamar Alexander on GOP senate nominee Rand Paul: "Can you see yourself supporting a candidate who takes those kinds of positions, Senator?" However, Schieffer lobbed softballs to Democratic senate nominee Joe Sestak minutes later, who claimed the White House offered him a job to quit the primary race.  

In his interview with Alexander, Schieffer focused almost exclusively on comments made by Paul: "...he has had some rather controversial things to say, like the '64 Civil Rights bill may have been too broad. He's questioned the Disabilities Act. He's talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education." Alexander chalked up some of Paul's remarks to political inexperience, but also noted: "...we’ve got a Democratic Caucus with nearly 60 votes that includes a very nice senator from Vermont who proudly describes himself as a Socialist."

Schieffer pressed on: "...the Republican Party, as I understand it, is trying to broaden its appeal to African Americans, to minorities. Why would any member of any minority group want to vote or want to be for someone who says that, well, you know, maybe that Civil Rights Act went a little too far?...I mean, can you be for that?" Schieffer went on to wonder: "And what about this whole business of the tea party? Is it going to prove to be a good thing for Republicans or is this something that you need to be worried about here?"

In an interview with Sestak that immediately followed, Schieffer brought up the Pennsylvania Congressman's charge that the Obama White House offered him a job to end his primary challenge to Arlen Specter: "Did the White House offer you a position in the administration if you would not run?" Sestak replied: "Yes, I was asked that question months after it happened. And I felt an obligation to answer it honestly. And I said yes."
                            
Schieffer gently followed up: "Can you tell us what job?" Sestak refused: "No, Bob, I –and then I said at the time, anything beyond that just gets into politics." Schieffer was apparently satisfied with that non-answer and moved on to ask about the campaign: "The White House was for Specter. They obviously wanted you not in the race. But you took them on. Now will you ask for Barack Obama's help?"

Later, Schieffer invited Sestak to recite some talking points: "Was this part of the anti-incumbent mood that's going on in the country right now?...What do you think your victory meant and how do you think you did it?" Sestak replied: "What I listened to was people had literally lost trust. They'd lost faith in Washington D.C....I hope to earn that trust from them....I felt I had to begin to demonstrate, it wasn't about Joe Sestak and his job; it was about yours."

Here is a portion Schieffer's May 23 interview with Alexander:

10:41 AM EST

BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's talk, a little bit, about what happened last week, these elections, especially down in – in Kentucky, where you had the hand-picked candidate of Mitch McConnell, your leader in the Senate. The whole Republican establishment down there was for one guy, and along comes Rand Paul, this Tea Party favorite. And he doesn't just beat him. He wins it in a blowout. But since then, he has had some rather controversial things to say, like the '64 Civil Rights bill may have been too broad. He's questioned the Disabilities Act. He's talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education. Can you see yourself supporting a candidate who takes those kinds of positions, Senator?

ALEXANDER: Yes, I can.

SCHIEFFER: You can?

ALEXANDER: And I'm glad he cleared up at least one of them. But here's what happened. You know, even a very good baseball player sometimes has a hard time going from AAA to the major leagues. And that's what happened to him last week. If he'll stick to the jobs, debt and terror and providing a check-and-balance on a runaway government in Washington, he'll be the next Republican Senator. We'll be glad to have him.

SCHIEFFER: But that's not what he campaigned on. He campaigned on all these other things, doing away with the Department of Education, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, and then talking about that the Civil Rights Act went too far?

ALEXANDER: Well, he clarified that. He made a mistake there. At least I thought he did. At least it’s different than my opinion. We already have senators who want to get rid of the Fed. And, you know, we've – we've got a Democratic Caucus with nearly 60 votes that includes a very nice senator from Vermont who proudly describes himself as a Socialist. So a little check and balance in the Senate wouldn't be a bad thing.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think the Republican Party, as I understand it, is trying to broaden its appeal to African Americans, to minorities. Why would any member of any minority group want to vote or want to be for someone who says that, well, you know, maybe that Civil Rights Act went a little too far? I know you say he's clarified it. Now he says he wouldn't vote to repeal it. But just saying you wouldn't repeal it, after saying, maybe, it went too far, I mean, can you be for that?

ALEXANDER: Oh, I cannot be for that. I was for the Civil Rights Act of '64, '68, '75. I helped put in the Martin Luther King holiday. In Tennessee, when I ran for re-election in 2008, I got 25 percent of the African American vote with President Obama on the ticket. So we have plenty of Republican candidates who will get plenty of African American votes. I think Rand Paul had a tough week last week. If he'll focus on providing a check-and-balance on a run-away Washington government, he'll be fine. And he'll be elected.

SCHIEFFER: And what about this whole business of the tea party? Is it going to prove to be a good thing for Republicans or is this something that you need to be worried about here?

ALEXANDER: Well, I think any time Americans want to get out of their chairs and focus on jobs, debt, and terror, and checking a run-away government in Washington. We want them in our primaries. We want them as our nominees. And we want them in the United States Senate. I think it provides diversity in our party. It makes us a bigger tent. Gives us a lot more energy. But I think the American people are really upset right now. And this election is going to have a lot of fresh faces, a lot of surprises. But the mood is, let's throw the rascals out in Washington. And the Democrats are the rascals by a big majority. And I think we're going to have a lot more Republicans in November for that reason.

SCHIEFFER: But there are no Democrats running in some of those Republican primaries out there. There are tea party candidates taking on mainstream members of your party. And I guess that’s what I'm getting at.

Here is a portion of Schieffer's interview with Sestak:

10:48 AM EST

SCHIEFFER: Back now with one of Tuesday's big primary winners, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak who took on the establishment, the Democratic establishment in Pennsylvania, and took on the White House and beat Arlen Specter, who had switched from the Republican Party. Let me just ask you first about what I was asking Robert Gibbs about this idea. Did the White House offer you a position in the administration if you would not run?

JOE SESTAK: Yes, I was asked that question months after it happened. And I felt an obligation to answer it honestly. And I said yes. But, Bob...

SCHIEFFER: Can you tell us what job?

SESTAK: No, Bob, I – and then I said at the time, anything beyond that just gets into politics. And actually that's what I think is failing Washington, D.C. principle doesn't seem to triumph over politics where people come here and be willing to lose their job over doing what they said they would do. And so I just stay focused on what I had issued out there which was a plan for Pennsylvania working families, from retirement security to educational opportunity for their children, and small business opportunities. And that’s what I just keep on talking about.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let's talk about the race that you had with Arlen Specter. The White House was for Specter. They obviously wanted you not in the race. But you took them on. Now will you ask for Barack Obama's help?

SESTAK: Well, I have to tell you, the president was the very first one who called me. And I welcome his support. And I have to also tell you, Arlen Specter, when he called me, set a standard for graciousness. Telling me, Joe, congratulations, I'm going to support you. Look, I watched a wonderful primary between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. And they steeled those candidates, much like this primary did. And we're going to come together because we believe in Democratic principles. But I'm going to come to Washington and serve. And I really do want to fight for working families. And, yes, I'll stand up to the party if they're wrong and they aren't going the right way for people in Pennsylvania. But I do believe in Democratic principles.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the president would help you or hurt you if he came to Pennsylvania? And will you ask him to come?

SESTAK: I'd be honored to stand with the President of the United States – honored.

SCHIEFFER: You would be honored if he came? Have you asked him yet?

SESTAK: Sir, yes, we had a nice discussion and he said he'll look forward to – he said, "I'll support you." And I hope so.

[LAUGHTER]

SCHIEFFER: So what do you think did it? Was this part of the anti-incumbent mood that's going on in the country right now? Because obviously there's a great deal of anger with Washington itself. What do you think your victory meant and how do you think you did it?

SESTAK: When I had to go through those 67 counties last July and decide whether to get in or not after the establishment said, "Sit down," I'll never forget a farmer that said to me, when I asked him how the recession was, and he said, "Not too bad. I was hurting so much already." What I listened to was people had literally lost trust. They'd lost faith in Washington D.C. they saw people actually more willing to try to take positions that might help them in electoral prospects rather than standing up and, with the courage of their convictions, fighting for what was needed for them. They knew that Washington had lost focus.

On Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer interrogated Republican Senator Lamar Alexander on GOP senate nominee Rand Paul: "Can you see yourself supporting a candidate who takes those kinds of positions, Senator?" However, Schieffer lobbed softballs to Democratic senate nominee Joe Sestak minutes later, who claimed the White House offered him a job to quit the primary race.  

In his interview with Alexander, Schieffer focused almost exclusively on comments made by Paul: "...he has had some rather controversial things to say, like the '64 Civil Rights bill may have been too broad. He's questioned the Disabilities Act. He's talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education." Alexander chalked up some of Paul's remarks to political inexperience, but also noted: "...we’ve got a Democratic Caucus with nearly 60 votes that includes a very nice senator from Vermont who proudly describes himself as a Socialist."

Schieffer pressed on: "...the Republican Party, as I understand it, is trying to broaden its appeal to African Americans, to minorities. Why would any member of any minority group want to vote or want to be for someone who says that, well, you know, maybe that Civil Rights Act went a little too far?...I mean, can you be for that?" Schieffer went on to wonder: "And what about this whole business of the tea party? Is it going to prove to be a good thing for Republicans or is this something that you need to be worried about here?"

In an interview with Sestak that immediately followed, Schieffer brought up the Pennsylvania Congressman's charge that the Obama White House offered him a job to end his primary challenge to Arlen Specter: "Did the White House offer you a position in the administration if you would not run?" Sestak replied: "Yes, I was asked that question months after it happened. And I felt an obligation to answer it honestly. And I said yes."
                            
Schieffer gently followed up: "Can you tell us what job?" Sestak refused: "No, Bob, I –and then I said at the time, anything beyond that just gets into politics." Schieffer was apparently satisfied with that non-answer and moved on to ask about the campaign: "The White House was for Specter. They obviously wanted you not in the race. But you took them on. Now will you ask for Barack Obama's help?"

Later, Schieffer invited Sestak to recite some talking points: "Was this part of the anti-incumbent mood that's going on in the country right now?...What do you think your victory meant and how do you think you did it?" Sestak replied: "What I listened to was people had literally lost trust. They'd lost faith in Washington D.C....I hope to earn that trust from them....I felt I had to begin to demonstrate, it wasn't about Joe Sestak and his job; it was about yours."

Here is a portion Schieffer's May 23 interview with Alexander:

10:41 AM EST

BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's talk, a little bit, about what happened last week, these elections, especially down in – in Kentucky, where you had the hand-picked candidate of Mitch McConnell, your leader in the Senate. The whole Republican establishment down there was for one guy, and along comes Rand Paul, this Tea Party favorite. And he doesn't just beat him. He wins it in a blowout. But since then, he has had some rather controversial things to say, like the '64 Civil Rights bill may have been too broad. He's questioned the Disabilities Act. He's talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education. Can you see yourself supporting a candidate who takes those kinds of positions, Senator?

ALEXANDER: Yes, I can.

SCHIEFFER: You can?

ALEXANDER: And I'm glad he cleared up at least one of them. But here's what happened. You know, even a very good baseball player sometimes has a hard time going from AAA to the major leagues. And that's what happened to him last week. If he'll stick to the jobs, debt and terror and providing a check-and-balance on a runaway government in Washington, he'll be the next Republican Senator. We'll be glad to have him.

SCHIEFFER: But that's not what he campaigned on. He campaigned on all these other things, doing away with the Department of Education, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, and then talking about that the Civil Rights Act went too far?

ALEXANDER: Well, he clarified that. He made a mistake there. At least I thought he did. At least it’s different than my opinion. We already have senators who want to get rid of the Fed. And, you know, we've – we've got a Democratic Caucus with nearly 60 votes that includes a very nice senator from Vermont who proudly describes himself as a Socialist. So a little check and balance in the Senate wouldn't be a bad thing.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think the Republican Party, as I understand it, is trying to broaden its appeal to African Americans, to minorities. Why would any member of any minority group want to vote or want to be for someone who says that, well, you know, maybe that Civil Rights Act went a little too far? I know you say he's clarified it. Now he says he wouldn't vote to repeal it. But just saying you wouldn't repeal it, after saying, maybe, it went too far, I mean, can you be for that?

ALEXANDER: Oh, I cannot be for that. I was for the Civil Rights Act of '64, '68, '75. I helped put in the Martin Luther King holiday. In Tennessee, when I ran for re-election in 2008, I got 25 percent of the African American vote with President Obama on the ticket. So we have plenty of Republican candidates who will get plenty of African American votes. I think Rand Paul had a tough week last week. If he'll focus on providing a check-and-balance on a run-away Washington government, he'll be fine. And he'll be elected.

SCHIEFFER: And what about this whole business of the tea party? Is it going to prove to be a good thing for Republicans or is this something that you need to be worried about here?

ALEXANDER: Well, I think any time Americans want to get out of their chairs and focus on jobs, debt, and terror, and checking a run-away government in Washington. We want them in our primaries. We want them as our nominees. And we want them in the United States Senate. I think it provides diversity in our party. It makes us a bigger tent. Gives us a lot more energy. But I think the American people are really upset right now. And this election is going to have a lot of fresh faces, a lot of surprises. But the mood is, let's throw the rascals out in Washington. And the Democrats are the rascals by a big majority. And I think we're going to have a lot more Republicans in November for that reason.

SCHIEFFER: But there are no Democrats running in some of those Republican primaries out there. There are tea party candidates taking on mainstream members of your party. And I guess that’s what I'm getting at.

Here is a portion of Schieffer's interview with Sestak:

10:48 AM EST

SCHIEFFER: Back now with one of Tuesday's big primary winners, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak who took on the establishment, the Democratic establishment in Pennsylvania, and took on the White House and beat Arlen Specter, who had switched from the Republican Party. Let me just ask you first about what I was asking Robert Gibbs about this idea. Did the White House offer you a position in the administration if you would not run?

JOE SESTAK: Yes, I was asked that question months after it happened. And I felt an obligation to answer it honestly. And I said yes. But, Bob...

SCHIEFFER: Can you tell us what job?

SESTAK: No, Bob, I – and then I said at the time, anything beyond that just gets into politics. And actually that's what I think is failing Washington, D.C. principle doesn't seem to triumph over politics where people come here and be willing to lose their job over doing what they said they would do. And so I just stay focused on what I had issued out there which was a plan for Pennsylvania working families, from retirement security to educational opportunity for their children, and small business opportunities. And that’s what I just keep on talking about.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let's talk about the race that you had with Arlen Specter. The White House was for Specter. They obviously wanted you not in the race. But you took them on. Now will you ask for Barack Obama's help?

SESTAK: Well, I have to tell you, the president was the very first one who called me. And I welcome his support. And I have to also tell you, Arlen Specter, when he called me, set a standard for graciousness. Telling me, Joe, congratulations, I'm going to support you. Look, I watched a wonderful primary between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. And they steeled those candidates, much like this primary did. And we're going to come together because we believe in Democratic principles. But I'm going to come to Washington and serve. And I really do want to fight for working families. And, yes, I'll stand up to the party if they're wrong and they aren't going the right way for people in Pennsylvania. But I do believe in Democratic principles.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the president would help you or hurt you if he came to Pennsylvania? And will you ask him to come?

SESTAK: I'd be honored to stand with the President of the United States – honored.

SCHIEFFER: You would be honored if he came? Have you asked him yet?

SESTAK: Sir, yes, we had a nice discussion and he said he'll look forward to – he said, "I'll support you." And I hope so.

[LAUGHTER]

SCHIEFFER: So what do you think did it? Was this part of the anti-incumbent mood that's going on in the country right now? Because obviously there's a great deal of anger with Washington itself. What do you think your victory meant and how do you think you did it?

SESTAK: When I had to go through those 67 counties last July and decide whether to get in or not after the establishment said, "Sit down," I'll never forget a farmer that said to me, when I asked him how the recession was, and he said, "Not too bad. I was hurting so much already." What I listened to was people had literally lost trust. They'd lost faith in Washington D.C. they saw people actually more willing to try to take positions that might help them in electoral prospects rather than standing up and, with the courage of their convictions, fighting for what was needed for them. They knew that Washington had lost focus.

At the end of Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer gushed over a recent trip to the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and one exhibit in particular: "honoring Walter Cronkite....those moments in American history captured by TV...when Walter always seemed to be there....the little things we never saw, Walter's scripts, his pipe, and his office, just the way it was."

Schieffer observed that a tribute to Cronkite being at the library of the Democratic president was a "perfect fit" and noted how: "Johnson liked and respected Walter. Walter liked and respected Johnson." Schieffer went on to fondly remember Cronkite's denunciation of the Vietnam War: "When Walter returned from Vietnam and concluded in a documentary the war was unwinnable, Johnson remarked to an aide, 'if I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America.' And so he had....When Walter came out against the war, he did something he almost never did – he took sides."

While specifically citing Cronkite's bias against the war, Schieffer failed to comment on a Friday report that revealed FBI documents detailing allegations that the then CBS Evening News anchor offered to rent a helicopter to transport Democratic Senator Ed Muskie to an anti-war rally in Florida in November of 1969.   

Instead, Schieffer admitted: "Walter was the person I always wanted to be when I was a very young reporter, the person I'm still trying to be, truth be told."

He concluded his commentary by making a ringing endorsement: "Visit the Johnson Library this summer. It's a fascinating experience, one of the best of the presidential libraries and the Cronkite exhibit makes it even better."

Here is a full transcript:

10:54AM

BOB SCHIEFFER: Finally today, I was at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas this weekend for the opening of an exhibit honoring Walter Cronkite. The exhibit has it all, those moments in American history captured by TV. The Kennedy assassination, the moonwalks, the interviews with presidents, when Walter always seemed to be there. Plus the little things we never saw, Walter's scripts, his pipe, and his office, just the way it was.

That the exhibit is at the LBJ Library to me is the perfect fit. Johnson liked and respected Walter. Walter liked and respected Johnson. And history will always link them. When Walter returned from Vietnam and concluded in a documentary the war was unwinnable, Johnson remarked to an aide, 'if I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America.' And so he had.

Touring the exhibit brought back many memories for me. Johnson was the first politician I ever saw. I was 11-years-old, and he was campaigning for the Senate in 1948. And Walter was the person I always wanted to be when I was a very young reporter, the person I'm still trying to be, truth be told.

When Walter came out against the war, he did something he almost never did – he took sides. And I am going to do something I almost never do – offer a vacation tip. Visit the Johnson Library this summer. It's a fascinating experience, one of the best of the presidential libraries and the Cronkite exhibit makes it even better.

During live CBS News coverage on Monday of President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer argued that the Senate confirmation process would be "nasty....Not because of Elena Kagan....she is imminently qualified" but because Republicans are "very wary of what the right part of their party is thinking about them."

As evidence of his theory, Schieffer pointed to the primary defeat of Republican Utah Senator Bob Bennet on Saturday: "it is a very toxic election year. You saw over the weekend that Bob Bennett, the very conservative Republican senator from Utah lost the Republican nomination out in his home state because people there, including a lot of tea party people, thought he was not conservative enough." He concluded: "I think in the end, she will probably be confirmed, but I think it's going to be a very tough vote for a lot of Republicans and I think it's going to take some time before they get to that final vote."

In response to Schieffer's assertion, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, who broke into CBS daytime programing at 10AM ET with a special report on the nomination, lamented: "Nothing is easy or simple in Washington these days, Bob."

Schieffer gave nearly identical analysis at the top of the CBS Early Show in the 7AM ET hour when co-host Harry Smith wondered: "What kind of fight do you think will ensue over the next couple of months?" Schieffer replied: "A really bitter and vicious one....she is imminently qualified. But we're in an election year, an especially toxic election year." Schieffer cited the Bennet defeat and observed: "In a way, a vote against her would be kind of tea party insurance to let people know that they're moving to the right. The Republican Party is moving very far to the right."

On both the Early Show and during the 10AM special report, CBS News legal analyst Jan Crawford was also a featured guest and touted her personal connection to Kagan, as a student of the former University of Chicago law professor. Crawford told Couric that Kagan:

...was incredibly dynamic. She was one of the most well-liked professors, very challenging, but in the classroom, she was very engaging with the students....those qualities that the White House believes she will take on to that Supreme Court and be a very effective justice, her ability to engage with people, those people skills will make her, they think, a consensus builder.

Couric observed: "You know, oftentimes in these confirmation hearings, people are described, or nominees are described as either strict constructionists or judicial activists. Certainly, she seems to fall into the latter category." Crawford dismissed the "activist" label for Kagan: "Elena Kagan is a moderate liberal. And so to call her an activist, I think, would be really a stretch for some, of even the Republicans. She's got a lot of conservative support....I don't think you're going to be hearing many people tag her as an activist."

On the Early Show, Smith noted to Crawford how "it seemed she [Kagan] was almost as valued for her EQ as her IQ, her ability to get along with other people." Crawford agreed: "Well, she actually has both....she's very engaging, very challenging, she's quite dynamic in her personality. And you see that when she's arguing cases before the Supreme Court. The justices really like her."

Here is a transcript of Couric's Exchange with Schieffer and Crawford in the 10AM special report:

KATIE COURIC: So a beaming Elena Kagan getting a standing ovation in the East Room of the White House. Whether her confirmation hearing will be as smooth remains to be seen, but she has now been nominated to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. Solicitor general, former dean of Harvard Law School, and of course, a former professor at the University of Chicago as well, a professor who taught our chief legal correspondent, Jan Crawford. Jan, tell us what your impressions were as a student of Elena Kagan's.

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, she was just starting out, Katie, as a young professor and she was incredibly dynamic. She was one of the most well-liked professors, very challenging, but in the classroom, she was very engaging with the students. And we see some of those same qualities now when she's arguing cases before the Supreme Court. She keeps it light, but she's serious. She's engaging with the justices. And as we heard President Obama say just now, it is, I think, those qualities that the White House believes she will take on to that Supreme Court and be a very effective justice, her ability to engage with people, those people skills will make her, they think, a consensus builder.

COURIC: And Jan, as we heard the President say, he praised her understanding of the law as it will affect the lives of ordinary people. You know, oftentimes in these confirmation hearings, people are described, or nominees are described as either strict constructionists or judicial activists. Certainly, she seems to fall into the latter category.

CRAWFORD: Well, you hear conservatives talk about strict constructionists and that's what a conservative justice would be, someone who looks really closely at only the words of the Constitution. It's conservatives who actually refer to liberals as activists because they think they go too far in reading the Constitution. Now, Elena Kagan is a moderate liberal. And so to call her an activist, I think, would be really a stretch for some, of even the Republicans. She's got a lot of conservative support. Conservatives will testify, some of her colleagues, at her confirmation hearings, so I don't think you're going to be hearing many people tag her as an activist.

COURIC: How big a role, Jan, do you think gender played in this? I know Sandra Day O'Connor has spoken about the need for another woman on the high court and the National Association of Women Judges sent the President a letter urging him to, in fact, nominate another woman. Do you think this was a key factor?

CRAWFORD: I don't think it was the key factor, but I think it was certainly one that went into the overall mix. I think the main factor was her youth. At 50, she'll be on that court for a really long time. And her ability, like I said, to build those coalitions. It's a group of nine people, sometimes back in the old days, people called the court, you know, nine scorpions in a bottle, it's a pretty hard place to navigate. They're not lacking in ego up there. But certainly, it was a plus that she's a woman and as you said, Justice O'Connor has always said there should be not – you know, just one or two or even three women on the court, maybe someday we'll have even four or five.

COURIC: Alright, Jan Crawford. Jan, thanks so much. Let's go to Bob Schieffer, who is our expert in all things political. Bob, do you think a rocky confirmation process is before Elena Kagan? We've already seen some conservatives come out swinging about the fact that she didn't allow military recruiters onto the campus at Harvard because of her opposition to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' What do you think is likely to happen?

BOB SCHIEFFER: A very contentious, and probably at times, nasty confirmation hearing. Not because of Elena Kagan and who she is. I think as you saw there, she is quite compelling and certainly, she is imminently qualified. This is an election year, Katie, and it is a very toxic election year. You saw over the weekend that Bob Bennett, the very conservative Republican senator from Utah lost the Republican nomination out in his home state because people there, including a lot of tea party people, thought he was not conservative enough. I think you're going to see it very difficult for Republicans to vote for her, not because of her, but because she's simply been nominated by Barack Obama. And they are going to be very, very wary of what the right part of their party is thinking about them this time. I think in the end, she will probably be confirmed, but I think it's going to be a very tough vote for a lot of Republicans and I think it's going to take some time before they get to that final vote.

COURIC: Nothing is easy or simple in Washington these days, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Nope. Nope.

COURIC: Alright.

SCHIEFFER: You're right.

COURIC: Bob Schieffer. Bob, thanks so much for your insight as always.

Here is a transcript of Smith's exchange with Schieffer and Crawford on the Early Show:

HARRY SMITH: Also in Washington, our CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford and Bob Schieffer, chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation. Good morning, all.

JAN CRAWFORD: Hello.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning.

SMITH: Jan, let me start with you. Why Elena Kagan?

CRAWFORD: Well, at the end of the day, she gave the White House everything that they wanted. She's progressive, even though some people say she may be moderate, but she is a progressive, she will be a leader on that court, she can build coalitions, bring consensus together, and she's 50 years old. So that, combined with the fact that she's not going to be a huge fight, is what tipped the balance to her at the end of the day.

SMITH: It's so interesting, no real paper trail, no judicial record to speak of. I – as I was culling  through her information, it seemed she was almost as valued for her EQ as her IQ, her ability to get along with other people.

CRAWFORD: Well, she actually has both. I mean, I've known her for a long time. She was a professor of mine at the University of Chicago law school and she's very engaging, very challenging, she's quite dynamic in her personality. And you see that when she's arguing cases before the Supreme Court. The justices really like her. You should see Justice Scalia, obviously a conservative, and Kagan going back and forth. So the White House sees that as a real plus. And they expect her to be a very effective jurist on that court.

SMITH: Isn't it ironic, thought, here's the President of the United States, during his State of the Union address, specifically chastises the court for its decision on campaign finance reform, and allowing corporations to put as much money in campaigns as possible – as they want, and the person who argued against that was Elena Kagan.

CRAWFORD: Right, I mean she defended that law and you're going to hear that over and over and over in these hearing, that she defended that law. She was on the side of every day Americans. The problem for her, though, and why this doesn't quite fit, is that she's not really an every day American. She's upper west side New York, Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, so, you know, she is part of that elite academic world. Then Republicans this morning already are hammering her as a true, you know, Washington insider.

SMITH: Bob Schieffer, as this bubbles up today and people really start to chime in, people talk about her being confirmable and she was just confirmed as solicitor general, 61-31. What kind of fight do you think will ensue over the next couple of months?

SCHIEFFER: A really bitter and vicious one. I would start by saying, Harry, I think she is imminently qualified. But we're in an election year, an especially toxic election year. Just this weekend, you saw the very conservative Bob Bennett, the senator from Utah, lose the Republican nomination because members of the – to the right of the party, a lot of tea party people, thought that he was not conservative enough. I think you will see some Republican senators, moderates, giving very careful consideration to their vote on Elena Kagan. In a way, a vote against her would be kind of tea party insurance to let people know that they're moving to the right. The Republican Party is moving very far to the right. So I think this is going to be – she may be confirmed in the end, I think she probably will, but this is going to be a very, very difficult election year argument on Capitol Hill.

SMITH: Because there was another candidate who was viewed as being more centrist, as being confirmable in the long run if, for instance, there is a loss of Democratic votes in the Senate in the future. The President clearly decided 'I – this is the card – my best card to play at this time.' You think it's going to be rancorous, though?

SCHIEFFER: I think it will. I mean, you're talking about Merrick Garland. I think most people thought that he would have been – he's the appeals court judge – thought that he would be the most easily confirmed. The President chose not to go that way. I think the second most easily confirmed was probably Kagan, but that doesn't mean it's not going to be a really drawn out and a tough fight. Republicans are going to give very careful consideration to whether they vote for her or not. Just because – not because of her, but because of the situation in this election year.

SMITH: And as young as she is and being around for a long time. Bob Schieffer, thank you very much. Jan Crawford, appreciate your expertise, thank you.

CRAWFORD: Thanks.

On Friday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez declared that when it comes to financial reform legislation, "Democrats have all the leverage right now." Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer appeared on the show and observed that "They think this is the time to picture Republicans as trying to protect fat cat bankers, as it were."

In her first question to Schieffer, Rodriguez wondered: "Do Democrats have anything to lose by going for a vote on Monday even though the Republicans have said they'd like a little bit more time to work on a compromise?" Schieffer replied: "No, they have absolutely nothing to lose. They want to get this out and get it on the table as quickly as possible."

Following his comment about the image of Republicans supporting "fat cat bankers," Schieffer added: "it's one thing to oppose health care reform, but on this case, I think most people would agree that doctors are more popular than bankers, especially at this particular time when you've had this lawsuit filed against Goldman Sachs." The headline on screen throughout the segment read: "Financial Reform Face-Off; Obama Takes on Wall Street, GOP."

Rodriguez later pointed out that Senator John McCain "said he doesn't understand why the Senate is ...talking about Wall Street reform, when so many people are in danger of losing their home." She asked Schieffer: "Do you think that a lot of people will buy into that argument?" As part of his response, Schieffer dismissed McCain's objection as politically motivated: "McCain, we also have to remember, is involved in a very difficult primary campaign against a candidate backed by the tea party out there in Arizona. So that may have something to do with what he said."

After Rodriguez finished talking to Schieffer, co-host Harry Smith sarcastically picked up on McCain's primary fight: "The election couldn't have had anything to do with it, right?" Rodriguez replied: "No, of course not."

On Thursday's CBS Evening News, White House correspondent Chip Reid portrayed Republicans as standing in the way of inevitable passage of the bill: "On Capitol Hill, some angry Republicans said the President's plan is not what the American people want....In the Senate, where just yesterday bipartisanship seemed to be breaking out all over, today saw a return to gridlock and finger pointing....A crucial Senate vote is scheduled for Monday. The White House says they are confident they'll get a bipartisan majority."

Earlier in the report, when discussing President Obama's Wall Street speech that afternoon, Reid remarked: "the President argued there's no legitimate reason to oppose financial reform." Reid added: "He criticized bankers for sending a battalion of lobbyists to Congress and poked fun at Wall Street's instinctive opposition to regulation, reading a quote from Time magazine....He then revealed it was from 1933, opposing the FDIC, the government agency that, to this day, insures bank deposits."

On Thursday's Early Show, co-host Harry Smith interviewed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and wondered: "This looks like it's going to happen, this financial reform....You're confident of it?" Geithner replied: "Oh, very confident. If you just listen to the – just the tone of the last couple days, it's changed. And I spent a huge amount of time with the Republicans over the last few weeks...I think they really want to be for this."

Smith cited that quote from Geithner to Maggie Rodriguez following the interview: "The Treasury Secretary told me that he has spent an awful lot of time with Republicans-" Rodriguez interjected: "Good." Smith continued: "-trying to make sure that they're getting on the same page with the Democrats."

On Wednesday's CBS Evening News, when it seemed like a bipartisan deal was more likely, congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes happily proclaimed: "It appears that bipartisanship is back from the dead here on Capitol Hill....Just last week, Republicans were expressing universal opposition to the financial reform bill....But now they are back at the bargaining table." Cordes quickly found the reason for the resurrection: "The change in tone comes after Democrats accused the GOP of siding with big banks."

On Wednesday's Early Show, Rodriguez cheered: "encouraging news out of Washington, that after a week or so of attacking this financial bill that the Democrats are proposing to regulate Wall Street, Republicans are changing their tone and they seem to be wanting to come on board."

On Tuesday, the Early Show went so far as to have on disgraced ex-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to discuss the bill, who thought it didn't offer enough government control over the financial industry: "It will happen, but it's not fundamental enough. The critical issue is what should the investment banks do with all the money we've given them. They're not investing it where we need it to go, into the guts of our economy. They're playing games like this."

As for criticism of the proposed legislation, neither the Wednesday or Thursday Evening News broadcasts, nor the Thursday or Friday editions of the Early Show, made any mention of the fact that government-backed mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were left out of the reform bill.

The suspicious timing of the Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit against Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs was mentioned on Wednesday's Evening News, when anchor Katie Couric asked Cordes: "A lot of people have questioned the timing of that SEC case against Goldman Sachs. And the President addressed that today, didn't he?" Cordes recited Obama's denial of any White House involvement: "In that CNBC interview that you saw, he categorically denied that the White House had anything to do with the substance or the timing of that suit....he said any indications that he might have tried to influence that suit are categorically false."

During his interview with Spitzer on Tuesday's Early Show, Harry Smith wondered if the lawsuit "was politically motivated?" Spitzer argued: "Well, I don't want to say politically motivated. The SEC is trying very hard to say 'we're being tough, we're protecting the consumer'....I wouldn't say politics. I would say they're flexing their muscles."

Smith asked one question to Secretary Geithner about a possible $50 billion bank slush fund in the legislation: "having a kind of fund that would be paid for by the banks, but almost like a slush fund to help with that dismantling. Some people would say all that really does is send a signal to the banks, go ahead and gamble."

The rest of the coverage largely repeated Democratic talking points on the plan and promoted it as genuine reform.

I don't think that helps them, and I don't think it helps the Republican Party, because being anti-Obama, some of these – a larger percentage of tea partiers than anyone else also believe he was not born in this country. And so they get associated with this sort of birther attitude....these sort of fringy elements are going to undermine their credibility and I think ultimately hurt them, as long as the Republicans are associated with them.

10:46AM

BOB SCHIEFFER: And we are back now with brand-new Pulitzer Prize winner Kathleen Parker. So now that you're a regular on Face the Nation, so we can now say that Face the Nation has won a Pulitzer.

KATHLEEN PARKER: I owe it all to you, Bob.

[LAUGHTER]

SCHIEFFER: We will be the first broadcast outlet to win one, since broadcasters are not eligible.

PARKER: That's right.

SCHIEFFER: I'm just teasing. Congratulations.

PARKER: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: That's a well-deserved honor. You're a conservative columnist by nature. And yet you were one of the first to, sort of, talk about Sarah Palin. And you write this morning about some of the rhetoric that's coming out from the-

PARKER: From the-

SCHIEFFER: -right side.

PARKER: Right.

SCHIEFFER: -especially from the Tea Party. And you – you point out that you think it may be dangerous.

PARKER: Well, I think we have to be cautious. And, by the way, as to my being a conservative and having these things to say, I always like to quote George Will, who famously said, 'Being a conservative does not mean we have to take a leap into the darkness.'

And I think – you know, I want to make clear that I'm not saying the tea party people are violent or racist or any of that. I think there are some people who attach themselves to any crowd scene and can – can tarnish, you know, our perception of the organization, or the movement, in this case. So I'm not saying that the tea partiers are bad people or dangerous. But I think that the – the zeitgeist now, with all this heated rhetoric and some of these words that carry – that are pretty loaded, 'reload,' 'targeting,' all that sort of thing, you know, there's a danger there. And I just think we have to be very vigilant.

And when someone does say something that incites volatility, I think we have to call them on it, if it's a politician or a pundit or just someone in the crowd. We have to self-police and be – and be extremely careful, because I do think there is a lot of anger and it could become something else.

SCHIEFFER: Someone made an interesting point to me recently, in talking about how, you know, some of this really nasty rhetoric that shows up on the Internet, where you don't know who said it. There really is no accountability, the Internet being the only place, the only vehicle to deliver news that has no editor. You don't know where this stuff comes from, whether it's true or false.

And this person said to me, you know, we've always had opinion that comes from various places, like, during Lincoln's day, every newspaper had an editorial point of view. But this person said the difference was, in those days, you knew which paper it was coming from. Now you don't know where some of this is coming from. And that is the added factor to the volatility of this stuff and where it goes.

PARKER: Yeah, it's interesting. People will say anything when they have the – the cloak of anonymity. It's, sort of, like terrorism. You know, we don't know where to aim our bombs, so we can't go after a country because there are – you know, there's no one place to focus on it. And it's the same thing with – with the Internet. You can't really – you don't know who to go after.

And you and I – I'm sure you share some of the – the wonderful experiences I've had of being attacked and threatened and whatnot. And it's – it's, sort of – it feeds on itself, you know, builds. And people who are not well-grounded and who may have these more violent tendencies suddenly find a place where they can convene and find validation and even find company. And I don't know where that all leads, but it's – it's, kind of, scary.

SCHIEFFER: Where do you think the tea party is right now? And does it pose a greater danger to the Republican Party, per se, because, if it becomes a third party, you have a Ross Perot kind of movement. And we know, when Ross Perot got into it, Bill Clinton got elected, because you had three people out there competing for the votes. Or does it pose a greater threat to Democratic officeholders?

PARKER: Well, I think Democratic officeholders are in big trouble come November. The tea party movement, it's hard to settle on who they are, what they are, what they believe. But the – I think essentially, it's anti-big government, it's anti-more taxes. And that's why they claim Scott Brown, of course, is because his platform happens to coincide with what they believe. But if you are, I think, you know, some Republicans may be in danger, but mostly it'll be the Democrats.

SCHIEFFER: It is, most of all, if you look at the results of our CBS News poll last week, it is the anti-Obama party. This is really the core of the opposition to Barack Obama. This is a party that is wealthier than most Americans. The people are more educated, it turns out, than the average American is. And they have a greater dislike of Obama than even those in the mainstream of the Republican Party.

PARKER: Right. And I don't think that helps them, and I don't think it helps the Republican Party, because being anti-Obama, some of these – a larger percentage of tea partiers than anyone else also believe he was not born in this country. And so they get associated with this sort of birther attitude.

I know a lot of people who are actually – who would identify with the tea party or who in fact are sympathetic to the tea party fiscal constraint philosophy. But these sort of fringy elements are going to undermine their credibility and I think ultimately hurt them, as long as the Republicans are associated with them.

SCHIEFFER: I know when you win the Pulitzer, they submit a body of work. And I guess you – not you, but your editors picked out a number of columns that you wrote, and one of them was about Scott Brown. What do you make of Scott Brown?

PARKER: Well, I think Scott Brown, I think what you see is what you get. You know, he is just – he's a very independent fellow. And he's going to tick off somebody every time. You know, the tea partiers like to claim him, and then, you know, the Republican Party wants to claim him. But he is – he votes, I think he said to you, he votes according to each issue, and he approaches each issue as independently. And I think he is that. He's a very straight shooter and a regular guy. He's a good guy. But he's going to make people mad.

SCHIEFFER: We have about 20 seconds. Do you think it is politically risky for Republicans now to be identifying with Wall Street bankers in light of these outrages that keep coming to light?

PARKER: I think so. I think they're going to – I think they're going to have to – you know, the banks have become even bigger and more powerful. And I think that's certainly a part of what the Republicans are going to have to confront. And I think that's – they're on the other side of that.

SCHIEFFER: Kathleen Parker, thank you so much. And again, congratulations on a very well-deserved honor.

PARKER: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

While the tea party movement began to take shape in late February of 2009, the CBS Early Show did not offer a complete story on it until nearly 14 months later, with co-host Harry Smith declaring: "Today is tax day, April 15th. And thousands of tea party activists are headed to Washington...a new CBS News/New York Times poll is showing us just who these passionate conservatives really are."

Various co-hosts, correspondents, and guests certainly mentioned the tea party on the CBS morning show over the past year, but Thursday's broadcast was the first to provide a report that actually focused on the movement itself. Correspondent Nancy Cordes summed up the protests: "the tea partiers are planning to hold a series of rallies, not just hear in Washington, but around the country today, tax day. They're calling it the people's tax revolt. They say they're just fed up with the nation's tax burden."

Cordes noted how "Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin rallied an estimated 5,000 tea party protestors in Boston" and explained that a Washington D.C. event would "cap weeks of protests in 47 cities across the country. Tea partiers voicing their frustration with Congress and the White House." The headline on screen read: "Tea'd Off; Upstart Party Holds Final Rally On Tax Day."

Part of the reason for the Early Show's sudden interest in the tea parties was based on a new CBS News/New York Times poll about the movement. Cordes highlighted certain numbers: "The poll also exams the makeup of the tea party. More than a third of members are in the south [36%], 89% are white. 70% attended or graduated from college. While 84% have an unfavorable opinion of the President. 92% say he's pushing the country towards socialism."

On Wednesday's Evening News, correspondent Dean Reynolds played up those numbers and others, portraying the tea parties as mostly white, male, conservative, gun-toting, Fox News watchers.

Following Cordes's report, Smith spoke with Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer and wondered if the tea party opposition to current policies would "end up translating into...significant results come November?" Schieffer replied: "we now have some sense of just how large a group this is. I think it represents about 18% of the voting public. That is a force to be reckoned with and it's something that both Democrats and Republicans have to pay attention to."

Schieffer suggested the movement was a bigger threat to the GOP: "The great fear of Republicans, establishment Republicans, right now, is that this group will sort of break off and become a third party. And if they do that, of course, you may see what happened when Ross Perot siphoned off votes from George Bush and Bill Clinton, the Democrat, was elected."

Citing the poll numbers, Schieffer concluded: "I mean this is not just a bunch of Yahoos who make a lot of noise. We're seeing they're actually more educated than Americans in general. These are people who seem to have a legitimate anger building....And I think that is the thing that both parties have to worry about."

Schieffer added: "There's an intensity here that – that could spread, movements like this spread. We don't know yet where this is going, but it's something, Harry, both parties, and incumbents especially, are going to have to deal with and recognize." Smith replied: "Attention will be paid."

Where was that attitude from CBS over the past 14 months?

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: The Tea Party Express heads for Washington on tax day today, after Sarah Palin fires up the base.

SARAH PALIN: Government should be working for us. We should not have to work for the government.

7:04AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: Today is tax day, April 15th. And thousands of tea party activists are headed to Washington to express their anger and frustration with the Obama administration. As they do, a new CBS News/New York Times poll is showing us just who these passionate conservatives really are. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is on Capitol Hill with the story. Nancy, good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Harry, good morning to you. That's right, the tea partiers are planning to hold a series of rallies, not just hear in Washington, but around the country today, tax day. They're calling it the people's tax revolt. They say they're just fed up with the nation's tax burden.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea'd Off; Upstart Party Holds Final Rally On Tax Day]

SARAH PALIN: This is the people's movement.

CORDES: Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin rallied an estimated 5,000 tea party protestors in boston before the final stop of the tea party express here in Washington, D.C.. The tax day demonstration will cap weeks of protests in 47 cities across the country. Tea partiers voicing their frustration with Congress and the White House.

PALIN: The first task is to restore balance and common sense. And the first test will be at the ballot box in November.

CORDES: A New CBS News/New York Times poll shows Palin is overwhelmingly popular with tea party supporters [Favorable 66%, Not Favorable 12%], but only 40% think she would be an effective president [No 47%]. The poll also exams the makeup of the tea party. More than a third of members are in the south [36%], 89% are white. 70% attended or graduated from college. While 84% have an unfavorable opinion of the President. 92% say he's pushing the country towards socialism.

LARRY SABATO: The greatest strength of the tea party is its intensity. Intensity is what defines political involvement and this group has the potential to make a major difference in the November elections.

CORDES: And it does seem that a bit of their anti-government spending message is getting through to Washington. Spending on earmarks, those pork barrel projects that lawmakers like to slip into legislation, is actually down 15% this year. Harry.

SMITH: Nancy Cordes, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Let's bring in CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation Bob Schieffer. 15% isn't very much to be applauding, I don't guess. Here's the question of the morning. You see this intensity. You see the numbers. Better educated, they make more money than I think a lot of people believe. Will that end up translating into significant ballot – significant results come November?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I would say this, Harry. And I think the most important thing about this poll is we now have some sense of just how large a group this is. I think it represents about 18% of the voting public. That is a force to be reckoned with and it's something that both Democrats and Republicans have to pay attention to. The great fear of Republicans, establishment Republicans, right now, is that this group will sort of break off and become a third party. And if they do that, of course, you may see what happened when Ross Perot siphoned off votes from George Bush and Bill Clinton, the Democrat, was elected. That's the problem for Republicans. For Democrats, this really gives you a picture. This is the core anti-Obama, anti-incumbent vote out there. We saw in this poll these people are to the right of Republicans. But they really don't like Barack Obama. They don't like his programs. And they like Congress even less. This is something that everybody's got to worry about if you're in politics and in office right now.

SMITH: Yeah. It's interesting, because in the polling it says 'we're not really interested in a third party.' I think they want to bring the Republican Party closer to where they are. But you bring up a very good point, because as much as they dislike the President, they dislike Congress even more. They're like 'we've had it here.'

SCHIEFFER: Yeah, and I mean, I think you're going to see the impact of this. I think one thing the polls also show, I mean this is not just a bunch of Yahoos who make a lot of noise. We're seeing they're actually more educated than Americans in general. These are people who seem to have a legitimate anger building, where a lot of people, you know, right now are saying the country is moving in the wrong direction and they're disappointed and so forth. These people are angry. And I think that is the thing that both parties have to worry about. There's an intensity here that – that could spread, movements like this spread. We don't know yet where this is going, but it's something, Harry, both parties, and incumbents especially, are going to have to deal with and recognize.

SMITH: There you go. Attention will be paid. Bob Schieffer, thank you very much.

SCHIEFFER: You bet, Harry.

While the tea party movement began to take shape in late February of 2009, the CBS Early Show did not offer a complete story on it until nearly 14 months later, with co-host Harry Smith declaring: "Today is tax day, April 15th. And thousands of tea party activists are headed to Washington...a new CBS News/New York Times poll is showing us just who these passionate conservatives really are."

Various co-hosts, correspondents, and guests certainly mentioned the tea party on the CBS morning show over the past year, but Thursday's broadcast was the first to provide a report that actually focused on the movement itself. Correspondent Nancy Cordes summed up the protests: "the tea partiers are planning to hold a series of rallies, not just hear in Washington, but around the country today, tax day. They're calling it the people's tax revolt. They say they're just fed up with the nation's tax burden."

Cordes noted how "Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin rallied an estimated 5,000 tea party protestors in Boston" and explained that a Washington D.C. event would "cap weeks of protests in 47 cities across the country. Tea partiers voicing their frustration with Congress and the White House." The headline on screen read: "Tea'd Off; Upstart Party Holds Final Rally On Tax Day."

Part of the reason for the Early Show's sudden interest in the tea parties was based on a new CBS News/New York Times poll about the movement. Cordes highlighted certain numbers: "The poll also exams the makeup of the tea party. More than a third of members are in the south [36%], 89% are white. 70% attended or graduated from college. While 84% have an unfavorable opinion of the President. 92% say he's pushing the country towards socialism."

On Wednesday's Evening News, correspondent Dean Reynolds played up those numbers and others, portraying the tea parties as mostly white, male, conservative, gun-toting, Fox News watchers.

Following Cordes's report, Smith spoke with Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer and wondered if the tea party opposition to current policies would "end up translating into...significant results come November?" Schieffer replied: "we now have some sense of just how large a group this is. I think it represents about 18% of the voting public. That is a force to be reckoned with and it's something that both Democrats and Republicans have to pay attention to."

Schieffer suggested the movement was a bigger threat to the GOP: "The great fear of Republicans, establishment Republicans, right now, is that this group will sort of break off and become a third party. And if they do that, of course, you may see what happened when Ross Perot siphoned off votes from George Bush and Bill Clinton, the Democrat, was elected."

Citing the poll numbers, Schieffer concluded: "I mean this is not just a bunch of Yahoos who make a lot of noise. We're seeing they're actually more educated than Americans in general. These are people who seem to have a legitimate anger building....And I think that is the thing that both parties have to worry about."

Schieffer added: "There's an intensity here that – that could spread, movements like this spread. We don't know yet where this is going, but it's something, Harry, both parties, and incumbents especially, are going to have to deal with and recognize." Smith replied: "Attention will be paid."

Where was that attitude from CBS over the past 14 months?

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: The Tea Party Express heads for Washington on tax day today, after Sarah Palin fires up the base.

SARAH PALIN: Government should be working for us. We should not have to work for the government.

7:04AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: Today is tax day, April 15th. And thousands of tea party activists are headed to Washington to express their anger and frustration with the Obama administration. As they do, a new CBS News/New York Times poll is showing us just who these passionate conservatives really are. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is on Capitol Hill with the story. Nancy, good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Harry, good morning to you. That's right, the tea partiers are planning to hold a series of rallies, not just hear in Washington, but around the country today, tax day. They're calling it the people's tax revolt. They say they're just fed up with the nation's tax burden.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea'd Off; Upstart Party Holds Final Rally On Tax Day]

SARAH PALIN: This is the people's movement.

CORDES: Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin rallied an estimated 5,000 tea party protestors in boston before the final stop of the tea party express here in Washington, D.C.. The tax day demonstration will cap weeks of protests in 47 cities across the country. Tea partiers voicing their frustration with Congress and the White House.

PALIN: The first task is to restore balance and common sense. And the first test will be at the ballot box in November.

CORDES: A New CBS News/New York Times poll shows Palin is overwhelmingly popular with tea party supporters [Favorable 66%, Not Favorable 12%], but only 40% think she would be an effective president [No 47%]. The poll also exams the makeup of the tea party. More than a third of members are in the south [36%], 89% are white. 70% attended or graduated from college. While 84% have an unfavorable opinion of the President. 92% say he's pushing the country towards socialism.

LARRY SABATO: The greatest strength of the tea party is its intensity. Intensity is what defines political involvement and this group has the potential to make a major difference in the November elections.

CORDES: And it does seem that a bit of their anti-government spending message is getting through to Washington. Spending on earmarks, those pork barrel projects that lawmakers like to slip into legislation, is actually down 15% this year. Harry.

SMITH: Nancy Cordes, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Let's bring in CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation Bob Schieffer. 15% isn't very much to be applauding, I don't guess. Here's the question of the morning. You see this intensity. You see the numbers. Better educated, they make more money than I think a lot of people believe. Will that end up translating into significant ballot – significant results come November?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I would say this, Harry. And I think the most important thing about this poll is we now have some sense of just how large a group this is. I think it represents about 18% of the voting public. That is a force to be reckoned with and it's something that both Democrats and Republicans have to pay attention to. The great fear of Republicans, establishment Republicans, right now, is that this group will sort of break off and become a third party. And if they do that, of course, you may see what happened when Ross Perot siphoned off votes from George Bush and Bill Clinton, the Democrat, was elected. That's the problem for Republicans. For Democrats, this really gives you a picture. This is the core anti-Obama, anti-incumbent vote out there. We saw in this poll these people are to the right of Republicans. But they really don't like Barack Obama. They don't like his programs. And they like Congress even less. This is something that everybody's got to worry about if you're in politics and in office right now.

SMITH: Yeah. It's interesting, because in the polling it says 'we're not really interested in a third party.' I think they want to bring the Republican Party closer to where they are. But you bring up a very good point, because as much as they dislike the President, they dislike Congress even more. They're like 'we've had it here.'

SCHIEFFER: Yeah, and I mean, I think you're going to see the impact of this. I think one thing the polls also show, I mean this is not just a bunch of Yahoos who make a lot of noise. We're seeing they're actually more educated than Americans in general. These are people who seem to have a legitimate anger building, where a lot of people, you know, right now are saying the country is moving in the wrong direction and they're disappointed and so forth. These people are angry. And I think that is the thing that both parties have to worry about. There's an intensity here that – that could spread, movements like this spread. We don't know yet where this is going, but it's something, Harry, both parties, and incumbents especially, are going to have to deal with and recognize.

SMITH: There you go. Attention will be paid. Bob Schieffer, thank you very much.

SCHIEFFER: You bet, Harry.

In his end-of-the-show commentary on Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer cited a Saturday New York Times article celebrating retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "that Justice Stevens 'may be the last justice from a time when ability and independence, rather than perceived ideology, were viewed as the crucial qualifications for a seat on the court.'"

Schieffer agreed with that assessment and declared that for President Gerald Ford "sending John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court is not a bad legacy." He concluded: "As Justice Stevens's fine service was being rightly celebrated last week, I couldn't help but think of that as well."

Prior to his commentary, Schieffer spoke with CBS legal analyst Jan Crawford about possible nominees to replace Stevens. Crawford argued that President Obama and Democrats would attempt to "counter" Republican efforts to "beat up on their candidate," "by continuing to portray the Supreme Court as out of touch with everyday Americans."

As an example of that strategy, Crawford pointed to Obama berating the court over its recent campaign finance decision: "We saw the President take that unprecedented swipe at the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address back in January, when he talked about their recent campaign finance ruling that allowed unlimited spending by corporations and unions. That decision is enormously unpopular with the American people. Polls show 70 to 80% of people oppose that."

Crawford later noted: "You're going to see the White House continue to beat that drum through this nomination process and into these confirmation hearings. They're going to have a nominee that they think can prove that Democrats, not Republicans, understand everyday Americans."

Schieffer wondered about the "leading contenders" for the nomination and Crawford listed the top three, claiming all would have some conservative support:

Merrick Garland, who's a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., considered probably the easiest to confirm, more moderate than some of the other candidates. And someone that Republicans probably would accept. So that would disappoint the base.

And there's a lot of call inside the White House and inside the administration for another woman. Remember, out of nine justices, only two are women. So that points to Elena Kagan. She's the solicitor general. She argues the United States' position in the Supreme Court. She was the former dean of Harvard Law School. And she's got some support among conservatives because she hired a lot of those conservative law professors at Harvard and really brought that school together, could maybe also could build some alliances once on the Supreme Court.

And then finally, there's Diane Wood, she's a federal appeals court judge in Chicago. Very highly regarded. Works well. Very highly regarded by her conservative colleagues on that court. You know, Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner, also a professor from the University of Chicago, taught antitrust law. But she's been sitting out there on that appeals court and has had some controversial decisions on things like abortion. So I think she might be a fight.

Schieffer went on to claim that any Republican strategy to oppose a nominee would be "tricky." Crawford described circumstances in which Republicans may seek a filibuster: "A lot people on the left would like to see someone who's very, very progressive to lead the liberal wing and go toe-to-toe with John Roberts. Kind of the equivalent legal liberal. But he would be filibustered. Republicans would block that nomination." That implies that Chief Justice Roberts is "very, very" conservative and in need of being balanced.

Crawford concluded that Obama and the Democrats: "don't want that kind of fight. They want someone that they're going to get confirmed at the end of the day....you take who is the most progressive liberal that can affect the court in a strategic way versus who can you get confirmed."

Here is a full transcript of Schieffer's discussion with Crawford:

10:47AM TEASE:

BOB SCHIEFFER: And we're joined now by our chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford, who's here to talk about the other big story of the week, the retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

10:48AM SEGMENT:

SCHIEFFER: Well, Jan, let's get to your – your big story. When do we expect the White House to act on this? My sense is that they're going to move as quickly as they can, and the nominee is going to be someone as non-controversial as possible, because the one thing they don't need right now is a big fight going into the mid- term elections.

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, the President said on Friday that he'd be looking to nominate a candidate within the weeks to come. I think we'll definitely have a nominee by Memorial Day.
They don't want to do it too soon because that gives the Republicans a chance to beat up on their candidate in advance of the hearings, which can't take place until July. Justice Stevens is not officially retiring until the end of the court's term in June.

And this comes, I think, at a tricky time for the White House and for Democrats in general, because every second that they spend not talking about jobs and trying to sell an unpopular health care plan are, in many ways, a boon to Republicans. And one way I think they're going to counter that, my sources say, is by continuing to portray the Supreme Court as out of touch with everyday Americans.

We saw the President take that unprecedented swipe at the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address back in January, when he talked about their recent campaign finance ruling that allowed unlimited spending by corporations and unions. That decision is enormously unpopular with the American people. Polls show 70 to 80% of people oppose that. And the key thing that he said on Friday – that the President said, when he was talking about Justice Stevens's retirement, was about that ruling. Let's take a listen to that clip.

BARACK OBAMA: It will also be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in a democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.

CRAWFORD: Now just like you said earlier, things don't happen by accident in Washington. That statement was calculated and deliberate. You're going to see the White House continue to beat that drum through this nomination process and into these confirmation hearings. They're going to have a nominee that they think can prove that Democrats, not Republicans, understand everyday Americans.

SCHIEFFER: So let's talk about who. Who would you say are the leading contenders right now?

CRAWFORD: Well, they're – my sources say that there's a kind of fluid list right now of 10 candidates. But already intense vetting is under way. Some of those people are there really as a courtesy. Intense vetting is under way. And they're focusing on three candidates at this point. Not ruling people out at this point, but I think three people are really emerging as ones that we really need to focus on.

Merrick Garland, who's a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., considered probably the easiest to confirm, more moderate than some of the other candidates. And someone that Republicans probably would accept. So that would disappoint the base.

And there's a lot of call inside the White House and inside the administration for another woman. Remember, out of nine justices, only two are women. So that points to Elena Kagan. She's the solicitor general. She argues the United States' position in the Supreme Court. She was the former dean of Harvard Law School. And she's got some support among conservatives because she hired a lot of those conservative law professors at Harvard and really brought that school together, could maybe also could build some alliances once on the Supreme Court.

And then finally, there's Diane Wood, she's a federal appeals court judge in Chicago. Very highly regarded. Works well. Very highly regarded by her conservative colleagues on that court. You know, Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner, also a professor from the University of Chicago, taught antitrust law. But she's been sitting out there on that appeals court and has had some controversial decisions on things like abortion. So I think she might be a fight.

SCHIEFFER: This is going to be a tricky thing for Republicans too, the strategy here. Do you expect them to put up a huge fight? Is there any chance that they would try to filibuster this?

CRAWFORD: Well, sure. I mean, they could filibuster a really controversial nominee. Let's say someone like Harold Koh, who's the head of the – the chief lawyer in the State Department, former dean of Harvard Law School. A lot people on the left would like to see someone who's very, very progressive to lead the liberal wing and go toe-to-toe with John Roberts. Kind of the equivalent legal liberal. But he would be filibustered. Republicans would block that nomination.

And I don't think there's any indication at all the White House would nominate him. They don't want that kind of fight. They want someone that they're going to get confirmed at the end of the day. And when they start gaming this out, they're going to try to get the best, most – it's almost like charting it out on a graph. You know, you take who is the most progressive liberal that can affect the court in a strategic way versus who can you get confirmed. And they'll plot that out when they make that decision.

SCHIEFFER: Is it your sense they can get this done before the congressional recess in August?

CRAWFORD: Oh, yes, and that's what they want to do. And in his note to the White House, Justice Stevens made clear that he was giving them the heads up so that that could happen, they could have this process get started and have someone confirmed before August.

SCHIEFFER: Alright. Jan Crawford, thank you so much.

This week, the MRC’s regular Notable Quotables newsletter, documenting the latest outrageous quotes from the liberal media from the past two weeks, could not fit in its normal 3-page format, so we created a super-sized special edition, “Celebrating ObamaCare, Demonizing Its Opponents.” It’s chock full of quotes touting the wonders of the liberal health care scheme, and slamming the Tea Party and other opponents as vicious racist thugs. The whole thing is posted at www.MRC.org; here’s a sample:

If You’re Anti-ObamaCare, You Must Be a Bigot

“What are the Tea Partiers really angry about? Health care reform, or the fact that it was an African American President and a woman Speaker of the House who pushed through major change?” — MSNBC’s Chris Matthews at the top of Hardball, March 29.

Tea Partiers = George Wallace’s Racist Legacies

“The angry faces at Tea Party rallies are eerily familiar. They resemble faces of protesters lining the street at the University of Alabama in 1956 as Autherine Lucy, the school’s first black student, bravely tried to walk to class. Those same jeering faces could be seen gathered around the Arkansas National Guard troopers who blocked nine black children from entering Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957. ‘They moved closer and closer,’ recalled Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine. ‘Somebody started yelling, “Lynch her! Lynch her!”’...Today’s Tea Party adherents are George Wallace legacies....The mobs of yesteryear were on the wrong side of history. Tea Party supporters and their right-wing fellow travelers are on the wrong side now. It shows up in their faces.” — The Washington Post’s Colbert I. King in a March 27 column.

Peaceful Tea Party Rally = Kristallnacht, 2010

“There’s nothing entertaining about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil rights hero John Lewis and the openly gay Barney Frank....How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht.” — New York Times columnist Frank Rich, March 28.

ObamaCare Opponents = Violent Thugs

“Opponents of the bill have been out today, and some of them pulled out all the stops. Protesters roaming Washington, some of them increasingly emotional, yelling slurs and epithets.” — ABC’s Diane Sawyer on World News, March 21.

“A year-long debate that’s been rancorous and mean from the start turned even nastier yesterday. Demonstrators protesting the bill poured into the halls of Congress shouting ‘Kill the bill!’ and ‘Made in the USSR.’ And as tempers rose, they hurled racial epithets, even at civil rights icon John Lewis of Georgia, and sexual slurs at Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank. Other legislators said the protesters spit on them, and one lawmaker said it was like a page out of a time machine.” — Bob Schieffer leading off CBS’s Face the Nation, March 21.

Bottom Line on ObamaCare: We’re All Winners

“The uninsured are clearly the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation, which would extend the health care safety net for the lowest-income Americans....And yet, just about everyone might benefit from tighter insurance regulations....There is no question that the legislation should benefit consumers in various ways.” — New York Times reporter Tara Siegel Bernard in a front-page assessment of the new health care bill, March 22.

Seems Like a Lot More than a Kiss

“I am surprised that the numbers in the Washington Post poll weren’t better. I mean, since this thing passed last weekend, we’ve been seeing the longest wet kiss in political history given to the Obama administration by the liberal media elite, and every day it goes by, it’s sloppier.” — Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS) commenting on an ABC News/Washington Post poll showing 46% approving of ObamaCare vs. 50% opposed, ABC’s This Week, March 28.

Host Bob Schieffer led Sunday's Face the Nation by fretting over opposition to the passage of ObamaCare: "What about the violence in the wake of the congressional action? Isolated incidents or signs of a dangerous anger?" He told viewers that he would talk to "Republican firebrands, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint and Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann" about the issue.

Schieffer pressed DeMint on some of the threats against members of Congress: "Senator, we saw some pretty scary stuff last week....We saw members' offices that were trashed. We saw death threats....Do you think the parties have an obligation to try to tone down some of this runaway rhetoric? Is it, in fact, dangerous?" The Senator defended tea party protestors: "I've been with hundreds of thousands of tea party patriots...and I've never seen any violence or heard any bad language....it's unfair and untrue to try to paint this whole American awakening with some of the bad comments that we heard last week in Washington."

Later turning to Bachmann, Schieffer tried to portray the Congresswoman as extreme: "You said last week that health care reform was dangerous and you equated it with tyranny. Do you really mean that?...You said that you thought Barack Obama had anti-American views....what do you mean the President is anti-American?" He continued his interrogation by pointing to comments made by Sarah Palin: "[She] famously said last week that it is not time for Republicans to retreat. It is time to reload....said she wasn't talking about guns. She was talking about getting out there and using the vote. Do you think Sarah Palin has overstated it here?"

Following the interviews with DeMint and Bachmann, Schieffer spoke with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine on the topic of violence: "What about this whole idea of this sort of runaway rhetoric? As I said to Senator DeMint, there were some kind of scary pictures that we saw on television." In part, Kaine replied by claiming that some in the GOP "think it's to their strategic advantage to keep people stoked."

Schieffer later worried: "A lot of people are going to be watching what happens back in these congressional home districts over this Easter recess. They're talking about more demonstrations and so forth....do you have concerns about the safety of Democrats out there?" In response, Kaine claimed it was "disingenuous" for DeMint say that only a handful of protestors acted badly and went on to rant: "when you, as some of the members do, say that this is Armageddon...you're sending a message to folks. When you're saying that...you want to target members and you have a map of the United States and you put a gun site on members' districts, when the elected leadership feels comfortable yelling out 'you lie' or 'baby killer,' they're stoking anger, and they need to stop it."

Schieffer only challenged Kaine briefly on the issue of stoking anger: "you all put out a fund-raising letter at the DNC, after all of this, that raised a few eyebrows because it talked about this – these run-away things, these demonstrations...Bricks through the windows and stuff. And then used it as part of a fund-raising letter. Was that inappropriate?" Kaine defended the crass political move: "I'll tell you why we did it. We did put out a fund-raising letter referring to the bricks through the window and others, but also referring to the fact that our members who voted for health reform last Sunday are being hit by onslaughts of advertising in their districts criticizing them, some with the most extreme language." There was no follow-up from Schieffer.

In addition to implying the GOP was inciting violence, Schieffer also took some time to gloat over ObamaCare's passage, noting in his first question to DeMint: "You said that this was going to be Barack Obama's Waterloo. And that if Republicans could defeat him on this, it would break him." Schieffer added: "Well, he won Waterloo, it looks like. So I guess my question to you is, what do you do next?"

In his first question to Kaine, Schieffer wondered: "Governor, you heard the Republican strategy from here on in, apparently, is to oppose, to try to repeal health care. Do you think, in fact, that that's possible?" Playing up the violent theme, Kaine remarked: "I think it's unwise. And I don't think it will happen, Bob. You know, one of the things I was struck in listening to Senator DeMint and Congresswoman Bachmann is just the incredible, just anger that's there in them."

Read a full transcript of the broadcast here. 

UPDATE AT END OF POST: CBS's Bob Schieffer asked DNC Chairman Tim Kaine about this issue.

On Saturday, NewsBusters asked if journalists should find it interesting that President Obama's campaign arm is using alleged death threats against Democrats as a vehicle to raise funds to defend newly enacted healthcare legislation.

On Sunday, ABC's Jake Tapper was up to the challenge not only addressing this issue on "This Week," but doing so with his guest White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.

After reading the text of the solicitation that was posted at the Organizing for America website earlier in the week, Tapper asked, "[I]s it appropriate for Democrats to try to raise money off of those threats?" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, relevant section at 5:50):

JAKE TAPPER, HOST: In the wake of the healthcare reform legislation, there have been threats of violence and some acts of violence against members of Congress. And in this fundraising solicitation I want to ask you about, this is from the President's political arm Organizing for America, used to be Obama for America, Mitch Stewart the director writes in this fundraising solicitation: "A conservative blogger posted the home address of Congressman Tom Perriello urging tea partiers to ‘drop by'. Other members have had death threats. Democratic offices have been vandalized. Please chip in $5 or more to defend health reform and those in Congress who fought to make it possible." Obviously those threats and the acts of violence should be condemned. They're not appropriate. But is it appropriate for Democrats to try to raise money off of those threats?

VALERIE JARRETT, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: Look, let's go back to the threats for a second. I think what's great about our country is we're able to have an open and free debate about issues and ideas, and then once a decision is made, we always come together and move forward. And what the President is interested in doing is moving forward. This is a major accomplishment.

TAPPER: Right, but what about the trying to raise money off of the threats? Is that appropriate?

JARRETT: I can't comment on what the political arms are doing.

For those wondering if Tapper got the idea from NewsBusters, he informed me by Twitter that he had gotten it in his inbox earlier in the week, and that ABC's Sunlen Miller had blogged about it.

Although this didn't come from us, we're still quite pleased to see someone in the media not only find this fundraising tactic unseemly, but also question the Administration about it.

Bravo, Jake!

*****Update: CBS's Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" Sunday asked DNC chairman Tim Kaine about the use of these threats in a Democratic fundraising letter:

BOB SCHIEFFER: --let me-- let me just ask you about this because you all put out a fundraising--

TIM KAINE: Mm-Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: --letter at the DNC. After all of this it raised a few eyebrows--

TIM KAINE: Yeah.

BOB SCHIEFFER: --because it talked about this-- these runaway things, these demonstrations-

TIM KAINE (overlapping): The bricks through the window--

BOB SCHIEFFER: --and bricks through the windows--

TIM KAINE: Mm-Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: --and stuff and then used it as part of a fund-raising letter.

TIM KAINE: Yeah.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Was that appropriate?

The morning after CBS News White House reporter Mark Knoller, in a tweet, slurred anti-ObamaCare protesters with the vulgar “tea bagger” sexual terminology, Bob Schieffer began Sunday’s Face the Nation with how the health care reform debate “that's been rancorous and mean from the start turned even nastier yesterday” with protesters “shouting ‘kill the bill!’ and ‘made in the USSR”’ as they supposedly “hurled racial epithets, even at civil rights icon John Lewis of Georgia, and sexual slurs at Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank. Other legislators said the protesters spit on them and one lawmaker said it was like a page out of a time machine.”

In what way is “kill the bill” nasty?

Though the despicable actions, if true, were committed by a handful out of thousands, Saturday’s World News also used the incidents to discredit the cause of those rallying against ObamaCare: “Protesters against the plan gathered on the streets of the capital where late today we learned words shouted turned very ugly, reports of racial and homophobic slurs, one protester actually spitting on a Congressman,” ABC anchor David Muir announced, repeating: “Late word from Washington tonight about just how ugly the crowds gathered outside the Longworth office building have become.”

On Fox News Sunday, Carl Cameron reported the same incidents, but without Schieffer’s hyperbole and without leading his report with it: “Anti-reform protesters have been demonstrating at the Capitol for several days now, and there were some incidents yesterday. Lawmakers say they faced racial epithets, gay epithets as well as one lawmaker said he got spat on.”

From the start of the Sunday, March 21 Face the Nation on CBS:

BOB SCHIEFFER: So today is the day. The House will finally vote on health care reform and a year-long debate that's been rancorous and mean from the start turned even nastier yesterday. Demonstrators protesting the bill poured into the halls of Congress shouting “Kill the bill!” and “Made in the USSR.” And as tempers rose, they hurled racial epithets, even at civil rights icon John Lewis of Georgia, and sexual slurs at Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank. Other legislators said the protesters spit on them and one lawmaker said it was like a page out of a time machine.

One of the lawmakers who saw all this is the chief vote counter for the Democrats, Jim Clyburn, who is at the Capitol this morning still working the hallways for votes. He's with the Democrats' chief political strategist, Congressman Chris van Hollen of Maryland.

Congressman Clyburn, before we talk about this do you have the votes, what about these demonstrators yesterday? Have you seen anything like this in recent times?

CONGRESSMAN JAMES CLYBURN: No, not in recent times. Thank you so much for having us. The last time I saw anything like that was back in 1960. I celebrated a week ago the 50th anniversary of the march in Orangeburg that I helped to organize, the so-called Orangeburg 7 of which I was one. Two others, three of us, got together with some students last Monday to talk those experiences. And we were telling those students how this kind of stuff was behind us. I suspect that I might have to modify some of that after yesterday.

SCHIEFFER: I think I should add that Republican leaders this morning, along with Democrats such as yourself, have denounced these demonstrations. But be that as it may, it just shows how hot tempers are and how volatile this whole situation has been.

As liberals focus on extending coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, Schieffer departed from the liberal talking points by pointing out that the current bill would definitely force Congress to raise taxes.