Category Archives: Bob Schieffer

At the top of Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: "President Obama makes a tough final push, going on the offensive against health insurance companies. Will it work?" Later, co-host Maggie Rodriguez gushed: "It looked like a campaign rally yesterday with President Obama center-stage taking his fight for health care reform out of Washington and into America's heartland."

White House correspondent Bill Plante followed up Rodriguez's fawning intro by reporting: "It did indeed look like a campaign. I'll tell you, the President is racing hard to get across the finish line with health care reform. He's trying to convince the public to ignore what he calls 'Washington's obsession with keeping score in politics.'" An on-screen headline read: "Obama on the Offensive; Attacks Insurers In Latest Push for Reform."

Plante ignored the Obama administration's constant political score-keeping and instead lamented how despite the President "taking on the pundits and the political establishment...polls show Mr. Obama has an uphill battle." Plante cited a recent Gallup poll showing 49% of Americans oppose ObamaCare, though failed to point out that only 42% of respondents in that poll favored the plan.

On Thursday, the Early Show claimed that ObamaCare was on the "fast-track" to being passed.

Rather than feature any Republican opponents of the legislation in his piece, Plante simply summed up the GOP response this way: "Republicans are calling the President's pitch 'snake oil' and predicting failure." He then added: "Still, Mr. Obama vows to push ahead."

Plante concluded that the "reason for the President's urgent tone" was "the insurance industry is planning to mount a comeback campaign, an ad campaign for about a million dollars, this week."

Following Plante's report, Smith discussed the President's latest push with Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer. Smith noted how Obama's "trying to get public support for this and in our latest CBS News poll, 52% of the public concerned about the economy versus health care. He's got an uphill fight here." Schieffer argued: "I think they would tell you in the White House that this was the President's signature issue. This is what he campaigned on, was getting health care for all Americans." Schieffer added: "I don't question his sincerity. I also think it's – he thinks it's the right thing to do."

Smith then wondered about the amount of support for ObamaCare in Congress: "Does he have the numbers?" Schieffer replied: "No, he does not have the numbers. And one test of how you can always tell when they have the votes is that leaders in the Congress bring it to a vote. I don't think there's anybody who would say that at this point the President has the votes in the House of Representatives to get this passed."

Schieffer went on to highlight the President's tactic of going after health insurance companies: "a very important shift. He suddenly is not so much running against Republicans as he's running against the insurance companies themselves....this is the shift, this is what is different now." Plante made a similar observation in his report: "The new strategy, raise the temperature on insurance companies, and hope audiences, like the one in Pennsylvania Monday, will pressure Congress to pass the bill." In reality, Obama and the Democrats have been employing that failing strategy for months.   

Here is a full transcript of Plante's report:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And now to health care reform. It looked like a campaign rally yesterday with President Obama center-stage taking his fight for health care reform out of Washington and into America's heartland. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante is at the White House this morning with more on how the President is turning up the heat. Good morning, Bill.

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Maggie. It did indeed look like a campaign. I'll tell you, the President is racing hard to get across the finish line with health care reform. He's trying to convince the public to ignore what he calls 'Washington's obsession with keeping score in politics.'

BARACK OBAMA: What does it mean for your poll numbers? Is this good for the Democrats or good for the Republicans? Who won the news cycle?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama on the Offensive; Attacks Insurers In Latest Push for Reform]

PLANTE: The President may be taking on the pundits and the political establishment, but polls show Mr. Obama has an uphill battle. 49% of those in a Gallup poll now oppose the Obama health care plan and in a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, the bitter fight left 48% believing that the President has spent too much time on the issue and 52% saying he's spent too little time on the economy and jobs.

JOHN DICKERSON: Everybody who's looking for an explanation of what went wrong is now focusing on the staffers inside the White House. What these stories miss, though, is the fact that it's the President who has kept going forward on health care.

PLANTE: The new strategy, raise the temperature on insurance companies and hope audiences, like the one in Pennsylvania Monday, will pressure Congress to pass the bill.

OBAMA: They're telling their investors this, 'we are in the money, we are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of folks are going to be put under hardship.'

PLANTE: But Republicans are calling the President's pitch 'snake oil' and predicting failure. Still, Mr. Obama vows to push ahead.

OBAMA: I don't know how passing health care will play politically. But I do know that it's the right thing to do.

PLANTE: There's a reason for the President's urgent tone, time is short. The insurance industry is planning to mount a comeback campaign, an ad campaign for about a million dollars, this week.

Not the biggest deal, but emblematic of how the Washington press corps consider anyone to the right of center, no matter if barely so, to be a “conservative,” while anyone who strays at all from a perfect liberal line is not worthy of an ideological label.

Setting up Sunday’s Face the Nation, CBS's Bob Schieffer described guest Evan Bayh simply as “the Indiana Democrat” while tagging Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who is every bit, if not more, off the conservative reservation as Bayh is off the liberal one, as a “conservative Republican.” Schieffer:

Today on Face the Nation: Is Washington broken? We'll talk to Evan Bayh, the Indiana Democrat. He's become so disillusioned with the Senate he's leaving, but he's still trying to find a way to ease the partisan rancor by teaming with conservative Republican Lindsey Graham who’s also here to talk about that...

At no time during the March 7 show did Schieffer ever label Bayh as a liberal.

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer ranted against Republican Senator Jim Bunning's opposition to a spending bill: "it's unconscionable what has happened here....this is about politics. It is not – it was not about anything of substance." [Audio available here]

Co-host Maggie Rodriguez began the segment by explaining that Bunning had stopped blocking the legislation and asked Schieffer: "Isn't this just another example of why it takes so long to get things done in Congress?" Schieffer agreed, claiming: "it's another example...of why there is so much anger and disillusionment out in the country about Congress."

Schieffer went on to dismiss the Kentucky Senator's concerns over the rising deficit: "[He] claimed he was doing this because he was trying to get the Senate to go along with the Republican principle and that is pay things...before they approve them but this was emergency legislation." In reality, Democrats, not Republicans, just passed pay-as-you-go legislation last week, mandating that all new spending being paid for before passage. As for the "emergency" nature of the bill, on Tuesday's Early Show, CBS White House correspondent Chip Reid claimed it was simply "routine legislation."

Schieffer went on to suggest that the real reason for Bunning blocking the bill was the Senator's personal animosity toward fellow Republicans: "The back story here is Senator Bunning is in a feud with the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. He wanted McConnell and Republicans to support him in a bid for re-election. They did not do that and he's been seething."

Before moving on to the topic of health care reform, Rodriguez remarked on how "infuriating" Bunning's action was.

At the top of the show, Rodriguez touted President Obama's latest verison of health care reform and wondered: "will the GOP buy into it?" Moments later, co-host Harry Smith claimed that Obama was "seeming to move a little closer to the middle" by being open to incorporate a few token Republican ideas into the massive legislation.    

Rodriguez later asked Schieffer about the President's upcoming proposal: "It seems, Bob, by incorporating these four Republican ideas, that he's reaching out. But the Republicans say these are not real concessions. Who's right here?" Schieffer replied: "He's trying to set himself up in a position that if this fails, he can say 'it's the fault of the Republicans. I did everything I could.'" Rodriguez agreed with that assessment: "Right, they can't say anymore that he didn't try to reach out." An on-screen headline read: "Health Care Compromise; Obama to Unveil Final Reform Proposal."

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

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Now to politics. A big day ahead for President Obama as he gets ready to unveil his final proposal for health care reform today. In a letter to congressional leaders, the President said that he was open to several Republican ideas: Undercover investigations of health care providers who are getting federal money, expansion of health savings accounts, providing more grant money to study alternatives to medical malpractice lawsuits, and raising doctor reimbursement for Medicare.

In the meantime, The gridlock has been broken on another issue, a spending bill. The Senate finally passed it last night after it had been blocked for days by Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning and forced about 2,000 federal employees into furloughs. Joining us to talk more about this is Bob Schieffer, CBS chief Washington correspondent and, of course, host of Face the Nation. Good morning, Bob.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Maggie.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Bunning Backs Down; GOP Senator Gives Up Fight Over Unemployment]
                    
RODRIGUEZ: Let's talk quickly about that development overnight. The Senate finally extending these jobless benefits after this one senator had held it up for days. Isn't this just another example of why it takes so long to get things done in Congress?

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think it's another example, Maggie, of why there is so much anger and disillusionment out in the country about Congress and the Senate and about it's inability to get anything done. What you have here is Senator Bunning, who claimed he was doing this because he was trying to get the Senate to go along with the Republican principle, and that is pay things before they happen – before they approve them but this was emergency legislation.

The back story here is Senator Bunning is in a feud with the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. He wanted McConnell and Republicans to support him in a bid for re-election. They did not do that and he's been seething. And so while the Republicans were trying to move on, Republicans were ready to vote for this, he puts a hold on it and it takes three or four days to get it done. I mean it's – it's unconscionable what has happened here. Now the Senate is finally, as everyone knew they finally would, they finally got this done and now they can go on to other things.

RODRIGUEZ: Like health care-

SCHIEFFER: But this is about politics. It is not – it was not about anything of substance.

RODRIGUEZ: That is infuriating. And now they can move on to things like health care. And President Obama is going to be unveiling his final plan later. It seems, Bob, by incorporating these four Republican ideas, that he's reaching out. But the Republicans say these are not real concessions. Who's right here?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Health Care Compromise; Obama to Unveil Final Reform Proposal]

SCHIEFFER: What the President is trying to do here is to be able to say to the country, 'Listen, I reached out. I did everything I could possibly do to get Republican support and they just wouldn't go along with it.' And now he will try to pass health care on a straight party line vote. That's going to be very complicated. I think at this point he really doesn't have the votes to get that done. But he's trying to set himself up in a position that if this fails, he can say 'it's the fault of the Republicans. I did everything I could.'

RODRIGUEZ: Right, they can't say anymore that he didn't try to reach out. Bob Schieffer. Thank you so much, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: You bet.

RODRIGUEZ: And of course, you can always check out Bob, and you should, every Sunday on Face the Nation right here on CBS.

A report on the health care summit on Friday's CBS Early Show featured a clip of President Obama scolding lawmakers for "trading talking points" during the meeting, that was followed by  correspondent Bill Plante pointing a finger at the GOP: "But from their first speaker, Republicans never backed down from their opposition to the Democrats' bill."

Plante noted that "John McCain, the President's opponent In 2008, challenged the process by which the Democrats' bill was produced." After a clip was played of McCain denouncing the lack of change in Washington, Plante touted how "the President shot back," playing a clip of Obama proclaiming "the election is over." Plante also highlighted an exchange in which Obama slammed Senator Lamar Alexander, telling the Tennessee Republican to get his "facts straight."

Oddly, after displaying the President's clearly partisan attacks, Plante concluded: "Democrats emerged from the meeting saying they still want bipartisanship. Republicans said they don't see that happening."

On Thursday's CBS Evening News, White House correspondent Chip Reid described how "exasperated" President Obama was with Republicans, who proved they were the "party of no."

Plante did acknowledge that the summit was ultimately a stalemate: "In the end, it was pretty much a draw. The President at the end seemed to suggest that he would encourage Democrats to pass a health care bill without Republicans, using the legislative tactic known as reconciliation. And then let the voters sort it all out next November."

Following Plante's report, co-host Harry Smith discussed the summit with Face the Nation host Bob schieffer and asked if the Democrats would now "go it alone" on health care reform. Schieffer responded:

I think the Democrats will probably go it alone....go ahead with this process called reconciliation....there is going to be an enormous cost, because Republicans are just going to go crazy about this and I think that they that will vow to tie up the Senate on every other single issue that comes before it this year. The Democrats, by the same token, will be saying, okay, go ahead and try to do that and see what the voters think of that.

Smith followed up by describing Obama's bold gamble: "This is basically the President saying, taking all the chips, putting them in the middle of the table saying 'I'm all in on this deal, we're going to pass this health care the way it is. I will risk my presidency, I will risk the fall elections on this one issue come hell or high water.'" Schieffer agreed: "I think you're right. And he is basically daring the Republicans to do the same thing."

Neither Schieffer nor Smith seemed to notice a just-released Gallup poll that showed that a majority of Americans, 52%, oppose the use of reconciliation, compared to only 39% who approve of the legislative tactic.

Upon further research and examination into the Army's complete findings on the Fort Hood shootings, in a February 22 report, the Boston Globe's Bryan Bender conceded that politically-incorrect conservatives were right all along - just not in those words of course.

Immediately after Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 U.S. soldiers November 5, major news networks and publication bent over backwards to omit Hasan's Islamic identity or to excuse the killing of 13 soldiers as a result of stress or psychosis.

Report after report, interview after interview, and press conference after press conference, reporters, politicians, and government officials warned against jumping to conclusions - in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Among the Globe's conclusions from the investigation:

• extremists views spouted by the Major were clear grounds for discharge;
• superiors overlooked Hasan's radical views due to fear of losing diversity;
• in a clear act of insubordination Hasan gave a presentation about Islam that was "shut down" by the instructor, without any disciplinary action - or counsel;
• from 2003, Hasan repeatedly broke regulatory standards his superiors were informed of;
• the Army's investigation concludes "he exhibited a single-minded fascination with religion" leading to noticeable decline in job-performance; 
• increased distress, isolation, and intensification of extremist views over time by Hasan;
• statements by Hasan proclaiming the precedence of Sharia law over the U.S. constitution;
• instructors informed investigators about a risk of psychosis in Hasan.    

In short, the Boston Globe concluded that Hasan's Army superiors were reluctant to take action despite "careful documentation and of individual episodes dating back to 2005" because of diversity or fears of being labeled "insensitive."

The Culture and Media Institute released a report on November 11, documenting 85 percent of broadcast stories refrained from using the word "terror," and only 29 percent of evening news even mentioned Hasan was Muslim (half of which felt the need to either defend or include experts to defend Islam).

Many reporters like CBS' Bob Schieffer are addicted to pointing out Islam does not have a monopoly on terrorism, while in equally impulsive and irrational manner, many individuals fallaciously resort to labeling any convicted white male of being Christian terrorists (i.e. Timothy McVeigh).    

During an interview with Schieffer shortly after the massacre, Congressmen Ike Skelton - chairman of the Armed Services Committee - urged everyone to refrain from jumping to any conclusion, assuring Americans an investigation would reveal the nature of Maj. Hasan's motives.

Congratulations to the liberal Boston Globe for belatedly reaching the conclusion conservatives had immediately. Meanwhile, 3 1/2 months later, the rest of the media remains uninterested.

When Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana announced last week he wasn’t running for re-election, he didn’t state what may have seemed obvious. He couldn’t say he wanted to avoid the embarrassment of losing, or that he worried he’d never achieve national office if that happened. Instead, he launched into a lecture about what was wrong with everyone else. The government is "dysfunctional" with "brain-dead partisanship."

It’s "Groundhog Day." This scenario repeats itself every time the Democrats take control.

Bayh’s bleats hardened quickly into the media’s conventional wisdom. Why can’t the politicians hold hands in a Kumbaya circle and get "something" done? Translation: when Obama and a Democrat-dominated Congress can’t nationalize the health-care system and force everyone to drive a Prius, suddenly government is "dysfunctional." When gridlock is holding up the liberals’ agenda, Washington should know "the people" sent them to pass massive ultraliberal bills.

These media mathematicians clearly have thrown their polling calculators out the window. When Newsweek recently asked independents if they supported the Democrat health proposals, 26 percent were in favor, and 62 percent were opposed. But the "wisdom" in town says Democrats must pass these health bills or get crushed in November. Now who can’t seem to acknowledge, to borrow from Stephen Colbert, that "reality has a conservative bias"?

Reality tells you many Democrats are political toast, thanks to ObamaCare. Hence, bye-bye Bayh. But our journalists put on their choir robes and continue to sing the sad song in unison: Why do we have a "Broken Government"? CNN actually launched an entire series of reports with that title.

Suffice it to say this is not the kind of media mantra we heard during President Bush’s second term. Back then, this was the sound of CNN: commentator Jack Cafferty lamenting the alleged lack of partisanship in 2007: "They’ve already said they won’t impeach President Bush. They’ve already said they won’t cut funding for the war.... It’s time for the Democrats to walk the walk, and there are some early signs they might be coming down with leg cramps." He asked viewers: "How much faith do you have that the Democrats can stop the war and rein in President Bush?"

We’re now mired in Year Two of Barack Obama’s quagmire of "health reform," and no one on the left wants withdrawal. What they want is a socialist surge. Compare that to 2005, and the Bush administration’s attempt to reform Social Security. It died...about three months after the inauguration. CBS anchor Bob Schieffer repeatedly asked on April 26, 2005: "Is it already dead?"

In a way, you can understand his impatience. He and his colleagues had been trying to kill it from the moment of political conception.

Everything President Bush did was painted as a stunt. After the 2005 State of the Union, when there was an emotional hug between an Iraqi voter and the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews just had to politicize it by seeing it as a Social Security ploy: "Do you think President Bush used this to push his numbers on Social Security reform, just to get his general appeal up a bit?"

In March, Matthews joked with Al Sharpton that Bush was piling up a mountain of debt we would owe China and Japan: "Why don’t they just start paying people in their Social Security checks with yen, because we’re getting money from them to pay the older folks their regular check?" Sharpton said he was going to start using that partisan line.

When Hurricane Katrina unfolded with deadly force, Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift found a silver lining: ""If there’s an upside to Katrina, it’s that the Republican agenda of tax cuts, Social Security privatization and slashing government programs is over."

Today, Clift is raining fire on Republicans for "harming" the country in the short term for their own partisan gain in the fall. Liberals don’t have brains expansive enough to imagine that conservatives might think the greater good of the country – politically, financially, morally – rests in fighting the nationalization of our health-care system, as well as the first steps toward government-funded abortions.

Instead, our media parrot the DNC talking points about a "Party of No" who aren’t offering "solutions" of their own. This argument ignores (a) the idea of Nancy Pelosi passing a Republican alternative is too ridiculous to consider, and (b) a "no" vote could be a constructive vote on the people’s behalf.

These reporters and anchors never hit Pelosi or Harry Reid for having no plan for victory in Iraq. They never dismissed them as the "Party of No" for opposing Social Security reform. But when liberalism is on the national menu, the snobby waiters of our "news" media don’t really want to take the people’s order. They want to force-feed the American people what they "need.

Words never spoken before by a CBS News journalist: “Do you think also that George Bush would also need a little thanks for that? I mean, does he share in the credit or not?” That very unusual quest to credit former President Bush came from Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, since even for him Vice President Joe Biden’s claim -- “Iraq, I think, is going to be one of the great achievements of this administration” -- was too much. Cuing up a retort from former VP Dick Cheney on ABC’s This Week aired just over an hour earlier, Schieffer challenged Biden:

You said the other night to Larry King in an interview that you thought Iraq could be one of the “great achievements” of this administration. And I must say a lot of people, when you said that, said their response was “what?” This administration didn’t have very much to do with Iraq and your friend, Dick Cheney, had a thought about that, as well. So let’s listen to this.”

Cheney suggested “for them to try to take credit for what’s happened in Iraq strikes me as little strange” and recommended “it ought to go with a healthy dose of ‘thank you, George Bush,’ upfront.”

Biden responded by asserting “we’re not taking credit, we had to take responsibility” for “the messes that were handed to us” and he maintained he and the Obama administration had successfully brokered political agreements in Iraq and so bringing U.S. troops home next year will “be a great credit to the Iraqis and a great credit to our military and civilian leadership that we've moved to the point that a nation that was in chaos is now a nation not needing American forces, having a economic and political relationship with United States and a democracy.”

At which time, Schieffer jumped in: “Do you think also that George Bush would also need a little thanks for that? I mean, does he share in the credit or not?”

Biden reluctantly acceded: “Well, sure. I'm happy to thank George Bush. I like George Bush, but I think, if you go back and think about it we've been on so many of your programs, it was constantly, what is their political plan?”

ABC’s Jonathan Karl hosted this week’s This Week and prompted Cheney to comment on Biden’s contention.

NBC’s David Gregory, the MRC’s Rich Noyes noticed, also raised Biden’s claim to Biden in an interview recorded on Saturday, but fairly gently, without any of the doubt conveyed by Schieffer. Gregory just wondered: “What did you mean by that?” On Meet the Press:

GREGORY: On Iraq you said this week that it will turn out to be one of this President's “great achievements.” What did you mean?

BIDEN: What I meant by that is that I think he has taken office and managed the situation incredibly well in Iraq....

GREGORY: Was the war worth it?

BIDEN: No, I don't think the war was worth it, in the sense that we paid a horrible price, not only in loss of life, the way the war was mishandled from the outset, but we took our eye off the ball, putting us in a much different and more dangerous position in Afghanistan. We lost support around the world; it's taken a lot of hard work to get it back. But we were handed -- we were dealt a hand and I think we're handling it incredibly well -- that's presumptious to say. I think we're handling it very well, the Iraqis are handling it well, and we built on the positive things the Bush administration had initiated and we have jettisoned those things that were negative.

From the live interview, at 7:30 AM PST with Biden in Vancouver, on the Sunday, February 14 Face the Nation:

BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, Mister Vice President, you said the other night to Larry King in an interview that you thought Iraq could be one of the “great achievements” of this administration. And I must say a lot of people, when you said that, said their response was “what?” This administration didn’t have very much to do with Iraq and your friend, Dick Cheney had a thought about that, as well. So let’s listen to this.

JOE BIDEN: I bet he did.

DICK CHENEY, ON ABC’S THIS WEEK: For them to try to take credit for what’s happened in Iraq strikes me as little strange. If they’re going to take credit for, fair enough, for what they’ve done while they’re there. But it ought to go with a healthy dose of “thank you, George Bush,” upfront.

BOB SCHIEFFER: So, your response to that one.

JOE BIDEN: Look, we’re not, we’re not taking credit, we had to take responsibility. When we took responsibility for the messes that were handed to us at the end of last year, an awful lot of very informed news people like you, Bob, were wondering whether or not that country could be put together.

From the beginning, I’ve been on your show so many times in the previous years, and my mantra was: This requires a political solution. I never once doubted that additional American forces would, in fact, meet the military objective of settling things down. But nothing would matter, we would not be able to leave unless there was a political accommodation.

What we did, and we did responsibly from the day we took office, is put that in motion. I have been to Iraq four times this year, fourteen times already. I have met with every single solitary one of the players in Iraq: Sunni, Shiate, Kurd, Christian. And we have been able to be a catalyst for them moving from settling their political differences on boundaries, on territory, on oil, etcetera, from the battle field to the political arena.

And so, I think, we’ve managed it very, very well. I think we’re going to be able to be out of Iraq, with all of our combat troops – ninety thousand, by the end of August. I think we'll be out leaving behind an electorate that had just put in place a parliament that is viewed as legitimate across the board. And we'll be able to get out of Iraq at the end of 2011 leaving behind a stable government.

Now anybody who tells you, including Dick Cheney, that they knew how they were going to get there January of last year, I would find it somewhat surprising. I don't care who gets credit. My generic point is we have managed this very well thus far. The Iraqis have done really good work. If this works it'll be a great credit to the Iraqis and a great credit to our military and civilian leadership that we've moved to the point that a nation that was in chaos is now a nation not needing American forces, having a economic and and political relationship with United States and a democracy.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think also that George Bush would also need a little thanks for that? I mean, does he share in the credit or not?

JOE BIDEN: Well, sure. I'm happy to thank George Bush. I like George Bush, but I think, if you go back and think about it we've been on so many of your programs, it was constantly, what is their political plan?

Touting the latest CBS News/New York Times poll on Friday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer concluded that Americans were upset with President Obama and Congress simply over the influence of "special interest groups," without mentioning massive government spending or ObamaCare as other possible reasons.

After reporting that 70% of Americans were "dissatisfied or angry about the way things are going in Washington," Smith focused on the poll question about special interests: "8 in 10 say Congress is more interested in serving the needs of special interest groups rather than the people they represent." Schieffer explained: "In order to raise that money you've got to sign off on so many special interest groups before you get to Washington that it's very difficult to compromise once you do get here."

However, neither Smith nor Schieffer brought up the part of the poll that showed the desire by a majority of Americans for smaller government: "59% of Americans think the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals....56% would choose a smaller government providing fewer services over a bigger government providing more services, up from 48% last spring and the highest percentage in more than a decade."

While Smith noted that Obama's 46% approval rating, he managed to find a "glimmer of hope" in the poll data: "The President has a 62% approval in terms of his effort to do – work bipartisan – in a bipartisan manner, while the poll says only 29% believe the Republicans are." Schieffer remarked that Obama "is winning that part of the battle" but largely dismissed the importance of the finding: "...when he has the kind of disapproval ratings that he has, he really has nothing to really be very happy about when he goes to bed at night."

On Thursday's CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric focused on a part of the poll that found that most Americans think President Obama's "priority is serving the people," rather than his declining approval rating.

Here is a full transcript of the Friday's Early Show segment:

HARRY SMITH: There's bad news for just about everybody in Washington in the latest CBS News/ New York Times poll 70% of Americans are dissatisfied or angry about the way things are going in Washington. President Obama's job approval rating is at 46%, matching his all-time low, and his disapproval rating is up to 45%. Congress however, did even worse, it is 75% disapproval rating, matches its all-time high. Let's go to CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, good morning.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning. Well, they're going to be down there with the news media here if they keep going in that direction, Harry.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Angry Americans; CBS News Poll: Growing Frustration With Obama & Gov't]

SMITH: You're the only one with better numbers, pal. Tell you what, here's one of the-

SCHIEFFER: Probably not much better.
    
SMITH: Here's one of the interesting inside numbers, 8 in 10 say Congress is more interested in serving the needs of special interest groups rather than the people they represent. And almost everybody wants everybody in Congress gone.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think – I think that just reflects reality. You know, you can't get elected to Congress anymore, Harry, unless you can raise enormous sums of money. In order to raise that money you've got to sign off on so many special interest groups before you get to Washington that it's very difficult to compromise once you do get here. So I think that reflects reality, people are beginning to understand that that's what's going on here and they don't like it at all.

You know, voters will put up with a certain amount of anything, even a certain level of corruption, if you will, if things are going well. If they're putting money in the bank, if they've got savings, if they're kids are going to good schools and so on and so forth. But when things are going bad, when you have all of these people out of work like they are, that's when they start to get frustrated.   

SMITH: And even if they're not out of work, they're afraid they will be out of work. I want to go to another number, on bipartisanship, this may be the one sort of glimmer of hope in all of this, the President has a 62% approval in terms of his effort to do – work bipartisan – in a bipartisan manner, while the poll says only 29% believe the Republicans are.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think clearly in the back and forth that's going on right now, the President is winning that part of the battle. But even having said that, when he has the kind of disapproval ratings that he has, he really has nothing to really be very happy about when he goes to bed at night. But he does seem to be doing a little better than the Republicans are at this point.

SMITH: Overall, is there a way the people in Washington – do they hear this? Do they know this? Are they – when they get up in the morning, are they aware of the widespread dissatisfaction across the country?

SCHIEFFER: I think they are aware of that, Harry, but again, you go back to this thing that they had to sign off with so many special interests before they get here it's very difficult for them to compromise once they get here, without selling out the people that they got the money for to get here. So they're hearing general public dissatisfaction, but they're still trying to hue the line and do what the people who contributed to their campaign sent them to Washington to do. It's a sad observation, but unfortunately I think it's true.

SMITH: You have to get copies of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and send them all out, have them watch it. Bob Schieffer, we'll be watching you on Face the Nation this Sunday morning on CBS. Thank you so much for getting up early for us and helping us out this morning. Do appreciate it, sir.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Harry.

SMITH: Alright.

SCHIEFFER: We're going to talk – Harry, by the way, we're going to talk to the Vice President, Joe Biden, Sunday.

SMITH: We'll look forward to that. 

At the top of Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez highlighted the latest attempt at populism by the Obama administration: “President Obama calls for a big spending freeze and focuses on plans to help the struggling middle class, but does he have the political support he needs?”

Moments later, co-host Harry Smith introduced the story with a similar declaration: “President Obama will try and calm voter anger during tomorrow’s State of the Union address. He’ll announce plans to cut the growing federal deficit and help the struggling middle class.” Writing for the Heritage Foundation blog, The Foundry, Alison Fraser pointed out the problem with Obama’s supposed “spending freeze”: “If it applies to last year’s supercharged spending on stimulus steroids baseline, it’s no freeze at all, but a locking in of spending that was supposed to be temporary.”

Freezing government spending at its current record-high level would do nothing to “cut the growing federal deficit” as Smith asserted. White House correspondent Bill Plante pushed the same argument in a report that followed: “...the President has been busy for several days spreading his message of fiscal responsibility....in an effort to show that the federal government has to manage its budget by making choices, just as families must, the President is calling for a freeze on non-security spending for the next three fiscal years.”

While Plante acknowledged the political difficulty in passing such a proposal, his report featured no critics of the plan to explain how little spending would actually be frozen.

After Plante’s report, Rodriguez discussed the issue with Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer, who did make some mention of the insignificance of the spending freeze: “...the payoff in budget savings would be small relative to the deficit. The estimated $250 billion in savings – $250 Billion – over ten years would be less than 3% of the roughly $9 trillion – $9 trillion – in new debt that will accrue over the next ten years.”

Despite that fact, Schieffer still thought it was a good move: “I think it’s probably good politics for the President to announce this, that he’s going to put this freeze in.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: President Obama calls for a big spending freeze and focuses on plans to help the struggling middle class, but does he have the political support he needs? We’ll bring you the latest from the White House.
    
7:01AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: We want to start in Washington, where President Obama will try and calm voter anger during tomorrow’s State of the Union address. He’ll announce plans to cut the growing federal deficit and help the struggling middle class. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has more. Good morning, Bill.

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Harry. The State of the Union address isn’t until tomorrow, of course, but the President has been busy for several days spreading his message of fiscal responsibility and the message that he understands the frustrations of middle class Americans.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama’s Big Freeze; Plans Spending Freeze, Focuses On Middle Class]

BARACK OBAMA: The middle class has been under assault for a long time.

PLANTE: Standing with Vice President Biden, Mr. Obama unveiled proposals by the task force on middle class families. Including an increase in the child care tax credit, to 35% from 20%, for families making under $85,000 a year. An increase of $1.6 billion to help working parents pay for child care, covering 235,000 more kids. A cap on college loan repayments at 10% of the borrower’s income over basic needs. Adding $100 million to help people care for elderly parents. And requiring employers who don’t offer 401(k) plans to offer direct deposit IRAs.

OBAMA: Hopefully some of these steps will re-establish some of the security that’s slipped away in recent years.
        
PLANTE: And in an effort to show that the federal government has to manage its budget by making choices, just as families must, the President is calling for a freeze on nonsecurity spending for the next three fiscal years. That could be difficult to get through Congress because it would mean cutting the pet projects of some members. But economist Elizabeth Sawhill says that may not matter.

ISABEL SAWHILL [THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION]: If the Congress, and Republicans in particular, vote them down, that’s for the public to decide how they like that in some upcoming election.

PLANTE: But the main issue, of course, is still jobs and that’s likely to be the issue in November. One solution or partial solution, writing in today’s New York Times, Senators Orrin Hatch and Charles Schumer, Republican and Democrat, are proposing that people who are newly hired pay no Social Security tax – [cough] pardon me – for the rest of this year if they were previously unemployed. So, Maggie.

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: We’ll see. Bill Plante, thank you, Bill. Let’s bring in CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Good morning, Bob.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Bob, if we look at the President’s approval rating, the recent election of the Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, clearly Americans are trying to send the President a message. Is this response enough, do you think?

SCHIEFFER: I was thinking about this, it’s almost like somebody goes to the doctor for a hearing test and the President is saying, ‘look, I hear you, I hear you. My hearing is okay.’ And I think what you’re going to see this State of the Union message geared to is that theme, the President, the White House, sort of in the Bill Clinton way, shares the pain of those out there that are worried about deficits.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama’s New Message; Spending Freeze Coupled With Focus On Middle Class]

You know, Maggie, the interesting thing to me about this freeze on all programs except the entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and also government spending, is how little of the deficit – how little of the federal budget it covers. I thought there was one paragraph in the New York Times story of this, this morning, that really kind of summed it up. It said the payoff in budget savings would be small relative to the deficit. The estimated $250 billion in savings – $250 Billion – over ten years would be less than 3% of the roughly $9 trillion – $9 trillion – in new debt that will accrue over the next ten years. That shows you just how massive these sums are that we’re talking about.

I think it’s probably good politics for the President to announce this, that he’s going to put this freeze in. Whether he can get it passed in an election year, when all of these people that are running for re-election in the Congress are out there with their political survival at stake, I think is another matter. He may get a freeze in some of these programs, I think it’s going to be very difficult for him to get a freeze in all of them that he’s talking about.

RODRIGUEZ: Because if – because voters are paying attention and the economy is clearly the number one issue, not necessarily health care anymore.

SCHIEFFER: Yes. I think that is absolutely correct. But, you know, everybody wants to cut the deficit. Everybody wants to cut spending. They don’t want to cut the spending of their pet programs. And that’s where the rubber will hit the road on all this. And speaking of health care, Maggie-

RODRIGUEZ: Well, but if they don’t Bob, then won’t Democrats pay for that in the midterm election?

SCHIEFFER: Well, they may or they may not. If they don’t get those programs that the folks back in the home district are worried about and the ones they want, they may take it out on the Congressman. They may penalize them for cutting spending rather than trying to save money. And speaking of health care, I think we’re not going to hear about health care. I think you’re going to hear a lot about health care in the State of the Union message, but I don’t think you’re going to see any significant proposal brought to the Congress to vote on for a while yet.

RODRIGUEZ: That is a major shift. Bob Schieffer in Washington. Thanks Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you so much, Maggie.
                        
RODRIGUEZ: You’re welcome.

On Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer twisted the meaning of a recent Washington Post poll on the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts: “Three-fourths of those voters...said they wanted Brown to work with Democrats to get Republican ideas into legislation....the vote for Brown was not so much a vote for or against policy or party, as it was a vote against the process itself.”

Schieffer seemed to completely ignore the fact that the poll showed 65% of those who voted for Brown did so to “express opposition to the Democratic agenda in Washington.” Instead, Schieffer tried to spin the data as evidence that voters were upset with both parties: “People don’t like the political games....if the two sides could somehow pay less attention to the voices on the fringes of the Left and the Right, take the Massachusetts voters’ advice, sit down together and see what they can agree on, who knows? They might get something done.”

At the top of his commentary, Schieffer pretended that the meaning of Brown’s extraordinary win was uncertain, rather than a rebuke of the Democratic Party: “Figuring out what Scott Brown’s victory meant has set off a fiercer debate than trying to divine the meaning of the Book of Job. We were all certain it meant something profound, we just weren’t sure what.”

As NewBusters’ Brent Baker reported, in an earlier segment on the broadcast, Capitol Hill correspondent Nancy Cordes spun the Brown win as a victory for moderates and that the new Massachusetts senator “could make being a moderate cool again.” 

Here is the full transcript of Schieffer’s commentary:

10:54AM

SCHIEFFER: Finally today, figuring out what Scott Brown’s victory meant has set off a fiercer debate than trying to divine the meaning of the Book of Job. We were all certain it meant something profound, we just weren’t sure what. Well, a Washington Post poll yesterday provided some clues. 63% of Massachusetts voters thought the country had gone off course and the big part of them voted for Brown. That’s pretty simple, actually.

But here’s the interesting part. Three-fourths of those voters, Massachusetts voters, mind you, said they wanted Brown to work with Democrats to get Republican ideas into legislation. Let me say that again. Three-fourths of his voters said they wanted him to work with the other side.

My own take is the vote for Brown was not so much a vote for or against policy or party, as it was a vote against the process itself. People don’t like the political games and they’ve lost confidence in a bumbling bureaucracy that since Katrina, can’t seem to get out of its own way.

Why trust the government with a complicated health care proposal when it can’t catch a terrorist whose own father tried to turn him in? It will take the perseverance of Job and a lot of political courage, but if the two sides could somehow pay less attention to the voices on the fringes of the Left and the Right, take the Massachusetts voters’ advice, sit down together and see what they can agree on, who knows? They might get something done. They couldn’t do worse. They might even like it and I don’t need a poll to tell me the rest of us surely would.

While discussing Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview with former McCain campaign adviser Steve Schmidt on Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer about the claim that Palin knew little of modern history: “Schmidt, last week tells 60 Minutes that she didn’t know anything....that included World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War.”

Rodriguez wondered if such allegations about Palin’s “supposed lack of knowledge” would be a future political liability, to which Schieffer replied: “You know, my take on Sarah Palin has always been she will never again seek public office....[she] resigned the governorship of Alaska and I think it would be very, very difficult for her in any primary that comes up, the first thing a candidate against her is going to say, ‘well, how long do you intend to stay if you get elected? If elected, do you promise to quit if the going gets tough?’”

In a report that preceded Rodriguez’s discussion with Schieffer, correspondent Nancy Cordes detailed charges outlined in the new book ‘Game Change,’ about the 2008 campaign, including how “...there was friction on the Democratic ticket, too. ‘How many times is Biden going to say something stupid?’ an angry Mr. Obama reportedly asked campaign staff over one of his running mate’s legendary gaffes.” For some reason, Rodriguez did not ask Schieffer about this challenge to the Vice President’s intelligence.

Rodriguez did ask Schieffer about another revelation in the book, the comments made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that candidate Obama would do well in the 2008 campaign because he was “light skinned” and lacked a “Negro dialect.” While Rodriguez initially described the comments as a “political bombshell,” she later asked Schieffer about Republican calls for Reid to step down from his leadership position: “Is it safe to say that no matter how much noise the Republicans make, as long as the Democrats need Harry Reid to push health care reform, need him in that seat, that nothing’s going to come of this?” Schieffer agreed: “I think that’s probably right, Maggie.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: A new book has detonated a political bombshell. What Senate majority leader Harry Reid said about President Obama and why Republicans are demanding Reid step down.

7:01AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: First this morning, some Republicans calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to resign after questionable comments Reid made about President Obama were disclosed in a bombshell new book. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes has the latest. Good morning, Nancy.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Maggie. That’s right, Republican leaders argue there’s a double standard going on here, that if any of them had uttered the racial remark now attributed to Harry Reid, Democrats would be calling for their heads. The book quotes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as saying in 2008 that then Senator Obama had a real shot at the White House because he was a ‘light-skinned’ African-American, quote, ‘with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.’ After the quote was made public Saturday, Leader Reid apologized to a number of black leaders, including the President, who released a statement saying, quote, ‘I accepted Harry’s apology without question. The book is closed.’ Not for Republican leaders, who say Reid should resign from his leadership post.

MICHAEL STEELE: When Democrats get caught saying racist things, you know, an apology is enough.

CORDES: Reid’s comment is only one bombshell in ‘Game Change,’ a new book about the 2008 election and its aftermath. The authors also claim that when President Obama asked Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, she warned him her famous husband might make trouble. And they claim John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, had second thoughts right from the start. Quote, ‘If I’d known everything I know now, I would not have done this,’ she said. On last night’s 60 Minutes, McCain’s campaign manager confirmed there was extension on the trail.

ANDERSON COOPER: You apparently said ‘she doesn’t know anything.’

STEVE SCHMIDT: In the immediate aftermath of her selection, it was clear to us that we had a lot of work to do.

CORDES: The authors contend there was friction on the Democratic ticket, too. ‘How many times is Biden going to say something stupid?’ an angry Mr. Obama reportedly asked campaign staff over one of his running mate’s legendary gaffes. The White House insists that the amount of conflict in the book between these two men was overblown, but they do concede that the relationship between President Obama and Vice President Biden is much better now, much stronger now, than it was on the campaign trail. Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: CBS’s Nancy Cordes. Thank you, Nancy. Joining us now is Bob Schieffer, chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation. Bob, good morning.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Let’s start with Harry Reid’s comments. He has apologized for them. The President has accepted. The Democrats are rallying behind him. Is it safe to say that no matter how much noise the Republicans make, as long as the Democrats need Harry Reid to push health care reform, need him in that seat, that nothing’s going to come of this?

SCHIEFFER: I think that’s probably right, Maggie. And just for the reasons that you have cited. We were told yesterday that this is different than the time when Trent Lott, the Republican leader of the Senate, said that the country would have been better off, basically, had Strom Thurmond, a segregationist, been elected president. Trent Lott at that point was having a lot of problems with the White House and with his own party. And the White House just sort of threw him over the side, abandoned him. He had to step down. This time you have a White House that does need Harry Reid right now. So I think that Reid will survive as the Democratic leader in the Senate. However, this is going to make it much harder for him to be reelected out in Nevada, where he is already in very bad trouble. He’s running about 10 points behind every Republican that has announced they’re going to run. So I think this is more trouble for Harry Reid than it is for the White House at this point.

RODRIGUEZ: What about Sarah Palin’s political future? This book takes more shots at her and her supposed lack of knowledge. We heard former campaign manager for the McCain campaign, Steve Schmidt, last week tells 60 Minutes that she didn’t know anything. This book goes further, claiming that that included World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War. Does this affect her politically you think?

SCHIEFFER: You know, my take on Sarah Palin has always been she will never again seek public office. This is someone, Maggie, who resigned the governorship of Alaska and I think it would be very, very difficult for her in any primary that comes up, the first thing a candidate against her is going to say, ‘well, how long do you intend to stay if you get elected? If elected, do you promise to quit if the going gets tough?’ I think Sarah Palin is very popular with the right side of the Republican Party. I think she can raise a lot of money for them. I think you’re going to see her on the lecture circuit, but I have never thought that she would be a viable candidate again. This is my opinion, clearly labeled, but I just don’t think she has a future a as a candidate. As a fund-raiser, as a celebrity, yes, but as a candidate, I really don’t think this really makes that much difference.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Bob Schieffer, I could talk to you forever. Unfortunately, we’re out of time. Thanks for talking with us.
SCHIEFFER: Well, thank you, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Okay.

A rather shocking thing happened on "Face the Nation" Sunday: CBS News's chief legal correspondent said Sen. Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) racist remarks about presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 will harm Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.

Quite contrary to how ABC's George Stephanopoulos gave cover to the Senate Majority Leader by declaring his comments were supposed to be private, "FTN" took Friday's revelations much more seriously.

CBS Newser Jan Crawford said, "I think the much bigger question is more broadly, what is this going to mean in the midterms, and for the Democrats specifically in the midterms. Because you know, this could very well make the base much less enthusiastic to come out to vote."

She concluded, "I think as we look forward into this upcoming election, it's going to have big problems for Harry Reid, big problems for Democrats in general (video embedded below the fold with transcript)

BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: And we're back now with Peter Baker, White House correspondent for the New York Times, and Jan Crawford, our chief legal correspondent.

Jan, I want to talk with you. And I want to talk first, I think Dianne Feinstein made some news this morning and we'll certainly get to that. But I want to talk to you first about this thing with Harry Reid . A book does not make clear where he actually said this, where he made this statement, that because he has light skin, Barack Obama has a good chance of being elected and because he doesn't have a Negro accent. Who did he say that to?

JAN CRAWFORD, CBS CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: Bob, that is the incredible thing. We confirmed this morning that he said that to one of the authors. And what he was trying to do, he was talking to one of the authors, you know, for this book. And what he was trying to do was to explain his early support for Barack Obama , how no one knew that he had come out early for Barack Obama . So he actually said this during an interview for this book.

Now that, of course, caught his advisers totally off guard. This leaked out late Friday night, about midnight.

CRAWFORD: So he spent all day yesterday, we confirmed this morning. He made 35 different phone calls, mainly to African- Americans and leaders, trying to apologize and get himself out of this mess.

SCHIEFFER: And he did apologize to the president and that was accepted.

CRAWFORD: That's right. I mean, the president said, you know, let's just move on. I've accepted your apology. The question now is, though, whether or not everybody else is going to move on. Obviously we saw Congressman Hoekstra say this is a Democratic problem, it's a personal problem. That's the best thing that the Republicans can do right now. When you have got somebody kind of exploding, you don't want to step in and become collateral damage yourself.

SCHIEFFER: Never step in front of a firing squad.

CRAWFORD: Exactly right. But what is this going to mean not only for Harry Reid , who is kind of on life support out there in Nevada anyway. I mean, does this pull the plug on him for his reelection chances? And what does this mean to Democrats, I mean, more broadly in those midterms?

SCHIEFFER: What do you think? Does this affect the president's agenda, Peter?

PETER BAKER, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, it's one more distraction. We're talking about that. We're not talking about health care. I think you remember of course Vice President Biden had said something similar when he was running against Barack Obama for president, that he was the first clean, articulate African-American running. And it shows a certain discomfort I think, even within his own party, of how to grapple with who this new president is. A guy who did sort of come out of nowhere, had only been in the Senate for four years before he became president. You get folks who have been here in Washington for a long time still trying to define his success, how to define his place in American politics.

SCHIEFFER: Republicans are already saying, I mean Michael Steele, the chairman, said this morning he ought to step down. Trent Lott, when he made that remark about Strom Thurmond, that the country would have been better off had he been elected president, he did have to resign his leadership post. Do you get the sense that -- I guess it's a little too early to know -- but that Harry Reid may have to leave the leadership?

BAKER: Well, these things are always of course a summation of something else that is going on. I mean, Trent Lott had to step down in part because his own party had grown disenchanted with him for a lot of different reasons, including his president. President Bush, the White House didn't step in to support him.

The question is are there enough reasons for the Democrats to be unhappy with Harry Reid , for other reasons that would undermine the support in a moment like this when he's in trouble? There is no sign that President Obama would abandon him at this point. I think President Obama needs him to focus on health care and get it through this next month.

CRAWFORD: I think the much bigger question is more broadly, what is this going to mean in the midterms, and for the Democrats specifically in the midterms. Because you know, this could very well make the base much less enthusiastic to come out to vote. I mean, the midterms are much more about the base versus base. Anyway, those Republican voters are very fired up, and the Democrats need every single vote they can get at this point. I mean, already before this happened, it looked like Democrats were going to lose, what, four to six seats in the Senate, 20 to 30 seats in the House. So I think this -- I agree, I don't see that is going to really lead to Reid stepping down, but I think as we look forward into this upcoming election, it's going to have big problems for Harry Reid, big problems for Democrats in general.

Nice analysis, Jan. Good job.

A rather shocking thing happened on "Face the Nation" Sunday: CBS News's chief legal correspondent said Sen. Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) racist remarks about presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 will harm Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.

Quite contrary to how ABC's George Stephanopoulos gave cover to the Senate Majority Leader by declaring his comments were supposed to be private, "FTN" took Friday's revelations much more seriously.

CBS Newser Jan Crawford said, "I think the much bigger question is more broadly, what is this going to mean in the midterms, and for the Democrats specifically in the midterms. Because you know, this could very well make the base much less enthusiastic to come out to vote."

She concluded, "I think as we look forward into this upcoming election, it's going to have big problems for Harry Reid, big problems for Democrats in general (video embedded below the fold with transcript)

BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: And we're back now with Peter Baker, White House correspondent for the New York Times, and Jan Crawford, our chief legal correspondent.

Jan, I want to talk with you. And I want to talk first, I think Dianne Feinstein made some news this morning and we'll certainly get to that. But I want to talk to you first about this thing with Harry Reid . A book does not make clear where he actually said this, where he made this statement, that because he has light skin, Barack Obama has a good chance of being elected and because he doesn't have a Negro accent. Who did he say that to?

JAN CRAWFORD, CBS CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: Bob, that is the incredible thing. We confirmed this morning that he said that to one of the authors. And what he was trying to do, he was talking to one of the authors, you know, for this book. And what he was trying to do was to explain his early support for Barack Obama , how no one knew that he had come out early for Barack Obama . So he actually said this during an interview for this book.

Now that, of course, caught his advisers totally off guard. This leaked out late Friday night, about midnight.

CRAWFORD: So he spent all day yesterday, we confirmed this morning. He made 35 different phone calls, mainly to African- Americans and leaders, trying to apologize and get himself out of this mess.

SCHIEFFER: And he did apologize to the president and that was accepted.

CRAWFORD: That's right. I mean, the president said, you know, let's just move on. I've accepted your apology. The question now is, though, whether or not everybody else is going to move on. Obviously we saw Congressman Hoekstra say this is a Democratic problem, it's a personal problem. That's the best thing that the Republicans can do right now. When you have got somebody kind of exploding, you don't want to step in and become collateral damage yourself.

SCHIEFFER: Never step in front of a firing squad.

CRAWFORD: Exactly right. But what is this going to mean not only for Harry Reid , who is kind of on life support out there in Nevada anyway. I mean, does this pull the plug on him for his reelection chances? And what does this mean to Democrats, I mean, more broadly in those midterms?

SCHIEFFER: What do you think? Does this affect the president's agenda, Peter?

PETER BAKER, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, it's one more distraction. We're talking about that. We're not talking about health care. I think you remember of course Vice President Biden had said something similar when he was running against Barack Obama for president, that he was the first clean, articulate African-American running. And it shows a certain discomfort I think, even within his own party, of how to grapple with who this new president is. A guy who did sort of come out of nowhere, had only been in the Senate for four years before he became president. You get folks who have been here in Washington for a long time still trying to define his success, how to define his place in American politics.

SCHIEFFER: Republicans are already saying, I mean Michael Steele, the chairman, said this morning he ought to step down. Trent Lott, when he made that remark about Strom Thurmond, that the country would have been better off had he been elected president, he did have to resign his leadership post. Do you get the sense that -- I guess it's a little too early to know -- but that Harry Reid may have to leave the leadership?

BAKER: Well, these things are always of course a summation of something else that is going on. I mean, Trent Lott had to step down in part because his own party had grown disenchanted with him for a lot of different reasons, including his president. President Bush, the White House didn't step in to support him.

The question is are there enough reasons for the Democrats to be unhappy with Harry Reid , for other reasons that would undermine the support in a moment like this when he's in trouble? There is no sign that President Obama would abandon him at this point. I think President Obama needs him to focus on health care and get it through this next month.

CRAWFORD: I think the much bigger question is more broadly, what is this going to mean in the midterms, and for the Democrats specifically in the midterms. Because you know, this could very well make the base much less enthusiastic to come out to vote. I mean, the midterms are much more about the base versus base. Anyway, those Republican voters are very fired up, and the Democrats need every single vote they can get at this point. I mean, already before this happened, it looked like Democrats were going to lose, what, four to six seats in the Senate, 20 to 30 seats in the House. So I think this -- I agree, I don't see that is going to really lead to Reid stepping down, but I think as we look forward into this upcoming election, it's going to have big problems for Harry Reid, big problems for Democrats in general.

Nice analysis, Jan. Good job.

Whatever happened to just opposing policy for the sake of it being bad policy, as is the case of many people's view of the current health care reform proposals making their way through Congress?

That reason is just not good enough for some, particularly Washington Post blogger and food critic Ezra Klein. In a post on The Washington Post's Web site dated Dec. 14, Klein viciously attacked Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Ct., after reports surfaced that Lieberman would filibuster the current health care bill if it meant expanding Medicare (h/t Amanda Carpenter at The Washington Times) (emphasis added).

"And if there's a policy rationale here, it's not apparent to me, or to others who've interviewed him," Klein wrote. "At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score."

Klein bases his "hundreds of thousands" total on a nearly two-year old Urban Institute paper that asserts the deaths of 137,000 people occurred between 2000 and 2006 "because they lacked health insurance."

And Klein wrote in his post the policy rationale isn't apparent to him, but Lieberman did explain it on CBS's Dec. 14 broadcast of "Face the Nation."

"[I]t puts us all in a very difficult position because we don't know exactly what's in [the 2,000-page bill]," Lieberman said. "But I will you that, on one part of it, the so-called Medicare buy-in, the opposition to it has been growing as the week has gone on. And though I don't know exactly what's in it, from what I hear, I certainly would have a hard time voting for it because it has some of the same infirmities that the public option did."

And based on that Lieberman says, it is bad for the country for a myriad of reasons, which apparently is insufficient for Klein.

"It will add taxpayer costs," Lieberman said. "It will add to the deficit. It's unnecessary. The basic bill, which has a lot of good things in it, provides a generous new system of subsidies for people between ages 55 and 65 and choice and competition. So, you know, [Face the Nation host] Bob [Schieffer], I think we're at a - they're not 60 votes for health care reform in the Senate now. We're at a point where -- and yet the basis of the bill, covering 30 million people who can't buy insurance today, regulating insurance companies so they treat consumers more fairly; for instance, not denying them health care."

On Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer about all the problems facing President Obama: “it was Afghanistan, now it’s jobs...healthcare....Do you remember a time when a president had as many irons – critical irons – in the fire, as this one seems to have right now?” Schieffer replied: “Oh, I suppose during the dark days of World War II.”  

Schieffer went on to lament that “...as we approach this Christmas season it doesn’t look like there’s going to be very much under the tree for this administration.” He referred to high unemployment numbers as a source of Obama’s difficulty: “...there just isn’t anymore money that the government has, even to try to stimulate this economy....people are out of work and that is what’s driving so much of this discontent right now.”

Smith changed the subject by asking Schieffer’s about the White House state dinner security breach: “...there’s this other sideshow with these White House party crashers....Is this a tempest in a tea pot or does this – or does this continue to fester and grow?” Schieffer responded: “no, I don’t think it’s a tempest in a tea pot.” He then called for the imprisonment of the couple involved: “I think the government ought to prosecute these people. And if that means sending them to jail, so be it....I hope the government continues to prosecute this and if it requires – if these people go to jail, that’ll be just fine with me, frankly.”

Schieffer justified that reaction by claiming a White House state dinner is one of the highest forms of patriotism, rather than a glorified cocktail party: “...this is also sort of an insult to the American people. State dinners are part of the symbols of our – of our democracy, like the White House itself, like the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, and when people are making fun of those things, when they’re doing what these people did, that’s an insult to all of us.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

HARRY SMITH: Want to turn now to CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, good morning.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Harry.

SMITH: So earlier this week it was Afghanistan, now it’s jobs. There’s the small matter of healthcare that is still brewing on several burners on the White House stove. Do you remember a time when a president had as many irons – critical irons – in the fire, as this one seems to have right now?         

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Help Wanted; Obama Hits The Road To Talk Jobs]

SCHIEFFER: Oh, I suppose during the dark days of World War II, Harry, but my heavens, I mean as we approach this Christmas season it doesn’t look like there’s going to be very much under the tree for this administration. I mean, you saw this jobs fair yesterday. But as the President talked to people during this jobs fair, he was saying, you know, in the end, it’s going to be up to private enterprise to find the jobs to get us out of this. That’s another way of saying there just isn’t anymore money that the government has, even to try to stimulate this economy.     

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama’s Full Plate; Dealing With Economy, Afghanistan & Health Care]

Later today I think you’re going to hear the unemployment figures come out, where going to be in double digits again. The President’s going out of Washington to try to get in touch with what’s happening on the jobs front. Well, the fact is, he knows what’s going on, on the jobs front, people are out of work and that is what’s driving so much of this discontent right now. But where does this go? I mean, we now have this trillion dollar deficit this year, we’re one trillion dollars in hock to the Chinese government as far as the national debt. These are not very good times right now for this administration or for the country.

SMITH: We want to talk about who you’ve got on the show on Sunday in a second, but in the meantime, there’s this other sideshow with these White House party crashers. They denied – did not end up going to the hearing they were called to, that they got invited to yesterday. And there’s this other then of wanting Desiree Rogers to come and testify. Is this a tempest in a tea pot or does this – or does this continue to fester and grow?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Secret Service Shelvings; Agents Put On Leave After Salahi Slip Up]         

SCHIEFFER: It – no, I don’t think it’s a tempest in a tea pot because – and here’s why, Harry, I think the government ought to prosecute these people. And if that means sending them to jail, so be it. This is not only, you know, a security issue, people being able to get into the White House and get up close to the President, and who knows where that – that kind of thing goes. But this is also sort of an insult to the American people. State dinners are part of the symbols of our – of our democracy, like the White House itself, like the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, and when people are making fun of those things, when they’re doing what these people did, that’s an insult to all of us. And I hope the government continues to prosecute this and if it requires – if these people go to jail, that’ll be just fine with me, frankly.

SMITH: Bob Schieffer, thank you so much, we will look forward-

SCHIEFFER: Strong letter to follow.

[LAUGHTER]

SMITH: Yeah, hold back next time, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Alright.

SMITH: A reminder that you want to watch Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation on Sunday, he will be interviewing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

At the end of CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, host Bob Schieffer fretted over massive government spending but avoided blaming current Democratic proposals: “I’m not even talking about the cost of health care....It is now costing $1 million a year to keep one U.S. soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, not to mention that for every soldier there, we have one civilian contractor.”

Schieffer also cited reconstruction costs in Iraq: “I picked up the New York Times to discover we have spent more money rebuilding Iraq’s schools, hospitals, water treatment and electrical plants – $54 billion – than we have spent on any construction project since the Marshall Plan.” He described his reaction to the war spending: “...last week I got surprised – no, I should say had a jaw-dropping shock – a better way to put it – every time I picked up the newspaper and read about the numbers that we’re throwing around lately.”   

In concluding his commentary, Schieffer wondered: “...when President Obama came calling to China, we owed the Chinese more than a trillion dollars...is going a trillion dollars in hock to one country made us more secure?”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

10:53AM

BOB SCHIEFFER: Finally today, during the Johnson administration, the Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen was railing one day against government spending and managed to say ‘a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.’ That’s almost quaint these days and I’m not even talking about the cost of health care. I used to say I had been around so long that nothing surprised me. But last week I got surprised – no, I should say had a jaw-dropping shock – a better way to put it – every time I picked up the newspaper and read about the numbers that we’re throwing around lately.

Like yesterday, when I picked up the New York Times to discover we have spent more money rebuilding Iraq’s schools, hospitals, water treatment and electrical plants – $54 billion – than we have spent on any construction project since the Marshall Plan. Which you’ll recall was to rebuild Europe after World War II. Sobering but not surprising, many of those facilities may close when we leave because there are not enough trained Iraqis to operate them.

Another number in the news last week that I found astounding. It is now costing $1 million a year to keep one U.S. soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, not to mention that for every soldier there, we have one civilian contractor. Which helps explain another shocker that came out last week. That ten years ago we owed the government of Spain more than we owed China. Yet when President Obama came calling to China, we owed the Chinese more than a trillion dollars. Yep, old Ev Dirksen was right. A billion here, a billion there and it added up to real money and a big pile of bills. But is going a trillion dollars in hock to one country made us more secure?

Appearing on Monday’s CBS Early Show to discuss Sarah Palin’s upcoming book tour, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer dismissed the former vice presidential candidate’s political ambitions: “I think she’s going to sell a lot of books. I think she’ll be a great attraction out, you know, as an amusement....But I can’t imagine that she has much future in politics. I really don’t.”

Early Show co-host Harry Smith began by asking Schieffer about Palin’s criticism of the McCain campaign in her book, ‘Going Rogue.’ Schieffer responded: “Well, this is Sarah Palin’s turn to get even....I don’t think it’s going to work.... it’s kind of like a baseball player going into a slump and blaming the manager or blaming the bat boy or blaming the fans or something.”

Schieffer went on to write Palin’s political obituary: “But I don’t think it’s going to help re-establish her as a, you know, as a political candidate. I – my guess is she’s not ever going to run for anything and I think if she did, I don’t think she would get very far.” Even Smith seemed to think that was premature, replying in a surprised manner: “Really?”

Trying to convince Smith of Palin’s political irrelevance, Schieffer attacked her decision to step down as governor of Alaska: “...let’s not overlook the fact that she had to leave the governor’s office in Alaska because that was too much for her. Can you imagine her going through a primary with an opponent? You know, I mean, what would she say? ‘When the going to gets tough, I’m ready to quit?’ I mean, that is not how one builds a political base.”

After Schieffer deemed that Palin was nothing more than “an amusement,” Smith wondered about her endorsement of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the New York 23rd congressional race: “...one of the most important endorsements for that rogue candidate up there was from Sarah Palin. She’s very popular among the tea party set. Do you not think this is part of a growing base of folks from which will ascend into more power in the Republican party?”

Schieffer explained: “Well, the Republican Party is very split right now....And you have that segment, mostly the people on the Right, but you also have candidates like Mike Huckabee, who ran the last time out, who generally made a good impression....She will not be the only person who comes at it from the Right, if she should decide to run.” He once again concluded: “I think the purpose here for Sarah Palin right now is to sell some books and to try to sell her side of the story....It’ll sell books, but I don’t see it going beyond that.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:01AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Everybody is waiting for the release of Sarah Palin’s memoir. And it’s been reviewed in all kinds of papers all over the country, I’m reading the review in the Wall Street Journal this morning. And she comes down hardest, really, on the McCain campaign.

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: I know.

SMITH (Pumps fist): Really.

RODRIGUEZ: And they are fighting back.

SMITH: Right. So we’re going to talk Bob Schieffer about it – that and some other things a little bit later on this morning.     

7:11AM TEASE:

SMITH: Coming up next, Sarah Palin ‘Going Rogue’ to promote her new book. We’ll take a look at why the McCain camp is up in arms.

7:15AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: Sarah Palin’s new book is already a best seller, but it doesn’t officially hit the bookstores until tomorrow. Some of what she’s written has already been leaked and that is stirring up a lot of controversy. CBS News correspondent Randall Pinkston has the latest. Randall, good morning.

RANDALL PINKSTON: Good morning, Harry. Though Sarah Palin talks about her role in governing Alaska in her book, it’s her elevation to the national stage as John McCain’s running mate and her clashes with his campaign staffers that will likely make this a real page turner. Among the moments Sarah Palin writes about in her memoir, friction with senior McCain strategist Steve Schmidt.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Palin, Politics & Publishing; Fmr. McCain Staffer: The Book Is ‘Fiction’]

PETER WALLSTEN [REPORTER, WALL STREET JOURNAL]: She is uncomfortable with his language at one point. He seems to be cussing in front of her children.

PINKSTON: Wall Street Journal reporter Peter Wallsten reviewed Palin’s ‘Going Rogue.’

WALLSTEN: She was really bruised, her image was battered after that campaign.

STEVE SCHMIDT: She’s going to have broad appeal across the country.

PINKSTON: During the campaign, Schmidt championed Palin on the Early Show, but in a phone interview with CBS News on Sunday, Schmidt called Palin’s book ‘fiction,’ saying ‘it’s not true.’

ED GOEAS [REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST]: Certainly some of the staff that was assigned to her did not do her a great service.

PINKSTON: But Ed Goeas, who was program director at last year’s GOP convention, says Palin’s recollection of events are accurate.

GOEAS: She had a very unique kind of style that connected with people out there, and I think that was contrary to necessarily where they were trying to take her as a candidate.

PINKSTON: Soon after her book hits the shelves, Palin will hit the road, on a tour some say is an effort to re-establish herself ahead of the 2012 election.

WALLSTEN: She’s taking a tour of small towns and mid-sized cities where her base lives and the point right now is just to sell as many books as possible.

PINKSTON: Palin’s book tour begins this week in Michigan, a state that the McCain campaign pulled out of against Palin’s wishes. That makes it a perfect place, strategists agree, to prove that Sarah Palin is ready for a future campaign. Harry.

SMITH: We’ll find out. Alright. Randall Pinkston, thank you so much. Joining us now is CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation Bob Schieffer. Bob, good morning.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Harry.

SMITH: It really is amazing how much attention has been paid to this book and it hasn’t even hit the stores yet in large part. What do you make of all of the criticism in this book, especially focused on the McCain campaign?

SCHIEFFER: Well, this is Sarah Palin’s turn to get even, as it were. She – she came under this intense criticism all during the campaign and now she’s giving her version of why she didn’t succeed as a candidate. I mean, I don’t think it’s going to work. I – you know, it’s kind of like a baseball player going into a slump and blaming the manager or blaming the bat boy or blaming the fans or something. You know, it makes for provocative reading. I think she’ll sell a lot of books. But I don’t think it’s going to help re-establish her as a, you know, as a political candidate. I – my guess is she’s not ever going to run for anything and I think if she did, I don’t think she would get very far.

SMITH: Really?

SCHIEFFER: No. I mean, well, what’s she going to say? I mean, let’s – let’s not overlook the fact that she had to leave the governor’s office in Alaska because that was too much for her. Can you imagine her going through a primary with an opponent? You know, I mean, what would she say? ‘When the going to gets tough, I’m ready to quit?’ I mean, that is not how one builds a political base. I think she’s going to sell a lot of books. I think she’ll be a great attraction out, you know, as an amusement. She’s interesting, she’s a celebrity. But I can’t imagine that she has much future in politics. I really don’t.

SMITH: It’s so interesting because, for instance, in this House race up in the 23rd district, one of the most important endorsements for that rogue candidate up there was from Sarah Palin. She’s very popular among the tea party set. Do you not think this is part of a growing base of folks from which will ascend into more power in the Republican party?

SCHIEFFER: Well, the Republican Party is very split right now, as you know Harry. And you have that segment, mostly the people on the Right, but you also have candidates like Mike Huckabee, who ran the last time out, who generally made a good impression. Someone who won the Iowa caucuses. She will not be the only person who comes at it from the Right, if she should decide to run. But I think the purpose here for Sarah Palin right now is to sell some books and to try to sell her side of the story. One of the problems you have, though, when you start taking on campaign aides, people don’t know who these people are, you know. And so she’s fighting against people that most people don’t know who they are. It’ll sell books, but I don’t see it going beyond that.

SMITH: Bob Schieffer, thanks for getting up early for us this morning. We do appreciate it, sir.

SCHIEFFER: You bet.

SMITH: Alright.

Horror spread quickly across America as the story unfolded: an Army psychiatrist went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas, killing 13 and wounding 30. But as more information emerged, clearly pointing to an act of terrorism, many in the "news" media simply chose not to report news.

By late afternoon, it emerged that the shooter’s name was Major Nidal Malik Hasan. But that night, CBS and NBC completely avoided mentioning that the shooter was a Muslim. ABC’s Charles Gibson suggested he was a "Muslim convert," which wasn’t right, but at least he wasn’t playing hide-and-seek with the facts. ABC reporter Martha Raddatz spoke for the media in choosing this tidbit: "As for the suspect, Nidal Hasan, as one officer's wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’"

The coverage grew more factual the next morning, with all the networks noting Hasan was Muslim, and that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" (God is great) as he opened fire. ABC’s Diane Sawyer, though, repeated Raddatz: "We heard Martha Raddatz say last night that the wife of a soldier said ‘I wish his name had been Smith,’ so no one would have a reflexive question about that."

A reflexive question, as in "If a Muslim extremist attacks an Army base shouting ‘Allahu akbar!’ while spraying semi-automatic fire, killing and wounding dozens, is it terrorism?" Ms. Sawyer had nothing to worry about. Here’s how her colleagues covered it.

THEME: The shooting wasn’t just tragic because it killed patriotic Americans who were serving their country. The shooting was "much worse" because it gins up fear-mongering right-wingers.

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: "I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going and it just -- I mean these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse."

THEME: In the Age of Obama (as opposed to those Bush years), American can be expected to behave after terrorist attacks and not overreact.

From USA Today: "‘We haven't heard of anything violent, which is a good thing,’ said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy group. ‘It shows our society has matured in how it responds to these incidents.’"

THEME: Let’s not be too quick to judge these Muslims. After all, we have our Christian nut cases, too.

A Boston Globe op-ed by Harvard professor Harvey Cox: "If some seem ready to die for faith, others are ready to kill for it, gunning down abortion doctors in church, hijacking planes, and exploding bombs at weddings." On CBS, Bob Schieffer energetically sought full moral equivalence: "And you know Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts, too."

THEME: Blame someone other than the shooter for shooting.

Schieffer grew much more annoying, suggesting that this killing was all the Army’s fault, that "this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers' mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot." It was the Army’s fault for not seeing that this was a radical Muslim who could be a danger to others. This kind of arrogance – sitting on a throne of 20-20 hindsight and demeaning our military – explains why the media’s favorability ratings have gone into the toilet.

If the Army had removed Hasan before his mass murder, Bob Schieffer and the other anchors would have been standing shoulder to shoulder with the ACLU people and the CAIR crowd suggesting anti-Muslim bigotry. These anchormen thought the Constitution was being shredded when the Bush administration attempted to intercept messages between bad guys here and al-Qaeda abroad. That was unhealthy "domestic spying." They have forfeited their right to question the military now. In their idealistic vision, we would have all remained ignorant of Hasan’s phone calls, and completely vulnerable to his rampages.

Even now, some media liberals were astonishing in the aftermath of this Islamic terrorism – and that is precisely what it was. Jaws dropped at the idiocy of Chris Matthews on MSNBC when he proclaimed, "Apparently, he tried to contact al-Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al-Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?"

Answer to the well-paid idiot: Before he kills Americans on a military base.

At the end of Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer offered commentary on the cause of the mass shooting at Fort Hood: “That doctor [Major Nidal Hasan] should not have been at Fort Hood. I don’t care how hard-up the Army is for mental health professionals....sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.”

Schieffer went on to argue: “And then there is the other part that often happens in government. Don’t deal with the problem, shuffle it off to somewhere else. When he had problems at Walter Reed hospital, the doctor was just packed off to Fort Hood.” In similar fashion, Schieffer “shuffled off” the responsibility of an overly politically correct media that continually denounces profiling of criminal suspects or terrorists.

Earlier in the broadcast, Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton: “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?”

Speaking to Senator Lindsey Graham, Schieffer referred to Hasan’s Islamic extremism, but countered: “Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too.”

Here is a full transcript of Schieffer’s commentary:

10:55AM

SCHIEFFER: Finally today, the President has asked the nation not to jump to conclusions about what happened at Fort Hood, which is usually good advice, but it’s also what government officials generally say when the government fouls up.

Good advice or not, I am jumping to an obvious conclusion. This should not have happened. That doctor should not have been at Fort Hood. I don’t care how hard-up the Army is for mental health professionals. A government psychiatrist with bad performance ratings who has been trying to get out of the Army and who had been saying what Dr. Hasan had been saying about the war on terrorism should not have been shipped off to Fort Hood to give grief counseling.

What do you suppose he was telling the soldiers? That after what they had done, they ought to feel bad?

Certainly no officer with his record would have been allowed to lead soldiers into combat. But sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.

And then there is the other part that often happens in government. Don’t deal with the problem, shuffle it off to somewhere else. When he had problems at Walter Reed hospital, the doctor was just packed off to Fort Hood.

Investigators confirm now that someone by his name had been posting messages on the Internet about how suicide bombers are as heroic as American soldiers who fall on grenades to save their comrades. But the investigators say it is not clear if Dr. Hasan actually wrote those messages. Based on what we found out so far, my question is, do you suppose anyone has even asked him?

On Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer tried to provide some perspective on the Fort Hood shooting, committed by an Islamic extremist: “It’s looking more and more like he was just, sort of, a religious nut. And you know Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too.”

Schieffer made the comments while speaking to Senator Lindsey Graham, who agreed that Muslims do not have “a corner” on extremism. Schieffer went on to wonder what role political correctness played in the shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, not being held accountable for radical comments he made prior to the attack: “Do you think the fact that he was a Muslim may have caused the military to kind of step back and be reluctant to challenge him on some of this stuff for fear that they’d be accused of discrimination or something like that?”

Graham replied: “I hope not. I hope – I hope that’s not the case....his actions do not reflect on the Islamic – Muslim faith” Schieffer added: “Well, I’m not suggesting that they do.” Promoting the very political correctness that Schieffer asked about, Graham argued: “But some people are. Some people are, and I want to say, as a United States Senator, that I reject that....Let’s don’t accuse people of basically giving him a pass because he’s a Muslim. Because I don’t think there’s any evidence of that.”

After discussing the issue with Graham, Schieffer turned to Congressman Ike Skelton about another cause for the shooting: “The irony also is that why did he wind up there in that particular job [as an Army psychiatrist]? Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended, Congressman Skelton?” Skelton responded: “The Army is strained. I’ve been saying that for some time.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

10:33AM

BOB SCHIEFFER: Alright. Well, we’re going to shift now to the situation and this awful thing that happened down at Fort Hood. Congressman Skelton, you’re chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I’ve got to ask you. Here we have a man who was trying to get out of the Army, who had ranted about the U.S. war on terrorism, whose contemporaries had reported him to their superiors as, what is going on here? And yet somehow he winds up being the doctor that’s sent down to Fort Hood to counsel our soldiers going to Iraq and Afghanistan and coming back. Who dropped the ball here?

IKE SKELTON: Well, it’s very difficult to say. We had a briefing two days ago by the Army, and they went through all that they knew at the time. And they did say to us that they are investigating it. As you know, the Army has its investigators. The FBI is investigating. And, Bob, the truth will out.

SCHIEFFER: But shouldn’t someone have caught this, Congressman?

SKELTON: That’s – that could very well be true. But let’s wait until the investigation is over. If that is the case, they’ll be front and center. But right now, let’s give them a few days to find out just where the ball was dropped, if that’s the case.

SCHIEFFER: Do you plan to investigate?

SKELTON: I’m going to wait and see what they do. If they are not thorough – we will, of course, have additional hearings, briefings on this. It’s a tragedy of the first order. It’s a tragedy not just for the soldiers and their families that were there. It’s a tragedy for all of the families that wear the uniform. You see, it was not just a – a fellow soldier that did this. It was a fellow soldier whose job it was to help people. And I can imagine how traumatized the average military family must be.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I don’t think there’s any question about that. Let me go to the Senators now. Senator Lieberman – I mean, this broadcast seems to be talking a lot about Senator Lieberman and what he thinks about things. But he said this morning on Fox there should have been a zero tolerance for the kinds of things that – that were being said. And as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, he says he is going to open an investigation. Do you think that’s the right way to go, Senator Reed?

JACK REED: Well, I think we do have to look closely at what the Army has done, what the whole armed services has done. But Chairman Skeleton has put it in the right context. We have to wait for their careful deliberations. There’s a criminal investigation going on. But we have to look at the broader issues, not just this incident, but are we taking adequate care of these soldiers? Are we providing the adequate support systems for the families? Are we also – have appropriate command responsibilities for all of our soldiers, including our medical personnel? And these are issues that go beyond this incident, and responsible for the Congress to look at them.

SKELTON: It brings to the top of the table the issue of the post- traumatic system disorder. And we in our committee, we in Congress, have addressed this now for three years. And the bill we just passed, it increases the mental health providers. It also requires additional research into this. But that is being dragged to the front and center because of this incident.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me go now to Senator Graham. Senator Graham, I think all of that – that is true. But after all, this doctor had not gone to Afghanistan. I mean, he hadn’t gone to Iraq. He was fighting to not go there. The question I have is, what happened here that this man who had a very poor performance record at Walter Reed was somehow shuttled off down to Fort Hood, and he winds up being the one talking to these soldiers? It’s not clear to me how this could have happened. And, clearly, it should not have happened. Senator?

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, Bob, I’ll be – yes, sir. I’ll be honest with you. I think, as Ike said, we’re doing a lot. I’m on the personnel subcommittee to address post-traumatic syndrome, the wounded warrior program. We’ve thrown a lot of money; we’ve put more medical personnel on the front lines of evaluating people. But, about this case, you know, it’s easy to second-guess. And I want to – you know, I`m not going to go down that road yet. I mean, does every soldier who shows discontent with the war and every soldier that has a bad performance report – what are we going to do with those folks? So, at the end of the day, let’s see what the evidence trail suggests here and not overreact. Because we live in a free and open society. You can be in the military and disagree with policy.

What did his co-workers say about his behavior? How strong were the warning signals? At the end of the day, maybe this is just about him. It’s certainly not about his religion, Islam. It’s not about the Army; it’s not about the war. At the end of the day, I think it’s going to be about him. And if we missed some signals, some clear signals, we’ve got to fix that. And I trust the Army to want to fix it, because it means more to them than any politician because it happened within their ranks.

SCHIEFFER: Well – Senator Graham,  let me just, kind of, cut to the chase here.

GRAHAM: Yes sir.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think that the fact that this man was a Muslim – obviously he was either part of some terrorist plot – and I think most suggestions are that he wasn’t. It’s looking more and more like he was just, sort of, a religious nut. And you know-

GRAHAM: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: Islam doesn’t have a majority-

GRAHAM: A corner on that-

SCHIEFFER: -or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too. But do you think the fact that he was a Muslim may have caused the military to kind of step back and be reluctant to challenge him on some of this stuff for fear that they’d be accused of discrimination or something like that?

GRAHAM: I hope not. I hope – I hope that’s not the case. But to those members of the United States military who are Muslims, thank you for protecting our nation, thank you for standing up against people who are trying to hijack your religion. I hope that’s not the case, Bob. But we need – his actions do not reflect on the Islamic – Muslim faith any more than burning a cross-

SCHIEFFER: Well, I’m not suggesting that they do.

GRAHAM: I know.

SCHIEFFER: I’m just suggesting-

GRAHAM: But some people are. Some people are, and I want to say, as a United States Senator, that I reject that. This man’s actions reflect on him. And if we missed some signals about him that we should have known, great. But let’s don’t take this to a level that we should not. Let’s don’t accuse people of basically giving him a pass because he’s a Muslim. Because I don’t think there’s any evidence of that.

SCHIEFFER: Alright. Senator Reed, what’s your thought on that?

REED: Well, there are approximately 3,000 Americans, men and women of the Muslim faith who are serving in the Army. They’ve been wounded. Some, I’ve been told, have been killed in action. Their record is one of service and dedication to the nation and selfless service. So I agree entirely with Senator Graham. This is not about theology. This is about doing your duty as a soldier.

And also, I think we have to be careful not to leap beyond the current investigation. And I think, again, what we will find is that someone who has deep psychiatric problems. They’re not unique to the Army. We’ve had terrible shootings in college campuses and office buildings, and those things are the result of ultimately of one person’s psychological, psychiatric difficulties. The irony here is, is he was a psychiatrist. The irony here is he joined the Army as ROTC, at Virginia Tech, came through the Army. He was not sort of just here as a transient-

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just interrupt you, because I want to get one final comment. The irony also is that why did he wind up there in that particular job? Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended, Congressman Skelton?

SKELTON: The Army is strained. I’ve been saying that for some time. That’s why we increased the size of the Army this year. But let me say this, Bob. We should not rush to judgment. I’m an old prosecuting attorney and I know that it takes time to investigate. We have excellent Army investigators. We have the FBI, and they’re as good as they come in investigating this whole issue. The truth will out. We will soon find out answers to the very questions that you’re asking. And the chips will fall where they may. Right now, I think our sole concern should be those families, the military families, the Army families, and those that suffered injuries and death.

SCHIEFFER: Well, gentlemen, I want to thank all of you for being here to talk about this, this morning.

For those who missed it last week, here's another chance to catch the October 30 episode of NewsBusters’ Notable Quotables comedy show, featuring some of the most outrageous sound bites from the liberal media.

In this episode, we have CBS fawning over Michelle Obama frolicking on the White House lawn, CNN psychoanalyzing Rush Limbaugh listeners, and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in need of some psychiatric help of his own.

Enjoy the show and the weekend.

By the way, check out the new ‘Notable Quotables Show’ channel on Eyeblast for current and past episodes.

CBS's Bob Schieffer on Wednesday night offered the hindsight that everyone knew the Democratic gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey would lose, they did lose and so the losses mean nothing. “I think what we saw last night were snap shots. I don't think we saw predictors,” Schieffer declared on the CBS Evening News in absolving President Obama of any culpability. “I don't think they told us much except that people are very frustrated out in the country.” And that, apparently, has nothing to do with Obama.

Schieffer recited what happened with remarkable prescience: In Virginia, “they run someone for Governor [Creigh Deeds] who is a rural candidate who's little-known in Northern Virginia and who could not seem to connect with the African-American voters. So he got beat and he got beat bad. Most people thought that was going to happen and it did.” Up Interstate 95 in New Jersey, Governor Jon Corzine “was just so unpopular that I think he just didn't have a chance from the get-go.”

Katie Couric and Jeff Greenfield saw “a cautionary tale” for the GOP in the Democratic pick-up of a U.S. House seat from New York where the candidate conservatives backed lost.

On NBC, Brian Williams painted the election results as “an ominous development for the-year-old Obama administration” and attributed the outcomes to how “there is evidence of an angry electorate out there.”

Of the broadcast network evening newscasts, only Charles Gibson on ABC pointed out the uninterrupted winning streak at the ballot box for opponents of same-sex marriage: “In Maine, voters rejected a law allowing same-sex marriages. Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it has been put to a popular vote.”

Earlier: From Tuesday night, before the polls closed: “CBS's Schieffer Denies Vote a Referendum on Obama, Compares Conservatives to McGovern.”

Gibson led the Wednesday, November 4 World News on ABC:

One year ago, Barack Obama rode into office on a wave of discontent, promising change on the number one issue for voters, the economy. Well, yesterday, in New Jersey and Virginia exit polls show voters were overwhelmingly interested about the economy. Same concern, different result. Despite campaign appearances by the President, Democrats lost gubernatorial races in those two states and voters who had supported the President just a year ago, well, they still like him but they abandoned him in droves.

Williams opened the NBC Nightly News:

A year ago we were talking about a sea change in American politics. Tonight we're reporting a small change which could also be an ominous development for the-year-old Obama administration. Republicans were elected governor last night in two important states. But other than preferring both candidates to the Democrats, were voters across the country last night trying to say something else? There is evidence of an angry electorate out there.

The CBS Evening News didn't get to the off-year elections until about 20 minutes into the program. An excerpt:

BOB SCHIEFFER: I think what we saw last night were snap shots. I don't think we saw predictors. I mean, in Virginia, Obama won Virginia because he carried the urban/suburban vote in Northern Virginia, the suburbs around Washington and he got a big African-American turnout. So what did the Democrats do? They run someone for Governor who is a rural candidate who's little known in Northern Virginia and who could not seem to connect with the African-American voters. So he got beat and he got beat bad. Most people thought that was going to happen and it did.

And in New Jersey, Corzine, the Governor, was just so unpopular that I think he just didn't have a chance from the get-go. So I think these were races about New Jersey and Virginia. I don't think they told us much except that people are very frustrated out in the country. The economy is bad and when the economy is bad, that is never good for the party in power.

KATIE COURIC: One of the surprising results last night was the victory in the 23rd congressional district in upstate New York of a Democrat. The Republicans had held that seat for, what, a hundred years? Is this a cautionary tale for the national GOP, Jeff, in a way?

JEFF GREENFIELD: It might be. It's a unique event because it was local Republican leaders who picked a candidate that was just too liberal on social and some economic issues far lot of conservatives. Then you had a stream of Republicans-- not just conservatives but people like former New York Governor Pataki, endorsing the Conservative Party candidate, I think,  to get their bona fides and that split their vote and a Democrat walked in. I think it may be a little cautionary in terms of those conservatives who are anxious to challenge Republicans they regard as too moderate or too liberal.

Shortly before the polls closed, CBS's chief Washington correspondent, Bob Schieffer, rejected any effort to tie President Barack Obama to two the Democratic gubernatorial candidates for whom Obama campaigned, insisting on Tuesday's CBS Evening News that the contests were more about local issues and so “I don't think they had much to do with anything but New Jersey and Virginia.”

Citing the special congressional race in New York, Schieffer rued “this third-party conservative who literally pushed a moderate Republican out of the race,” and proceeded to analogize Republicans this year to leftist activists who in 1972 pushed Democrats to pick an un-electable presidential candidate:

The Republican Party is really split and it is the conservatives who seem to have the juice right now. It's very much like what Democrats went through in 1972. The party activists on the left were so upset with mainstream candidates that in an effort to purify their party they pushed it so far to the left that they nominated the very liberal George McGovern for President. Now it's conservative Republicans who are upset with their mainstream candidates. They want to push the party to the right.

As if Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman is any less mainstream than the liberal Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, who suspended her campaign over the weekend.

Fill-in anchor Harry Smith had asked Schieffer: “So many would love to tie President Obama's fortunes to these elections, these governor elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Is that valid?” Seemingly presuming the Republican will win in both states, Schieffer tried to separate Obama from the two potential losses:

I don't know about that. I mean, he campaigned in both states for the Democrats, but I'm not one who thinks that local candidates are ever helped out much by a national candidate who comes in. These two races -- in both Virginia and New Jersey -- were so much about local issues, about property taxes, about the economy, that I don't think they had much to do with anything but New Jersey and Virginia, quite frankly.

From the 6:30 PM EST edition of the Tuesday, November 3 CBS Evening News:

HARRY SMITH: Bob Schieffer is our chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation. Bob, a question for you tonight. So many would love to tie President Obama's fortunes to these elections, these governor elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Is that valid?

BOB SCHIEFFER: I don't know about that. I mean, he campaigned in both states for the Democrats, but I'm not one who thinks that local candidates are ever helped out much by a national candidate who comes in. These two races -- in both Virginia and New Jersey -- were so much about local issues, about property taxes, about the economy, that I don't think they had much to do with anything but New Jersey and Virginia, quite frankly.

SMITH: Well, let's talk about the House race. New York District 23. So much has been set about orthodoxy and the Republican Party. Will this tell us trends in terms of how the Republicans expect to be running in the future?

SCHIEFFER: In this case, I think it will, Harry. This is the most interesting race on the card by far, because what you have is this third-party conservative who literally pushed a moderate Republican out of the race. And she went on to endorse Obama [actually, the Democratic candidate].

The Republican Party is really split and it is the conservatives who seem to have the juice right now. It's very much like what Democrats went through in 1972. The party activists on the left were so upset with mainstream candidates that in an effort to purify their party they pushed it so far to the left that they nominated the very liberal George McGovern for President. Now it's conservative Republicans who are upset with their mainstream candidates. They want to push the party to the right. And if this frustration continues, I think you're going to see more moderates challenged next year in Republican primaries by conservatives.

SMITH: Bob Schieffer, thanks.

While analyzing the off-year elections across the country on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer about the New York 23rd congressional race: “...this notion that an insurgent conservative, orthodox conservative, would come in and really unseat the party’s choice for nominee there...is this a precursor of what might be happening a year from now?”

Schieffer used similar labeling to describe Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman and race’s impact on the GOP: “The Republican Party right now is still split. And I think right now it’s the conservatives who kind of have the juice....there is still no overriding philosophy, as it were, in the Republican Party, you’ve got the hard Right here and you’ve got the more moderate Republicans, right now I think the hard Right is driving the train in the Republican Party.”

Earlier, the two CBS hosts discussed the possibility of Democrats losing both governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia. Schieffer dismissed the idea of such losses being a national referendum on the Democratic Party and President Obama: “I think these are curtain-raisers, Harry. I don’t think they’re going to give us much of an indication of what’s going to happen, you know, in the next presidential election.” Smith agreed: “Yeah, because some people would like to say this is about President Obama’s very, very short coat tails, but it seems that these races are being very much decided on an individual basis.”

On Monday, Smith asked former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney if the NY-23 race would “save or kill the Republican Party.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Americans head to the polls today as some too-close-to-call races have both Democrats and Republicans on edge. We’ll hear what it means for the White House and for you.

7:07AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: Now to politics, it’s election day and there are a number of key races that both parties are keeping a very close eye on today. Joining us now, CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, good morning.

SCHIEFFER: Good morning to you, Harry.

SMITH: Let’s talk about these governor’s races in both New Jersey and Virginia. Do the Democrats there, either of them, the incumbents, do they have a shot?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I think in New Jersey, where it is very, very close, Jon Corzine, who is the very wealthy governor, he comes from Wall Street, of course, before he got into politics. He’s running about dead even. I think there, if Corzine does pull out a victory, it’s not going to be so much because Barack Obama came there to campaign for him, it’s going to be because he, again, poured a lot of his enormous wealth into negative campaign ads against his opponent. That’s won for him before. If he wins, that’ll be the difference this time around.

In Virginia, a much different case. There, the Republican has opened up a very wide lead on the – on the Democrat. In this case, Obama did come to Virginia, of course he carried Virginia the last time, the first Democrat to do that since LBJ. But the Democratic candidate there comes from a rural area and he never really connected with the African-American vote and some of the people from the urban centers and in northern Virginia that carried Obama to victory there. I think it’s going to be – it’s going to be a surprise if the Democrat pulls it out there. But I think these are curtain-raisers, Harry. I don’t think they’re going to give us much of an indication of what’s going to happen, you know, in the next presidential election. They’ll just give us a snapshot of what’s going on right now in two very different states.

SMITH: Yeah, because some people would like to say this is about President Obama’s very, very short coat tails, but it seems that these races are being very much decided on an individual basis. But another one that may be some sort of a precursor about days ahead, let’s talk about New York District 23, this notion that an insurgent conservative, orthodox conservative, would come in and really unseat the party’s choice for nominee there, and have a shot, what do you think, is this a precursor of what might be happening a year from now?

SCHIEFFER: I think what it is, is a snapshot of where the Republican Party is right now. The Republican Party right now is still split. And I think right now it’s the conservatives who kind of have the juice. I mean, they came in there and just pushed out the Republican candidate. You had a lot of out-of-state Republicans that came in and endorsed the conservative candidate who was on the ballot and forced the Republican to – to withdraw from the race. What this tells you is, as there is still no overriding philosophy, as it were, in the Republican Party, you’ve got the hard Right here and you’ve got the more moderate Republicans, right now I think the hard Right is driving the train in the Republican Party. And I think this is the snapshot of where all that is right now, a very interesting development there.

SMITH: Alright, Bob Schieffer, good to see you this morning. Thanks so much for your time.

SCHIEFFER: You bet. Okay.

Rush Limbaugh's tough criticisms of President Barack Obama on Fox News Sunday “broke” the White House's truce with Fox News, Bob Schieffer suggested during an interview with Obama's Senior Adviser, David Axelrod, on Face the Nation.

After playing a clip of Limbaugh dismissing as “a photo-op” Obama's trip to Dover Air Force Base to witness returning casualties from Afghanistan and quoting Limbaugh's characterizations of Obama as “narcissistic,” “immature, inexperienced” and “in over his head,” Schieffer, seemingly referring to Limbaugh's remarks -- or, at least the decision by Fox News to feature Limbaugh on its Sunday interview show -- forwarded:

Last week your man Robert Gibbs met with the folks at Fox News, declared a truce in this war you've been having with them. Was the truce broken this morning?

Axelrod insisted: “We're not at war with anyone. We're at war only with people who represent mistruths...”

Audio: MP3 clip that matches the video.

Schieffer's exchanges about Limbaugh, with Axelrod, on the Sunday, November 1 Face the Nation:

BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, Mr. Axelrod. Last week when casualties in Afghanistan hit a new high, President Obama went to Dover Air Force base to take part in a ceremony honoring the return of some of those who've been killed there. Well, this morning on Fox News Rush Limbaugh had this to say about that.

RUSH LIMBAUGH, ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY: It was a photo-op. It was a photo-op precisely because he's having big-time trouble on this whole Afghanistan dithering situation. He found one family that would allow photos to be taken. None of the others did. And of course when you have a sycophantic media following you around, able to promote and amplify whatever you want, then he can create the impression that he has all this great concern.

SCHIEFFER TO AXELROD: So what's your reaction to that?

DAVID AXELROD: My reaction is that I think that the President of the United States went to Dover to represent the American people and pay his respects to the families who had made so much of a sacrifice to those brave service people who made the ultimate sacrifice. It was the appropriate thing to do. And I think most Americans appreciate that.

SCHIEFFER: On this broadcast back in March the White House Chief-of-Staff said this about Rush Limbaugh. He said “he is the voice, the intellectual voice and the energy behind the Republican Party.” Do you believe that what he said today-- and we'll have some more quotes from him here -- represents what the Republican Party believes?

AXELROD: I don't know. That's for the Republican Party to decide. I think we've seen an interesting development over this weekend in a special election up in upstate New York in a congressional district. The Republican candidate withdrew because of the strong third-party movement behind a very right wing conservative. And certainly Mr. Limbaugh and others were behind that. And I think it sends a clear message to moderates within that party that there's no room at the inn for them and that's why you see Republican identification in polls at a historic low. So that may be where the energy is in the Republican Party, but it's certainly not a view on which you can build a majority party.

SCHIEFFER: One of the things he said today was that the President is “narcissistic,” “immature, inexperienced” and “in over his head.” Reaction?

AXELROD: Well, I think it's a surreal day when you're getting lectures on humility from Rush Limbaugh. And I'm not going to respond to that. The fact is that he is an entertainer. The President has to run the country. He's the commander in chief. He has huge responsibilities. I think he does them thoughtfully, he does them well and they're difficult problems. We walked into a difficult situation. I think he's handling it very, very well and most people believe that. So, we'll let Mr. Limbaugh fulminate, but I think the American people are well served and believe they're well served.

SCHIEFFER: I want to go to other things, but let me ask you one final question. Last week your man Robert Gibbs met with the folks at Fox News, declared a truce in this war you've been having with them. Was the truce broken this morning?

AXELROD: Look, I'm not – first of all, let me dispel something. We're not at war with anyone. We're at war only with people who represent mistruths as truth and that's true of any network whether it's Fox, CBS or any other network. When errors of fact are stated or when opinion is offered as fact, we will challenge that, and that will be our policy going forward and the American people deserve that. We have to do that for the sake of the administration. But we're not at war with anyone and certainly it's no surprise that Rush Limbaugh espouses the views that he espouses. He does it every day on radio. He's marketing the outrageous and he does very well with it. But as I said he's an entertainer. We've got bigger responsibilities and we're going to discharge those responsibilities.

CBSNews.com video of the entire Limbaugh portion of the Axelrod interview.

Showing that the media sees every act by the Obamas as an historic achievement, at the end of Sunday’s Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer was amazed by the romping of First Lady Michelle Obama: “Michelle Obama took it to another level as she set records as the first First Lady to run barefoot across the White House lawn. She also became the first to jump rope there.”

Schieffer began his pointless rambling by looking at how past first ladies, all wives of Democratic presidents, shaped the position:

There was a time when presidential wives were seen on occasion but almost never heard and that’s too bad, some of them had a lot to say. But along came Eleanor Roosevelt and she changed the job description. She was heard a lot and created her own following. Jackie Kennedy brought some glamor to the job. And Hillary Clinton, well, the Clintons used to talk about two for the price of one and people are still talking about whether that was such a good idea.

After explaining how Mrs. Obama “took it to another level,” Schieffer praised her efforts as example to the rest of us: “But whatever her skills at jumping rope, she performed a mean hula hoop. And the kids loved it and it was just a reminder to all us grown-ups that whatever our jobs, it never hurts every once in a while to kick off your shoes and just have a little fun.”