Category Archives: CBS

To shack up or not to shack up?

It seems like every year a new study on the consequences of living together before marriage negates everything that had been said about it the year before. Cohabitation increases divorce - no, wait! It makes your marriage last longer - no! It only lasts longer if you were engaged before you cohabited ... It's a never-ending argument that keeps the presses happily rolling along.

On March 9, CBS' the Early Show joined the fray by inviting Hannah Silegson, author of "A Little Bit Married," to cite yet another "new study" that claims "if you only live with one person before you get married, you'll have a no higher chance of getting divorced."

CBS' Harry Smith introduced Silegson's book as a "cautionary tale," saying that "playing house" could be a "losing game," but the criticism of cohabitating ends there. Silegson and three other pro-cohabiting panelists discussed living together as "the new romantic right of passage."

"You want to try before you buy," Silegson told Smith.

"I think you actually need to move in with each other before you get engaged, before you get married because it's such a big commitment and you want the next 50, 60 years of your life to work out nicely together," said panelist Chris Edmund.

Edmund's soon-to-be cohabiting girlfriend called living together a "trial period before engagement" and  a "bridge to marriage." Silegson agreed with her, citing a new study that says you'll be at no greater risk of divorce if you only live with one person before getting married. This contradicts past studies that found that cohabiting leads down a fateful path to divorce.

Silegson was probably referring to a study conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics that was released last week. It claims that cohabiting has little effect on marriage success - success being defined as "not getting divorced."

But is "not getting divorced" the best measuring stick to determine a successful marriage?

While divorce statistics give the media a nice round number to flash on their screens, separating happy marriages from the unhappy doesn't boil down so easily. Many studies, for example, have shown that, while cohabiting before marriage may not lead to divorce, it also doesn't end with a "happily ever after" either.

A 2005 article published in Psychology Today titled "The Perils of Playing House" found that those who cohabited before getting married had "poorer-quality marriages."

"Those who cohabited first report less satisfaction, more arguing, poorer communication and lower levels of commitment," wrote the author Nancy Wartik.

A compilation of studies gathered by Focus on the Family also report that cohabitation increases the risk of domestic violence for women and physical and sexual abuse for children. A 2005 article co-authored by Scott M. Stanley, author of "The Power of Commitment: A Guide to Active, Lifelong Love," found that couples who lived together before marriage were more likely to cheat, and a 2006 study conducted by the Alabama Policy Institute found that couples who cohabited before tying the knot were more likely to hit or throw things during arguments, considered their relationship more likely to end, and reported higher levels of depression than couples who did not live together before marriage.

How could something that sounds so sensible as a "trial run" be so damaging? There's been a few hypotheses but the most likely is the inertia theory. As Nancy Wartik explained in herPsychology Today article, going from living together to married can happen "almost by accident."

"We move in together, we get comfortable, and pretty soon marriage starts to seem like the path of least resistance. Even if the relationship is only tolerable, the next stage starts to seem inevitable," she wrote. " Because we have different standards for living partners than for life partners, we may end up married to someone we never would have originally considered for the long haul."

Neither Silegson nor any of the panelists during CBS' interview mentioned these possible consequences of cohabitation. Maybe living together doesn't increase the chances of divorce (a new study next year will probably refute everything anyway), but perhaps "not getting divorced" shouldn't determine a marriage's success either.

Brent Baker recounted how CBS Evening News spotlighted fifth-grade protester Marcelas Owens on Tuesday night. David Shuster interviewed him on MSNBC on Tuesday morning. What neither network shared with the viewer is how Marcelas has become a constant talking point for his home-state Democrat Sen. Patty Murray, and how he is a spokesman for a liberal lobby, the Washington Community Action Network.

On February 26, Les Blumenthal of The Olympian reported Murray shared the Marcelas talking point at the White House health care summit:

"Sen. Patty Murray has told the story of Marcelas Owens dozens of times before, but Thursday she may never have had a bigger audience as she talked of the 10-year-old Seattle boy whose mother died after she lost her health insurance coverage."

...Marcelas, in a statement released by the Washington Community Action Network, thanked Murray for sharing his story with the president.

"I lost my mom because she didn’t have health care," Marcelas said. "Every day it’s hard not having her around. I don’t want any other kid to go through what I have gone through."

Senator Murray’s campaign website had a fuller version of the statement:

Marcelas Owens, whose entire family have been longtime members of the Washington Community Action Network, issued the following statement today thanking Senator Murray for her leadership:

"I want to thank Senator Murray for sharing my story with President Obama and other people in Congress. I lost my mom because she didn't have health care. Every day it's hard not having her around. I don't want any other kid to have to go through what I went through. That's why I don't understand why some politicians are saying that Congress should stop working to pass the health care reform bill. Every day we wait, more kids like me will lose someone they love. Thank you for fighting for me, Senator Murray."

Clearly, a ten-year-old boy who lost his mother is a heart-tugging anecdote. But, aside from the desirability of using grade-schoolers in political debates, more knowledge about how organized this Marcelas campaign is displays that CBS and MSNBC are receptive recyclers of liberal Democrat video-press-release ideas.

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show co-host Harry Smith underwent a live colonoscopy in order to raise awareness of colon cancer. Hosting the momentous occasion was CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, who dressed the part, wearing green scrubs, a white lab coat, and a stethoscope around her neck as if she was a medical doctor.

Couric famously taped herself undergoing the same procedure in 2000, while still co-host of NBC's Today, in the wake of her husband, Jay Monahan, dying of colon cancer in 1998.  

In the Early Show segment, Couric stood by Smith's bedside as they discussed the procedure and later dressed in full surgical garb as the colonoscopy was being performed.

Co-host Maggie Rodriguez led the coverage by touting the "Couric effect" of Americans getting colonoscopies in wake of Couric's televised exam and hoped for a similar "Smith effect."

See more photos of Couric playing doctor after the jump.

Couric later referred to her outfit, remarking that she and Smith were "totally playing the part":

She even seemed to be assisting the actual doctor in examining Smith's colon:

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.

In a clear sign liberal media elites are growing weary of the White House, comedian David Letterman went after President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel Tuesday evening.

During the "Top Ten" segment of the "Late Show," Letterman counted down the signs that Emanuel is nuts.

Before beginning the list, Letterman explained with shocking detail that this was precipitated by Rep. Eric Massa's (D-N.Y.) assertion that Emanuel once cornered him in the Congressional shower room wearing nothing but an evil grimace.

Maybe most surprising, Letterman managed to lampoon the COS without once referencing to Sarah Palin (video embedded below the fold with transcribed list, h/t Story Balloon):

10. Every morning takes a leak off the Truman balcony
9.  President Obama smokes cigarettes; Rahm eats them
8.  Spotted today at Toyota dealership
7.  He's leaving Obama to become a special advisor to Richard Nixon
6.  In a fit of rage, he snapped Dennis Kucinich in half
5.  Changing his name to Rahm Emanuel Lewis
4.  Refers to every cabinet official as "Clarkie"
3.  Recently got into heated policy debate with his stapler
2.  You mean, besides walking around D.C. naked?
1.  Even Andy Dick is telling him to chill  

Following "Saturday Night Live's" pointed attack on the Administration this weekend, it appears broadcast network comedians and their writers are finally beginning to feel comfortable going after this White House. 

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.

My boss, Brent Bozell, told me that (in his opinion) Dan Rather is not a racist, but let's not consider his recent faux pas about Barack Obama and his failure to get the health care bill passed as an isolated incident.

It was not.

On Sunday, March 7th, Dan Rather said the following about the president…

"Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate…"

When Rather got to "articulate", I knew we had trouble brewing.

"… this is what's been used against him, but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."

It's also clear that Chris Matthews knew this would end bloody when he attempted to cut Rather off and stave off any further damage. I initially thought Matthews' failure to post the segment (including what could be considered a racial slur against the President of the United States) an oversight, until I remembered that Chris Matthews forgot Barack Obama was black.

My bad.

With all due respect Mr. Bozell, who assured me Rather was no racist, Dan does have a history of making what some have considered insensitive statements.

In 2001 during the whole Democratic Congressman Gary Condit/missing intern Chandra Levy thing, Dan Rather was kind of upset that his network, CBS, succumbed to public pressure (a sin they wouldn't repeat with John Edwards) and forced him to report a scandal he selectively sat on for two months.

During an interview with Don Imus, Rather said…

"What happened was they (CBS management) got the willies, they got the Buckwheats. Their knees wobbled and we gave it up."

Granted, there are many definitions of the term "buckwheats" ranging from inflicting a slow and painful death to a racial slur named after the Little Rascals character.

Whatever the motivation for both events, Rather may not be a racist, but if not, we must question his competence in the art of the ad lib. As a celebrated, seasoned news professional, one would have to ask Dan after he made those remarks, "What were ya thinkin'?"

I look at it this way: Would Dan Rather have made either of those comments on Black Entertainment Television or addressing an NAACP Convention? I think not.

For Dan Rather to make those comments when he did implies that he felt safe in the company he was in, which may also say something about Chris Matthews and those guests (but that's a subject for another day).

To state the obvious, had any white conservative said the same thing, instead of omitting the segment's posting on his website, Chris Matthews would've been screaming how that conservative's words are representative of the thinking of the GOP and any less than a firing and lifetime societal banishment would be too little, too late.

In typical liberal media fashion, they feel if THEY ignore it, it will all go away. The problem is the New Media doesn't observe their protocol, so THEY did and it won't. However Chris Matthews will continue to use black people for partisan gain and Dan Rather will not lose what little job he has left.

I'm personally tired of this topic because it always ends the same way. If anything, it defines why there will continue to be a racial divide in America. Racism will never be eradicated when one side can, and will always, excuse the indiscretions of their own.

My boss, Brent Bozell, told me that (in his opinion) Dan Rather is not a racist, but let's not consider his recent faux pas about Barack Obama and his failure to get the health care bill passed as an isolated incident.

It was not.

On Sunday, March 7th, Dan Rather said the following about the president…

"Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate…"

When Rather got to "articulate", I knew we had trouble brewing.

"… this is what's been used against him, but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."

It's also clear that Chris Matthews knew this would end bloody when he attempted to cut Rather off and stave off any further damage. I initially thought Matthews' failure to post the segment (including what could be considered a racial slur against the President of the United States) an oversight, until I remembered that Chris Matthews forgot Barack Obama was black.

My bad.

With all due respect Mr. Bozell, who assured me Rather was no racist, Dan does have a history of making what some have considered insensitive statements.

In 2001 during the whole Democratic Congressman Gary Condit/missing intern Chandra Levy thing, Dan Rather was kind of upset that his network, CBS, succumbed to public pressure (a sin they wouldn't repeat with John Edwards) and forced him to report a scandal he selectively sat on for two months.

During an interview with Don Imus, Rather said…

"What happened was they (CBS management) got the willies, they got the Buckwheats. Their knees wobbled and we gave it up."

Granted, there are many definitions of the term "buckwheats" ranging from inflicting a slow and painful death to a racial slur named after the Little Rascals character.

Whatever the motivation for both events, Rather may not be a racist, but if not, we must question his competence in the art of the ad lib. As a celebrated, seasoned news professional, one would have to ask Dan after he made those remarks, "What were ya thinkin'?"

I look at it this way: Would Dan Rather have made either of those comments on Black Entertainment Television or addressing an NAACP Convention? I think not.

For Dan Rather to make those comments when he did implies that he felt safe in the company he was in, which may also say something about Chris Matthews and those guests (but that's a subject for another day).

To state the obvious, had any white conservative said the same thing, instead of omitting the segment's posting on his website, Chris Matthews would've been screaming how that conservative's words are representative of the thinking of the GOP and any less than a firing and lifetime societal banishment would be too little, too late.

In typical liberal media fashion, they feel if THEY ignore it, it will all go away. The problem is the New Media doesn't observe their protocol, so THEY did and it won't. However Chris Matthews will continue to use black people for partisan gain and Dan Rather will not lose what little job he has left.

I'm personally tired of this topic because it always ends the same way. If anything, it defines why there will continue to be a racial divide in America. Racism will never be eradicated when one side can, and will always, excuse the indiscretions of their own.

Near the end of Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Erica Hill touted a new Parade magazine survey on volunteerism in America: "it indicates America is in the midst of what some are calling a compassion boom." Moments later, the magazine's contributing editor, Emily Listfield, argued: "There's something we call the 'Obama Effect.' People are responding to the President's call to service."

Interestingly, the Parade article made no mention of an "Obama Effect" in explaining why people are volunteering more. Apparently Listfield only felt the need to make that observation when appearing on CBS.

Hill set up Listfield's explanation by noting: "91% in the survey said community service, their community service involvement has gone up over the past 18 months." Hill then asked: "Why are you seeing that increase, and where are you seeing it the most?" A headline on screen read: "Compassion Counts; America's New Volunteering Boom."

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.

On this past Tuesday’s episode of The Good Wife on CBS, viewers were treated to a scene in which a ballistics expert opens a gift, from a partner of a law firm, to find a book about Sarah Palin made up of, he discovers by thumbing through it, blank pages “satirically representing,” Amazon.com explains, “the mind and thinking of Sarah Palin.” The book, ‘Going Rouge: A Candid Look Inside the Mind of Political Conservative Sarah Palin.’

In the March 2 episode, Chicago law firm partner “Diane Lockhart,” played by Christine Baranski, engages the ballistics expert to help her with a murder trial. In her office, he notices a picture, on her credenza, of her with Hillary Clinton. Visiting him at his home office on a farm, she notices on his credenza a photo of him next to Palin: “Is that photo-shopped? You and the Barracuda?” He doesn’t deny he “photo-shopped” it: “No, she’s at a pro-life rally.”  
 
After his testimony exonerates her client, he sends her a gift in a box: Sarah Palin’s biography: Going Rogue, promptly her to chuckle. In return – the scene in the accompanying video clip – he sends her the book ridiculing Palin. He opens the box, picks up the book and discovers all its pages are blank.

Amazon’s description of the book:

This is a novelty book. The reader opens the book to find no text, just blank pages. The book contains no text. The book contains only blank pages. A parody of one of America's best known political figures, demonstrated by symbolic blank sheets, satirically representing the mind and thinking of Sarah Palin. Give this book as a useful gift while making a clever and amusing political statement.

CBS’s synopsis of the program which airs Tuesday nights at 10 PM EST/PST, 9 PM CST:

THE GOOD WIFE is a drama starring Emmy Award winner Julianna Margulies as a wife and mother who boldly assumes full responsibility for her family and re-enters the workforce after her husband's very public sex and political corruption scandal lands him in jail. Pushing aside the betrayal and public humiliation caused by her husband, Peter, Alicia Florrick starts over by pursuing her original career as a defense attorney.

As a junior associate at a prestigious Chicago law firm, she joins her longtime friend, former law school classmate and firm partner Will Gardner, who is interested to see how Alicia will perform after 13 years out of the courtroom. Alicia is grateful the firm's top litigator, Diane Lockhart, offers to mentor her but discovers the offer has conditions and realizes she's going to need to succeed on her own merit....

I'm not sure which is worse: Sean Penn hoping his critics die screaming of rectal cancer, or CBS News's Lara Logan finding that funny.

As NewsBusters previously reported, CBSNews.com on Friday posted a preview of an interview to be broadcast on "Sunday Morning."

In it, Logan asked Penn, "Does it make you angry when people talk about, you know, 'Sean Penn, the Hollywood star, the movie star, coming in and trying to do something,' and they're kind of cynical about it?"

Penn arrogantly answered, "You know, do I hope that those people die screaming of rectal cancer? Yeah" (video embedded below the fold with transcript):

Watch CBS News Videos Online

LARA LOGAN: Does it make you angry when people talk about, you know, 'Sean Penn, the Hollywood star, the movie star, coming in and trying to do something,' and they're kind of cynical about it?

SEAN PENN: No.

LOGAN: Do you hate that question?

PENN: No. I guess I've been so away from it all, [in] our tent camp in Haiti, that I haven't had an awful lot of time to pay attention to them. You know, do I hope that those people die screaming of rectal cancer? Yeah, you know, but I'm not going to spend a lot of energy on it.

Isn't that a special treat for your Sunday morning?

I mean, it's bad enough CBS actually thinks viewers are interested in what this pompous buffoon has to say about anything.

But wouldn't it be wise of them to edit out this segment when he's wishing his critics would die, and one of their high-profile reporters is laughing after he says it?

Of course, if they were at all embarrassed about the disgusting behavior on display, CBSNews.com wouldn't have previewed the exchange at its website. 

Well, CBS - I'm one of Sean Penn's critics. Do you want ME to die screaming of rectal cancer?

Somehow I imagine not liking the answer. 

March is Women's History Month, in which we acknowledge the accomplishments and contributions of women in history and in society today.

But for a select group of women - conservative women - their accomplishments and contributions are rarely celebrated but often demeaned and mocked in sexist - and crassly sexual - ways.

The Culture & Media Insitute looked back at what the media had to say over the past year about some of today's most prominent conservative women, including Michelle Malkin, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Sarah Palin and Liz Cheney, and compiled a list of the 10 worst attacks on these women who dare to speak out in favor of conservative values.

Much of the criticism was the worst sort of misogyny with a dose of violence and disgusting adolescent sex references thrown in for good measure. The media outlets in question ranged from Playboy magazine to MSNBC to Sirius XM radio and included comments from both men and women.

The message that rang through loud and clear was that perspectives from conservative women were not appreciated or welcomed, and if a woman stepped out of line, she deserved whatever treatment she received.

Here is the top 10:

1. Playboy's Hate List

Playboy magazine writer Guy Cimbalo released his list of top ten conservative women against whom he'd like to commit violent sexual acts last June. Calling these acts a "hate f---" in his "So Right It's Wrong" article, Cimbalo explained that he "might despise everything" about women like Michelle Malkin, Fox News's Megyn Kelly, "The View's" Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Mary Katherine Ham  and Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann, "but g--dammit, they're hot!"

Cimbalo listed the physical attributes of each woman along with short explanations of why a self-respecting liberal male shouldn't be attracted to them. A "hate-f--- rating," presumably to tell others just how good the sex would be, accompanied each listing as well.

Hasselbeck was described as "the clean-cut American sweetheart who elicits our filthiest thoughts." Cimbalo labeled Bachmann the "lusty congresswoman from the Twin Cities who's got some great twins of her own." 

As for the rating each woman received, they ranged from "chemical castration would begin to sound more appealing" to "you get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant."

Cimbalo's list was a disgusting example of low the media will stoop to malign conservative women. And it caused such a firestorm that Playboy removed it from its Web site.

2. Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi Uses Graphic Sexual Language to Discredit Michelle Malkin and the Tea Party Movement

In a Tax Day 2009 blog post, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi claimed he was "really enjoying this whole teabag thing" and that "it's really inspiring some excellent daydreaming."

Taibbi let his readers in on the nature of his daydreams that involve conservative pundit Michelle Malkin in incredibly vulgar ways.

"[T]his move of hers to spearhead the teabag movement really adds an element to her writing that wasn't there before," he wrote. "Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy, set of b---- in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose."

Nothing brings out liberals' inner juvenile thug like an outspoken conservative woman.

3. U.S News and World Report's Bonnie Erbe Takes Issue with Playboy List - Except for Inclusion of Michelle Malkin

It's bad enough that liberal men don't hesitate to speak of women in offensive, sexualized terms, but it's beyond outrageous when a woman claims they deserved it.

But that's just what U.S. News and World Report's Bonnie Erbe did in the wake of the Playboy "hate f---" list.

"I'm also a firm believer in supporting all members of my gender when attacked due to their gender. I am supporting these women herewith," Erbe maintained before noting that her "support" carried limits.

Erbe continued, "I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her ‘routine' are so venomous and predictable in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago."

Malkin struck back at Erbe and explained the true meaning behind Erbe's words.

"Translation: It's not okay to talk about "hatef**king" conservative women...unless they are rowdy, incivil conservative women who don't behave nicely enough to be on my obscure PBS show," wrote Malkin. "In which case, they deserve all the vulgar misogynist attacks they get!"

4. Keith Olbermann Compares Michelle Malkin to a ‘Mashed-Up Bag of Meat With Lipstick on it"

MSNBC personalities reserve a special level of vitriol for conservative woman, and none more so than Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann compared Michelle Malkin to a "big, mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it" during his Oct. 13 "Countdown" show because he believed she encouraged death threats made to a woman who posted a video of singing their praises to President Barack Obama.

"She received death threats and hate-filled voicemails all thanks to the total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk fascistic hatred, without with Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it," Olbermann stated.

Olbermann's comments were deemed offensive enough to warrant a response from editor Megan Carpentier, an editor at liberal and now-defunct Air America Radio.

"A liberal, progressive critique of Malkin need not and should not resort to an attack on her looks or her gender or rely on silly stereotypes or imagery that brings to mind victims of domestic violence," wrote Carpentier.

You know Olbermann went too far when even liberals are calling him out on his remarks.

5. Comedian Chuck Nice Compares Sarah Palin to Herpes

Sarah Palin is no stranger to negative media attention, but comparing her to a sexually transmitted disease takes the criticisms over the line.

During a June 9 discussion on NBC's "Today" show about Palin's role in the GOP, comedian Chuck Nice told his co-panelists, NBC's chief legal analyst Dan Abrams and Politco's White House reporter Nia-Malika Henderson, "But, Sarah Palin to the GOP, this is what I've got to say, she is very much like herpes, she's not going away."

Abrams simply responded, "That's the advantage of being Chuck Nice. You can say that and there's no repercussions." Henderson did not respond. Before hosts Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb moved on to other topics, Nice informed viewers, "Everybody is laughing. I don't care. The band is cracking up."

Unfortunately, that's the typical response when it comes to insulting conservative woman.

 6. Toronto Star Columnist Tweets a Death Wish for Michelle Malkin

 Unfortunately, as Erbe proved, it's not only liberal men who have it out for conservative women. Antonia Zerbisias is another one.

The Toronto Star columnist expressed deep hatred for Michelle Malkin in an April 2009 Twitter message that read, "Forget the Marxists, I wish the marksmen would take @MichelleMalkin. I'm thinking Dick Cheney. He's such a good shot."

Apparently Zerbisias's employer is okay with these types of remarks, as evidenced by her bio at the Star.

"Antonia Zerbisias, columnist for the Toronto Star's Living section, has been telling people what she thinks ever since she could open her mouth," the bio said. "Her opinionating career dates back to Grade 9 when a cartoon commentary on a teacher resulted in her suspension from high school. The principal sent her home with a note calling her ‘rude, obstreperous and bold.' Her parents were neither amused, nor surprised. Once she was punished for being that way. Now she makes it pay."

7. Sarah Palin = Vice-President Barbie?

ABC reporter David Wright couldn't keep himself from comparing Sarah Palin to Barbie during his Feb. 16 "Nightline" segment on the doll's 50^th birthday.

"[Barbie's] been an astronaut and a rock star. Pop icons Beyonce and Shakira. She's won 'American Idol' too," he began. "Some would argue she also ran for vice-president in 2008," quipped Wright, after showing various clips of Palin.

"Caribou Barbie" was a characterization many in the media used to deride Palin throughout the 2008 election. Wright's attack on the former Alaskan governor in a segment that had nothing to do with politics and aired three months after the election, illustrated that the media weren't planning to back off sexist comments about Palin anytime soon.

8. Rosie O'Donnell ‘Humanized' Conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck

Apparently to Rosie O'Donnell, conservative women are less than human.

The former "View" moderator outlined how she tried to "humanize" her former colleague, Elisabeth Hasselbeck during the Feb. 8 broadcast of her Sirius XM radio show, "Rosie Radio." O'Donnell's comments stemmed from a discussion about the conservative backlash to her recent HBO documentary about families, "A Family is a Family is a Family."

"It's sort of what I thought about Elisabeth Hasselbeck, too. I'm going to love her, regardless of what she says, I'm gonna love her and the love, then, is going to win through in the end," O'Donnell explained to her current colleagues. "I was positive of this, and we sort of started to humanize her. Remember, after she came to my house, she actually said on television how she thought our family was so great? Can you imagine the amount of hate mail she got from her constituency?"

9. David Letterman's "Top Ten" List of Sarah Palin Insults

Late night talk show host David Letterman couldn't let an opportunity to go by without trashing Sarah Palin during his June 8 show.

The usual "jokes" about Palin's intellect appeared on Letterman's "Top Ten Highlights of Sarah Palin's Trip to New York," alongside a knock on her looks. "Number Two: Bought make-up from Bloomingdale's to update her ‘slutty flight attendant look," read the comedian.

Then he went further, with a crude joke about her 14-year-old daughter being impregnated at Yankee Stadium. Letterman eventually was forced to apologize for that joke, but not carrying on the tradition of painting Palin as a complete bimbo, not a governor or a former vice-presidential candidate.

10. Liz Cheney, Daddy's Little Girl?

MSNBC and liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz labeled Liz Cheney, daughter of former vice-president Dick Cheney, nothing more than a daddy's girl during his Sept. 29 MSNBC program, "The Ed Show."

"There's a couple of gals who've been riding the wave of crazy that's been sweeping the nation's right-wingers: ‘Shooter's little girl, Liz Cheney, has been hitting the lecture circuit, parroting daddy's fear-mongering rhetoric," stated Schultz.

Of course, Liz Cheney is no simple "daddy's girl." She holds a law degree from the University of Chicago, and served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. 

A liberal woman with the same qualifications as Cheney would never be categorized as a "daddy's girl" but as an empowered woman in her own right.

 

Introducing a story on the latest effort pass health care reform on Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez proclaimed: "This morning President Obama is putting health care reform on the fast-track, declaring that it's year-long journey must be completed in Congress quickly."

At the top of the show, co-host Harry Smith had similarly declared: "President Obama says the health care debate is over. He wants a reform bill on his desk in the next few weeks." A Headline on screen read: "Health Care Fast-Track."

White House correspondent Bill Plante reported on the so-called "fast-track" plan: "The President yesterday rejected Republican calls to start over, saying that it is time to make a decision on health care....he made it clear that he's willing to get this done with a legislative maneuver requiring no Republican support." At the end of his report, Plante acknowledged things weren't quite so simple: "this is by no means a done deal....Republicans united in opposition, Democrats wavering because of elections this fall."

Following Plante's report, Rodriguez interviewed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and challenged the notion that Democrats could pass the massive legislation so quickly: "a lot of people think that the President is dreaming if he thinks he's going to get this done as quickly as he hopes. When do you think we will see a bill on the President's desk?"

Sebelius responded by arguing: "I think the urgency...really deals with what's happening to the American people....We need to move ahead." Rodriguez again questioned the ability to push through the controversial bill: "I understand that you think it's urgent, but the fact remains that 52% of Americans don't support this, according to the latest poll. You have no Republican support. Even some Democrats are wavering on this. How will the President get all of the support that he needs to get this done?"

In part, Sebelius replied by attacking the GOP: "Republicans...are perfectly comfortable to let the practice go along that says insurance companies can lock people out if you have a pre-existing condition, or if your kid has a pre-existing condition, you shouldn't be in the insurance pool. And the President and the health reform measure says that's just wrong. We need to change those rules."

Rodriguez returned to her original question and continued to press the HHS secretary: "Let me go back to the beginning and try to get a quick prediction from you. Can you can give me a date or a time frame when you think this will be on the President's desk?"

Here is a full transcript of Plante's report:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: President Obama says the health care debate is over. He wants a reform bill on his desk in the next few weeks. Does he have the votes from fellow Democrats?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Health Care Fast-Track]

7:06AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: This morning President Obama is putting health care reform on the fast track, declaring that it's year-long journey must be completed in Congress quickly. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has the latest this morning. Good morning, Bill.

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Maggie. The President yesterday rejected Republican calls to start over, saying that it is time to make a decision on health care.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Health Care Battle; President Wants Legislation On Desk In Weeks]

BARACK OBAMA: Not just for the past year, but for decades.

PLANTE: The President's plan includes some Republican ideas like grants for malpractice reform and expansion of health savings accounts. But he made it clear that he's willing to get this done with a legislative maneuver requiring no Republican support.

OBAMA: Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform.

PLANTE: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell promised to make that an issue in November.

MITCH MCCONNELL: The administration and the majority are very arrogant about this.

PLANTE: Political analyst Reid Wilson agrees that the vote could hurt Democrats, but says that what they really need is an end to the health care battle.

REID WILSON [EDITOR, HOTLINE ON CALL]: The bottom line calculation, though, is that they just need to get this thing done and they just need to get it passed and that will be the best possible outcome for this, even though it's still not a very good one.

PLANTE: But this is by no means a done deal. There are a lot of Republicans and Democrats in the House, Republicans united in opposition, Democrats wavering because of elections this fall. The President will go out and start campaigning for this next week. Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Bill Plante at the White House this morning. Thank you, Bill.

“Despite persistent violence and a critical election coming up, President Obama hardly ever mentions the war in Iraq,” Joseph Curl reports in today’s Washington Times, and the news media are largely aiding in this neglect. Curl discloses that “the last time a White House reporter asked about the Iraq war was June 26,” while ABC, CBS and NBC aired just 80 minutes of coverage in all of 2009.

The near-media blackout means that the success of President Bush’s “surge” policy in 2007 — a policy opposed by President Obama and Vice President Biden when both were presidential candidates and ridiculed by the networks as a "Lost Cause" — has gone virtually unreported in the past year. This week’s Newsweek is an exception, with a big Iraq War cover story declaring “Victory at Last.”

According to Newsweek’s Babak Dehghanpisheh, John Barry  and Christopher Dickey: “It has to be said and it should be understood – now, almost seven hellish years later -- that something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East."

Curl documents the lack of media interest in a war in which nearly 100,000 U.S. troops continue to serve:

The White House press corps hasn't asked Mr. Obama about the Iraq war in months. The president was last asked about the conflict on Dec. 7, during an Oval Office press availability with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. But the question came from a Turkish reporter - after an Associated Press reporter asked about the economy.

In fact, the last time a White House reporter asked about the Iraq war was June 26, when National Public Radio's Don Gonyea asked an Iraq-related question during a joint news conference of Mr. Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to records kept by CBS Radio reporter Mark Knoller....

The three main broadcast networks - ABC, NBC and CBS - have moved on to other topics as well. In 2008, the Iraq war was the seventh most heavily covered story, with the three networks devoting 288 minutes to reports about the war, according to the Tyndall Report, which monitors the weekday nightly newscasts of the networks. In 2009, the Iraq war dropped off the top 10 list, with just 80 minutes of coverage.

The New York Times wrote 374 "substantial" stories on Iraq in 2008 (meaning the word "Iraq" appears at least 10 times in article), according to the Nexis database. In 2009, that dropped to 208. The same went for The Washington Post - 422 "substantial" stories on Iraq in 2008; 169 in 2009, after Mr. Obama had taken office.

You can find the full article at The Washington Times.

In the latest issue of Vanity Fair, Mark Seal took an inside look at David Letterman's sexual scandal and the love-triangle that rocked CBS's "Late Show" last October with Letterman's live confession on-air. Interested in juicy details and pop psychology, Seal effectively vindicated Letterman for the numerous affairs he had with various employees, assistants, and interns.

As the article notes, the scandal came to a head when Joe Halderman, a veteran but financially-troubled producer of "48 Hours Mystery," discovered his live-in girlfriend and "Late Show" intern Stephanie Birkett was having an affair with the host.Halderman attempted to blackmail Letterman with stories about multiple women whose careers progressed because they slept with the star. In September '09, New York's district attorney charged Halderman for attempted grand larceny by extortion.

Seal interviewed Rob Burnett, executive producer of the "Late Show" and one of Letterman's closest friends, for the story, allowing Burnett to inform the world of his "myth busting" account of the saga.

Burnett told Seal that image of Letterman as a sleazy portrayal as a skirt-chasing, vigagra-popping, misogynist is profoundly misleading. "Here's a guy that's worked as a network-television host for 29 years, 16 hours a day. Relationships develop," Burnett says. "In this country, people meet people at work - that's what happens."

He also claims "Late Show" women have never been paid for their silence and the allegation that his friend does not respect female staff could not be further from the truth: "I'm a dad. I've got two daughters and a son. I would be happy and proud for my children to work in an office like this one day."

According to Seal, Letterman is an insecure human being who simply seeks approval and positive reinforcement from others - through sexual affairs. "Letterman is, by his own admission, one of the most unhappy, insecure, guilt-ridden, self-loathing, self-pitying people on the planet. All of this informs his choices, especially when it comes to women," writes Seal. He makes note of how the countless attempts by celebrities, including Julia Roberts and Madonna, to seduce Letterman have been in vain.

On the other hand, Seal's interviews with numerous insiders, staffers, and employees conducted for the lengthy piece proved it simply isn't Letterman's fault - he can't help the fact so many women find him so alluring and helplessly fall in love with him.  "I've come in contact with countless celebrities, and only two emit a tangible, almost magnetic force, electricity that draws you to them: David Letterman and Bill Clinton," said a former "Late Show" segment producer. 

"I was madly in love with him at the time," a former intern is quoted as saying. "I would have married him. He was hilarious." 

And from an anonymous "former insider": "It was intoxicating to me, and I can see how someone could cross the line. It's like Jesus Christ saying, ‘Hey, let's go to dinner!' You're going to go, ‘Wow! He chose me!'"

 

In the latest issue of Vanity Fair, Mark Seal took an inside look at David Letterman's sexual scandal and the love-triangle that rocked CBS's "Late Show" last October with Letterman's live confession on-air. Interested in juicy details and pop psychology, Seal effectively vindicated Letterman for the numerous affairs he had with various employees, assistants, and interns.

As the article notes, the scandal came to a head when Joe Halderman, a veteran but financially-troubled producer of "48 Hours Mystery," discovered his live-in girlfriend and "Late Show" intern Stephanie Birkett was having an affair with the host.Halderman attempted to blackmail Letterman with stories about multiple women whose careers progressed because they slept with the star. In September '09, New York's district attorney charged Halderman for attempted grand larceny by extortion.

Seal interviewed Rob Burnett, executive producer of the "Late Show" and one of Letterman's closest friends, for the story, allowing Burnett to inform the world of his "myth busting" account of the saga.

Burnett told Seal that image of Letterman as a sleazy portrayal as a skirt-chasing, vigagra-popping, misogynist is profoundly misleading. "Here's a guy that's worked as a network-television host for 29 years, 16 hours a day. Relationships develop," Burnett says. "In this country, people meet people at work - that's what happens."

He also claims "Late Show" women have never been paid for their silence and the allegation that his friend does not respect female staff could not be further from the truth: "I'm a dad. I've got two daughters and a son. I would be happy and proud for my children to work in an office like this one day."

According to Seal, Letterman is an insecure human being who simply seeks approval and positive reinforcement from others - through sexual affairs. "Letterman is, by his own admission, one of the most unhappy, insecure, guilt-ridden, self-loathing, self-pitying people on the planet. All of this informs his choices, especially when it comes to women," writes Seal. He makes note of how the countless attempts by celebrities, including Julia Roberts and Madonna, to seduce Letterman have been in vain.

On the other hand, Seal's interviews with numerous insiders, staffers, and employees conducted for the lengthy piece proved it simply isn't Letterman's fault - he can't help the fact so many women find him so alluring and helplessly fall in love with him.  "I've come in contact with countless celebrities, and only two emit a tangible, almost magnetic force, electricity that draws you to them: David Letterman and Bill Clinton," said a former "Late Show" segment producer. 

"I was madly in love with him at the time," a former intern is quoted as saying. "I would have married him. He was hilarious." 

And from an anonymous "former insider": "It was intoxicating to me, and I can see how someone could cross the line. It's like Jesus Christ saying, ‘Hey, let's go to dinner!' You're going to go, ‘Wow! He chose me!'"

 

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.

Reporting on Republican Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning blocking spending legislation over deficit concerns at the top of Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: "Congressional quagmire. Democrats blame one Republican senator for preventing thousands of federal workers from working."

In a later report, White House correspondent Chip Reid continued to assail Bunning: "The White House is pointing its finger at a single Republican senator who they say is standing in the way of federal aid for hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans....he is single-handedly holding up a routine piece of legislation." Rather than address Bunning's spending concerns, Reid declared: "Because of his objection, 2,000 federal transportation workers had to be furloughed without pay. 400,000 Americans risk losing their unemployment benefits over the next seven to ten days. And Medicare fees for doctors suddenly slashed by 21%."

Reid briefly noted: "Bunning wants the Democrats to come up with a way to pay the $10 billion price tag." A couple clips were played of the Kentucky Senator voicing his opposition: "And I'm going to object every time because you won't pay for this....We cannot keep adding to the debt."

Following Reid's report, Smith interviewed Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and wondered if Bunning was really even allowed to oppose the bill: "Does he have a point, does he have a right to stand there in the well of the Senate and say 'you got to pay for this' or do you think he's out of line?" Hoyer pointed out: "Well, under the rules, he obviously is in the Senate, has the ability to do that."

Smith went on to ask Hoyer about a possible scaled down version of health care reform, urging the Congressman to sell it to viewers: "Nancy Pelosi says there will be a smaller version of the health care bill that is going to be moving forward. If there is a single best selling point in it, what is it?" A headline on screen read: "House Dems On The Hot Seat; Obama's New Health Care Proposal Hangs In Balance."

In a follow up, Smith observed that moderate Democrats and Obama adviser Warren Buffett are concerned about cost containment in the health care bill, asking Hoyer: "Is there any chance this moves back a little bit, that there's more agreement before this thing moves – moves forward?"

In his final question to Hoyer, Smith fretted about the political fallout of Democrats passing unpopular legislation: "If you get this passed, are you – are you happy to live with this, this may cost you seats in the end come November." Hoyer replied: "we're prepared to go to the American public because we believe they support the individual elements in the bill."

In a segment on the banking industry on CBS's Sunday Morning, fill-in anchor Anthony Mason cited the movie "It's A Wonderful Life" and wondered: "Who would you say is today's equivalent of the movie's villain, the dastardly Mister Potter?" His answer: "If you ask the Huffington Post's web mistress Arianna Huffington, it's these guys." Footage rolled of big bank CEOs.

Mason touted Huffington's class warfare against the banks: "Are you angry at banks that are supposedly too big to fail....Well, an internet provocateur has some advice....Huffington has launched a campaign that drives the point home with a sledge hammer....The 'Move Your Money' campaign urges customers to move their money out of the big banks and into smaller community oriented ones."

A clip was played of Huffington arguing: "JP Morgan, Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo. These banks that received taxpayer money...have not really done their job of helping small businesses at lending." At no point in the segment did Mason refer to Huffington as liberal or point out the government's role in creating the financial crisis.

He did, however, speak with Robert Johnson from the liberal Roosevelt Institute, who proclaimed: "Taking money away from people who...pay themselves big bonuses and spend four hundred million dollars on lobbying, why would you want to empower those people?"

Mason went on to direct viewers to the campaign's website created by Huffington: "By entering your zip code into the 'Move Your Money' website, a list of nearby small banks pops up. All of which have received a rating of B or better by independent reviewers." Only briefly at the end of the report did Mason acknowledge the flaw with small financial institutions: "To be fair, many smaller banks are in trouble, too. Most of the more than seven hundred banks on the FDIC's watch list are small or mid-size institutions, vulnerable to bad mortgage loans."

Here is a portion of the segment:

ANTHONY MASON: Are you angry at banks that are supposedly too big to fail, but you haven't withdrawn your money because your account is too small to matter? Well, an internet provocateur has some advice.

GEORGE BAILEY [CLIP FROM "IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE"]: Four, three, two, one, bingo! We made it.

MASON: If George Bailey from "It's A Wonderful Life" is still your vision of the ideal small town banker-

BAILEY [MOVIE CLIP]: Well, your money's in Joe's house. That's right next to yours. And in the Kennedy house and Mrs. Macklin's house and a hundred others.

MASON: Then who would you say is today's equivalent of the movie's villain, the dastardly Mister Potter?

[MOVIE CLIP]

MR. POTTER: Then foreclose?

BAILEY: I can't do that. These families have children.

POTTER: They're not my children.

MASON: If you ask the Huffington Post's web mistress Arianna Huffington, it's these guys [clip of bank CEOS testifying on Capitol Hill].

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: JP Morgan, Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo. These banks that received taxpayer money, that were bailed out by the taxpayer, have not really done their job of helping small businesses at lending, so that the economy can start again and start producing jobs.

MASON: In fact, Huffington has launched a campaign that drives the point home with a sledge hammer.

MICHAEL CAPUANO [CONGRESSMAN, D-MASSACHUSETTS]: I don't have one single penny in any of your banks, not one, because I don't want my money put into CDOs and credit default swaps and making humongous bonuses.

MASON: The 'Move Your Money' campaign urges customers to move their money out of the big banks and into smaller community oriented ones.

ROBERT JOHNSON: All of us collectively do have money. And when we move our money, we're voting with a different currency and one that businesses pay attention to.

MASON: Robert Johnson works with the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank where he helped craft the campaign.

JOHNSON: Taking money away from people who pay you zero, charge you 30% on your credit cards, hits you with all kinds of overdraft fees and use that money to do, say, proprietary trading and pay themselves big bonuses and spend four hundred million dollars on lobbying, why would you want to empower those people?

MASON: By entering your zip code into the 'Move Your Money' website, a list of nearby small banks pops up. All of which have received a rating of B or better by independent reviewers.

On Monday's CBS Early Show, White House correspondent Bill Plante reported on the possibility of Democrats using reconciliation to pass a health care reform bill and noted how Republicans used the procedure when they were in the majority: "In the past it has helped the majority party push through some controversial legislation. In 2001, Republicans used it to pass a giant $1.3 trillion tax cut."

A Media Research Center special report conducted from January 20 to March 31 in 2001 found that out of 94 judgements of the size of the Bush tax cuts on ABC, NBC, and CBS, "84 percent...labeled it as 'big' or 'huge' or otherwise portrayed it as large." CBS was one of the worst offenders, with various reporters describing the cuts as large a total of 14 times in that ten-week period. Then-CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather alone used the word "big" 11 times to describe the tax cuts.

Meanwhile, on Monday's Early Show, Plante did not use the "giant" label to describe the massive ObamaCare legislation, simply referring to it as a "sweeping proposal." According to a Heritage Foundation study by James C. Capretta, the total cost of the bill could add up to $2.5 trillion over ten years.

Plante did acknowledge the partisan nature of the reconciliation process, in which legislation is passed with 51 votes in the Senate rather than the customary 60: "Even some Democrats don't think it's the right thing to do. Reconciliation sounds agreeable, like bipartisanship. But in Congress, reconciliation means just the opposite." Later in the report, a clip was played of Republican Senator Tom Coburn describing it as "a thumbing of the nose at the American people." A clip was also played of Democratic Senator Kent Conrad pointing out that reconciliation "was never designed for that kind of significant legislation."  

On Friday, Plante placed the blame for gridlock at Thursday's health care reform summit on Republicans.

Here is a full transcript of Plante's Monday report:

7:14AM

BILL PLANTE: There is one way the President may be able to get health care without Republican support. It's a legislative device called reconciliation. But even some Democrats don't think it's the right thing to do. Reconciliation sounds agreeable, like bipartisanship. But in Congress, reconciliation means just the opposite.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Health Care Reform; Debating Reconciliation]

LARRY SABATO: Reconciliation is a device to short circuit the need for 60 votes, a super majority in the Senate, to pass major legislation.

PLANTE: When it's used in budget bills, they can't be filibustered or amended. In the past it has helped the majority party push through some controversial legislation. In 2001, Republicans used it to pass a giant $1.3 trillion tax cut, a centerpiece of President Bush's economic plan. They used it again in 2003 for a $350 billion tax cut. This time, Democrats are in charge and Republicans say reconciliation is a bad idea.

TOM COBURN: If you use reconciliation on this health care bill as we see today, what you're going to have is a thumbing of the nose at the American people. They don't agree with it. We need to change it.

PLANTE: And even some Democrats warn that reconciliation was never meant for a sweeping proposal like the health care bill.

KENT CONRAD: It was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. It was designed for deficit reduction.

PLANTE: Now, the President is expected to announce as early as Wednesday whether he'll support reconciliation to pass health care. His biggest problem will be getting Democrats on board because the vote would leave many of them very vulnerable in November.

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.

After the Democrats regained control of the House in 2006, Nancy Pelosi promised NBC's Brian Williams that she would "drain the swamp" and "turn this Congress into the most honest and open Congress in history." So when news broke that a House Ethics committee found that long time New York Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel accepted corporate money for trips to the Carribean one would think Williams would be all over the story – he wasn't.

On Thursday's NBC Nightly News Williams completely ignored the charges, as did ABC's World News Tonight. Of the three broadcast network evening news shows, only Williams' competitors at CBS Evening News covered the Rangel scandal as Katie Couric reported Rangel "broke House rules," and Nancy Cordes told viewers he could be "censured," but didn't tell them that he was a Democrat.

Williams' NBC News colleague Amy Robach did mention the investigation into Rangel's wrongdoing, the next morning on the Today show, but omitted Rangel's party affiliation in the one and only story aired on the morning show:

AMY ROBACH: And an ethics panel has found that New York Congressman Charles Rangel knowingly accepted Carribean trips from a corporation in violation of House rules. Rangel said he was unaware of the corporate financing and should not be held responsible for mistakes by his staff.

For the record both CBS' The Early Show and ABC's Good Morning America on Friday aired only one anchor brief each on the Rangel story, however they did manage to attach the "D" next to the Congressman's name.

The following are transcripts of the Rangel stories as they were aired on Thursday's CBS Evening News, and Friday's CBS's The Early Show and ABC's Good Morning America:

CBS

Evening News

February 25, 2010

KATIE COURIC: And meanwhile, Nancy, there's breaking news tonight. The Associated Press is quoting a source as saying the House Ethics Committee has found Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, that he broke House rules. Remind everyone what he was being investigated for.

NANCY CORDES: Well this was a longstanding investigation into the way that he filed his taxes, the way that he reported his taxes here in Congress, and some questionable trips that he took. The fact that he's now being, uh, uh, found to have broken some rules could mean that he would be censured; it could mean that he'll just get a slap on the wrist. We don't know yet Katie.

COURIC: Alright, Nancy Cordes, Chip Reid, thank you both so much.

...

CBS

The Early Show

February 26, 2010

CHRIS WRAGGE: In other news now, the House Ethics Committee has accused long-time New York Congressman Charles Rangel of misconduct. The committee found that Rangel accepted corporate money for trips to the Caribbean. Rangel admits his staff knew what was going on, but says he didn't.

CHARLES RANGEL [ON-SCREEN LABEL: (D) NEW YORK]: Common accepts dictates that members of Congress should not be held responsible for what could be the wrongdoing or mistakes or errors of staff unless there's reason to believe that the member knew or should have known.

WRAGGE: Rangel is also being investigated for other possible ethics violations.

...

ABC

Good Morning America

February 26, 2010

JUJU CHANG: One of the most powerful members of Congress has been blamed for violating ethics rules. A House committee has concluded Democrat Charlie Rangel accepted trips to conferences in the Caribbean, financed by corporations. Rangel insists he was unaware of the funding and blames his staff.

Speaking to California Governor Arnold Schwarzengger on Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith noted the success of the tea party movement, but spun it as a negative for the Republican Party: "There are winds of change blowing in the Republican Party. The tea party has met. There's a – it feels like a significant shift to the Right. Can the Republican Party exist without moderates?"

Prior to that, Smith asked if Schwarzenegger had any helpful advice for President Obama: "His approval ratings are dropping. He's under fire from all kinds of quadrants. If you're going to give him some advice as to how to stay his course, what would you tell him?" Schwarzenegger initially replied: "I don't think that...he needs advice from me." He then went on to praise the President's efforts on health care reform: "you have to give him credit for taking the risk. You have to give any leader credit for always going out on a limb and to go and fight for something."

Smith failed to wonder if Democrats could survive without moderates following the announced retirement of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh last week.

At the beginning of the interview, Smith asked about the Governor's efforts to combat obesity: "Can the state of California, or the country for that matter, afford not to act on this?" Schwarzenegger responded by attacking the slick advertising of the food industry: "You have to understand that $1.5 to 1.6 billion a year is being spent by the food industry and by the soda industry on marketing. So they make it, of course, very delicious and very seductive to have those kind of foods."

Here is a portion of the interview:

8:14AM

HARRY SMITH: We appreciate you having this conversation with us about obesity, which everybody cares about. But since we have you in the chair, I know you've agreed to take on some other subjects. And I know you met with President Obama earlier this week. He's been in office 13 months. His approval ratings are dropping. He's under fire from all kinds of quadrants. If you're going to give him some advice as to how to stay his course, what would you tell him?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Well first of all, I don't think that, you know, he needs advice from me. I think that the bottom line is this is a very difficult job today to be a leader because of the world economy being down. No matter where you pick up news papers, it's all the same headlines,: 'this is a disaster, the economy is down, money is not available, the banking system is a problem, people are losing jobs' and all of this stuff, and people are hating their politicians.

Remember, with health care reform, Teddy Roosevelt talked about health care reform in 1912. So that's 100 years ago. And since then, no one was able to do it, and you know, now Obama is another president that is giving it a stab and trying to get it done. It could work. I mean, you have to give him credit for taking the risk. You have to give any leader credit for always going out on a limb and to go and fight for something. It may not work out, but in the end, you've got to try.

SMITH: There are winds of change blowing in the Republican Party. The tea party has met. There's a – it feels like a significant shift to the Right. Can the Republican Party exist without moderates?

SCHWARZENEGGER: I think that there are great leaders in the Republican Party and I think that the key thing is to always, when you're the minority party, that you have good solutions so the people can see what the majority party has to offer and what then the minority party has to offer. And so to me, the most important thing is you always have great solutions, not just say no, but have great solutions and have a whole menu of things of what you would do if you were in power.

SMITH: Governor, thank you so much for your time today. We do appreciate it. We hope we can visit again soon.

"I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing." - Joe Biden, 2005

Few Americans would be shocked to hear that members of Congress are not always consistent, and occasionally outright hypocritical. Very often, however, the liberal media attempts to downplay Democratic double standards and highlight Republican ones.

Each recent change in the congressional majority, it seems has brought calls from the newly dominant party for an end to the filibuster. This Democratic majority is no different.

When noting rhetorical inconsistencies, however, the mainstream media has jumped at the chance to note that Republicans, now using the filibuster as a potential means to block Democratic health care legislation, were ardent advocates of majoritarianism in the Senate only a few years ago (as demonstrated in the video below the fold).

Few in the media, however, note the equally stark disconnect between Democrats' lamentations about Republican obstructionism and their professed belief in the filibuster before they were voted into the majority.

In numerous reports on the status of health care negotiations in the Senate, prominent media outlets made sure to mention that Republicans used the so-called "nuclear option"--known in parliamentary terms as the budget reconciliation process--to overcome Democratic filibusters. But conspicuously absent are mentions of Democrats' unequivocal condemnations of reconciliation.

CNN made sure to parrot Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's talking point, noting that "reconciliation has been used 21 times since 1981." He apparently did not consider than an ample excuse in 2005 when he said the filibuster was "never more important than when one party controls congress and the White House. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government."

In addition to reissuing Reid talking points, the New York Times on its website stated that reconciliation "is no more of a hardball tactic than the filibuster, and it is clearly permitted under the rules." But Reid himself stated only a few years back that Republicans were "not going to follow the Senate rules … because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration."

A story on the website for CBS News also read like a Democratic Senate leadership press release, issuing the same quotes from Reid--noting that Republicans have purportedly used reconciliation more often then Democrats--without mentioning the majority leader's about face.

These stories conveniently omitted numerous statements by a number of prominent Senate Democrats during the Republican majority, as shown in the video above. Barack Obama himself lamented the "absolute majoritarian power" the use of reconciliation would create, adding, "that's just not what the Founders intended."

Congressional majorities are generally made up of small-d democrats, while minorities are usually small-r republicans. Opportunism is nothing new in Congress.

But we should at least expect the news media to take it with a grain of salt, considering the perennial discrepancies between what the two parties say depending on their statuses in Congress. The outlets mentioned above, far from serving as watchdogs, simply regurgitated Democratic talking points without a hint of criticism or analysis.

All of this leaves the American people wondering who the bigger hypocrites are: the politicians constantly changing their positions, or the reporters who cover them.

On CBS's Sunday Morning, movie reviewer David Edelstein heaped praised upon The Ghost Writer, the latest film by director, and indicted child rapist, Roman Polanski: "Whatever you say about this man, a victim and a victimizer, he's an artist to the end. He can conjure up on screen his inner world. However, malignant."     

Edelstein began the review by proclaiming that Polanski's new film: "shows its maker at the height of his powers." That despite the admission that the director is "likely en route to the slammer for a rape he committed in the '70s." Edelstein later gushed: "Polanski's The Ghost Writer is alive and gripping from its first frame....There's an icky erotic undertone. With Polanski, sex and death are sibling close."

Interestingly, on NPR's Morning Edition radio program on Friday, movie reviewer Kenneth Turan had almost identical praise for the controversial director: "Roman Polanski is back, his new film, The Ghost Writer, is a dark pearl of a movie, made with the flare and precision of a director suddenly returned to the height of his powers." Turan later hoped: "With any kind of luck, The Ghost Writer will help Roman Polanski catch fire one last time."

In an October 1, 2009 column entitled "Hollywood's Favorite Rapist," NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center President Brent Bozell detailed how those in the entertainment industry and the news media have defended Polanski in the wake of the director's recent arrest and indictment for the rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

At the top of Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith promoted the idea of division within the GOP as he declared: "A controversial vote for brand new Republican Senator Scott Brown, as he sides with Democrats to help push through a jobs bill."

While it's certainly true that some conservatives took real issue with Brown's support of the $15 billion spending bill, Smith clearly saw an opportunity to stir up conflict on the Right: "the senator who broke the Democrats' super majority, Scott Brown, is taking some heat today from conservatives."

Rather than talk to any conservatives about the issue, Smith instead turned to liberal-leaning political analyst John Dickerson and observed that Brown siding with Democrats was a sign of his independence: "It's very interesting, though, because Scott Brown actually showed up at the CPAC meeting, the conservative meeting over the weekend in Washington, and yesterday he was quoted as 'I said I came to Washington to be an independent voice.'" Dickerson replied: "That's right. He said he was going to be independent and he, in fact, voted independently in this case."

Smith wondered if Brown was "ushering in a new era of bipartisanship or is that a punch line?" He asked Dickerson if the move was "a joke" or "real." Dickerson argued: "Well, it's real, but it's quite modest....$15 Billion is five times smaller than the $85 billion original bill which broke down because of partisanship. So they couldn't agree on the whole meal. They went for the appetizer."

Turning to the upcoming health care summit, Smith wondered if there was any chance of bipartisanship: "President Obama unveiled the $950 billion Democratic plan, anyway, to restart the health care negotiations....Does this thing have any shot whatsoever?" Dickerson was doubtful, pointing to the GOP: "Well, it doesn't look like it. When the President announced this plan on Monday, the denunciations came from Republicans immediately and across the board."

At the end of the segment, Smith called for Dickerson's diagnosis: "So as for bipartisanship, how would you rule its health as of this morning?" Dickerson didn't see much hope for recovery: "Well, the heartbeat is faint, it has been recognized on the instruments, but I don't think we're going to have any robust jogging with this bipartisan heart here."  

In part two of her exclusive interview with First Lady Michelle Obama on Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez worried about the toll the presidency takes on Barack Obama: "Your husband is the target of so many of these partisan attacks....He must get frustrated?" Rodriguez later wondered: "Amid all these frustrations, how does he unwind, how does he let that all go?"

Rodriguez asked about Mrs. Obama's reaction to criticism of her husband: "How often do you have to bite your tongue?" The First Lady explained: "You can't go into this if you're thin-skinned or you're worrying about your husband being criticized or you being criticized." Rodriguez remarked, "And criticize they do," and played clips of Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin as examples of the "frustrating partisan attacks" being launched against the President.   

Later, Rodriguez asked about the Obama daughters, Malia and Sasha, and how they deal with the "poisonous environment" of Washington: "Do they not hear the attacks?" Mrs. Obama replied: "Everyone in this country cares about those girls....we have been pleasantly surprised that our children have experienced that kind of good naturedness of this country."

Rodriguez also took time to note how well the First Lady is handling the President's falling poll numbers: "The climate in Washington can be extremely tough these days, with President Obama's approval ratings down to a mere 45%....As the President's approval ratings plummet, Mrs. Obama takes it in stride." Obama argued: "The important thing is for the President to stay focused. Which is what he's doing every single day." After the interview concluded, Rodriguez added: "She said relax, everybody, there's plenty of time...for the President's approval ratings to come back up as things improve. So she's honestly not worried about it."

Co-host Harry Smith was concerned that Rodriguez's interview was not thorough enough: "I'm worrying about the dog. How's that dog doing?" Rodriguez jokingly replied: "Yeah, you know, I forgot to ask how the dog handles the stress....Good question, Harry. And I missed it."

The interview was conducted on Friday and aired in two parts on the Monday and Tuesday broadcasts of the Early Show. On Monday, Rodriguez asked the First Lady about health care reform "being held hostage by partisanship."

Here is a portion of the interview aired on Tuesday:

RODRIGUEZ: A year after moving into the White House, First Lady Michelle Obama sounds like a Washington veteran. Your husband is the target of so many of these partisan attacks. I wonder, how often do you have to bite your tongue?

OBAMA: You know, it's the nature of the job. You know, you don't – you can't go into this if you're thin-skinned or you're worrying about your husband being criticized or you being criticized. It's sort of a part of it.

RODRIGUEZ: And criticize they do.

DICK CHENEY: Barack Obama is a one-term president.

SARAH PALIN: We need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern!

RODRIGUEZ: As the President's approval ratings plummet, Mrs. Obama takes it in stride.

OBAMA: I don't want to say that you become immune to it, but, you know, folks are – you know, folks want jobs. You know, they want to be able to build the life, the American dream, that they had hoped. And when stuff gets tough, people get angry, and they have every right to criticize the people in charge. But the important thing is for the President to stay focused. Which is what he's doing every single day. He's going into the office-

RODRIGUEZ: But he's human.

OBAMA: He's absolutely human.

RODRIGUEZ: He must get frustrated?

OBAMA: You know, everybody gets frustrated at some point in time. I mean, the American people get frustrated. But he – you know, when you're the President of the United States, you can't wallow in your frustration.

RODRIGUEZ: When he gets home after working all day amid all these frustrations, how does he unwind, how does he let that all go?

OBAMA: You know, part of it is making a home a political free zone, you know. And it's probably like home for anyone in this country. We walk in the door, the kids will ask about his day or mine. They're interested for maybe 30 seconds. And then they're focused on their worlds, which we are more than happy to immerse ourselves in.

RODRIGUEZ: Mrs. Obama says 11-year-old Malia and 8-year-old Sasha are their best distraction and their biggest motivation.

OBAMA: He and I both wake up every morning and go to bed every night with their faces on our minds. You know, this is not about us. This is about their future.

RODRIGUEZ: How do you shield them from the sometimes poisonous environment that Washington can be?

OBAMA: You know, I think their age helps. Because they're completely uninterested.

RODRIGUEZ: Do they not hear the attacks?

OBAMA: You know, the one thing that has been very good is that everyone in this country cares about those girls, even if, you know, they're opposed or angry at their father. Folks are kind and decent. I hope that continues. But we have been pleasantly surprised that our children have experienced that kind of good naturedness of this country.

While discussing the Democrats' latest version of health care reform on Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked GOP strategist Ed Rollins: "Are the Republicans better off just saying let the Democrats burn in hell with this, we're going to stay on the sidelines and win the House back this fall?"

The segment also featured disgraced ex-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who Smith earlier asked about an upcoming health care summit: "...this whole notion that the Republicans were saying 'well, we might not show up, now Mitch McConnell over the weekend, the minority head of the Senate, says 'we're going come, but we think the Democrats are arrogant.' Is this doomed from the get-go?" Spitzer proclaimed: "the Democratic Party and the President know they must get something done. The internal discipline within the Democratic Party will be what makes this a success."

Spitzer later argued: "The Republican Party's been the party of no, the party of nihilism. The President should stand up and say 'here's what's good for America. We have the votes, we're willing to do it.'" Smith followed that logic: "So is this then the real test for the President?...To say 'I have control of the people in my party, I can do this thing and it will benefit the American people.' And in the end, push back to everything that's been pushing up against him?" Spitzer replied: "This is the moment when either he says we are leaders, we will get it done, or if they fail this time, then it really is debacle for the Democratic Party."

Near the end of the exchange, Smith finally acknowledged the fact that the American public is opposed to the legislation: "if you sort of listen to the – all of the anger and anxiety out in the country, people say, okay, we do want some sort of health reform....At the same time, don't give us thousand page bills that are un-understandable by human beings on this earth." Spitzer brushed that aside: "the President needs to stand up and say here it is, we've got the votes, we're going to pass it....It can be done. It's going to be tough politically, but this is the moment of truth."

CBS began to aid in the rehabilitation of Eliot Spitzer in the fall of last year, when co-host Maggie Rodriguez interviewed him on the September 19 Early Show to discuss the one-year anniversary of the financial collapse: "President Obama will mark this anniversary with a speech here today on Wall Street. And former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was known as the sheriff of Wall Street before he resigned after being caught in a sex scandal. And Mister Spitzer joins us for an exclusive interview on this anniversary."

In January 11 of this year, Smith brought Spitzer on again to lecture big banks on executive compensation, asking him: "Great Britain is talking about putting enormous taxation on this com -- you know, compensation over a certain level. Would that be an answer?" Spitzer replied: "It is a short-term answer. What we really need to do is redefine what banks do."

Spitzer's most recent Early Show mention occurred on Thursday, when correspondent Kelly Wallace included him in a report on famous adulterers while discussing the upcoming Tiger Woods press conference: "[South Carolina Governor Mark] Sanford, who admitted being unfaithful, didn't have his wife by his side, but other now infamous wrongdoers did, like former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught having sex with prostitutes."

So apparently prominent Democrats caught in sex scandals can at the same time be legitimate political analysts and subjects of scorm on CBS.

Here is a portion of Smith's discussion with Rollins and Spitzer:

SMITH: Let me ask you this former Governor Spitzer, this whole notion that the Republicans were saying 'well, we might not show up, now Mitch McConnell over the weekend, the minority head of the Senate, says 'we're going come, but we think the Democrats are arrogant.'

SPITZER: Right.

SMITH: Is this doomed from the get-go?

SPITZER: Look, I don't think the Thursday event will be terribly useful. I think this will be posturing, it will be choreographed. But here's what's fundamentally different, the Democratic Party and the President know they must get something done. The internal discipline within the Democratic Party will be what makes this a success. And I agree, I think Ed's right, the Republican Party will say no to this, but it's a wonderful idea. He's right about the Republican response. He's wrong on the substance. This is critically needed because the insurance industry is out of control right now.

SMITH: Well, you have, for instance, this one insurance company in California, 700,000 customers, they're going raise rates on some of them by 39%. There's a consensus in the country that this is out of control. Are the Republicans better off just saying let the Democrats burn in hell with this, we're going to stay on the sidelines and win the House back this fall?

ROLLINS: Well, the bottom line – I don't know whether they're going to win the House back, but we'll do much better than we've done before – the bottom line here is that this is a Democrat proposal and they have enough votes if they want to get together and pass it, they can pass it. If they don't, and if they can't get together, then we're not going to have health care.

SPITZER: And I think, again, Ed and I agree, this is a Democratic bill. They should pass it, they should claim it, it will be a huge success. The Republican Party's been the party of no, the party of nihilism. The President should stand up and say 'here's what's good for America. We have the votes, we're willing to do it.'

SMITH: So is this then the real test for the President?

SPITZER: Absolutely.

SMITH: To say 'I have control of the people in my party, I can do this thing and it will benefit the American people.' And in the end, push back to everything that's been pushing up against him?

SPITZER: He – this is the litmus test. This is the moment when either he says we are leaders, we will get it done, or if they fail this time, then it really is debacle for the Democratic Party.

SMITH: On the other hand, if you sort of listen to the – all of the anger and anxiety out in the country, people say, okay, we do want some sort of health reform. We don't want to pay these unbelievable premiums we're being crushed with every year. At the same time, don't give us thousand page bills that are un-understandable by human beings on this earth.

ROLLINS: At the end of the day, someone has to pay for health care, it's very expensive. And by adding burdens to former – to governors, as a former governor – adding more burdens on the Medicaid, where every state's almost bankrupt, is not a good formula. Somehow you bring it down, you've got to bring lawyers to the table, you got to have malpractice reform, you got to have competition by letting it go across state lines and let insurance companies compete. And there hasn't been a willingness to do that yet.

SPITZER: I think what's interesting is the Democratic proposals do encompass a great deal of that and they should and they will. I agree with all that, they will be in the bill, but the President needs to stand up and say here it is, we've got the votes, we're going to pass it. And that's the only way you will then provide insurance and drive costs down. It can be done. It's going to be tough politically, but this is the moment of truth.

In an exclusive interview with First Lady Michelle Obama on Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez fretted over the future of ObamaCare: "Deadlines keep getting missed for passing health care. Obstacles keep mounting....Unfortunately at the moment...health care is being held hostage by partisanship."

Rodriguez introduced the interview by proclaiming that the First Lady: "acknowledges the many hurdles to passing it [health care reform], but insists it will remain a top priority for the President." In her first question to Mrs. Obama, Rodriguez focused on the President's determination to get something passed: "Will your husband ever give up on trying to find a compromise?" After Obama replied that "we can't afford to give up," Rodriguez concluded: "You can't imagine a scenario where he would not finish the job on health care?" Obama declared: "My hope is that the country understands that we need to do this."

Ironically, Rodriguez later focused on political partisanship: "Democrats are losing a lot of legislators, either they're leaving or incumbents are losing. How do you stop the bleeding?...What do you think could help Democrats keep those crucial seats?"

In response, the First Lady argued: "Some of it takes time for people to, you know, believe that jobs are coming back and to feel the improvement that is actually occurring. Because things are getting better. And sometimes people need to feel it before they believe that it's actually working." Rodriguez followed: "What do you think is a reasonable amount of time to ask people to wait?" Obama replied: "Oh, I couldn't tell you....But I do know that it's more than a year."

At the conclusion of that part of the interview, Rodriguez touted how Mrs. Obama: "would help to go campaign for some of those Democratic incumbents who may be in trouble in November. You know, the President has done so unsuccessfully for three of them, but she has an approval rating of 71%, so she might just be who they want on the stump."  

Here is a portion of Rodriguez's exchange with the First Lady:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Deadlines keep getting missed for passing health care. Obstacles keep mounting. Will your husband ever give up on trying to find a compromise?

MICHELLE OBAMA: Yeah, we can't afford to keep – to give up. Not in this country. You know, we're already seeing premiums going up for people who do have insurance and there are still millions of Americans that are under-insured or uninsured.
                
BARACK OBAMA: The single biggest driver of our deficits is health care spending.

RODRIGUEZ: You can't imagine a scenario where he would not finish the job on health care?

MICHELLE OBAMA: My hope is that the country understands that we need to do this, right? This is a 'we' thing. You know, we all have to work together and decide that this is a priority and we're going to make the compromises and changes that need to happen to get health care to everyone.

RODRIGUEZ: Unfortunately at the moment, though, health care is being held hostage by partisanship. I talked to Senator Evan Bayh this week after he quit. He threw his hands up and said 'I can't handle the partisanship, I'm out of here.' Democrats are losing a lot of legislators, either they're leaving or incumbents are losing. How do you stop the bleeding?

OBAMA: You know, these are tough times. When times are tough, it's – it's hard on the people who are in power, both Republicans and Democrats. So, you know, it's the nature of the beast. But we have to say focused.

RODRIGUEZ: What do you think could help Democrats keep those crucial seats?

OBAMA: Some of it takes time. Some of it takes time for people to, you know, believe that jobs are coming back and to feel the improvement that is actually occurring. Because things are getting better. And sometimes people need to feel it before they believe that it's actually working.

RODRIGUEZ: What do you think is a reasonable amount of time to ask people to wait?

OBAMA: Oh, I couldn't tell you. You know, I couldn't even begin to tell you that, you know. I mean, I think it's hard to know what's reasonable. But I do know that it's more than a year.

Where would the world be without an independent, citizen-run type of media? It would be in a dark place, according to Media Research Center President and Founder Brent Bozell.

Bozell addressed CPAC on Feb. 20 about the state of the media. He cited how bloggers played a role in unearthing the former White House "green jobs czar" Van Jones past for signing a statement about the September 11 truthers and for stating he was a communist.

"Van Jones was a story that was broken by a blogger," Bozell said. "Say that after me - God bless bloggers, God bless bloggers, God bless bloggers. Now this blogger writes a story about one of the Obama czars. Now these czars, these guys are dangerous for all sorts of reasons. They're not elected. They're not confirmed. And they're not even announced. You just hear about them. They're like maggots. You pick up a rock and you find a czar."

More video embedded below fold

Bozell detailed how the public was in the dark on the Van Jones story.

"And the worst thing about these czars is when you start asking them questions, you find out not even they know why they're there," Bozell said. "Van Jones was asked, ‘What's your job?' And his answer was, I'm paraphrasing, ‘I don't know,' except that he was in charge of green jobs. He was theoretically in charge of billions and he didn't even know what he was supposed to do with it."

As it turned out, Jones had somewhat of a prominent role within the Obama White House, but had a checkered past that deserved media scrutiny.

"Well, what's Van Jones' background?" Bozell said. "According to the blogger, he discovers this guy has signed this document that says among other things that the United States government under George Bush is responsible for 9/11. And he's done it not once, but several times. And I'm not going to call this man a communist. I don't have to. He calls himself a communist. And this man is appointed - this communist, this self-identified communist is in charge of redistributing America's green job wealth with all the stimulus money."

Almost seemingly begrudgingly, outlets of the mainstream media covered it, but if not for other outlets pushing it - the story would not have made into the mainstream.

"Is that a story?" Bozell asked. "I -- stupid me. CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington [Post]-they didn't, nobody did a story. He was fired. And why was he fired on Sept. 6? Because Fox [News] was running story after story after story, and Drudge was doing stories and Rush was doing stories and Hannity was doing stories and Levin was doing stories. And everyone was talking about it and the guy was fired three days later on Sept. 6"

But even when these traditional outlets chose to include it, they did it very haphazardly - almost kicking and screaming according to Bozell.

 "Well, when he was fired - that's when CBS did a story," Bozell explained. "And ABC did a story and NBC did a mention. And that was the end and we never heard of Van Jones again from the networks."

According to ABC, CBS and NBC, an athlete involved in a three-month-old sex scandal is more newsworthy than a statement of principles signed by more than 80 conservative leaders.

Not just more newsworthy. The broadcast network morning shows devoted more than 30 minutes of coverage about Tiger Wood's statement to the press on his sexual "indiscretions" scheduled for Feb. 19. By contrast, the Feb. 17 signing of the Mount Vernon statement by 80 prominent conservative leaders received zero coverage. Both CBS and NBC sent camera crews to the event.

ABC provided the lion's share of the Tiger coverage, giving more than 17 minutes of airtime to the Woods story. A crisis management professional, a family therapist and two sports writers were brought on to speculate about the impact his expected apology would have on Woods' image and career, as well as the pros and cons of his wife Elin appearing alongside him.

Woods coverage on CBS clocked in at more than nine minutes while NBC, currently covering the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, gave Woods only four-and-a-half minutes.

With the recent conservative wins in New Jersey and Virginia, and Republican Scott Brown's election to liberal Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat, it'd be easy to think this statement would provide a hook for the morning shows talk about conservatism as it relates to the political future of America. Tied to CPAC, a major conservative conference that also began Feb. 18 in D.C., ABC, CBS and NBC had a huge news peg but no desire to cover the story.

The Mt. Vernon statement, similar to the Sharon Statement of 1960 drafted by William F. Buckley, outlined the notion of "Constitutional conservatism" as it should be applied to policies. It included these five basic principles that "define us as a country and inspire us as a people:"

• Applying the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

• Honoring the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.

• Encouraging free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

• Supporting America's national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

• Informing conservatism's firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

Cable networks gave a bit more attention to the statement. Joan Walsh of Salon.com and Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring and a principle signatory of the statement, appeared on MSNBC's Feb. 18 edition of "Hardball with Chris Matthews."  Walsh used the spot to charge the signers with racism.

"It's a statement in context of needing this statement in the, quote, ‘age of Obama, that something has happened since we elected our first African-American president," she alleged. "We've suddenly got this movement for liberty and to restore values when we've got our first African-American president."

Despite insisting that she was not calling Hanna or his colleagues "racist," Walsh stated, "I feel a lot of these documents and a lot of these gatherings are rather hostile to the America that we're becoming, which is multiracial, which is younger, in which women have the right not merely to vote but to be president and it's turning back the clock."

Hanna pointed out to Walsh that "there's nothing in the statement that talks about the "age of Obama."

Walsh also criticized the statement for rehashing old sentiments.

"These are older people from another generation," she noted. "We've got Ed Meese, we've got Brent Bozell [founder and president of the Media Research Center, CMI's parent organization]. There's not a lot of youth and new thinking there. It's more of a restoration of the Reagan administration. So, I'm just not, I'm not feeling it right now." 

CNN's Wolf Blitzer grilled Erick Erickson, managing editor of RedState.com, during the Feb. 17 "Situation Room" about the need for the statement, but allowed him to make the case for it.

Erickson told Blitzer that the goal of the statement was to re-start the conversation about what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they crafted the Constitution and was not intended to be reincarnation of the 1994 Contract with America."

"Beginning again the conversation on what the principles of the Constitution are and why the country was founded, reminding people that under the Constitution, Congress only has 17 powers," he explained. "It's actually supposed to be very limited in a day and age when we think Congress can do anything it wants."

Blitzer questioned Erickson about one proclamation in the statement that read, "The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist."

Erickson responded by pointing out how the principles of the Declaration of Independence have been damaged by liberal ideologues. 

"We live in a day and age where the idea of life, liberty and pursuit of private property has been undermined by institutions such as universities, liberal academia, by the left in general, according to the conservative viewpoint, that there are actually things in life that are true and we shouldn't hid from those truths," asserted. "There is good, there is evil, there's truth. And a lot of people these days forget that some things are black and white."

ABC, CBS and NBC clearly went for the salacious over the relevant, and indicated that celebrity scandals pull rank over politics.  

According to ABC, CBS and NBC, an athlete involved in a three-month-old sex scandal is more newsworthy than a statement of principles signed by more than 80 conservative leaders.

Not just more newsworthy. The broadcast network morning shows devoted more than 30 minutes of coverage about Tiger Wood's statement to the press on his sexual "indiscretions" scheduled for Feb. 19. By contrast, the Feb. 17 signing of the Mount Vernon statement by 80 prominent conservative leaders received zero coverage. Both CBS and NBC sent camera crews to the event.

ABC provided the lion's share of the Tiger coverage, giving more than 17 minutes of airtime to the Woods story. A crisis management professional, a family therapist and two sports writers were brought on to speculate about the impact his expected apology would have on Woods' image and career, as well as the pros and cons of his wife Elin appearing alongside him.

Woods coverage on CBS clocked in at more than nine minutes while NBC, currently covering the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, gave Woods only four-and-a-half minutes.

With the recent conservative wins in New Jersey and Virginia, and Republican Scott Brown's election to liberal Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat, it'd be easy to think this statement would provide a hook for the morning shows talk about conservatism as it relates to the political future of America. Tied to CPAC, a major conservative conference that also began Feb. 18 in D.C., ABC, CBS and NBC had a huge news peg but no desire to cover the story.

The Mt. Vernon statement, similar to the Sharon Statement of 1960 drafted by William F. Buckley, outlined the notion of "Constitutional conservatism" as it should be applied to policies. It included these five basic principles that "define us as a country and inspire us as a people:"

• Applying the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

• Honoring the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.

• Encouraging free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

• Supporting America's national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

• Informing conservatism's firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

Cable networks gave a bit more attention to the statement. Joan Walsh of Salon.com and Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring and a principle signatory of the statement, appeared on MSNBC's Feb. 18 edition of "Hardball with Chris Matthews."  Walsh used the spot to charge the signers with racism.

"It's a statement in context of needing this statement in the, quote, ‘age of Obama, that something has happened since we elected our first African-American president," she alleged. "We've suddenly got this movement for liberty and to restore values when we've got our first African-American president."

Despite insisting that she was not calling Hanna or his colleagues "racist," Walsh stated, "I feel a lot of these documents and a lot of these gatherings are rather hostile to the America that we're becoming, which is multiracial, which is younger, in which women have the right not merely to vote but to be president and it's turning back the clock."

Hanna pointed out to Walsh that "there's nothing in the statement that talks about the "age of Obama."

Walsh also criticized the statement for rehashing old sentiments.

"These are older people from another generation," she noted. "We've got Ed Meese, we've got Brent Bozell [founder and president of the Media Research Center, CMI's parent organization]. There's not a lot of youth and new thinking there. It's more of a restoration of the Reagan administration. So, I'm just not, I'm not feeling it right now." 

CNN's Wolf Blitzer grilled Erick Erickson, managing editor of RedState.com, during the Feb. 17 "Situation Room" about the need for the statement, but allowed him to make the case for it.

Erickson told Blitzer that the goal of the statement was to re-start the conversation about what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they crafted the Constitution and was not intended to be reincarnation of the 1994 Contract with America."

"Beginning again the conversation on what the principles of the Constitution are and why the country was founded, reminding people that under the Constitution, Congress only has 17 powers," he explained. "It's actually supposed to be very limited in a day and age when we think Congress can do anything it wants."

Blitzer questioned Erickson about one proclamation in the statement that read, "The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist."

Erickson responded by pointing out how the principles of the Declaration of Independence have been damaged by liberal ideologues. 

"We live in a day and age where the idea of life, liberty and pursuit of private property has been undermined by institutions such as universities, liberal academia, by the left in general, according to the conservative viewpoint, that there are actually things in life that are true and we shouldn't hid from those truths," asserted. "There is good, there is evil, there's truth. And a lot of people these days forget that some things are black and white."

ABC, CBS and NBC clearly went for the salacious over the relevant, and indicated that celebrity scandals pull rank over politics.  

According to ABC, CBS and NBC, an athlete involved in a three-month-old sex scandal is more newsworthy than a statement of principles signed by more than 80 conservative leaders.

Not just more newsworthy. The broadcast network morning shows devoted more than 30 minutes of coverage about Tiger Wood's statement to the press on his sexual "indiscretions" scheduled for Feb. 19. By contrast, the Feb. 17 signing of the Mount Vernon statement by 80 prominent conservative leaders received zero coverage. Both CBS and NBC sent camera crews to the event.

ABC provided the lion's share of the Tiger coverage, giving more than 17 minutes of airtime to the Woods story. A crisis management professional, a family therapist and two sports writers were brought on to speculate about the impact his expected apology would have on Woods' image and career, as well as the pros and cons of his wife Elin appearing alongside him.

Woods coverage on CBS clocked in at more than nine minutes while NBC, currently covering the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, gave Woods only four-and-a-half minutes.

With the recent conservative wins in New Jersey and Virginia, and Republican Scott Brown's election to liberal Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat, it'd be easy to think this statement would provide a hook for the morning shows talk about conservatism as it relates to the political future of America. Tied to CPAC, a major conservative conference that also began Feb. 18 in D.C., ABC, CBS and NBC had a huge news peg but no desire to cover the story.

The Mt. Vernon statement, similar to the Sharon Statement of 1960 drafted by William F. Buckley, outlined the notion of "Constitutional conservatism" as it should be applied to policies. It included these five basic principles that "define us as a country and inspire us as a people:"

• Applying the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

• Honoring the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.

• Encouraging free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

• Supporting America's national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

• Informing conservatism's firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

Cable networks gave a bit more attention to the statement. Joan Walsh of Salon.com and Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring and a principle signatory of the statement, appeared on MSNBC's Feb. 18 edition of "Hardball with Chris Matthews."  Walsh used the spot to charge the signers with racism.

"It's a statement in context of needing this statement in the, quote, ‘age of Obama, that something has happened since we elected our first African-American president," she alleged. "We've suddenly got this movement for liberty and to restore values when we've got our first African-American president."

Despite insisting that she was not calling Hanna or his colleagues "racist," Walsh stated, "I feel a lot of these documents and a lot of these gatherings are rather hostile to the America that we're becoming, which is multiracial, which is younger, in which women have the right not merely to vote but to be president and it's turning back the clock."

Hanna pointed out to Walsh that "there's nothing in the statement that talks about the "age of Obama."

Walsh also criticized the statement for rehashing old sentiments.

"These are older people from another generation," she noted. "We've got Ed Meese, we've got Brent Bozell [founder and president of the Media Research Center, CMI's parent organization]. There's not a lot of youth and new thinking there. It's more of a restoration of the Reagan administration. So, I'm just not, I'm not feeling it right now." 

CNN's Wolf Blitzer grilled Erick Erickson, managing editor of RedState.com, during the Feb. 17 "Situation Room" about the need for the statement, but allowed him to make the case for it.

Erickson told Blitzer that the goal of the statement was to re-start the conversation about what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they crafted the Constitution and was not intended to be reincarnation of the 1994 Contract with America."

"Beginning again the conversation on what the principles of the Constitution are and why the country was founded, reminding people that under the Constitution, Congress only has 17 powers," he explained. "It's actually supposed to be very limited in a day and age when we think Congress can do anything it wants."

Blitzer questioned Erickson about one proclamation in the statement that read, "The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist."

Erickson responded by pointing out how the principles of the Declaration of Independence have been damaged by liberal ideologues. 

"We live in a day and age where the idea of life, liberty and pursuit of private property has been undermined by institutions such as universities, liberal academia, by the left in general, according to the conservative viewpoint, that there are actually things in life that are true and we shouldn't hid from those truths," asserted. "There is good, there is evil, there's truth. And a lot of people these days forget that some things are black and white."

ABC, CBS and NBC clearly went for the salacious over the relevant, and indicated that celebrity scandals pull rank over politics.  

According to ABC, CBS and NBC, an athlete involved in a three-month-old sex scandal is more newsworthy than a statement of principles signed by more than 80 conservative leaders.

Not just more newsworthy. The broadcast network morning shows devoted more than 30 minutes of coverage about Tiger Wood's statement to the press on his sexual "indiscretions" scheduled for Feb. 19. By contrast, the Feb. 17 signing of the Mount Vernon statement by 80 prominent conservative leaders received zero coverage. Both CBS and NBC sent camera crews to the event.

ABC provided the lion's share of the Tiger coverage, giving more than 17 minutes of airtime to the Woods story. A crisis management professional, a family therapist and two sports writers were brought on to speculate about the impact his expected apology would have on Woods' image and career, as well as the pros and cons of his wife Elin appearing alongside him.

Woods coverage on CBS clocked in at more than nine minutes while NBC, currently covering the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, gave Woods only four-and-a-half minutes.

With the recent conservative wins in New Jersey and Virginia, and Republican Scott Brown's election to liberal Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat, it'd be easy to think this statement would provide a hook for the morning shows talk about conservatism as it relates to the political future of America. Tied to CPAC, a major conservative conference that also began Feb. 18 in D.C., ABC, CBS and NBC had a huge news peg but no desire to cover the story.

The Mt. Vernon statement, similar to the Sharon Statement of 1960 drafted by William F. Buckley, outlined the notion of "Constitutional conservatism" as it should be applied to policies. It included these five basic principles that "define us as a country and inspire us as a people:"

• Applying the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

• Honoring the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.

• Encouraging free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

• Supporting America's national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

• Informing conservatism's firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

Cable networks gave a bit more attention to the statement. Joan Walsh of Salon.com and Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring and a principle signatory of the statement, appeared on MSNBC's Feb. 18 edition of "Hardball with Chris Matthews."  Walsh used the spot to charge the signers with racism.

"It's a statement in context of needing this statement in the, quote, ‘age of Obama, that something has happened since we elected our first African-American president," she alleged. "We've suddenly got this movement for liberty and to restore values when we've got our first African-American president."

Despite insisting that she was not calling Hanna or his colleagues "racist," Walsh stated, "I feel a lot of these documents and a lot of these gatherings are rather hostile to the America that we're becoming, which is multiracial, which is younger, in which women have the right not merely to vote but to be president and it's turning back the clock."

Hanna pointed out to Walsh that "there's nothing in the statement that talks about the "age of Obama."

Walsh also criticized the statement for rehashing old sentiments.

"These are older people from another generation," she noted. "We've got Ed Meese, we've got Brent Bozell [founder and president of the Media Research Center, CMI's parent organization]. There's not a lot of youth and new thinking there. It's more of a restoration of the Reagan administration. So, I'm just not, I'm not feeling it right now." 

CNN's Wolf Blitzer grilled Erick Erickson, managing editor of RedState.com, during the Feb. 17 "Situation Room" about the need for the statement, but allowed him to make the case for it.

Erickson told Blitzer that the goal of the statement was to re-start the conversation about what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they crafted the Constitution and was not intended to be reincarnation of the 1994 Contract with America."

"Beginning again the conversation on what the principles of the Constitution are and why the country was founded, reminding people that under the Constitution, Congress only has 17 powers," he explained. "It's actually supposed to be very limited in a day and age when we think Congress can do anything it wants."

Blitzer questioned Erickson about one proclamation in the statement that read, "The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist."

Erickson responded by pointing out how the principles of the Declaration of Independence have been damaged by liberal ideologues. 

"We live in a day and age where the idea of life, liberty and pursuit of private property has been undermined by institutions such as universities, liberal academia, by the left in general, according to the conservative viewpoint, that there are actually things in life that are true and we shouldn't hid from those truths," asserted. "There is good, there is evil, there's truth. And a lot of people these days forget that some things are black and white."

ABC, CBS and NBC clearly went for the salacious over the relevant, and indicated that celebrity scandals pull rank over politics.  

According to ABC, CBS and NBC, an athlete involved in a three-month-old sex scandal is more newsworthy than a statement of principles signed by more than 80 conservative leaders.

Not just more newsworthy. The broadcast network morning shows devoted more than 30 minutes of coverage about Tiger Wood's statement to the press on his sexual "indiscretions" scheduled for Feb. 19. By contrast, the Feb. 17 signing of the Mount Vernon statement by 80 prominent conservative leaders received zero coverage. Both CBS and NBC sent camera crews to the event.

ABC provided the lion's share of the Tiger coverage, giving more than 17 minutes of airtime to the Woods story. A crisis management professional, a family therapist and two sports writers were brought on to speculate about the impact his expected apology would have on Woods' image and career, as well as the pros and cons of his wife Elin appearing alongside him.

Woods coverage on CBS clocked in at more than nine minutes while NBC, currently covering the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, gave Woods only four-and-a-half minutes.

With the recent conservative wins in New Jersey and Virginia, and Republican Scott Brown's election to liberal Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat, it'd be easy to think this statement would provide a hook for the morning shows talk about conservatism as it relates to the political future of America. Tied to CPAC, a major conservative conference that also began Feb. 18 in D.C., ABC, CBS and NBC had a huge news peg but no desire to cover the story.

The Mt. Vernon statement, similar to the Sharon Statement of 1960 drafted by William F. Buckley, outlined the notion of "Constitutional conservatism" as it should be applied to policies. It included these five basic principles that "define us as a country and inspire us as a people:"

• Applying the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

• Honoring the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.

• Encouraging free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

• Supporting America's national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

• Informing conservatism's firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

Cable networks gave a bit more attention to the statement. Joan Walsh of Salon.com and Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring and a principle signatory of the statement, appeared on MSNBC's Feb. 18 edition of "Hardball with Chris Matthews."  Walsh used the spot to charge the signers with racism.

"It's a statement in context of needing this statement in the, quote, ‘age of Obama, that something has happened since we elected our first African-American president," she alleged. "We've suddenly got this movement for liberty and to restore values when we've got our first African-American president."

Despite insisting that she was not calling Hanna or his colleagues "racist," Walsh stated, "I feel a lot of these documents and a lot of these gatherings are rather hostile to the America that we're becoming, which is multiracial, which is younger, in which women have the right not merely to vote but to be president and it's turning back the clock."

Hanna pointed out to Walsh that "there's nothing in the statement that talks about the "age of Obama."

Walsh also criticized the statement for rehashing old sentiments.

"These are older people from another generation," she noted. "We've got Ed Meese, we've got Brent Bozell [founder and president of the Media Research Center, CMI's parent organization]. There's not a lot of youth and new thinking there. It's more of a restoration of the Reagan administration. So, I'm just not, I'm not feeling it right now." 

CNN's Wolf Blitzer grilled Erick Erickson, managing editor of RedState.com, during the Feb. 17 "Situation Room" about the need for the statement, but allowed him to make the case for it.

Erickson told Blitzer that the goal of the statement was to re-start the conversation about what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they crafted the Constitution and was not intended to be reincarnation of the 1994 Contract with America."

"Beginning again the conversation on what the principles of the Constitution are and why the country was founded, reminding people that under the Constitution, Congress only has 17 powers," he explained. "It's actually supposed to be very limited in a day and age when we think Congress can do anything it wants."

Blitzer questioned Erickson about one proclamation in the statement that read, "The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist."

Erickson responded by pointing out how the principles of the Declaration of Independence have been damaged by liberal ideologues. 

"We live in a day and age where the idea of life, liberty and pursuit of private property has been undermined by institutions such as universities, liberal academia, by the left in general, according to the conservative viewpoint, that there are actually things in life that are true and we shouldn't hid from those truths," asserted. "There is good, there is evil, there's truth. And a lot of people these days forget that some things are black and white."

ABC, CBS and NBC clearly went for the salacious over the relevant, and indicated that celebrity scandals pull rank over politics.  

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell appeared on FNC's Fox & Friends Feb. 17, to discuss how the networks have covered President Obama's $787 billion stimulus package in the year since its passage.

Using research from MRC's Business & Media Institute, Bozell told cohost Gretchen Carlson that, of 172 stories ABC, CBS and NBC have run on the stimulus, just 90 of them (52 percent) included any criticism of the massive spending program.

Asserting that the media have failed in their responsibility to cover the stimulus, Bozell said, "Remember, the president said very simply - he said we needed $787 billion because we needed to create jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what he said this was all about. He said if we didn't do this, we were going to have - we were going to go from 8 percent unemployment, to 10 percent unemployment."

Holding up for the camera a paper reading "7.7%," Bozell said, "This is where we stood at unemployment when this bill was signed. We spent $787 billion. This is where we stand today." He produced a second paper that read "9.7%."

"So two things are true here," Bozell said. "No. 1: This bill bombed. No. 2: What happened to the $787 billion, and where are the national news media?"

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith teased an interview with the Vice President: "We got a great chance yesterday to spend some quality time with Vice President Joe Biden. He's got a lot to say on a lot of different topics." During the interview, Smith shilled for the failed stimulus package: "The Vice President says the stimulus created or saved 2 million jobs. Many of them green."

At the top of the show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez announced: "Today is the first anniversary of the economic stimulus package." Smith treated it like a celebration, joking: "Where's the stimulus package cake?" Rodriguez replied: "There should be." Smith began the segment with Biden by citing a Pew Research poll showing only 24% Americans actually think the stimulus plan has improved the economy, but rather that challenge the VP on its failure, he simply asked if taxpayers "got their bang from the buck from the stimulus." That allowed Biden to argue: "Absolutely. But I don't think they realize it....The job creating portions are really loaded at the second half here....they have gotten their money's worth."

Traveling with Biden in Saginaw, Michigan on Tuesday, Smith touted one employer who was helped by the stimulus: "At Fuzzy's Diner, a local businessman, Paul Furlo, told us government-backed loans helped him expand and add hundreds of new employees." No critics of the stimulus were featured in the segment.

On Tuesday's Early Show, retiring Democratic Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, argued that no jobs had been created by the government. After Rodriguez asked about the Senator's future plans, Bayh in part declared: "If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last 6 months." Smith did not bring up that quote in his interview with Biden.

Smith did however move on to political strategy: "Your critics would say the administration made a maybe even fatal miscalculation in the beginning to spend so much time and energy on health care when in fact it really was the economy." Biden replied: "Harry, we had to try to walk and chew gum at the same time."

In a follow up, Smith wondered: "Unemployment hovering around 10. The real unemployment number is probably closer to between 15% and 20%. People don't think you or a lot of other folks in Washington get it. Does the Obama administration get it?" Biden blamed Washington gridlock caused by Republicans: "We get it. We understand why they're angry....It reflects the reality that Washington right now is broken. I don't ever recall a time in my career where to get anything done you needed a super majority, 60 out of 100 senators."

Smith helped emphasize that point as he referenced some earlier bonding between himself and the Vice President: "You said to me at lunch, you said you've never seen it this dysfunctional." Biden lamented: "I've never seen it this dysfunctional. I'm trying to get the other team to cooperate to get in the game here a little bit."

After apparently being finished with the 'tough' questions, Smith gauged the VP's mood: " Are you optimistic or pessimistic?" Biden replied: "It's – you know, optimism is an occupational requirement. And I – but I actually am optimistic." Smith smiled and remarked: "That's an old Joe Bidenism."   

After the taped interview, Rodriguez asked Smith about the effectiveness of the stimulus: "Did you see any evidence, at least in that town in Michigan, that the stimulus is working?" Smith again cited that one man from Saginaw: "...this guy Furlo....has built a 30,000-foot building, hires hundreds of new employees and it is an example – at least you know, from the – what we were shown – of the stimulus working." Rodriguez concluded: "We need more examples like that."

Later in the 8:00AM ET hour Smith played another brief clip of his interview with Biden, focused on the current Vice President's war of words with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who Smith declared: "has for months blasted the Obama administration's approach to fighting terrorism."

Smith asked Biden if he "liked" Cheney, to which Biden replied: "I do like him. I honestly do....he's a really smart guy. He is – he's really patriotic – I just think he's wrong." Smith followed up: "Do you think his criticism is based in his patriotism or in his politics?" Biden claimed: "Look, I never question another man's motive," but then went after Cheney: "I mean it's almost like he forgot he left us a $1.3 trillion debt. There were two wars going on. One that was ignored. One that wasn't going all that well."

Smith added that: "most of his [Cheney's] criticism has been based on the issue of terrorism. He basically says 'we don't feel like you guys are taking it seriously.'" Biden claimed: "Well look, we have made more progress in dismantling the hierarchy of Al Qaeda central and evidence of that is now they're going to lone bombers as the means to get there." The Vice President then made a bizarre distinction: "Am I less worried about an attack? No. I'm worried. Am I less worried about a catastrophic event? Yes." Wouldn't a successful terrorist attack be a "catastrophic event"? Smith didn't think to ask.

After the conclusion of that portion of the interview, Rodriguez observed that Biden and Cheney "just respectfully agree to disagree in so many ways." Smith commented: "I don't know how respectfully." Rodriguez agreed: "You're right, you're right."
 

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith teased an interview with the Vice President: "We got a great chance yesterday to spend some quality time with Vice President Joe Biden. He's got a lot to say on a lot of different topics." During the interview, Smith shilled for the failed stimulus package: "The Vice President says the stimulus created or saved 2 million jobs. Many of them green."

At the top of the show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez announced: "Today is the first anniversary of the economic stimulus package." Smith treated it like a celebration, joking: "Where's the stimulus package cake?" Rodriguez replied: "There should be." Smith began the segment with Biden by citing a Pew Research poll showing only 24% Americans actually think the stimulus plan has improved the economy, but rather that challenge the VP on its failure, he simply asked if taxpayers "got their bang from the buck from the stimulus." That allowed Biden to argue: "Absolutely. But I don't think they realize it....The job creating portions are really loaded at the second half here....they have gotten their money's worth."

Traveling with Biden in Saginaw, Michigan on Tuesday, Smith touted one employer who was helped by the stimulus: "At Fuzzy's Diner, a local businessman, Paul Furlo, told us government-backed loans helped him expand and add hundreds of new employees." No critics of the stimulus were featured in the segment.

On Tuesday's Early Show, retiring Democratic Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, argued that no jobs had been created by the government. After Rodriguez asked about the Senator's future plans, Bayh in part declared: "If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last 6 months." Smith did not bring up that quote in his interview with Biden.

Smith did however move on to political strategy: "Your critics would say the administration made a maybe even fatal miscalculation in the beginning to spend so much time and energy on health care when in fact it really was the economy." Biden replied: "Harry, we had to try to walk and chew gum at the same time."

In a follow up, Smith wondered: "Unemployment hovering around 10. The real unemployment number is probably closer to between 15% and 20%. People don't think you or a lot of other folks in Washington get it. Does the Obama administration get it?" Biden blamed Washington gridlock caused by Republicans: "We get it. We understand why they're angry....It reflects the reality that Washington right now is broken. I don't ever recall a time in my career where to get anything done you needed a super majority, 60 out of 100 senators."

Smith helped emphasize that point as he referenced some earlier bonding between himself and the Vice President: "You said to me at lunch, you said you've never seen it this dysfunctional." Biden lamented: "I've never seen it this dysfunctional. I'm trying to get the other team to cooperate to get in the game here a little bit."

After apparently being finished with the 'tough' questions, Smith gauged the VP's mood: " Are you optimistic or pessimistic?" Biden replied: "It's – you know, optimism is an occupational requirement. And I – but I actually am optimistic." Smith smiled and remarked: "That's an old Joe Bidenism."   

After the taped interview, Rodriguez asked Smith about the effectiveness of the stimulus: "Did you see any evidence, at least in that town in Michigan, that the stimulus is working?" Smith again cited that one man from Saginaw: "...this guy Furlo....has built a 30,000-foot building, hires hundreds of new employees and it is an example – at least you know, from the – what we were shown – of the stimulus working." Rodriguez concluded: "We need more examples like that."

Later in the 8:00AM ET hour Smith played another brief clip of his interview with Biden, focused on the current Vice President's war of words with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who Smith declared: "has for months blasted the Obama administration's approach to fighting terrorism."

Smith asked Biden if he "liked" Cheney, to which Biden replied: "I do like him. I honestly do....he's a really smart guy. He is – he's really patriotic – I just think he's wrong." Smith followed up: "Do you think his criticism is based in his patriotism or in his politics?" Biden claimed: "Look, I never question another man's motive," but then went after Cheney: "I mean it's almost like he forgot he left us a $1.3 trillion debt. There were two wars going on. One that was ignored. One that wasn't going all that well."

CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference begins Feb. 18. Conservative leaders will rally the troops before the mid-term elections in November and discuss the future role of conservatives in politics.

One person who will not be in attendance is Meghan McCain, despite the year-long media attempt to make citizens believe she is somehow representative of conservatives. She tweeted on Feb. 11, "I have no idea where this weird rumor I am speaking at CPAC came from, it isn't true and I will not be attending or speaking."

McCain, the 25-year-old daughter of former Republican presidential nominee John McCain and a writer for The Daily Beast, has taken it upon herself to tell the GOP what needs to be fixed within the party. Because she calls herself a Republican, media outlets have perpetuated the notion that she is also conservative. By doing that, they've pushed a liberal social agenda that directly conflicts with conservative values.

Writer Kathleen Parker, herself no stranger to conservative bashing, praised McCain last spring as "one smart cookie" who "in a matter weeks ... has created a brand, presenting herself as a fresh face of her daddy's party and voice of young conservatives."

Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post and a contributor to MSNBC, suggested last summer that "maybe what the Republican Party is going to have to do is skip a generation and wait for the Meghan McCains to come of age so they can run for office and take over the mantle of the party."

"Hers is a voice of conscience and a voice of the future, what I hope would be the future for the Republican Party," opined Capehart's colleague Eugene Robinson about McCain to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann just last week.

After McCain launched a diatribe against Ann Coulter last March, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow heralded her as "the most notable young Republican in the country."

McCain's whole shtick revolves around two related criticisms of the Republican Party: It is hopelessly old-fashioned (for not accepting same-sex marriage and advocating for abstinence-based sex ed) and should do more to attract young people.

According to McCain, the way to attract young people is for the party to move away from its more conservative beliefs, in particular, those about sexuality.

In McCain, the media has a Republican - a label many believe is synonymous with conservative - to boost the notion that liberal ideas have more support among conservatives than they actually do.  By promoting her, they are actually using her to attack conservatives, much the same way the media long used her father.

This is the young woman who proclaimed on the "Colbert Report" last spring that she was "pro-sex," whose idea of good sex ed reads like a Planned Parenthood mailing, and who told the Log Cabin Republicans that "most of the old-school Republicans are scared s---less" of the future."

But for these comments, and others that attack conservatives (she called Karl Rove "creepy" for following her on Twitter, compared Ann Coulter to a "train wreck" and advised Dick Cheney to "go away"), the mainstream media has hailed her as the "most notable young Republican in the country," "a voice of conscience and a voice of the future," and insisted, as U.S. News and World Report's Bonnie Erbe did, that "she should be the future leader of the party." 

Just last week during a guest-hosting stint on "The View," McCain regaled her co-hosts with her take on the Tea Party movement, again playing the generation gap card.  

"It's innate racism," she claimed of former congressman Tom Tancredo's remark at the recent Tea Party convention regarding civic literacy tests for voting. "I'm sorry, revolutions start with young people, not with 65-year-old people talking about literacy tests and people who can't say the word vote in English."

Old-Fogey Conservatives

McCain regularly declares her "love" for the Republican Party in her Daily Beast column, and claimed in one that "any criticism I give of the Republican Party is out of love, and as someone who is knowledgeable and experienced enough to give constructive criticism."

But that criticism of the Republican Party is also criticism of conservatives.

McCain described herself as "liberal on social issues" to Larry King, during a March 24, 2009 interview with the CNN host. "I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues. And I think that the party is at a place where social issues shouldn't be the issues that define the party," she explained.

It's not just social issues with which McCain has a problem, but also religion. She told CNN's Roland Martin on April 8, that "a lot of problems the Republicans have come into is because there's too much inclusion of religion and government."

Mainly, her criticisms are that there are extreme people within the Party, that Republicans should eagerly endorse same-sex marriage and that the party doesn't know how to talk about sex.

"If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric," wrote McCain in the April 13 column, "Memo to the GOP: Go Gay."

Since these are topics near and dear to the heart of the liberal media, they've used McCain as a weapon against conservatives within the GOP.

ABC's David Wright used McCain to tout what he apparently saw as more widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage.

"And over the weekend, the daughter of the former Republican standard bearer, Meghan McCain, suggested she is all in favor of [same-sex marriage]," Wright reported on April 21. He included a clip of McCain saying, "I have lots and lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican."

ABC's April 19 "World News Sunday" used the same tactic in a report on same-sex marriage and the GOP that noted McCain's support for gay rights as well as her political affiliation.  

As for sex, McCain feared the Republican Party would become "irrelevant" by being too conservative when it comes to talking about sex.

She claimed that when it comes to educating children about sex, "the GOP continues to struggle with open communication about serious issues most people deal with rationally, and on a regular basis" and that "unless we learn how to integrate that kind of discussion, our party will continue its descent into irrelevance."

Her rationalization read more like a Planned Parenthood mailing then something a conservative would say.

"As a Republican, I am pro-life," she insisted. "But using birth control and having an abortion are not the same at all. Actually, the best way to prevent abortions is to educate people about birth control and make it widely and easily accessible."

Of course, the media love nothing more than a Republican who goes on the attack against conservatives.

At CBS, "Early Show" host Harry Smith used his March 10, 2009, interview with McCain to read aloud part of her diatribe against Coulter.

"Here's one of the things you wrote about Ann Coulter, who's been a guest on this program in the past, we had interesting conversations. ‘I straight up don't understand this woman or her popularity,'" read Smith. "‘I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time. If figureheads like Ann Coulter are turning me off, then they are definitely turning off other members of my generation as well.'"

NBC's Norah O'Donnell labeled McCain "a maverick in her own right" during a March 17, 2009, "Today" report about the diatribe. 

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow hailed McCain last March, shortly after the column about Coulter was published, for "call[ing] out" the "extreme" Republicans:"

"Your outspoken criticism of people like Ann Coulter - there has obviously been a lot of controversy about Rush Limbaugh," began Maddow on March 11. "You think it would be helpful for the Republican Party, for the, sort of, the lack of a better term, this sort of extreme side of it, the extreme conservative part of the Republican Party to get called out by more moderate Republicans. But you really are the only one doing that."

 This set up McCain to make her pitch that the Republican Party was out of touch with young people.

"I'm saying it because I want the Republicans to be in a good place. And I really think we are on the precipice of possibly becoming a party that it's irrelevant to young people ... ," stated McCain. "It's truly possible in the next election unless the right politician and right message. And it starts with the message which I think people are missing, too. And I just don't know how someone yelling and screaming on the news saying anti-Semitic comments could possibly draw someone to that party. I just don't understand the logic in that."

And on the March 24, 2009, "Larry King Live," the host gave McCain the opportunity to explain again that the problem with Republicans is the fact that they don't reach out enough to her generation.

"I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues. And I think that the party is at a place where social issues shouldn't be the issues that define the party. And I have taken heat, but in fairness to me, I am a different generation than the people that are giving me heat," she proclaimed. "I'm 24 years old. I'm not in my 40s, I'm not in my 50s and older. And I think there's just such a generation gap, that the people that don't understand me, I actually take it as a compliment, that sort of this new young Republican can come forward and make progress and be successful in the ways that this party has currently failed."

 ‘Young Conservative?' No way.

Not everybody is content to sit by and let Meghan McCain push a leftist agenda from within the Republican Party.

Yes, McCain can speak for a younger demographic, but her political experience is limited to helping with her dad's failed presidential campaign. McCain herself has declared she knows little about economics, which is a huge conservative plank in the Republican Party's platform, and, since we know how she stands on social issues, is presumably some of what she likes about the party.

"I didn't take econ in college. I don't completely understand so I'd hate to make a comment one way or the other," she admitted to Maddow in the March 11 interview.

Conservative talk radio host Bill Bennett questioned the wisdom of some of McCain's statements in a discussion on CNN's April 23 "Situation Room" with James Carville, Candy Crowley and Wolf Blitzer about McCain's suggestion that Dick Cheney "go away."

"Meghan McCain is to be listened to, but a guy who was elected to ten terms, twice as vice-president, was secretary of defense isn't, that's a little bit of a stretch," Bennett stated with regard to her comments about Cheney.

Crowley didn't see McCain as being an effective mover within the party. "I think she's been trying to push the Republican Party. She's younger than we tend to think of as people in the Republican Party, but I'm not sure she moves the meter one way or the other."

In her limited experience, McCain believes the logical thing Republicans should do is move left.

She expressed her desire for more "centrism" in her CBS interview, telling Harry Smith, that "it's hard for [her] to defend these icons [like Coulter]" and that she "just wish[es] for more centrist icons in the Republican Party."

"Centrism" was a theme in her columns as well.

"I have always believed that in order for our government to successfully function and move forward, it is important for both parties to embrace centrism," McCain wrote on April 7, 2009.

The true "voice of young conservatives" would not urge anyone to move left on issues. He or she would be finding new ways to make conservative issues relatable to young people.

And the mainstream media wouldn't tell anybody about it.

UPDATE AT END OF POST: Letterman also took a swipe at Palin during his opening monologue.

David Letterman just can't keep his mind off Sarah Palin.

On Monday, the "Late Show" host used his Top Ten list to disparage the former governor of Alaska claiming that George Washington would roll over in his grave if Palin were elected president.

Never mind that she hasn't announced her candidacy or that the presidential election is more than two and a half years away.

Such inconvenient truths don't phase Letterman for in a list of the "Top Ten Things George Washington Would Say If He Were Alive Today," a woman the "Late Show" host probably never heard of two years ago actually came in second (video embedded below the fold with complete list, h/t Story Balloon):

10. "Thanks for using my birthday to sell mattresses."

9. " If you think Regis is crazy now, you should have seen him in college."

8. "What the hell is a Lady Gaga?"

7. "I Cannot tell a lie-both my taste buds and my wallet approve Subway's Five-Dollar Footlong."

6. "Racing elevators seems like a tremendous waste of valuable technology."

5. "Watch out-runaway Toyota!"

4. "The effects in ‘Avatar' are wonderful, but the plot is nothing."

3."Ever done it with a guy who's on Mt. Rushmore?"

2. "If you elect Sarah Palin, please let me know so I can roll over in my grave."

1. "I cannot tell a lie-this top ten list blows."

Well, at least Dave got the last one right! 

*****Update: Letterman also took a swipe at Palin during his opening monologue (at 4:20, h/t Story Balloon)...

You know who was at the Daytona 500? Sarah Palin, former Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin. She was at the finish line and she waved her checkered-past.

On Tuesday, both CBS Early Show co-host Maggie Rodriguez and ABC Good Morning America co-host George Stephanopoulos lamented the announced retirement of Democratic Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and proclaimed that his reelection would have been a virtual certainty. Rodriguez described it as "a lock," while Stephanopoulos asserted that it was "almost assured."

In reality, A January 25 Rasmussen poll showed Bayh losing to Republican Congressman Mike Pence, 44% to 47%. While Pence has since decided against running, the poll also showed former Republican Congressman John Stutzman, who has formerly announced his candidacy, getting close at 41% to Bayh's 44%. Numbers like that certainly do not suggest Bayh's reelection was anywhere close to being "a lock."

Both Rodriguez and Stephanopoulos made those comments in interviews with Bayh on their respective shows. Only a brief sound bite of the Senator was featured on NBC's Today on Tuesday.

On Good Morning America, Stephanopoulos almost pleaded with Bayh not to retire, claiming that if "centrists" like him leave, "doesn't that make the problem [of partisanship] worse? Why not stay and fix it?" While Rodriguez did not label Bayh as centrist, she did fret over his decision to retire: "What do you say to critics who say you did leave the Democrats high and dry at a time when they can't afford to be losing anymore seats?"

Later in the Early Show interview, Rodriguez wondered if Bayh was setting up a 2012 White House run: "There is talk, because you said that you are an executive at heart, that you may switch parties and run against President Obama in the next election. Is that a possibility?" While she used the phrase "switch parties" it seemed clear that she was asking if Bayh would start a third party, rather than become a Republican.

Stephanopoulos also asked Bayh about his political ambitions, but not in such a direct way: "You know, some people look at the decision by you and wonder if you're trying to set up a future run for the White House yourself. I mean, we have the graphic from Huffington Post out there saying, is Senator Bayh eyeing a White House run? What's the truth behind that?"

Here is part of the Early Show interview:

RODRIGUEZ: Your announcement came as quite a shock to a lot of people, including your Majority Leader Harry Reid, who didn't find out about it until it was public. And a lot of people are wondering, Senator, why did you blind side your leadership? Are you angry at your party?

BAYH: No, Maggie, I'm not angry at my party, I wish Washington would work better. And I had discussed with Senator Reid as long as a year ago my growing feeling that Congress was not working as well as it should. That there is much to much partisanship and too much ideology, not enough practical progress. And so, you know, with several of my colleagues, including the leadership, I shared that opinion. And you know in the hurly burly of making these announcements sometimes phone calls get delayed and that kind of thing. But what we need to do is to come together as a people and solve the problems facing our country, and unfortunately, Washington is just not doing enough of that these days.  

RODRIGUEZ: Analysts say that you may have essentially handed your seat to the Republicans come November, because you a lock to win reelection, and now the Democrats have to scramble to find someone to run in your place before Friday, which is the deadline. What do you say to critics who say you did leave the Democrats high and dry at a time when they can't afford to be losing anymore seats?

BAYH: Well, those critics, Maggie, must know my – must not know my state very well. Hoosiers are very independent, there are five Republicans running, they're going to have a vigorous primary. I don't know who they're nominee is going to be. And I am highly confident that we will have a candidate for the United States Senate who will be very competitive and have an excellent chance of winning this seat in November.

RODRIGUEZ: You mentioned the word independent. There is talk, because you said that you are an executive at heart, that you may switch parties and run against President Obama in the next election. Is that a possibility?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Bayh's Future; Will He Consider Run Against Obama?]

BAYH: That is absolutely – no possibility whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I talked to the President yesterday and said I was looking forward to working with him over these next 11 months to try and make the progress I know that he so desperately wants. And let me say this Maggie, I think the President – you know, you can disagree with his policies if you want to, but he is making a sincere effort to try and bring the two sides together to try and find some common ground, to try and forge that practical progress that Americans are so yearning for. And I want to help him over the next 11 months to make that kind of progress.

Part of the Good Morning America interview:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, so clear that you are frustrated by the system right now. You say that basically it's broken. But if centrists like you leave, doesn't that make the problem worse? Why not stay and fix it?

BAYH: Well, I thought that Judd Gregg said it well, George. I simply reached the conclusion that I could get more done to help my state and the American people, by doing something in the private sector. Helping to create jobs. Helping to educate children or young people at a college or university. Helping to lead a philanthropy [sic]. Real accomplishments in a real way. Perhaps on a smaller stage, but something meaningful.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's a pretty stunning statement, Senator. You are a senior senator. You would be heading into your third term, victory almost assured. But, you think you can do more in the private sector?

BAYH: George, I really do. Until we can change this town, until we reform Congress, as I've indicated to you and others, there's too much brain-dead partisanship, tactical maneuvering for short term political advantage rather than focusing on the greater good. And also just strident ideology. The extremes of both parties have to be willing to accept compromises from time to time to make some progress because some progress for the American people is better than nothing. And all-too often recently, we've been getting nothing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the big question is how is that going to happen? We were talking on the phone yesterday, you say it's going to take a shock to the system administered by the public. What would that shock be?

BAYH: That shock would be the American people looking at Congress and saying, look. "There's a lot of good people there. But the folks who are so obviously focused on politics and partisanship, vote them out." The people who are just rigidly ideological, unwilling to accept practical solutions somewhere in the middle, vote them out. And change the rules so that the sensible people who remain can actually get the job done. The President, I know, is desperately trying to accomplish this. Congress needs to listen. And the American people need to help with this process.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say that the President's trying to accomplish that. And I know you're on ally of the President. But you also said this shock could come in the next presidential election. Telling me you thought there was a space out there for what you called a saner Ross Perot. Explain what you mean by that?

BAYH: Well, look, first off I do support President Obama. And I am confident that he will be reelected. And I think he's making a sincere effort to try and bring the two parties together. But if frustrations continue to grow, and the American people say a pox on both your houses, then there's some prospect for a third party type movement. I don't believe that will happen, George. I think that ultimately we can make progress in the two-party system. And, look I think the President is making a sincere effort. And I want to help him with that. And I applaud him for that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, some people look at the decision by you and wonder if you're trying to set up a future run for the White House yourself. I mean, we have the graphic from Huffington Post out there saying, is Senator Bayh eyeing a White House run? What's the truth behind that?

BAYH: No truth whatsoever, George. I spoke with the President yesterday. He couldn't have been nicer. I indicated I wanted to help him over the next 11 months. And would do whatever I could to help him with his reelection.

On Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez reported on a 7-year-old boy who tried to hand deliver a get well card to former President Bill Clinton: "When Bill Clinton returned home from the hospital after a heart procedure on Friday, there were lots of reporters waiting, and one second grader named C.J. Williams, who just wanted to get a get well card to him and some candy."

Throughout the fawning segment, a headline on-screen read: "Get Well Soon, Mr. President; 2nd Grader Attempts To Deliver Message to Clinton." However, while the story suggested that C.J. came up with the idea on his own, when Rodriguez asked "Was that your idea, C.J.? Did you want to do it?," the boy replied: "No, Dad." Rodriguez added: "Oh, it was Dad's idea." The father, Chip Williams, was in studio and had explained: "...we thought it would be a good idea to maybe swing by his house and drop off a card, a little get well card."

Both Rodriguez and co-host Harry Smith lamented C.J.'s inability to deliver the card personally, but Rodriguez did inform viewers it was a Snoopy card and read it aloud: "Would a happy little dance make you feel a little better? In that case, maybe I should do a great big happy dance." Smith was in awe: "Wow."

Smith went on to encourage C.J. to read a handwritten portion of the card: "Here, turn it around. Can you read the part that you wrote?" C.J. obliged: "Dear President Clinton. Happy Valentine's Day. I hope you feel better soon. Here is a little heart to make your big heart feel better. Your friend, C.J. Williams." Rodriguez had earlier explained that C.J. had a small heart-shaped box of Skittles for the former president. She concluded the interview by remarking: "That's such a nice gesture and I'm sure he's going to love it."

It was not the first time CBS used children to celebrate Democratic politicians. In May of last year, correspondent Bill Whitaker did a story on a book of school children's letters to President Obama. On the May 4 Evening News, Whitaker showed several of the letters featured and declared it was "A book full of young hopes and dreams."

Here is part of Early Show interview with C.J. Williams:

HARRY SMITH: So you have the card there. Did you pick it – did you guys pick out the card together?

C.J. WILLIAMS: Yeah.

SMITH: Yeah. Can we see – can we look at it? Do you mind if we take a look at it?

CHIP WILLIAMS: Who picked it out, buddy?

C.J.: Me.

CHIP: That's right, C.J. did.

SMITH: Let's see what you got there.

RODRIGUEZ: Let's see.

SMITH: Oh, oh, let's show it to the camera.

RODRIGUEZ: Nice. Snoopy.

SMITH: What does it say?

RODRIGUEZ: Would a happy little dance make you feel a little better?

SMITH: Oh, very nice.

RODRIGUEZ: In that case, maybe I should do a great big happy dance.

SMITH: Wow.

CHIP: You want to read it C.J.?

SMITH: Here, turn it around. Can you read the part that you wrote?

CHIP: Maybe President Clinton's watching.

SMITH: Yeah, you never know.

CHIP: You want to read it to him, go ahead.

C.J.: Dear President Clinton. Happy Valentine's Day. I hope you feel better soon. Here is a little heart to make your big heart feel better. Your friend, C.J. Williams.

RODRIGUEZ: That's great, C.J.

SMITH: How cute is that?

RODRIGUEZ: So how are you going to get it to him now, do you have another plan?

CHIP: What do you think?

C.J.: Yeah. When we walk around in the city, me and dad are going to find his office and try to give it to him there.

SMITH: It's right up on 125th street. You can't miss it.

CHIP: And if not, we've put together a little letter that we're going to put in the mail tomorrow for him.

SMITH: Oh, very good.

RODRIGUEZ: Oh, great. That's such a nice gesture and I'm sure he's going to love it. Thanks, C.J. Thanks, Chip.

On Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith wondered if there was any credibility to Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the Christmas Day bomber: "...the point that he seems to be trying to make...that this administration, the Obama administration, is not taking terrorism seriously enough. Is this theater or is there a real point to be made?"

Smith directed that question to former Bush advisor Dan Bartlett, who observed: "...it's very salient going into this midterm election and I think the Republicans like the fact that the former Vice President's out there slugging away." Smith also spoke with former Democratic Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr. and incredulously asked: "Can an actual argument be made, though...that the Obama administration is weak on terrorism?" Ford argued: "It's hard to....under President Obama and Vice President Biden, great strides are being made all across the globe."

Ford went on to attack Cheney for daring to voice objections to Obama's handling of terrorism: "Why would Dick Cheney suggest to the country and suggest to the world that the President Obama and Vice President Biden administration are weak on terrorism?...other than to be – play cheap politics at this moment?"

Picking up on Ford's accusation against Cheney, Smith turned to Bartlett and tried to dismiss recent Obama administration failures: "Here's the question, is whether or not there's a terrorism trial held in New York City or not, whether or not a defendant has been read his Miranda rights, does this actually get to the heart of this war on terrorism?" Bartlett replied: "...with this current attorney general, Eric Holder, there's a real concern, that is valid in my opinion, that the approach taken is one in which it's taking valuable tools off of the battlefield in order to protect our country."

Bartlett continued: "...in this fight, with a guy getting on a plane and trying to attack Americans, there should have been a different process followed." Smith couldn't help but interject some Democratic Party talking points in reply: "Well, I'm not going to get into the particulars because we go back, it was exactly – almost exactly what happened with Richard Reid."

Smith went back to Ford, asking: "...the Vice President [Cheney] – his point seems to be philosophically you're not taking it seriously and no one would have known better about not being able to connect the dots than the prior administration. Should he – should the Obama administration be at least listening to the tone of that?" Ford replied: "I don't question Vice President Cheney's desire to protect the country. What I do question is his judgment in criticizing this president and vice president."

Here is a full transcript of Smith's discussion with Bartlett and Ford:

HARRY SMITH: Joining me now from Austin, Texas, former Bush adviser and CBS News political consultant Dan Bartlett and here in the studio, former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr., who is chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. Good morning to you both.

HAROLD FORD JR.: Good morning.

DAN BARTLETT: Good morning, gentlemen.

SMITH: Let us talk about Dick Cheney and the point that he seems to be trying to make, Dan, is that this administration, the Obama administration, is not taking terrorism seriously enough. Is this theater or is there a real point to be made?

BARTLETT: Well, I think the irony here is that you can have a weekend where both sides battle it out, the current vice president, the former vice president, and both sides can take away, credibly, a victory. And I think it really is a reflection of our politics where both sides, the base of the Democratic Party can be cheering on Joe Biden and the base of the Republican Party can be cheering on Dick Cheney. And I think it kind of shows that the issue of national security, everybody kind of thought it was going to recede with the economy and the new administration coming in, but with the Massachusetts election in which Scott Brown and a lot of those people feel like the issue of terrorism really was what moved a lot of the independent votes at the end, it's very salient going into this midterm election and I think the Republicans like the fact that the former Vice President's out there slugging away.

SMITH: Can an actual argument be made, though, Harold Ford, that the Obama administration is weak on terrorism?

FORD: It's hard to. Good to see Dan and I appreciate his comments this morning, but the reality is under Obama – under President Obama and Vice President Biden, great strides are being made all across the globe. 12 of the top 20 Al Qaeda operatives, the top ones, have been found, captured, if not killed. To the progress that we're making not only on the ground in Afghanistan with the surge, but there's in doubt there's some building on some of the things, the successes of the previous administration. And as much as Dan may be accurate in saying that Democrats can take away a little, Republicans can take away a little, why have the argument? Why would Dick Cheney suggest to the country and suggest to the world that the President Obama and Vice President Biden administration are weak on terrorism? We have a challenge in Afghanistan. We just heard President Haass on the Council [on Foreign Relations] talk about some of the progress in Iran where the focus should be internally there. Why would Dick Cheney inject other than to be – play cheap politics at this moment?

SMITH: Because, Dan, here's – here's the question, is whether or not there's a terrorism trial held in New York City or not, whether or not a defendant has been read his Miranda rights, does this actually get to the heart of this war on terrorism?

BARTLETT: Well, I do think it's important for Republicans not to question the intention of Vice President Joe Biden, or more importantly, President Obama, when it comes to fighting the war. I think everybody recognizes that everybody's doing everything they can in their own interpretation of protecting the country. The fundamental difference is the approach and the philosophy in which you follow. And I think particularly with this current attorney general, Eric Holder, there's a real concern, that is valid in my opinion, that the approach taken is one in which it's taking valuable tools off of the battlefield in order to protect our country. It's not to say that every way we did it previously has always been right, but it's important to make sure that we have all the best tools on the table. That we stay on offense. That's not to say there's not going to be areas of agreement like there was in Afghanistan, but in this fight, with a guy getting on a plane and trying to attack Americans, there should have been a different process followed. And so there can be differences-

SMITH: Well, I'm not going to get into the particulars because we go back, it was exactly – almost exactly what happened with Richard Reid, but let's move forward to the sense that does the Vice President – his point seems to be philosophically you're not taking it seriously and no one would have known better about not being able to connect the dots than the prior administration. Should he – should the Obama administration be at least listening to the tone of that?

FORD: I'm sure they're listening to it all, but I would not – I would not term it as philosophical differences, I'd just call it temperamental differences. The approach that Vice President Biden and President Obama have is different in that regard. I don't question Vice President Cheney's desire to protect the country. What I do question is his judgment in criticizing this president and vice president.

SMITH: Running or not running?

FORD: Haven't made a decision yet, but if I do, I'll let you know.

SMITH: First?

BARTLETT: I won't weigh in.

SMITH: Not weighing in. And we got a lot to talk about, Texas politics, too. Dan, at another time, I hope.

BARTLETT: Absolutely.

FORD: Good to see you, Dan.

SMITH: Harold Ford, thank you both very much for being here.

FORD: Thank you for having me.

BARTLETT: Good to see you, Harold.

On Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith wondered if there was any credibility to Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the Christmas Day bomber: "...the point that he seems to be trying to make...that this administration, the Obama administration, is not taking terrorism seriously enough. Is this theater or is there a real point to be made?"

Smith directed that question to former Bush advisor Dan Bartlett, who observed: "...it's very salient going into this midterm election and I think the Republicans like the fact that the former Vice President's out there slugging away." Smith also spoke with former Democratic Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr. and incredulously asked: "Can an actual argument be made, though...that the Obama administration is weak on terrorism?" Ford argued: "It's hard to....under President Obama and Vice President Biden, great strides are being made all across the globe."

Ford went on to attack Cheney for daring to voice objections to Obama's handling of terrorism: "Why would Dick Cheney suggest to the country and suggest to the world that the President Obama and Vice President Biden administration are weak on terrorism?...other than to be – play cheap politics at this moment?"

Picking up on Ford's accusation against Cheney, Smith turned to Bartlett and tried to dismiss recent Obama administration failures: "Here's the question, is whether or not there's a terrorism trial held in New York City or not, whether or not a defendant has been read his Miranda rights, does this actually get to the heart of this war on terrorism?" Bartlett replied: "...with this current attorney general, Eric Holder, there's a real concern, that is valid in my opinion, that the approach taken is one in which it's taking valuable tools off of the battlefield in order to protect our country."

Bartlett continued: "...in this fight, with a guy getting on a plane and trying to attack Americans, there should have been a different process followed." Smith couldn't help but interject some Democratic Party talking points in reply: "Well, I'm not going to get into the particulars because we go back, it was exactly – almost exactly what happened with Richard Reid."

Smith went back to Ford, asking: "...the Vice President [Cheney] – his point seems to be philosophically you're not taking it seriously and no one would have known better about not being able to connect the dots than the prior administration. Should he – should the Obama administration be at least listening to the tone of that?" Ford replied: "I don't question Vice President Cheney's desire to protect the country. What I do question is his judgment in criticizing this president and vice president."

Here is a full transcript of Smith's discussion with Bartlett and Ford:

HARRY SMITH: Joining me now from Austin, Texas, former Bush adviser and CBS News political consultant Dan Bartlett and here in the studio, former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr., who is chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. Good morning to you both.

HAROLD FORD JR.: Good morning.

DAN BARTLETT: Good morning, gentlemen.

SMITH: Let us talk about Dick Cheney and the point that he seems to be trying to make, Dan, is that this administration, the Obama administration, is not taking terrorism seriously enough. Is this theater or is there a real point to be made?

BARTLETT: Well, I think the irony here is that you can have a weekend where both sides battle it out, the current vice president, the former vice president, and both sides can take away, credibly, a victory. And I think it really is a reflection of our politics where both sides, the base of the Democratic Party can be cheering on Joe Biden and the base of the Republican Party can be cheering on Dick Cheney. And I think it kind of shows that the issue of national security, everybody kind of thought it was going to recede with the economy and the new administration coming in, but with the Massachusetts election in which Scott Brown and a lot of those people feel like the issue of terrorism really was what moved a lot of the independent votes at the end, it's very salient going into this midterm election and I think the Republicans like the fact that the former Vice President's out there slugging away.

SMITH: Can an actual argument be made, though, Harold Ford, that the Obama administration is weak on terrorism?

FORD: It's hard to. Good to see Dan and I appreciate his comments this morning, but the reality is under Obama – under President Obama and Vice President Biden, great strides are being made all across the globe. 12 of the top 20 Al Qaeda operatives, the top ones, have been found, captured, if not killed. To the progress that we're making not only on the ground in Afghanistan with the surge, but there's in doubt there's some building on some of the things, the successes of the previous administration. And as much as Dan may be accurate in saying that Democrats can take away a little, Republicans can take away a little, why have the argument? Why would Dick Cheney suggest to the country and suggest to the world that the President Obama and Vice President Biden administration are weak on terrorism? We have a challenge in Afghanistan. We just heard President Haass on the Council [on Foreign Relations] talk about some of the progress in Iran where the focus should be internally there. Why would Dick Cheney inject other than to be – play cheap politics at this moment?

SMITH: Because, Dan, here's – here's the question, is whether or not there's a terrorism trial held in New York City or not, whether or not a defendant has been read his Miranda rights, does this actually get to the heart of this war on terrorism?

BARTLETT: Well, I do think it's important for Republicans not to question the intention of Vice President Joe Biden, or more importantly, President Obama, when it comes to fighting the war. I think everybody recognizes that everybody's doing everything they can in their own interpretation of protecting the country. The fundamental difference is the approach and the philosophy in which you follow. And I think particularly with this current attorney general, Eric Holder, there's a real concern, that is valid in my opinion, that the approach taken is one in which it's taking valuable tools off of the battlefield in order to protect our country. It's not to say that every way we did it previously has always been right, but it's important to make sure that we have all the best tools on the table. That we stay on offense. That's not to say there's not going to be areas of agreement like there was in Afghanistan, but in this fight, with a guy getting on a plane and trying to attack Americans, there should have been a different process followed. And so there can be differences-

SMITH: Well, I'm not going to get into the particulars because we go back, it was exactly – almost exactly what happened with Richard Reid, but let's move forward to the sense that does the Vice President – his point seems to be philosophically you're not taking it seriously and no one would have known better about not being able to connect the dots than the prior administration. Should he – should the Obama administration be at least listening to the tone of that?

FORD: I'm sure they're listening to it all, but I would not – I would not term it as philosophical differences, I'd just call it temperamental differences. The approach that Vice President Biden and President Obama have is different in that regard. I don't question Vice President Cheney's desire to protect the country. What I do question is his judgment in criticizing this president and vice president.

SMITH: Running or not running?

FORD: Haven't made a decision yet, but if I do, I'll let you know.

SMITH: First?

BARTLETT: I won't weigh in.

SMITH: Not weighing in. And we got a lot to talk about, Texas politics, too. Dan, at another time, I hope.

BARTLETT: Absolutely.

FORD: Good to see you, Dan.

SMITH: Harold Ford, thank you both very much for being here.

FORD: Thank you for having me.

BARTLETT: Good to see you, Harold.

The Business & Media Institute's Dan Gainor appeared on Stuart Varney's Fox Business program on Feb. 12 to discuss a new BMI report about network news coverage of last year's $787 Billion stimulus package. The report found that ABC, CBS and NBC did their best to put a positive spin on the stimulus.

"All three networks were close to 3 to 1 in picking supporters to comment on stories, as opposed to anybody who might be critical," Gainor told Varney.  

Asked about the new $15 billion "jobs bill" under consideration in the senate, Gainor told Varney, "Now the problem we've got is that the government solutions the New York Times and, frankly, the network news shows have always been backing, trying to make look good, are all these big government solutions that hire people for government programs. America has one of the highest business taxes on the globe. You fix that problem, and businesses will be able to hire again."

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. 

President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan was the most expensive bill in history. Still, it received strong media support - blazing the way for the controversial bill to pass. Network journalists didn't just back the bill during that debate. Once it had passed, ABC, NBC and CBS spent nearly a year promoting "President Obama's stimulus cavalry," as NBC's Lisa Myers put it.

That much money was supposed to enter the economy through many different channels. Typically, where stimulus dollars went, journalists followed. They roamed the nation looking for proof the stimulus was succeeding, and sometimes proof it wasn't.

The Business & Media Institute analyzed 172 stories about the stimulus from Feb. 17, 2009, when the bill was signed, to Jan. 31, 2010. In those stories, the three evening news shows turned to proponents nearly three times as often as opponents of the plan (269 to just 111). Reporters called the Obama program or its many offshoots "good news," or turned to others whose positive views on the stimulus went further, with one calling the program a "lifesaver."

"It's the government that`s going to have to pull us out of this recession," Anthony Mason of CBS "Evening News" said on March 6. That was a consistent theme for the journalists involved. With the economy beaten down by the Great Recession, Americans needed Obama and the government to fix things and boost employment.

Anchor Katie Couric added to that theme when she introduced the story. "In a moment, we'll be telling you about all the jobs the stimulus plan is creating, but first why those jobs are so desperately needed."

That pro-stimulus approach impacted the reporting. All three broadcast networks promoted the stimulus prior to the vote. The same news media that backed Barack Obama during the election then turned to his "bold" push for a stimulus plan. Two broadcast networks - ABC and NBC - showed particularly strong support for the president by relying on pro-stimulus voices by a more-than 2-to-1 ratio (139 to 56). As reporter Scott Cohn told the NBC "Nightly News" audience about a struggling Indiana community. "Economic stimulus isn't just a political debate around here. It could be a matter of survival."

In the year following the passage of the stimulus package, network journalists embraced both the spending and the programs that went along with it. Story after story detailed how a few hundred thousand dollars or a few million dollars would aid essential programs and, in Obama's words, "save or create" millions of jobs.

That was what viewers of ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson," CBS "Evening News" and NBC "Nightly News" heard for almost a year. Those three favored pro-stimulus speakers 71 percent to 29 percent (269 to just 111).

NBC was the worst of the three networks. It relied on stimulus supporters in its stories by more than a factor of 3-to-1 (110 supporters to just 31 critics). At the same time, NBC only included any sort of criticism of the $787 billion plan in 43 percent of its stories.

While CBS included some criticism of the stimulus in three fourths of its stories (30 out of 40), the network still found several ways to boost the president. During an April 29 broadcast, Anthony Mason described Obama in laudatory terms. "As he's tried to lead the country through the crisis, President Obama has offered both caution and hope."

Another CBS story celebrated how D.C. had turned into a new financial capital. Mason told viewers about "matchmaking sessions to link them with government agencies giving out stimulus money." He even quoted Washington power broker and "King of K Street" Thomas Hale Boggs Jr. who seemed thrilled that the "total pie is way over $2 trillion" to grab for clients. As Mason added, "Government officials like these at the Transportation Department can't give it out fast enough."

That report included only mild criticism of the feeding frenzy.

ABC's coverage of the stimulus also ignored critics more than half the time, but lacked CBS's blatantly positive comments about the plan or the president who promoted it.

Even when reporters showed some of the obvious flaws of the stimulus program, they still depicted it as "working." NBC's Lisa Myers pointed out one of the marketing angles of the Obama bill including signs crediting new work to the government. "At this road project in Maryland a sign tells all who pass by that the money for repaving came from the stimulus package." She went on to say that the Obama administration has urged states to put up such signs, even though they "can cost as much as $1,200."

But Myers then followed with a more typical report including three people, two supporting the program and just one opposed.

The pro-stimulus position of the three networks was almost identical to the one taken leading up to the passage of the bill. Then both ABC and NBC showed particularly strong support for the president by relying on pro-stimulus voices by a more-than 2-to-1 ratio (139 to 56). That 71 percent total was the same percentage of pro-stimulus voices these two networks used throughout the year (183 positive to just 74 critics).

Let a thousand programs bloom

During the year, it seemed nearly every stimulus program found its time in the sun. Media reports bounced from Baltimore to recession hot spot Elkhart, Ind., to Puget Sound near Seattle. Every story used an almost identical template. Here was a school/environmental concern/business/police department that would just collapse without more funding from Uncle Sam.

Government was "replacing this crumbling bridge over the Osage River," went a May 28 story. NBC's Myers first acknowledged critics who said it was "a bridge to the middle of nowhere." Then she totally undercut them: "But in struggling Miller County, that $8.5 million bridge means jobs."

ABC's Bill Weir profiled how programs around the nation were using stimulus money to buy hybrid buses at $700,000 a piece. Weir did his own salesmanship for the buses in his April 13 broadcast. "Well, the next time you ride any bus, consider how many sets of American hands went into making it. It comes to life as a steel skeleton at this plant in Riverside, California, but then all the parts that get added on are built in manufacturing plants across the country," he enthused.

The price tag: $115 million for 15 communities. Weir interviewed four different people for the piece and every one of them liked the idea. As Nick Golzynski, a bus manufacturing employee, put it, "If the stimulus package didn't go through, we'd probably be laying off." Weir didn't find any critics or any unhappy taxpayers to vent.

Chris Bury, also from ABC, waved the flag with an April 8 stimulus story about Filipino veterans. Anchor Charles Gibson introduced the segment: "Now, finally, the U.S. government is making a long overdue payment to some of the survivors [of the Bataan Death March.]" Naturally, they had the stimulus bill to thank. "Tucked away in President Obama's stimulus package is a measure that fulfills at least some of President Roosevelt's promise" to pay the veterans.

When they weren't citing patriotism, network reporters turned to saving the children or helping the environment as rationales for the stimulus. CBS's Randall Pinkston said the money would help save young lives in his Oct. 7 story. "The Justice Department is pledging $16 million to boost school security around the country, a half million for Chicago. The city is also using $30 million in federal stimulus funds to identify and help 1,200 children who are most at risk of getting shot. The students from 38 schools will be selected based on poor academic performance, family environment, and location, focusing on areas where other deaths have occurred."

Over at NBC, Rehema Ellis defended nearly $100 million in educational expenses. "For Baltimore, Maryland, an older city with inner city problems, its $95 million in federal education stimulus money will be more than a help to its school system of 193 schools, almost 6,000 teachers and 82,000 students," she told viewers Aug 24. Her story included a clip of Dr. Andreas Alonso, who made sure the audience understood how necessary the stimulus had been. "It's been a lifesaver," he said.

Even a piece on environmental groups paying to "retrieve abandoned fishing nets" received favorable coverage. "The cleanup might have taken 15 years, but with the stimulus money, 90 percent of the nets will be removed in just 18 months, employing nearly 40 fishermen," Lee Cowan, of NBC, said Sept. 29.

Good Reporting, Too

For all of the positive spin, each network had some intelligent coverage of the pricey stimulus programs put in place. Several reporters distinguished themselves with solid reporting from the field. CBS's Chip Reid and Sharyl Attkisson and ABC's Jake Tapper and Jonathan Karl each showed some of the problems with the stimulus plan that the networks otherwise missed. NBC's overall positive reporting downplayed criticism too much for any one reporter to stand out.

Atkisson and Karl did noteworthy work underlining the many difficulties with the stimulus package. A typical Atkisson piece showed the excesses of the $787 billion expenditures. "A half million dollars in stimulus funds came to the rescue in financially strapped Pawtucket, Rhode Island. But it didn't help with their deficits, layoffs, or unpaid school bills. Instead the town built this - a brand new skate park," went a Dec. 10 story.

She added other excesses from a "water taxi service to a dilapidated beach town in Connecticut" to bike racks in the affluent Georgetown area of Washington, D.C. "And your tax dollars were spent to fight homelessness in Union, New York, where nobody asked for the money and they don't have a homeless problem," her piece continued.

A Nov. 17 report by Karl highlighted errors in stimulus job accounting. "Moore's Shoes in Campbellsville, Kentucky claims nine jobs were created from a single $890 grant for nine pair of work boots for the Army Corps of Engineers," explained Karl. "Head Start of August, Georgia claimed 317 jobs with a $790,000 grant. But it was really just a one-time pay raise to its 317 employees," he continued.

A report from the previous day had detailed the many mistakes with the stimulus Web site. Karl noted that the Web site "says 30 jobs were created and over $700,000 spent in Arizona's 15th congressional district." "The problem," he added "the state has only eight congressional districts."

Another Karl story focused on a report by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.,  highlighting 10 stimulus projects he considered wasteful, including $3.4 million to build an eco-tunnel in Florida for wildlife to cross Route 27.

White House correspondent Reid showed the other side of the stimulus as well, talking about an analysis of the spending. "Well, Katie, that report is going to claim that the stimulus has already created or saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, but if the administration's first effort at counting stimulus jobs is any guide, tomorrow's numbers could be hard to believe."

Methodology

The Business & Media Institute tracked every stimulus story on ABC, NBC and CBS from Feb. 13, 2009 to Jan. 31, 2010. All stories that were totally or significantly covering the $787 billion stimulus bill. Casual mentions or stories about other types of stimulus - foreign stimulus plans, private stimulus plans, etc. - were excluded.  Tallies did include the government's Cash for Clunkers program which, while not included in the initial stimulus bill, "was funded with money diverted from the stimulus," according to the Sept. 11, 2009, Washington Post.

 

On Tuesday’s CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric and White House reporter Chip Reid cast President Obama’s push for “bipartisanship” in a favorable light, with Obama “working hard,” “following through on a promise” and “open to ideas from Republicans.” But in an item posted on CBSNews.com, Reid’s fellow CBS White House correspondent, Mark Knoller – who has covered every President since Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s – was far more skeptical: “When a sitting President calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender.”

Knoller’s blog, with the jaundiced headline: “Obama Says Bipartisanshp, But What He Wants Is GOP Surrender,” was posted at roughly the same time the CBS Evening News was airing on the East Coast. [Here in Washington, D.C., the CBS affiliate WUSA-TV pre-empted the Evening News in favor of local weather coverage, but I was able to view the entire February 9 broadcast at CBSNews.com.]

Knoller painted the President as motivated by frustration: “His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he’s searching for a way to get them out of lockup.” After recounting past Presidents’ tactical demands for bipartisanship, Knoller outlined the political motive:

When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its “obstinacy” and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his. Mr. Obama again said the American people are frustrated by the political stalemate in Congress. And he can be counted among the frustrated as well.

Little of that skepticism was evident on the on-air broadcast, as Couric claimed Obama was “working hard to try to bring Democrats and Republicans together.” Reporter Chip Reid saw Obama’s meeting as “following through on a promise,” only to be thwarted by GOP leaders who “dug in their feet” when it came to Obama’s health care proposals.

On health care, Reid agreed that while the President is demanding that any negotiations begin with the Democratic-written bills passed by the House and Senate, “he’s open to other ideas from Republicans. But, you know, that’s really what he’s been saying all along.”

[The CBS Evening News also skipped how, shortly after Obama made his plea for bipartisanship, his press secretary Robert Gibbs took a highly partisan shot at former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, showing reoprters the words "hope" and "change" written on his palm.]

Here’s the full item from the February 9 Evening News, as viewed at CBSNews.com:

KATIE COURIC: The snow has much of the federal government shut down, but President Obama was working hard today to try to bring Democrats and Republicans together. And he later made a surprise appearance. Chip Reid was there.

[Graphic headlines: Bipartisan Politics; Looking for Common Ground]

CHIP REID: At the White House today, the President met with congressional leaders from both parties, following through on a promise to give bipartisanship another chance.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We’re going to be doing these on a regular basis.

REID: Republican leaders emerged with some hope of working together on a jobs bill that focuses on tax breaks for small business.

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: There’s a chance we could move this forward on a bipartisan basis.

REID: But, when the topic turned to health care reform, they dug in their feet.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: It really is time to scrap the bill and start over.

REID: Soon after that, the President made a surprise visit to the briefing room, with a stern response, making clear he will not abandon health reform bills now before Congress.

OBAMA: Bipartisanship can’t be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in or want.

REID: But he also tried to keep the door open, slightly, to compromise.

OBAMA: So, I’m going to be starting from scratch in the sense that I will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals.

REID: In his mini-press conference, the President also talked about Iran’s nuclear program. He said that in the coming weeks, the United States and other nations will be unveiling a new set of tough sanctions, Katie.

COURIC: And, Chip, what does the President really mean when he says he’s willing to start from scratch?

REID: Well, he is not willing to start from scratch, Katie. He made clear that what that means to him is that he’s willing to look at ideas from Republicans – and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, made very clear later on that he is not backing away from those massive bills that are now before Congress. Those will be the starting point, but he’s open to other ideas from Republicans. But, you know, that’s really what he’s been saying all along. No change, Katie.

COURIC: Chip Reid, in a snowy Washington, D.C. tonight. Thank you, Chip.

In a story on American charitable giving on CBS’s Sunday Morning, correspondent Mark Strassmann cited liberal Princeton University bio-ethics professor Peter Singer on how much people should give: “[He’s] worked up a giving guide. The more you make, the more he believes you should give....He believes it’s within our power to virtually end world poverty.”

A clip was played of Singer arguing: “Well I think we should be giving something quite substantial....the right thing to do in this situation, where there are millions of children and adults, of course, dying from avoidable poverty related causes is to give something pretty significant. Something that makes a difference to how you live.”

While Strassmann simply introduced Singer as a bio-ethicist, in reality, the professor has a history of promoting radical ideas, such as justifying infanticide. In an excerpt of his 1993 book Practical Ethics, entitled “Taking Life: Humans,” Singer concluded: “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” CBS certainly picked an odd person to lecture Americans on caring for those less fortunate.

In addition to his embrace of killing off the weakest members of society, in a 2001 article, Singer seemingly justified bestiality.

Throughout the segment, Strassmann profiled the Salwen’s, a family from Atlanta, Georgia that sold their home in order to provide aid to a village in the African nation of Ghana. He explained how: “three years ago this stoplight changed the direction of Kevin Salwen’s family. His teen-aged daughter Hannah saw America’s great divide. A luxury car on one side. A homeless man on the other.” A clip was played of Hannah Salwen making the typical class warfare argument: “I said, ‘you know, Dad, if that guy to my right in the Mercedes didn’t have such a nice car then this man over here could have a meal.”

Here is a partial transcript of the segment:

9:49AM SEGMENT:

MARK STRASSMANN: Giving is in the American DNA. A part of who we are.

[CHARITY COMMERCIALS]

STRASSMANN: We respond to human need with our time and money. From the haunting images of Haiti, where Americans have donated more than $600 million since the earthquake, to America’s troubled streets in cities like Atlanta. That’s where three years ago this stoplight changed the direction of Kevin Salwen’s family. His teen-aged daughter Hannah saw America’s great divide. A luxury car on one side. A homeless man on the other.

HANNAH SALWEN: And I said to my dad, I said, ‘you know, Dad, if that guy to my right in the Mercedes didn’t have such a nice car then this man over here could have a meal.’

STRASSMANN: Hannah insisted on answers to questions about personal sacrifice and public need.

SALWEN: I said, you know, I don’t want to be a family that just talks about doing something. I really want to get out there and I want to do it ourselves. I want to make a difference.

STRASSMANN: Her parents took Hannah’s outrage seriously. Joan Salwen is a teacher and former business consultant. Kevin’s a journalist and entrepreneur. They were already active in local charities, but then this family started asking each other, well, how much are you willing to sacrifice?

KEVIN SALWEN: And Joan challenges back by what are you willing to give up? Your room? This house?

JOAN SALWEN: I really wanted to test that a little bit to see what she really meant.

STRASSMANN: Then all of a sudden, we’ve got the two of them collaboratively saying ‘hey, we ought to sell this house.’

STRASSMANN: Overnight the house was as good as gone?

KEVIN SALWEN: It’s pretty crazy, but, yeah, just about.

STRASSMANN: This house. Their $2 million Atlanta show place.

...

STRASSMANN: One day the moving vans came and the Salwen’s were off. Their journey would take them and their six-figure donation halfway around the world. They were pushing a familiar debate. What’s the right amount to give to charity?

BRIAN GALLAGHER: There’s a pretty short list of what drives people to give.

STRASSMANN: Brian Gallagher is the president of United Way Worldwide. The world’s largest charity. $5 Billion in donations a year. Its average contribution: $250. During tonight’s Superbowl, you’ll see United Way ads from the NFL, its major partner.

GALLAGHER: The most significant human driver of giving and compassion is basic human need. So when you see somebody without the ability to get water, food, have no shelter, the American people historically respond.

STRASSMANN: Americans are generous. The latest figures put the country’s annual charitable giving at $307 billion. And over the years, America’s giving has been remarkably consistent. Averaging about 2% of individual income. So that’s the average, but is it enough?
                                
GALLAGHER: Everyone’s heard the term ‘give until it hurts,’ give until it feels good.

...

STRASSMANN: Don’t answer that yet until you hear from Peter Singer. He’s a bioethics professor at Princeton University and the University of Melbourne. Remember Brian Gallagher’s calculus?

BRIAN GALLAGHER: Give until it feels good.

STRASSMANN: Singer says give until it hurts, at least a little.

PETER SINGER: Well I think we should be giving something quite substantial. So yes, I think we should probably say the right thing to do in this situation, where there are millions of children and adults, of course, dying from avoidable poverty related causes is to give something pretty significant. Something that makes a difference to how you live.

STRASSMANN: Singer’s worked up a giving guide. The more you make, the more he believes you should give. 1% At lower incomes, much more if you make a lot. He believes it’s within our power to virtually end world poverty.

SINGER: I’m not saying that there wouldn’t be any left but we could cut it back. We could educate people. We could get them on a sustainable footing.

STRASSMANN: The Salwen’s certainly cut back. After selling their grand house, they downsized by half into this house, four blocks away. And gave the profits from their home sale, $800,000, to The Hunger Project which gives a hand-up not a handout to needy people around the world.

HANNAH SALWEN: Thank you for welcoming us warmly into your community.

STRASSMANN: They traveled to Ghana, an eye opener for Hannah.

SALWEN: We went to an opening of a corn mill. And when we cut the ribbon, people were so overjoyed. There’s no moment in my life that I have ever seen people so happy over, you know, over a corn mill?

STRASSMANN: That corn mill meant that girls could go to school instead of walking for miles to mill corn. The Salwen’s money is now building two food and banking centers, a helping hand for 20,000 people. They’ve written a book about their experience, encouraging others to give up half of something they have and give to a cause greater than themselves. They now live in half the house they once had, 5,600 miles from villages they adopted in Ghana. But the Salwen’s have never felt closer to their world and to each other.

KEVIN SALWEN: If you’re out there in the world and you let the world in, it’s almost impossible to not feel that there’s some place where you can make things better.

Here's something you won't hear from the liberal media: that whole "birther" conspiracy movement? Yeah, that was started by a couple of Democrats, and neither is named Orly Taitz.

Their names, in fact, are Linda Starr and Philip Berg, according to John Avalon, author of the new book "Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America" (just to clarify, he singles out "wingnuts" on both sides of the aisle). Both were die-hard supporters of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign.

Starr was cited as a source of the false documents that got disgraced CBS correspondent Dan Rather fired. Berg is an aggressive Pennsylvania attorney (and former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General) who filed a lawsuit against former President George W. Bush in 2004 alleging he was complicit in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Despite these revelations, it probably goes without saying that the next time David Shuster claims that "most Republicans" are birthers, the theory's history will go unmentioned.

But perhaps rather than roundly placing the blame on Rush Limbaugh for the birther movement, the New York Times might look into the movement's actual origins.

And the next time the folks at National Public Radio see fit to suggest that all Tea Party protesters are birthers, maybe they should note that the first birthers were in fact Democrats.

According to Avalon, the movement started just after Clinton conceded defeat in race for the Democratic nomination:

...Starr turned her attention to Obama. "I determined that I was going to start digging up every bit of dirt that I could find on him," she told me after I hunted her down in late 2009, "and that hopefully that I would find something against him that would convince the Democratic Party to dump him and make Hillary the nominee."

In the first week of August 2008, as the Democrats were getting ready for their convention in Denver, Starr called Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg and offered a challenge. Berg recalled the conversation for me: "She called me up and said, 'Have you heard about Obama not being national born?' I said, 'Yes.' She said, 'Well, now it's for real, and you're the only attorney in the country with brass balls enough to sue Obama.' "…

On August 21, 2008, Berg filed the first Birther lawsuit, requesting an injunction to stop the Democratic Convention from going forward and alleging that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. He faxed notices to the DNC and Obama campaign headquarters, and the next day, he launched the Web site Obamacrimes.com with Starr's assistance. The lawsuit went nowhere...

Of course, the rush to delegitimize Obama once he was elected president fell to wingnut conservatives, who continue to confuse losing an election with living under tyranny. But this new evidence of the conspiracy theory's roots on the far left is a reminder that wingnuts exist in both parties.

Not when you're a member of the liberal media. For those stalwarts of journalistic integrity, "wingnut" is a term exclusive to the right.

Conservatives have been criticized as birthers, and treated as a monolithic movement of conspiracy theorists, all despite the fact that comparable numbers of Democrats believed that the Bush Administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

One of those Democratic crazies, Avalon reminds us, is partially responsible for the genesis of the birther movement, but this too will almost surely go unreported as liberals in the mainstream media continue (and it's certainly nothing new) to paint the right as not just wrong, but thoroughly crazy.

While discussing Sarah Palin’s Saturday Tea Party Convention speech with political analyst John Dickerson on Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez remarked: “She was really scrutinized because she wrote those notes on her hand during her speech....I want to show real quick....boy, are her critics having fun with that one.”

As Rodriguez mentioned the incident, a headline on screen read: “Helping Hand? Palin Seen Glancing At Notes On Palm.” Dickerson was forgiving: “Well, we all face a little difficulty getting our words together in public moments,” but added: “I think this will be the kind of thing the Democrats will use to pick at her, you know, the notion is that basically she doesn’t have the capabilities to be president.” Dickerson concluded: “I don’t think in the long term, though, this is – will cause her too much trouble.”

While Rodriguez made sure to point out Palin’s gaffe to viewers, during an interview last February, Rodriguez glossed over an obvious gaffe made by Vice President Joe Biden.

On the February 25, 2009 Early Show, Rodriguez asked about the transparency of the newly passed stimulus bill, Biden explained: “We’re going to put every bit of this transparently up on a website.” When Rodriguez later asked for the name of the site, a confused Biden replied: “You know I’m embarrassed, you know the website number. I – you know I should have it in front of me and I don’t. I’m – I’m – I’m actually embarrassed.” Rodriguez attempted to let him off the hook: “Alright. I’m going to call your office directly to and get it later.” Biden finally found the website name: “Well, excuse me, you know, it is – it is recovery.gov.”

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez’s discussion with Dickerson:

7:12AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us now from Washington, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson. Good morning, John.

JOHN DICKERSON: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: President Obama bringing in the Republicans to hammer out health care reform. Could this really work? Is it realistic to think that they could meet in the middle?

DICKERSON: Well, it’s – it’s not that realistic after what we’ve seen in Washington. This is a bit of a show. But it’s an effort for the President to revive health care reform, which has been stalled a little bit. This is a moment where he can talk about this on a public stage again and maybe build a case against Republicans if health care doesn’t pass. He can he say, look, we tried and they just didn’t have any solutions.
                
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: I want to talk about someone who could potentially challenge the President in the next election, Sarah Palin. Let me play for you a bit of what she said at the Tea Party Convention this weekend and then afterwards in an interview.

SARAH PALIN: The Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda, it’s going to leave us less secure, more in debt, and more under the thumb of big government. And that is out of touch and is out of date.

CHRIS WALLACE: Why wouldn’t you run for president?

PALIN: I would, I would if I believe that that is the right thing to do for our country and for the Palin family. Certainly, I would do so.

WALLACE: You're basically saying you will consider it.

PALIN: I think that it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country.

RODRIGUEZ: Why doesn’t she just say ‘I’m running in 2012'?

JOHN DICKERSON: Well, because she may still decide not to run. And it’s always better to kind of keep your options open and if she said she were running, then everything she says raises to a higher level. There’s a little bit more scrutiny. She’s being scrutinized plenty enough already, but it would raise things up a little bit more. Now she gets to sort of have it all ways.

RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, and she was really scrutinized because she wrote those notes on her hand during her speech. I don’t know if our viewers saw that. I want to show real quick, she had energy, budget, tax, and some other notes on her hand. And people immediately criticized her saying that she new her speech like the back of her hand. Do you think that’s a fair criticism?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Helping Hand? Palin Seen Glancing At Notes On Palm]

DICKERSON: Well, we all face a little difficulty getting our words together in public moments. I think this will be the kind of thing the Democrats will use to pick at her, you know, the notion is that basically she doesn’t have the capabilities to be president. And, you know, this is a way to bedevil her. I don’t think in the long term, though, this is – will cause her too much trouble.

RODRIGUEZ: But, boy, are her critics having fun with that one. John Dickerson. Thank you so much, John.

The Left and their media minions may not have enough time to fully express their anger before it happens, but a second ad featuring Pro-Life advocate and college football star Tim Tebow is now scheduled to air during the Super Bowl pre-game show.

Adding insult to injury, this one's supposed to run four times.

Try to feel the liberal media's anger as you read USA Today's article on this subject:

There's a new Super Bowl surprise from Focus on the Family: a second ad.

The evangelical group that bought ad time in the CBS game telecast will announce today that it has bought time in the pregame show to air a second ad four times.

The new ad also features star quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. It was filmed in Orlando last month at the same time as the group's controversial - though yet unseen - in-game ad.

But here's the money section:

CBS says it's adjusting to a changing society. "We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms," spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs says.

Interesting. So CBS is adjusting to a changing society.

I'm sure this news will create even more liberal media anger, wouldn't you agree? 

On Thursday’s CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric lamented the impact ClimateGate and other recent scandals involving fraudulent global warming data have had on the climate change debate: “Experts insist the overall conclusion remains the same, that climate change is real, but...such errors provide ammunition to skeptics.”

In a report that followed, correspondent Mark Phillips cited accusations of data tampering against Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann, but explained: “An academic board today cleared Mann, saying his science holds up, but the damage may have already been done.” Phillips went on to detail other data errors, including a false United Nations climate panel report on melting Himalayan glaciers and the ClimateGate scandal at Britain’s East Anglia University.

Phillips observed how the “series of gaffes by climate change scientists,” has created “a frustrating time for those who believe the basic science in global warming remains true.” A clip was then played of Imperial College London climatologist Brian Hoskins fretting: “it appears the whole edifice has been undermined by these couple of bricks that are flaking a bit.”

Phillips concluded his report by explaining the real problem facing global warming advocates: “The scientists may still believe they’re winning the scientific argument, but they’re in danger of losing the public relations war.”    

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

6:47PM TEASE:

KATIE COURIC: When we come back, new doubts about climate change thanks to some sloppy work by scientists.

6:50PM SEGMENT:

KATIE COURIC: The U.N.’s climate chief admitted today scientists made mistakes in a major study of melting glaciers in the Himalayas. Experts insist the overall conclusion remains the same, that climate change is real, but as Mark Phillips tells us, such errors provide ammunition to skeptics.

MARK PHILLIPS: You know you’re in trouble when you’re being spoofed on YouTube.

PARODY SONG: Making up data the old hard way, fudging the numbers day by day.

PHILLIPS: The subject of the spoof is Michael Mann of Penn State University, who is accused of tampering with climate data to produce his famous hockey stick graph, which shows that the rise in manmade greenhouse gases corresponds to a rise in world temperatures. An academic board today cleared Mann, saying his science holds up, but the damage may have already been done.

SONG: Hide the decline.

PHILLIPS: The biggest splash these days in the global warming argument may not be caused by the world’s melting glaciers. It may be caused by a series of gaffes by climate change scientists. The latest one involves temperature data from weather stations in China used in global warming calculations. The problem is that where weather stations are matters. One located in the city will give a consistently higher temperature reading than one out in the country. The allegation is that the researchers used Chinese data when they didn’t really know where their weather stations were. It’s just a small part, they say, of a worldwide database, but it’s the little mistakes that matter. Mistakes like the line in the last report by the U.N. panel on climate change, which claimed glaciers in the Himalayas might disappear by the year 2035. The panel had to admit the claim was wrong and the climate change skeptics jumped in.

PATRICK MICHAELS [SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE]: Any scientist that read that 2035 figure just laughed because they knew it couldn’t be true. There’s no doubt the trust in the U.N. panel has been undermined.

PHILLIPS: Trust was already undermined by the series of leaked e-mails at Britain’s University of East Anglia, one of the world’s big climate science centers, would seem to show that inconvenient facts were being hidden. It’s a frustrating time for those who believe the basic science in global warming remains true.

BRIAN HOSKINS [PROFESSOR, IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON]: I am concerned that it appears the whole edifice has been undermined by these couple of bricks that are flaking a bit.

PHILLIPS: And that’s a danger, in your view?

HOSKINS: It is a danger. Oh, I totally agree.

PHILLIPS: The scientists may still believe they’re winning the scientific argument, but they’re in danger of losing the public relations war. Mark Phillips, CBS News, London.

Check out the latest episode of NewsBusters’ Notable Quotables comedy show. Our news analysts give their take on the latest and most outrageous sound bites from the liberal media.

This week there was everything from MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann proclaiming the U.S. Supreme Court “murdered” democracy to CNN’s Rick Sanchez being unsure what the annual March for Life in Washington was all about.  

To see the current episode in a larger size or to go back and watch past episodes, visit the Media Research Center’s video sharing website, Eyeblast.tv.

Enjoy the show!

Just when you forgot the horrifying images of the "Dance, Katie, Dance" special captionfest.

"The culture's come a long way, baby, what with two female solo anchors now presiding over America's three major network-news shows," purred Phoebe Eaton of Harper's Bazaar magazine in a feature in which she interviewed CBS "Evening News" anchor Katie Cougar, er, Couric.

But while she celebrated how Katie "peel[ed] Sarah Palin like a raw carrot on issues of foreign policy and the economy," Eaton included a vampy video of Couric at a photo shoot all dolled up for the fashion cameras and talking about such serious affairs as what makes her feel sexy (little black dresses) and the source of her good looks (genetics).

Sample sound bite: "I've been very fortunate. All the girls in my family have pretty good legs, I guess."

Just when you forgot the horrifying images of the "Dance, Katie, Dance" special captionfest.

"The culture's come a long way, baby, what with two female solo anchors now presiding over America's three major network-news shows," purred Phoebe Eaton of Harper's Bazaar magazine in a feature in which she interviewed CBS "Evening News" anchor Katie Cougar, er, Couric.

But while she celebrated how Katie "peel[ed] Sarah Palin like a raw carrot on issues of foreign policy and the economy," Eaton included a vampy video of Couric at a photo shoot all dolled up for the fashion cameras and talking about such serious affairs as what makes her feel sexy (little black dresses) and the source of her good looks (genetics).

Sample sound bite: "I've been very fortunate. All the girls in my family have pretty good legs, I guess."

In an interview with Florida Governor Charlie Crist on Thursday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez turned to the hotly contested Senate race: “your opponent in the primary, fellow Republican Marco Rubio, and you...are in a dead heat in this race. Critics say that it’s because he is a true conservative and you are...a RINO, a ‘Republican In Name Only.’ How do you respond to that criticism?”

As Rodriguez spoke, the latest Quinnipiac University poll of the primary appeared on screen, showing Rubio with 47% among Republican voters and Crist with 44%. Crist defended his conservative credentials: “Well, if I’m a RINO, then so is Ronald Reagan.” At the same, time he seemed to attack conservative Rubio for being an “ideologue”: “...we do things a little differently here in Florida, we actually work together to get things done for the people. And I think that’s exactly what the American people want. They don’t want bickering and some ideologue on one end or the other to sort of be a standard bearer.”

While Rodriguez mentioned conservative criticism of Crist, she did not bring up the Governor’s well known hug with President Obama last year and staunch support for the stimulus package. In contrast, back in 2006, CBS correspondent Trish Regan labeled Democratic Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman’s embrace with President Bush as an “infamous kiss.” On the August 8 Early Show she touted how Lieberman’s left-wing primary challenger “Ned Lamont has used this now infamous kiss to his advantage on campaign buttons and television ads, suggesting Lieberman is just too cozy with the President.” Apparently CBS isn’t interested in Crist being “cozy” with Obama.

Rodriguez followed up: “So why do you think this race is so tight and why is he so close?” Crist dodged the question: “200 days from the race...Let’s see what it is when we get to game day.”

Thursday’s Early Show was on location in Miami, Florida, ahead of the CBS broadcast of the Superbowl there on Sunday. It is interesting to note that while Rodriguez, a Cuban-American Miami native, interviewed Crist, no time was given to fellow Miami Cuban-American Rubio. Rodriguez promoted her Cuban-American heritage throughout the show, including a profile of Cuban-American singer Gloria Estefan, who did a live performance.

Here is a transcript Rodriguez’s exchange with Crist:

7:05AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: If we can be serious and talk politics for a minute, you’re running for the U.S. Senate in one of the hottest, if not the hottest, races in the country.

CHARLIE CRIST: Oh, it’s the hottest.

RODRIGUEZ: It is the hottest. As you know, it’s getting a ton of press because your opponent in the primary, fellow Republican Marco Rubio, and you, at least according to one significant poll, are in a dead heat in this race. Critics say that it’s because he is a true conservative and you are – you’ve heard this – a RINO, a ‘Republican In Name Only.’ How do you respond to that criticism?

[ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC: Quinnipiac University Poll; Rubio 47%, Crist 44%]

CRIST: Well, if I’m a RINO, then so is Ronald Reagan. I mean, I’m a less taxing, less spending, less government, more freedom kind of guy and I just take a pragmatic common sense approach to government. And if that’s not what the people want, they’ll let me know. But I’m confident that it is, I really am. And you know, we do things a little differently here in Florida, we actually work together to get things done for the people. And I think that’s exactly what the American people want. They don’t want bickering and some ideologue on one end or the other to sort of be a standard bearer. They want people who care about them first and foremost and do what it takes to get better education, better schools, you know, better quality of life, protect the environment, reduce the amount of taxes and just use common sense.

RODRIGUEZ: So why do you think this race is so tight and why is he so close?

CRIST: Well, I think that, you know, we’re what? 200 days from the race.

RODRIGUEZ: It’s in August, yeah.

CRIST: Let’s see what it is when we get to game day.

President Obama just submitted a $3.8 trillion budget proposal, the largest federal budget ever, which will come with a "record amount of red ink." The projected deficit of that budget would be $1.6 trillion, yet the networks didn't criticize him for being spendy.

To put this in perspective: Obama is proposing a budget $700 billion larger than big spender Pres. George W. Bush's last budget. It's TWICE the size of Pres. Bill Clinton's last budget of $1.9 trillion, who was credited with generating a budget surplus.

Despite the "staggering" size of Obama's budget, which broadcast networks admitted was "dripping with red ink," the reports managed to paint him as a fiscal conservative and deficit slasher.

NBC's Savannah Guthrie portrayed all the excess spending as a way to get the economy back on track saying: "He's asking for $100 billion to spur job growth - things like tax cuts for small business, tax breaks to increase wages - and he's doing this knowing that it will drive up the deficit, certainly even more in the short term. But all economists agree the real way to get a chunk out of the deficit is to increase hiring."

But Guthrie was highlighting only a tiny fraction of the overall budget and failed to criticize the administration for not finding ways to cut more waste.

CBS's Bill Plante also agreed with Obama's spending priorities for the $3.8 trillion budget Feb. 1 when he said the president "needs" to spend right now.

"The president has a serious money problem. He needs to spend more money in the short-term to create jobs, but he desperately needs to spend a lot less over the long-term," Plante said on "The Early Show."

Obama began his budget announcement on Feb. 1 by once again passing the buck to "previous administrations." Clearly blaming Bush for what he termed a "decade of profligacy," Obama criticized the funding of two wars, prescription drug spending and tax cuts before presenting himself as a fiscal conservative.

ABC's David Muir must have bought it, because his Feb. 1 "World News" report echoed Obama. Muir pinned the record deficits on President Bush's tax cuts and war spending when he answered the question: "How did we get here?"

His timeline of the expanding federal deficit began with an image of Bush signing a bill and the words "Tax relief for America." This has long been the claim of the national news media. While Bush was certainly responsible for helping balloon the federal deficit, American's for Tax Reform's tax policy director Ryan Ellis told the Business & Media Institute the tax cuts weren't the problem, overspending was.

"The networks are stupid if they think tax cuts had anything to do with this," Ellis explained. Tax revenues were higher than the average when Bush took office, but fell before the tax cuts because of the dot-com bust and the 2001 recession.

"Federal tax revenues are much more dependent on the economy than they are on tax policy. Tax revenues ROSE as a percent of the economy in the years after the BTC (Bush Tax Cuts) became law. They only fell again when the economy imploded."

According to Ellis and others, the real problem is government spending. Even a budget expert with the liberal Brookings Institution told the Wall Street Journal that Obama's "proposals will still leave us with unsustainable deficits as far as the eye can see."

Yet, none of the broadcast network morning or evening news shows mentioned that Bush's last budget was $700 billion less than Obama's proposal for 2011 or that Clinton's last (nominal) budget was half its size.

A couple of those reports cited political dissatisfaction with Obama's budget but none actually criticized Obama for spending too much.  

Obama the Fiscal Conservative

While it seems impossible that the media could paint the man proposing the largest federal budget in history as waste-cutting and fiscally responsible, that's exactly what they did.

NBC's "Nightly News" followed up its Feb. 1 budget report with a "Fleecing of America" report on waste in defense spending. Lisa Myers report highlighted one particular project that made Congress look bad and Obama look good the very same day he proposed massive spending increases.

"The C-17 cargo plane is the workhorse of the military. It carries troops and equipment to war zones, helps in a crisis like Haiti. Just about everyone agrees the C-17 is a terrific plane. But the Pentagon has said it has enough and wants to stop buying them. Still, Congress just voted to build 10 more planes. Cost: $2.5 billion. Today the president said this makes no sense," Myers said before cutting to video of Obama calling the project "waste, pure and simple."

An ABC report on Feb. 1 also made Obama out to be fiscally responsible. Jake Tapper reported, "On the same day President Obama introduced his massive budget, he acknowledged that government spending cannot continue at this pace."

Then he quoted Obama, who said, "The bottom line is this. We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money."

No one in that report suggested that was exactly what Obama's budget would do. Tapper quoted one Democrat and one Republican opposed to a piece of the budget, but did not consult anyone suggesting the budget as a whole is simply enormous and irresponsible.

Obama has requested $49.7 billion for the Dept. of Education, which appropriated $38.4 billion in 2000. He also plans to expand the budget for the Dept. of Energy to $28.4 billion. In 2000, that agency's budget was just under $15 billion according to historical tables on the OMB Web site.

Since Obama took office the networks have cheered for government spending on the stimulus package and bailouts, protected him from rising unemployment and now with the budget reports they've taken the spin to a whole new level by portraying the spendthrift as a cost-cutting champion.

Want to know how else the networks spun the budget in favor of Obama? You can find the rest of the story at the Business & Media Institute.

Katie Couric may be getting a taste of her own populist medicine. When the Dow hit 10,000 last October, she (and other network news personalities) used the opportunity to bemoan massive payments to Wall Street bankers. But now the populist sentiment has turned on her. She faces dramatic pay cuts as CBS News downsizes.

Couric, shown in a, er, file photo at right, "makes enough to pay 200 news reporters $75,000 a year! It's complete insanity," one CBS News insider told the Drudge Report. "We report with great enthusiasm how much bankers are making, how it is out of step with reality during a recession. Well look at Katie!"

The employee was referring to Couric's roughly $14 million annual salary, the highest in network news. That salary may be cut dramatically in the face of massive layoffs at CBS News branches in Washington, San Francisco, Miami, London, Los Angeles and Moscow.

CBS News has been one of the most outspoken networks against massive Wall Street bonuses and executive payments. The "Early Show" hosted economist Peter Morici late last year to whine that "it's absolutely unfair for Wall Street to be paying itself record bonuses. The taxpayers made these bonuses possible by loaning Wall Street money at near zero rates. This is all quite unseemly and inappropriate."

Couric herself has also been critical on occasion. She said last year, "Pick up today's Wall Street Journal and you'll read banks and securities firms are on track to pay their employees record amounts this year. And, you pick up The New York Times and you'll see some workers are being forced to take huge pay cuts."

Days later, she recounted on Evening News that "Taxpayers all over the country were outraged when they heard that companies they helped bail out turned around and gave their executives huge bonuses."

Couric probably would have been better off staying away from criticisms of executive bonuses. Her $300,000 per week salary was sure to raise eyebrows in the event of layoffs.

Maybe as a rule of thumb, multi-millionaires should just avoid inciting class warfare, for their own sake if no one else's.

The gubernatorial race in Illinois is heating up. Conservative Republican candidate  Adam Andrzejewski has, according to some reports, surged from relative obscurity to within 2 points of the lead for the GOP nomination. And last week Andrzejewski was endorsed by Lech Walesa, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and former President of Poland.

If you live in the Chicago area, however, may be unaware that such an important historical and political figure was just in your town, endorsing a candidate for governor of your state. The only local television coverage the endorsement event received was from Chicago's ABC News station, which showed Walesa and Andrzejewski on stage while covering a Tea Party rally at the event, but never even mentioned the former president by name (see video below the fold).

The only print coverage in local newspapers the event garnered was from the Tribune, which ran a 113-word AP story, and the Sun-Times, which mentioned Walesa in a 2-sentence caption, right below a blurb headlined "Family of boy found hanged sues schools" and above one headlined "New Schools Expo today". So the latter paper decided the death of a child in a local suburb was more important than a political endorsement from a man at least partially responsible for the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. The former decided it couldn't spare a reporter for such a monumental figure (h/t Founding Bloggers and Race 4 2012).

While no television station could bring itself to mention Walesa or his endorsement, ABC made sure to mention that "the Tea Party movement has endorsed Hinsdale businessman Adam Andrzejewski. While he has never run for or held public office before, he will walk point for the republican party's right wing."

Founding Bloggers asks, "could this media blackout have anything to do with the political bias in the newsroom?" Spoken in Walsa's home tongue, tak. For those who don't speak Polish, that means yes.

The gubernatorial race in Illinois is heating up. Conservative Republican candidate  Adam Andrzejewski has, according to some reports, surged from relative obscurity to within 2 points of the lead for the GOP nomination. And last week Andrzejewski was endorsed by Lech Walesa, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and former President of Poland.

If you live in the Chicago area, however, may be unaware that such an important historical and political figure was just in your town, endorsing a candidate for governor of your state. The only local television coverage the endorsement event received was from Chicago's ABC News station, which showed Walesa and Andrzejewski on stage while covering a Tea Party rally at the event, but never even mentioned the former president by name (see video below the fold).

The only print coverage in local newspapers the event garnered was from the Tribune, which ran a 113-word AP story, and the Sun-Times, which mentioned Walesa in a 2-sentence caption, right below a blurb headlined "Family of boy found hanged sues schools" and above one headlined "New Schools Expo today". So the latter paper decided the death of a child in a local suburb was more important than a political endorsement from a man at least partially responsible for the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. The former decided it couldn't spare a reporter for such a monumental figure (h/t Founding Bloggers and Race 4 2012).

While no television station could bring itself to mention Walesa or his endorsement, ABC made sure to mention that "the Tea Party movement has endorsed Hinsdale businessman Adam Andrzejewski. While he has never run for or held public office before, he will walk point for the republican party's right wing."

Founding Bloggers asks, "could this media blackout have anything to do with the political bias in the newsroom?" Spoken in Walsa's home tongue, tak. For those who don't speak Polish, that means yes.

In the 8:30AM ET half hour on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez teased an upcoming animal segment: “...we have some visitors to the studio of the animal variety. Some of them are cute and cuddly....But they’re all in trouble due to climate change and you’re going to see these animals from the San Diego Zoo and hear about their precarious situation ahead this morning.”

Rodriguez later introduced the segment by declaring that “climate change is affecting some of the world’s most beautiful animals.” She spoke with senior animal keeper at the San Diego Zoo, Rick Schwartz, who brought out the first guest, an arctic fox. Rodriguez asked him: “How is this animal in danger now?” Schwartz explained:

Well, the problem that we’re having up in the north, mainly with the polar bears. There’s not enough ice forming up there, so the time for them to hunt for their food is being diminished.... If the polar bears can’t hunt and bring food out in the winter time for the arctic fox, we’re going to see them probably –  either their numbers decreasing also or possibly moving south and interfering with other species that would rely on the foods that they would be using.

Rodriguez remarked that Schwartz provided an “important education” to viewers. A headline on-screen read: “Critters & Climate Change; How Global Warming Is Affecting Animals.”

NBC’s Today had an almost identical animal segment on December 16 of last year, also citing the arctic fox as the latest victim of global warming.

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

8:30AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Ahead in this half hour, we have some visitors to the studio of the animal variety. Some of them are cute and cuddly. Maybe not that one. But they’re all in trouble due to climate change and you’re going to see these animals from the San Diego Zoo and hear about their precarious situation ahead this morning.

8:33AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: The world famous San Diego Zoo has a new exhibit showing us how climate change is affecting some of the world’s most beautiful animals. Senior keeper Rick Schwartz has brought some of the cute critters this morning with us. Hi Rick, good morning.

RICK SCHWARTZ: Good morning. Thanks for having us.

RODRIGUEZ Good morning, Mr. Fox or Miss Fox.

SCHWARTZ: This is Miss Fox.

RODRIGUEZ: Miss Fox.

SCHWARTZ: This is Tundra.

RODRIGUEZ: She’s an arctic fox, right?

SCHWARTZ: Yeah, she’s a 5-year-old arctic fox. And-

RODRIGUEZ: She’s shivering.

SCHWARTZ: Yeah, she’s a little nervous with all the lights and everything, but she’s also comfortable in the arms like this. This is not, absolutely, you know, something that would be a pet by any means, but something that is an animal that’s been hand raised and worked with by professionals.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Critters & Climate Change; How Global Warming Is Affecting Animals]

RODRIGUEZ: This is an animal that thrives in frigid temperatures, hence the name.

SCHWARTZ: Yes.

RODRIGUEZ: How is this animal in danger now?

SCHWARTZ: Well, the problem that we’re having up in the north, mainly with the polar bears. There’s not enough ice forming up there, so the time for them to hunt for their food is being diminished. The arctic fox can rely on other food sources during the summer months, but during the winter months, they follow polar bears around. Anybody who’s seen any footage of polar bears in the wild, we always see arctic foxes chasing after them to get all the scraps, basically the leftover food. So there’s a very important relationship there with that. If the polar bears can’t hunt and bring food out in the winter time for the arctic fox, we’re going to see them probably –  either their numbers decreasing also or possibly moving south and interfering with other species that would rely on the foods that they would be using.

RODRIGUEZ: Right, right.

SCHWARTZ: So everything is connected. And it’s kind of an interesting effect that’s occurring up there.

RODRIGUEZ: Important education. Alright. Thank you so much.

In the 8:30AM ET half hour on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez teased an upcoming animal segment: “...we have some visitors to the studio of the animal variety. Some of them are cute and cuddly....But they’re all in trouble due to climate change and you’re going to see these animals from the San Diego Zoo and hear about their precarious situation ahead this morning.”

Rodriguez later introduced the segment by declaring that “climate change is affecting some of the world’s most beautiful animals.” She spoke with senior animal keeper at the San Diego Zoo, Rick Schwartz, who brought out the first guest, an arctic fox. Rodriguez asked him: “How is this animal in danger now?” Schwartz explained:

Well, the problem that we’re having up in the north, mainly with the polar bears. There’s not enough ice forming up there, so the time for them to hunt for their food is being diminished.... If the polar bears can’t hunt and bring food out in the winter time for the arctic fox, we’re going to see them probably –  either their numbers decreasing also or possibly moving south and interfering with other species that would rely on the foods that they would be using.

Rodriguez remarked that Schwartz provided an “important education” to viewers. A headline on-screen read: “Critters & Climate Change; How Global Warming Is Affecting Animals.”

NBC’s Today had an almost identical animal segment on December 16 of last year, also citing the arctic fox as the latest victim of global warming.

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

8:30AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Ahead in this half hour, we have some visitors to the studio of the animal variety. Some of them are cute and cuddly. Maybe not that one. But they’re all in trouble due to climate change and you’re going to see these animals from the San Diego Zoo and hear about their precarious situation ahead this morning.

8:33AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: The world famous San Diego Zoo has a new exhibit showing us how climate change is affecting some of the world’s most beautiful animals. Senior keeper Rick Schwartz has brought some of the cute critters this morning with us. Hi Rick, good morning.

RICK SCHWARTZ: Good morning. Thanks for having us.

RODRIGUEZ Good morning, Mr. Fox or Miss Fox.

SCHWARTZ: This is Miss Fox.

RODRIGUEZ: Miss Fox.

SCHWARTZ: This is Tundra.

RODRIGUEZ: She’s an arctic fox, right?

SCHWARTZ: Yeah, she’s a 5-year-old arctic fox. And-

RODRIGUEZ: She’s shivering.

SCHWARTZ: Yeah, she’s a little nervous with all the lights and everything, but she’s also comfortable in the arms like this. This is not, absolutely, you know, something that would be a pet by any means, but something that is an animal that’s been hand raised and worked with by professionals.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Critters & Climate Change; How Global Warming Is Affecting Animals]

RODRIGUEZ: This is an animal that thrives in frigid temperatures, hence the name.

SCHWARTZ: Yes.

RODRIGUEZ: How is this animal in danger now?

SCHWARTZ: Well, the problem that we’re having up in the north, mainly with the polar bears. There’s not enough ice forming up there, so the time for them to hunt for their food is being diminished. The arctic fox can rely on other food sources during the summer months, but during the winter months, they follow polar bears around. Anybody who’s seen any footage of polar bears in the wild, we always see arctic foxes chasing after them to get all the scraps, basically the leftover food. So there’s a very important relationship there with that. If the polar bears can’t hunt and bring food out in the winter time for the arctic fox, we’re going to see them probably –  either their numbers decreasing also or possibly moving south and interfering with other species that would rely on the foods that they would be using.

RODRIGUEZ: Right, right.

SCHWARTZ: So everything is connected. And it’s kind of an interesting effect that’s occurring up there.

RODRIGUEZ: Important education. Alright. Thank you so much.

Quoting from the film A Few Good Men, on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked openly gay Army Lieutenant Dan Choi if the U.S. military was prepared for the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy to be overturned by the Obama administration: “Older members of the military are not very interested in seeing this policy changed at all....Do you think the military can handle the truth?”

The policy, created by Bill Clinton’s administration in 1993, allows homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they do not publically come out. Choi, who is facing discharge from the Army for doing just that, replied to Smith’s movie reference: “Well, I think that there are some people in the military that might have grown up in a different era, and they have fear, obviously, with the change they might think that it’s too difficult for them....Don’t assume that because you might be uncomfortable or certain people might be uncomfortable that that translates to unprofessional or lack of discipline.”

Smith began the segment by proclaiming “the beginning of the end” of the policy as Defense Secretary Robert Gates began to reexamine it. A headline on-screen read: “Do Ask, Do Tell? Pentagon Plan To Be Unveiled Today.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: The beginning of the end for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’? Defense Secretary Gates announces plans today that could end the ban of gays serving openly in the military. We’ll talk to an Army lieutenant who is fighting to keep his job.

7:06AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: The military’s controversial ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy could be phased out. At a Senate hearing today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates will unveil plans that could mark the beginning of the end of the policy that bans gays from serving openly in the military. He will also reportedly announce that third party outings will no longer be grounds for dismissal. Joining us now from Washington is Lieutenant Dan Choi, who currently faces discharge for publicly announcing he’s gay. Lieutenant, good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Do Ask, Do Tell? Pentagon Plan To Be Unveiled Today]

DAN CHOI: Hey, good morning, Harry.

SMITH: You’re a graduate of the U.S. military academy at West Point. Did you – were you aware of your own sexual orientation when you were at West Point?

CHOI: I was. At my very first day at West Point, I learned that the honor code says a cadet will not lie and will not tolerate those who lie. They didn’t say that a cadet who was gay could lie, whereas straight cadets didn’t have to lie. I think that when somebody makes a decision to join the military, they don’t join the military because they’re gay or they’re straight or to be more straight or to be more gay. They do it because they believe in the values of our country, that it’s worth protecting, and that’s the reason why I joined.

SMITH: You came out publicly. Why was that such a dangerous thing to do?

CHOI: Well, I don’t think it’s a dangerous thing to do. I think it’s a very healthy thing for people to be able to tell the truth and to come to terms with who they are. I think it’s a sign of maturity. For me, I started a love relationship right when I got back from Iraq. I finally understood what everybody meant when they said a committed relationship, maturity and growth, and sacrifice and love. I finally understood that. It made me a better person. It made me understand my soldiers when they said that they fell in love. It made me understand romance novels or some of the things that people sing about in pop culture. It made me a better officer. And it made me a better person. So why should I hide that? Why should I lie about that?

SMITH: It’s interesting, because you look at the polls, older members of the military are not very interested in seeing this policy changed at all. Younger members of the military seem to – it doesn’t seem to matter to them that much. Here’s the interesting question. You talked about telling the truth. Do you think the military can handle the truth?

CHOI: Well, I think that there are some people in the military that might have grown up in a different era, and they have fear, obviously, with the change they might think that it’s too difficult for them. But my message to anybody in the military or anybody who’s waking up and realizing that this might be a little bit scary for them, don’t bet against our military. Don’t assume that because you might be uncomfortable or certain people might be uncomfortable that that translates to unprofessional or lack of discipline. Our soldiers are the best in the world and we look all around the world and we see even in Israel and all of our allies in NATO, they have no problem with this. And I think we’re just as good, we can show leadership and we’re disciplined and there's no reason to discount our soldiers that are serving.

SMITH: Lieutenant Choi, we thank you for your time this morning.

CHOI: Thanks, Harry. Have a good day.

SMITH: You bet.

On Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith introduced a bizarre story designed to show how desperate the situation is for people lacking health insurance: “A California woman has launched a unique online search for a husband. Not for love, but for health care.”

Earlier, co-host Maggie Rodriguez teased the story by proclaiming: “I don’t know if you would think it’s sad or if you would think it’s admirable –  but it’s definitely a position no one wants to be in. It’s an extreme to get health insurance.”

Correspondent Randall Pinkston later reported on the situation:

45-year-old Terri Carlson says she does not care what you look like, she will marry you, but only if you have good health insurance....She is divorced and has one year left under cobra health coverage, but after that, she will have nothing to help pay for numerous doctors’ appointments and dozens of medications....[she] suffers from a rare genetic disorder....And because of her disorder, insurance companies have denied her coverage.

Following Pinkston’s report, Smith interviewed Carlson in studio and asked about her inability to get coverage: “And your pre-existing condition really requires you to see doctors, to have medications, et cetera, et cetera. There is – you have no court of appeals in terms of where to go to get – to get health care.” Carlson replied: “I’ve looked, I’ve searched, there is absolutely, you know, no stone that I’ve left unturned. And there are no other options for me.”

Carlson mentioned some of the email responses she’s gotten since posting a series of videos YouTube looking for a mate with good health care insurance: “I had people e-mailing me saying ‘we want another one, we want to see.’ And then they said, you know, ‘you being – you were hired by the Democratic Party,’” Smith sarcastically interjected: “Oh, people think you’re part of a conspiracy?....The vast left-wing conspiracy at it again.”

Carlson denied the accusation: “I’m just like every other middle American that’s suffering with a pre-existing condition and caught in the middle.” Of course she then added: “And if that makes me the poster child for President Obama, I’m happy to do it.” Carlson again expressed her support for Obama near the end of the interview: “I’ve been a Republican my whole life, you know. And so when I voted for a Democrat, President Obama, for the first time I’ve ever voted Dem – you know, for a Democrat. So this isn’t about anything that’s a political agenda.”

Here is a full transcript of Smith’s interview with Carlson:

8:12AM

SMITH: And Terri Carlson joins us now live in the studio. Good morning.

CARLSON: Good morning.

SMITH: You can’t wipe the smile off your face. This has been quite an adventure, hasn’t it?

CARLSON: It has been.

SMITH: Let’s talk about the tough reality here. You have a pre-existing condition. And in this day and time, if you’re trying to get insurance, you are out of luck, period, right?

CARLSON: Forget about it, yeah. You forget about it, there’s no chance to get it.

SMITH: Zero chance.

CARLSON: Zero.

SMITH: And your pre-existing condition really requires you to see doctors, to have medications, et cetera, et cetera. There is – you have no court of appeals in terms of where to go to get – to get health care.

CARLSON: I’ve – I’ve uncovered nothing. I’ve looked, I’ve searched, there is absolutely, you know, no stone that I’ve left unturned. And there are no other options for me.

SMITH: Wow. So you come up with this idea and you go on YouTube. What has the reaction been like?

CARLSON: Well, the last one went on last Sunday and after the first one hit, I had a few people e-mailing me and then people forwarded it to their friends. And then I had people e-mailing me saying ‘we want another one, we want to see.’ And then they said, you know, ‘you being – you were hired by the Democratic Party,’ you know, that I was-

SMITH: You think – oh, people think you’re part of a conspiracy?

CARLSON: They do. They do. They think I’m part of a conspiracy.

SMITH: The vast left-wing conspiracy at it again.

CARLSON: Exactly, yeah. And, you know, I’m just like every other middle American that’s suffering with a pre-existing condition and caught in the middle. And if that makes me the poster child for President Obama, I’m happy to do it.

SMITH: Would you take any of these – because I’m sure you’re a very attractive person, you have a great sense of humor, you certainly have gotten serious offers from this, I bet.

CARLSON: Oh, I’ve had about 3,000.

SMITH: [Laughter] Would you consider – I mean, people talk about they will marry for love, they will marry for money. Would you seriously consider marrying for health care coverage?

CARLSON: I will do whatever I have to do to save my life.

SMITH: And so that-

CARLSON: And that would include that.

SMITH: Wow.

CARLSON: And I will go through all those e-mails.

SMITH: You have children who are in their 20s.

CARLSON: Yes.

SMITH: What do they think of this?

CARLSON: They’re very supportive. They’re worried about me, too. They’re worried. You know, I want to be here for them, this is not just about me. It’s thousands of e-mails that I have in my inbox and from my website now, people asking me to be the voice for them, the person – you know, the people that are caught in the middle. I mean, I’ve heard some tragic stories. This is for them, too. If they did a poll on my inbox about health care reform, 99% of Americans would want health care reform if they just looked at my inbox.

SMITH: You must have watched all of this very carefully then as health care reform was sort of moving through the Congress. And how about the notion of if they had just tried to do certain pieces at a time, as opposed to the whole thing, including making it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to pre-existing conditions?

CARLSON: You know, when you’re in my position, you just want them to do something. I would have taken anything. You know, of course I want them to do something. I mean, I feel a little bit – you know, I might want to mention, I’ve been a Republican my whole life, you know. And so when I voted for a Democrat, President Obama, for the first time I’ve ever voted Dem – you know, for a Democrat. So this isn’t about anything that’s a political agenda other than the fact I’m a person that has a condition, and I’m a mother, I’m like every other person that can’t get health care and I want to live for my children and see grandchildren.

SMITH: Right. You have to do us a favor. If this turns into a marriage proposal, you have to let us know about it, alright?

CARLSON: Absolutely. Be right there.

SMITH: Alright, Terri, thanks very much for joining us.

CARLSON: You’re very welcome.

SMITH: Do appreciate it.

"Never before have you seen an allegation of corruption going that close to the governor's office in modern history."

So said a Democratic consultant in North Carolina reacting to the latest casualty in the ongoing investigation of former governor Mike Easley.

The scandal has brought down Easley's wife, bankrupted his coffers, disgraced a state university, and now, most recently, set federal charges of extortion against Easley's own closest assistant - with more and more signs pointing back to Easley's doorstep.

How did the national media react to the latest turn? By burying the details and then complaining about citizens who might vote Republican as a result of the scandal.

To see the full scope of corruption afoot, behold this disturbing account from CBS's Raleigh affiliate last Friday:

The laundry list of charges facing a top aide to former Gov. Mike Easley could mean that federal investigators are mounting a serious case against Easley, a former federal prosecutor and a former FBI agent said Friday.

A grand jury on Thursday indicted Ruffin Poole, who was Easley's top aide and legal counsel during the governor's two terms in office, on 51 counts of extortion, bribery, racketeering, mail fraud and money laundering.

[...]

Easley isn't named in the indictment, but observers said the level of detail in the 64-page indictment show that investigators have interviewed witnesses extensively and might have made deals with some as they continue to work on the case.

"The U.S. Attorney's Office came down with a sledgehammer here," said Dan Boyce, a Raleigh lawyer who spent seven years as a federal prosecutor.

The indictment noted that Poole became known among Easley's top contributors as "Little Governor" because he was the person tasked with resolving any problems donors faced with state regulators and with lining up appointments for them to serve on state boards and commissions.

Sounds pretty bad - unless you're the Washington Post. That news outlet chose to cover the indictment in quite a different tone:

"Never before have you seen an allegation of corruption going that close to the governor's office in modern history," Crone said.

[...]

In previous election years, the corruption associated with Black and Wright didn't bleed over into other legislative districts by hurting the prospects of other Democratic incumbents just by association. It shouldn't happen this year, either, Hackney said.

"I don't see how Ruffin Poole's indictment affects somebody running for a House seat in eastern North Carolina if there's no direct connection," said Gary Pearce, a Democratic strategists who used to work with former four-term Gov. Jim Hunt.

Hackney and other Democrats are hopeful the economy will turn around by the November elections so they'll have some more positive things to talk about with voters.

So you see, even though federal agents exposed systematic corruption all over the state, Easley and Poole don't reflect anything bad about the Democratic party, and shouldn't be lumped in with other Democrats.

Except for the fact that before this all came out, Easley was a powerful Democrat who was known for his influence as a superdelegate.

Back in 2008 when Barack Obama had grand ambitions of winning key states in the Bible belt, Easley was almost a rock star.

In May of that year, the NY Times used its blog to ooze about his "powerful endorsement" in the primary. US News called him a "coveted" recruit. Over at Politico, Ben Smith gushed that Easley was a "meaningful ally" with "a popular name and a symbolic validation."

Easley spent all of 2008 hobnobbing with DNC brass, even traveling to Chicago for a meeting with Obama. Democrats treated him like royalty, and the mainstream media couldn't get enough of him.

Of course, if Easley had been governor of a state no one cared about, the Democrats might have been more pro-active about shunning him. Even before North Carolina held its primary, signs of corruption had begun to trickle out:

Several media organizations sued Gov. Mike Easley on Monday, claiming his administration has routinely flouted the state's public records law by deleting official e-mails.

The suit seeks a court order preventing state employees from deleting government e-mails and requiring officials to ensure that people in their departments comply with the state public records law.

The e-mail debate has raged in the weeks since a fired Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman said Easley's administration had an unwritten policy to delete e-mails daily.

Easley was already viewed with suspicion for his botched handling of the Mike Nifong Duke lacrosse fiasco. As the email story broke, voters inside the state became increasingly disconnected from the fawning adoration in the national media.

The email fiasco was the beginning of a massive unraveling. As more revelations appeared, Democrats reacted...by not doing anything. Easley kept his seat as a superdelegate, and party loyalists in NC defended him to the end.

In May 2009, federal agents arrived to address the growing accusations. The Associated Press covered it with a bland report that mentioned his party affiliation at the very end:

The state Board of Elections is investigating at least 25 trips that Easley took on private jets after The News & Observer of Raleigh reported that he didn't pay for some flights.

The Democrat stepped down earlier this year because term limits prevented him from running again. He is now a partner at a law firm.

Easley did not immediately return a telephone message.

That was it. A year after being the center of attention, Easley's status as a Democrat was suddenly a footnote, a detail that wasn't important to the story.

By June, Easley's wife Mary was removed from a cushy job at NC State University, along with three prominent leaders of the school who resigned, under exploding suspicion the job had been a campaign gift.

The Associated Press covered the story by promoting school officials who called it a "distraction." The piece managed to talk about the Easley couple - and longtime Democrat Erskine Bowles who runs the UNC system - without a single mention of the word "Democrat" anywhere.

Just a few months later in October, Easley was fined by the Board of Elections in an official tribunal. Apparently those "distractions" had been illegal. The Greensboro News and Record reported that the Democratic party was also held responsible:

Already, federal prosecutors have used a grand jury to probe Easley's dealings while in office. Judging by subpoenas and witnesses connected to those hearings, the probe extends beyond campaign finances.

But the elections board was focused on whether Easley or his campaign intentionally skirted a variety of campaign finance laws. In its ruling on Friday, the board said the state Democratic Party, the Easley campaign committee and Easley himself bear some level of responsibility.

The mainstream media basically ignored this development altogether. This once "powerful" and "popular" trendsetter among Democrats was now just an obscure governor who had nothing to do with national politics.

Three months after the Board of Election tribunal, enter the indictment of Poole. Finally faced with indisputable proof of statewide corruption, the media have no choice but to report the story - not to ask why Democrats keep ending up on trial, but to pout because Republicans are getting an advantage.

The Easley scandal is a prime example of how the media love Democrats who are useful in winning elections, but suddenly disinterested when that same person embarrasses the Democrat party. Mike Easley was a darling, a celebrity, and a mover and shaker, until he became a liability.

Oh, and lest the media try to convince you it ends with Poole, check out this little detail about Beverly Purdue, the current sitting governor of NC:

Since last summer, the campaign has uncovered a total of 31 flights aboard private planes that were previously unreported. The donors who provided 21 of the flights have been reimbursed, while the others were included on amended campaign finance reports as in-kind contributions.

The combined value of the 31 flights was more than $25,400.

State campaign finance laws forbid corporate donations to candidates and limit individual contributions to $4,000 per election cycle.

Campaign treasurer Oscar Harris said that campaign officials have been auditing Perdue's campaign finances after the campaign shifted to a new software program. The officials have come across the previously unreported flights in the process, he said.

Purdue served as Lt Governor under Easley and won the election by campaigning against the culture of corruption. But I'm sure she doesn't represent anything bad about her party either.

Verne Lundquist, closet Republican?  The sports announcer got in a bit of good-natured trash talking while interviewing Pres. Obama during this afternoon's game between Duke and Georgetown in DC that PBO attended.  In a basketball-politics double entendre, Lundquist asked the left-handed Obama "do you have any problems at all going to your right?"

When the president made his way to the announcers table during the second half, he, Lundquist and Clark Kellogg engaged in some b-ball banter. At the very end, an obviously nervous Lundquist hit PBO with his cheeky question. 

VERNE LUNDQUIST: Could I be totally irrelevant?

BARACK OBAMA: Please.

LUNDQUIST:  Maybe irrelevant, but irreverent as well. 

OBAMA: Irrelevant and irreverent.

LUNDQUIST: Thank you, sir.  My big moment, and I couldn't handle it. You're obviously a left-hander.  Any problems at all going to your right?

OBAMA: Ah, you know, I went to the Republican House Caucus just yesterday to prove that I can go to my right once in awhile.

LUNDQUIST: Thank you.

OBAMA: But there's no doubt I've got a stronger left hand.

Have to say that PBO handled it well.  Kudos to Verne for the moxie to pose the good-natured gibe.

CBS on Friday rejected an ad submitted by a gay dating website to air during next Sunday's Super Bowl

"The network shot down the commercial Friday in a letter to the site -- ManCrunch.com -- saying the 'creative is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday,'" reported Jason Hibberd at The Live Feed.

Hibberd cited a letter from CBS in which the network expressed concern the site didn't have the money to pay for the ad (video of ad embedded below the fold):

Also the network said its sales department had difficulty verifying the credit of the site to guarantee payment of the estimated $2.5 million cost to air the ad.

"After reviewing the ad - which is entirely commercial in nature - our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," said CBS in a statement. "As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions."

Sources said the network felt the site was using the tried-and-true tactic of generating free publicity by submitting a Super Bowl ad they knew was likely to be rejected and was ultimately unwilling to pay for.

This decision is already generating liberal media outrage given CBS's decision to air a pro-family ad featuring Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow.

Entertainment Weekly reported Saturday:

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has released a statement asking CBS to publicly explain its advertising standards after rejecting a proposed Super Bowl commercial from gay dating website Mancrunch.com. The statement points out that the rejection follows the network having recently approved a controversial Super Bowl spot from the Christian organization Focus on Family. "This network should come clean to the public about what's going on because this seems to be a homophobic double standard," said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios. 

USA Today has also reported on GLAAD's statement, as certainly will many other liberal press outlets as the Super Bowl nears.

Exit questions: Was CBS right in this decision? Was this clearly a publicity stunt by a website that couldn't possibly afford the multi-million dollar fee for this ad? Or is there a double standard at play here, one that for a change benefited conservatives? 

At the top of Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith declared: “President Obama meets with GOP leaders as he tries to tackle the growing employment problem. Will it be a monologue or a dialogue?” White House correspondent Bill Plante later reported: “The President is also reaching out to Republicans today, speaking to the GOP House retreat. But it could be a tough crowd.”

In Plante’s report, only brief a clip of Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner was played, making Republicans seem unwilling to negotiate: “We’re not going to vote for things that we believe will hurt our country.” Plante concluded: “And the Republicans have already signaled that the President’s new temporary tax cut for small businesses is not where they’re going to find that common ground. So it may be a tough crowd indeed.” The brief Early Show segment made no mention of legitimate Republican criticism of President Obama’s own stubborn partisanship.

In contrast, on ABC’s Good Morning America, while correspondent Jon Karl referred to the House GOP as a “skeptical” and “hostile” audience, he also took the time to highlight Republican efforts to reach out to the administration: “Most Republicans in Congress doubt the President really wants to hear their ideas....Longtime Republican Frank Wolf says he’s written the White House several ideas on Homeland Security.” Karl asked Wolf about the letter: “So, you present these ideas to the White House and what happens?” Wolf replied: “Nothing. It’s like writing a letter to somebody and nobody ever answers.”

Karl later noted: “As for Congressman Wolf and those letters, we asked the White House about that. And we're told he will get responses in the coming days.”

Though NBC’s Today made little mention of the upcoming meeting between President Obama and the GOP, co-host Matt Lauer did ask Meet the Press host David Gregory about it: “What’s gonna be colder, the weather here in New York or the temperature in that room in Baltimore?” Gregory voiced Republican criticisms: “You know, a lot of Republicans were not that impressed with the President’s speech. They felt that it was partisan, that it was really sharp-edged, and there were a lot of sharp edges in that speech, but the President will show up....he’s gonna have some tax cut ideas that Republicans will actually like. We’ll see where it goes from there, though.”
 

Some in the liberal media continue to insist that James O'Keefe and his three cohorts were trying to "bug" or "tap" Sen. Mary Landrieu's phone lines when law enforcement officials have clearly said that they were not. Since the left doesn't like O'Keefe, the liberal media seems to think standard practices of journalistic integrity don't apply here.

According to MSNBC, one law enforcement official, who was not named, said "the four men arrested for attempting to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) were not trying to intercept or wiretap the calls." This statement comports with the affidavit filed in court after O'Keefe and company were arrested, which did not mention wiretapping or bugging, and only referred to the "tampering" of phone lines (h/t Patterico).

But the Boston Globe parroted this false accusation this morning in a gossip blog post about one of the alleged perpetrators, Joe Basel. The Globe--the same Globe that complained about ACORN's "trial-by-video"--called him a "political dirty trickster who was busted in a Watergate-style bugging operation earlier this week," and said again a couple paragraphs later that Basel was "bagged by the feds allegedly trying to bug the phones" in Landrieu's office. At least the Globe writers said "allegedly" the second time.

The L.A. Times also issued the false claim that the crew had tried to "bug" Landrieu's phones, and explicitly tried to tie O'Keefe and company to the perpetrators of the Watergate break-in:

Filmmaker James O’Keefe III is 25, meaning he was born about 13 years after five men were arrested for trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate complex in Washington. The subsequent scandal, which led to the resignation of the burglars’ boss, President Richard M. Nixon, was fodder for history books by the time O’Keefe was old enough to read them. Chances are, he didn’t.

O’Keefe, the Internet “journalist” who became an overnight sensation after his undercover reports revealed unethical behavior by the liberal activist group ACORN, now finds himself in the middle of his own bugging scandal.

Putting the word journalist in quotation marks is a nice touch, but the fact remains that O'Keefe did not try to bug anyone's phones.

CBS News also trumpeted these false charges. referring to the accused as "Phone Bug Suspects" in a headline, and "Men Accussed of Attempting to Bug La. Senator's Phone" it the sub-headline. A CBS News video title calls the incident a "Watergate Style Break-In".

A host of other smaller newspapers claimed that O'Keefe tried to "bug" the Senator's office, including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Alexandria Echo Press.

The Washington Post, unlike all of these outlets, took the facts into account and issued a correction today, saying, "Earlier versions of this story incorrectly reported that James O’Keefe faced charges in an alleged plot to bug the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu. The charges were related to an alleged plot to tamper with a phone system. The headline incorrectly referred to a plot to bug the phone and a caption incorrectly referred to an alleged wiretap scheme."

All of the sources that parroted this erroneous (if the law enforcement official and official court document are to be believed) claim should do the same: correct the record and admit that O'Keefe's arrest bears little resemblance to the Watergate scandal. There was no bugging or wiretapping going on, and claims to the contrary are irresponsible. Political disagreement is no excuse for journalistic malfeasance.

Of the three morning shows on Thursday, only NBC’s Today show skipped any mention of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s Republican response to the President’s State of the Union address. Both ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS’s Early Show gave McDonnell’s rebuttal at least minor attention.

On the Early Show, Chip Reid explained, "Virginia's newly inaugurated governor Bob McDonnell gave the Republican response. He echoed the sentiment of many in his party who believe big government is not the solution." Reid then featured a clip of McDonnell calling for limited government.

ABC co-host George Stephanopoulos only referenced McDonnell as an intro to a question for former Governor Mitt Romney: "Jobs. That's the President's number one priority. In the Republican response last night, Governor McDonnell said the same thing."

Today co-host Meredith Vieira did talk to Jeb Bush, but ignored McDonnell. In a 8am news brief, Ann Curry vaguely offered, "In rebuttal, Republicans said the nation cannot afford the President’s agenda."

Speaking of the President, NBC’s Chuck Todd did offer this spin about Obama reaching out: "The President did his best to offer Republicans something to stand up and cheer about, talking about all the tax cuts he implemented." After a clip of the President saying, "We cut taxes," Todd announced, "That didn’t do it."

The three morning shows on Thursday reacted to Barack Obama’s State of the Union address by highlighting the risk Republicans run in continuing to oppose the President’s agenda. On NBC’s Today, Meredith Vieira fretted to Joe Biden, "What risk do the Republicans run by continuing to say no, by being the party of no?" NBC put the happiest spin on the speech, featuring a graphic that trumpeted, "‘Never More Hopeful’: Obama’s Renewed Message of Hope for America."

Chuck Todd cooed, "The President took pains to talk about hope at a time when so many Americans seemed to have so little." On the Early Show, Maggie Rodriguez pressed Senator John McCain on GOP accommodation. She wondered if "we are going to hear" more yes answers and fewer no replies from the Republicans. The co-host then chided McCain, "But will you compromise?"

In an amusing moment on Today, Vieira asked Biden what Americans could expect for the economy in the new year. He replied, "Well, I say, they’re going to start to see unemployment grow this spring." Vieira quickly jumped in and corrected, "You mean employment?" [Audio available here.]

All three morning shows focused on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s visible disagreement to being chastised by the President for overturning some campaign finance laws. Good Morning America co-host Robin Roberts asked Vice President Biden, "Did the President go too far? Did he cross the line?"

On NBC, Todd simply noted that Alito could be seen onscreen "silently voicing apparent disagreement." Chip Reid on CBS described Obama’s criticism to the judges in front of him as an "unusual move."

However, none of the morning shows really explained the inaccurate nature of Obama’s comments on the Supreme Court ruling. The Washington Post’s Laurie Kellman on Thursday explained [Emphasis added]:

The president had taken the unusual step of publicly scolding the high court, with some of its members in robes seated before him in the House. "With all due deference to the separation of powers," he said, the court last week "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections."

...

Obama said corporations can "spend without limit in our elections." However, corporations and unions are still prohibited from contributing directly to politicians.

On Good Morning America, Roberts focused on the placement of health care in the speech. Noting that Obama didn’t talk about it for 30 minutes, she worried, "Does that send a different message that health care reform’s going to take a backseat?"On Today, Vieira complained that it took "33 minutes" for the topic to be raised.

Following President Barack Obama's State of the Union address, on CBS Katie Couric revealed her reading interests as she endorsed the take on Obama from a liberal New York Times columnist: “Well, as Tom Friedman said, 'he's better at making us smarter than making us angry.'” (Friedman's actual assertion in his January 27 column: “He is so much better at making us smarter than angrier.”)

Then, after the Republican response, Anthony Mason recited as relevant the very skewed findings of a CBS News/Knowledge Networks online poll only of those who watched Obama, nonetheless touting how 83 percent approve of Obama's “proposals made in his speech,” with disapproval from a piddling 17 percent. As evidence Obama “may have made up sound ground” with the public, Mason juxtaposed how for “shares your priorities for the country” Obama jumped to 70 percent for viewers of his speech compared to the 57 percent determined in an earlier national survey. (The online posting contends both numbers are just for those who watched.)

Couric's “he's better at making us smarter than making us angry” came after Jeff Greenfield proposed: “I think he was trying to remind people of the Barack Obama they liked in 2008 and saying 'this is who I am,' because the idea of Barack Obama putting on boxing gloves and turning into Harry Truman is just not going to fly.”

From live CBS News coverage at about 10:23 PM EST on Wednesday night, a discussion about how well Obama was able to “reconnect” I was alerted to by the MRC's Kyle Drennen:

BOB SCHIEFFER: The President tonight was not just trying to reconnect, he was trying to let people know that, “yes, I know you're cynical, yes, I know you think Washington is broken, yes, I think you believe that the process isn't working. I'm with you.” He was trying to connect with them. In parts of his speech it was almost like he was running against himself, but he was very assertive tonight. This is a President, Katie, that you well know, who's been accused of being too cerebral, too professorial, sort of above it all.

KATIE COURIC: Like running a think tank instead of the White House.

SCHIEFFER: And tonight you saw a much different approach by this President. Does it work? I don't know. But we saw a different approach by this President.

JEFF GREENFIELD: I was actually struck on the other side. While he was trying to use the word “fight” once or twice, this was very much like he was in the campaign. He went five or ten minutes without a single applause line. He said “let me tell you how we got into this mess,” he reached out and said to people “I'm not giving up my idea that we can change the tone of politics.” So, yes, while he was trying to say he was connecting, I think he was trying to remind people of the Barack Obama they liked in 2008 and saying “this is who I am,” because the idea of Barack Obama putting on boxing gloves and turning into Harry Truman is just not going to fly.

COURIC: Well, as Tom Friedman said, “he's better at making us smarter than making us angry.”

Two weeks after calling Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) a horrible woman, CNN's Jack Cafferty said the House Speaker's arrogance was breathtaking.

During Tuesday's "Situation Room," Cafferty addressed the report the CBS "Evening News" did the previous day on the out of control spending by members of Congress at last month's United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.

"Her arrogance on this subject: breathtaking," said Cafferty of the Speaker's failure to "explain why it was necessary for her and her colleagues to make the trip to Copenhagen in the first place."

He marvelously continued, "I'd be curious to know where Nancy Pelosi gets her sense of entitlement to simply blow hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money at Christmas time so she and her pals can take a little trip to Copenhagen" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Story Balloon):

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, hundreds of thousands of dollars, that's how much it cost for a delegation of 59 people led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with members of Congress, staff, and in some cases, spouses and kids to go to Copenhagen, site of the climate summit just before Christmas.

CBS News reports that for 21 congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,400, and the total hotel bill including meeting rooms came to more than $400,000. Pelosi used to military jets for herself and her party at a cost of more than $100,000 in flight time alone. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money -- has nothing to do with the Obama administration officials, who went to Denmark to actually attend and work at the summit.

Pelosi filed the required expense reports, but so far she has failed to explain why it was necessary for her and her colleagues to make the trip to Copenhagen in the first place. Her arrogance on this subject: breathtaking. As for the high hotel charges Pelosi's office says those who stayed two nights were charged a six-night minimum at the five-star Marriott, information that likely was available before Pelosi and her freeloaders made their vacation plans.

Note to the House Speaker: we have skyrocketing deficits, a trillion plus dollars a year, a national debt north of $12 trillion in this country. The president is talking about reining in discretionary spending. I wonder if that would have included this junket by Pelosi and her colleagues. I'd be curious to know where Nancy Pelosi gets her sense of entitlement to simply blow hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money at Christmas time so she and her pals can take a little trip to Copenhagen.

Here's the question. Should House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be required to explain her trip to Copenhagen? Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile and post a comment on my blog. Here's a hint -- yes.

All those in favor say "Aye."

In an attempt to boost flagging approval ratings, President Barack Obama announced a series of initiatives aimed at helping out the middle class on Jan. 25, two days ahead of his State of the Union address.

The networks, which have protected him from public outrage for months, praised the initiative. NBC heralded the move, giving Obama credit for "getting the message" Jan. 25. CBS's Katie Couric said the same thing that night.

"Good evening, everyone. He got the message: it's the economy middle-class voters are most worried about. And with critical congressional elections coming up this year, President Obama today rolled out a series of proposals designed to show he's on the case," Couric said as she teased White House correspondent Chip Reid's story.

On Jan. 25, Obama announced several proposals targeting the middle class including:

• Double the child care tax credit for people making less than $85,000 per year.
• Expand tax credits for retirement savings
• $102.5 million spending on elder care
• Lowering the cap on federal student loan payments to 10 percent of income above a basic living allowance and the number of years payments must be made before loans will be forgiven. That would cost taxpayers $1 billion
• Require employers set up individual retirement accounts for workers if they don't offer retirement plans
• Add $1.6 billion to child-care funding assistance

All three evening newscasts failed to mention costs of those proposals on Jan 25, while national newspapers downplayed the price tag.

The New York Times called the proposals "modest initiatives" and described the elder care spending as a "pittance," while The Washington Post described the list as "relatively inexpensive initiatives to help middle-class families."

The network and print media included some political critics, but should have included reactions from economists about the so-called "modest" initiatives and their impact on the economy.

Business & Media Institute adviser and Hillsdale economics professor Gary Wolfram said, "It's definitely an attempt to see if the middle class will buy into proposals which may benefit them in the short run, but harm the economy in the short and long run. In the end, the middle class is going to be worse off under these things than if none of them pass."

Specifically, Wolfram said the student loan changes would bid up the price of college tuition and the employer mandate for individual retirement accounts would increase the cost of hiring (leading to fewer hires).

A Spending ‘Freeze' that Would ‘Barely' Dent the Deficit

In an apparent contradiction, Obama is reportedly going to propose a freeze on discretionary spending during this SOTU speech.

Reuter's said on Jan. 26 that "Obama is seeking a three-year freeze on some domestic programs in his 2011 budget that would save $250 billion by 2020."

According to The Washington Post, the spending freeze "would affect only about one-eighth of the nation's $3.5 trillion budget, the bulk of which is devoted to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."

Yet CBS "Morning News" said it would be a freeze on "most domestic spending." NBC's "Today" mentioned that (if passed) it would save $250 billion over 10 years. But neither program provided the context of how large the deficit really is. And the CBS "Early Show" touted it as a "big spending freeze."

This year the U.S. is facing a $1.35 trillion budget deficit in 2010 according to the Congressional Budget Office. The entire national debt is more than $12.3 trillion.

Daniel Mitchell, a CATO senior fellow and BMI adviser, wrote that "Many critics will correctly note that this is like going on a drunken binge in Vegas and then temporarily joining Alcoholics Anonymous. Others will point out that more than 80 percent of the budget has been exempted, which also is an accurate criticism."

Mitchell said the freeze would be "semi-meaningful" if it's a "genuine" spending freeze, rather than a make-believe one but that it is not clear yet, which the White House is proposing. CATO also has a graphic illustrating recent growth in discretionary spending and the proposed freeze on its blog.

Alison Fraser wondered if the freeze was a "fakeroo" on Jan. 26. She pointed out a potential problem with the freeze for Heritage Foundation's blog: The Foundry.

"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," Fraser wrote.

While the network evening reports Jan. 27 did make it clear that the freeze would have little impact on the enormous deficit, they didn't explain Fraser's point - that the freeze would come after a year of "supercharged" spending. The Washington Post explained that December spending bills already approved a 4.1 percent increase in "discretionary spending" and an 8.2 percent increase for federal agencies unrelated to defense.

The Post also acknowledged that "the freeze would shave no more than $15 billion off next year's budget - barely denting a deficit projected to exceed $1 trillion for the third year in a row."

The networks also failed to tell viewers that Obama's call for an across the board spending freeze is an about face from his 2008 campaign. He campaigned against such a spending freeze when Sen. John McCain proposed it in the first debate. Obama declared that it would be a "hatchet," when what was needed is a "scalpel."

You can read the Business & Media Institute's entire analysis here.

Previewing the State of the Union on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith spoke with former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who claimed the GOP “made a decision a year ago that they weren’t going to cooperate on anything.” Smith replied: “I don’t think you can say what you just said and look at what happened with health care, especially in the last month, and be honest about it.”

Dunn, who just recently stepped down as communications director to the Obama White House, disregarded Smith’s challenge:

Harry, I disagree with that, mostly because I was working at the White House for most of this time. And I saw how many meetings with Republicans, how many attempts to reach out, how much time was spent listening to their concerns. An entire summer spent giving a lot of room to a bipartisan process which ultimately Republicans walked away from, even as their leaders from day one announced that they were going to kill health care no matter what was in the bill.

Earlier in the broadcast, Smith asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the possibility of working with Republicans in the year ahead: “You’re losing the super majority in the Senate. Do you have a sense that Republicans want to work with this president in this year to come?”

In part, Gibbs replied: “We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate anymore, which means the Republican Party is now responsible for helping to govern this country.” Smith pressed him on that statement: “you said now they’re responsible. Were they not partly responsible before, when you had a super majority?” Gibbs added: “When Democrats had 60 votes and Republicans required 60 votes for virtually everything that they wanted to pass, they didn’t have to play a role in that 60 votes. Democrats now have 59 votes. So if Republicans are going to insist on 60 votes for everything, they’ve got to be partners in this.”

Immediately following his interview with Gibbs, Smith talked to Republican Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, wondering: “Do you, as a Republican, feel like you were cut out of the process in the last couple of months?” Alexander agreed with that assessment: “Yes, is the answer to that. I mean, for 25 consecutive days the Democrats met. They wrote their health care bill in secret....We were completely cut out of the health care debate.”

Smith went on to skeptically ask Alexander about the proposed spending freeze by the administration: “Some people suggest that’s like putting a band-aid on somebody who’s bleeding to death. Is that – does that seem real to you? Or does that just look prophylactic?” Alexander replied: “Well, a band-aid’s a start. But it’s 17% of the budget and it’s not the real problem. I mean, the real problem is the automatic entitlement spending and that’s what the President needs to address.”

During his exchange with Dunn, Smith also spoke with Republican strategist Kevin Madden and wondered if the President would scale back his agenda: “Is this White House chagrined? Have they learned a lesson through this past year? In terms of ‘well alright, we’ve got our super-majority. We’re going to shove health care through no matter Hell or high water.’ Have they taken a step back and said, ‘you know what? Maybe we need to recalibrate’?” Madden observed: “I think the initial answer after the results from Massachusetts was no. But I there’s a sense of dawning awareness on this White House that their political prospects are tied to again, reaching out to America and unifying it again....Washington looks very divided, it looks very dysfunctional.” That comment from Madden sent Dunn into her rant.

Previewing the State of the Union on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith spoke with former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who claimed the GOP “made a decision a year ago that they weren’t going to cooperate on anything.” Smith replied: “I don’t think you can say what you just said and look at what happened with health care, especially in the last month, and be honest about it.”

Dunn, who just recently stepped down as communications director to the Obama White House, disregarded Smith’s challenge:

Harry, I disagree with that, mostly because I was working at the White House for most of this time. And I saw how many meetings with Republicans, how many attempts to reach out, how much time was spent listening to their concerns. An entire summer spent giving a lot of room to a bipartisan process which ultimately Republicans walked away from, even as their leaders from day one announced that they were going to kill health care no matter what was in the bill.

Earlier in the broadcast, Smith asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the possibility of working with Republicans in the year ahead: “You’re losing the super majority in the Senate. Do you have a sense that Republicans want to work with this president in this year to come?”

In part, Gibbs replied: “We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate anymore, which means the Republican Party is now responsible for helping to govern this country.” Smith pressed him on that statement: “you said now they’re responsible. Were they not partly responsible before, when you had a super majority?” Gibbs added: “When Democrats had 60 votes and Republicans required 60 votes for virtually everything that they wanted to pass, they didn’t have to play a role in that 60 votes. Democrats now have 59 votes. So if Republicans are going to insist on 60 votes for everything, they’ve got to be partners in this.”

Immediately following his interview with Gibbs, Smith talked to Republican Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, wondering: “Do you, as a Republican, feel like you were cut out of the process in the last couple of months?” Alexander agreed with that assessment: “Yes, is the answer to that. I mean, for 25 consecutive days the Democrats met. They wrote their health care bill in secret....We were completely cut out of the health care debate.”

Smith went on to skeptically ask Alexander about the proposed spending freeze by the administration: “Some people suggest that’s like putting a band-aid on somebody who’s bleeding to death. Is that – does that seem real to you? Or does that just look prophylactic?” Alexander replied: “Well, a band-aid’s a start. But it’s 17% of the budget and it’s not the real problem. I mean, the real problem is the automatic entitlement spending and that’s what the President needs to address.”

During his exchange with Dunn, Smith also spoke with Republican strategist Kevin Madden and wondered if the President would scale back his agenda: “Is this White House chagrined? Have they learned a lesson through this past year? In terms of ‘well alright, we’ve got our super-majority. We’re going to shove health care through no matter Hell or high water.’ Have they taken a step back and said, ‘you know what? Maybe we need to recalibrate’?” Madden observed: “I think the initial answer after the results from Massachusetts was no. But I there’s a sense of dawning awareness on this White House that their political prospects are tied to again, reaching out to America and unifying it again....Washington looks very divided, it looks very dysfunctional.” That comment from Madden sent Dunn into her rant.

Previewing the State of the Union on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith spoke with former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who claimed the GOP “made a decision a year ago that they weren’t going to cooperate on anything.” Smith replied: “I don’t think you can say what you just said and look at what happened with health care, especially in the last month, and be honest about it.”

Dunn, who just recently stepped down as communications director to the Obama White House, disregarded Smith’s challenge:

Harry, I disagree with that, mostly because I was working at the White House for most of this time. And I saw how many meetings with Republicans, how many attempts to reach out, how much time was spent listening to their concerns. An entire summer spent giving a lot of room to a bipartisan process which ultimately Republicans walked away from, even as their leaders from day one announced that they were going to kill health care no matter what was in the bill.

Earlier in the broadcast, Smith asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the possibility of working with Republicans in the year ahead: “You’re losing the super majority in the Senate. Do you have a sense that Republicans want to work with this president in this year to come?”

In part, Gibbs replied: “We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate anymore, which means the Republican Party is now responsible for helping to govern this country.” Smith pressed him on that statement: “you said now they’re responsible. Were they not partly responsible before, when you had a super majority?” Gibbs added: “When Democrats had 60 votes and Republicans required 60 votes for virtually everything that they wanted to pass, they didn’t have to play a role in that 60 votes. Democrats now have 59 votes. So if Republicans are going to insist on 60 votes for everything, they’ve got to be partners in this.”

Immediately following his interview with Gibbs, Smith talked to Republican Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, wondering: “Do you, as a Republican, feel like you were cut out of the process in the last couple of months?” Alexander agreed with that assessment: “Yes, is the answer to that. I mean, for 25 consecutive days the Democrats met. They wrote their health care bill in secret....We were completely cut out of the health care debate.”

Smith went on to skeptically ask Alexander about the proposed spending freeze by the administration: “Some people suggest that’s like putting a band-aid on somebody who’s bleeding to death. Is that – does that seem real to you? Or does that just look prophylactic?” Alexander replied: “Well, a band-aid’s a start. But it’s 17% of the budget and it’s not the real problem. I mean, the real problem is the automatic entitlement spending and that’s what the President needs to address.”

During his exchange with Dunn, Smith also spoke with Republican strategist Kevin Madden and wondered if the President would scale back his agenda: “Is this White House chagrined? Have they learned a lesson through this past year? In terms of ‘well alright, we’ve got our super-majority. We’re going to shove health care through no matter Hell or high water.’ Have they taken a step back and said, ‘you know what? Maybe we need to recalibrate’?” Madden observed: “I think the initial answer after the results from Massachusetts was no. But I there’s a sense of dawning awareness on this White House that their political prospects are tied to again, reaching out to America and unifying it again....Washington looks very divided, it looks very dysfunctional.” That comment from Madden sent Dunn into her rant.

Previewing the State of the Union on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith spoke with former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who claimed the GOP “made a decision a year ago that they weren’t going to cooperate on anything.” Smith replied: “I don’t think you can say what you just said and look at what happened with health care, especially in the last month, and be honest about it.”

Dunn, who just recently stepped down as communications director to the Obama White House, disregarded Smith’s challenge:

Harry, I disagree with that, mostly because I was working at the White House for most of this time. And I saw how many meetings with Republicans, how many attempts to reach out, how much time was spent listening to their concerns. An entire summer spent giving a lot of room to a bipartisan process which ultimately Republicans walked away from, even as their leaders from day one announced that they were going to kill health care no matter what was in the bill.

Earlier in the broadcast, Smith asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the possibility of working with Republicans in the year ahead: “You’re losing the super majority in the Senate. Do you have a sense that Republicans want to work with this president in this year to come?”

In part, Gibbs replied: “We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate anymore, which means the Republican Party is now responsible for helping to govern this country.” Smith pressed him on that statement: “you said now they’re responsible. Were they not partly responsible before, when you had a super majority?” Gibbs added: “When Democrats had 60 votes and Republicans required 60 votes for virtually everything that they wanted to pass, they didn’t have to play a role in that 60 votes. Democrats now have 59 votes. So if Republicans are going to insist on 60 votes for everything, they’ve got to be partners in this.”

Immediately following his interview with Gibbs, Smith talked to Republican Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, wondering: “Do you, as a Republican, feel like you were cut out of the process in the last couple of months?” Alexander agreed with that assessment: “Yes, is the answer to that. I mean, for 25 consecutive days the Democrats met. They wrote their health care bill in secret....We were completely cut out of the health care debate.”

Smith went on to skeptically ask Alexander about the proposed spending freeze by the administration: “Some people suggest that’s like putting a band-aid on somebody who’s bleeding to death. Is that – does that seem real to you? Or does that just look prophylactic?” Alexander replied: “Well, a band-aid’s a start. But it’s 17% of the budget and it’s not the real problem. I mean, the real problem is the automatic entitlement spending and that’s what the President needs to address.”

During his exchange with Dunn, Smith also spoke with Republican strategist Kevin Madden and wondered if the President would scale back his agenda: “Is this White House chagrined? Have they learned a lesson through this past year? In terms of ‘well alright, we’ve got our super-majority. We’re going to shove health care through no matter Hell or high water.’ Have they taken a step back and said, ‘you know what? Maybe we need to recalibrate’?” Madden observed: “I think the initial answer after the results from Massachusetts was no. But I there’s a sense of dawning awareness on this White House that their political prospects are tied to again, reaching out to America and unifying it again....Washington looks very divided, it looks very dysfunctional.” That comment from Madden sent Dunn into her rant.

All three morning shows on Wednesday highlighted the revelation that a conservative activist had been arrested in connection to an attempt to tamper with the phones of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. Despite jumping on the "Louisiana Watergate" story only 17 hours after it was first reported, the networks took five days to file full reports on the same James O’Keefe and his undercover footage exposing corruption at ACORN.

On ABC’s Good Morning America, reporter Pierre Thomas recounted O’Keefe’s previous expose, charitably describing ACORN as "an advocacy group which helps the poor." On NBC’s Today, Pete Williams found sinister motives in right-wing outrage at the organization. He sneered, "Because ACORN helped register thousands of low income voters, Republicans pounced." (Could the illegal activities and voter fraud associated with the group have been another reason for GOP attacks?)

Both Today and Good Morning America, though, at least managed to use the liberal label when describing ACORN and the videos showing employees attempting to help him obtain money for a prostitution ring. However, in an anchor brief, Early Show’s Erica Hill only referred to the group as "the community organizing group, ACORN."

In his special report Omitting for Obama, the MRC’s Tim Graham described the media’s limited coverage of the scandal:

While the video aired heavily on Fox News, the networks evening news shows stayed silent for six days, until after both houses of Congress moved to deny the group’s millions of dollars in federal funding. Eventually, ABC and CBS aired only one full story. NBC aired three.

ABC broke the network blackout on Saturday morning, September 12, with a brief anchor update from Ron Claiborne about the Census Bureau cutting its "ties to the community group ACORN for the 2010 Census."

CBS did the first full story, on the September 15 Evening News. Correspondent Cynthia Bowers strongly brought the ACORN side of the story: "ACORN says the workers caught on tape were fired, but contends the videos were illegally obtained, doctored and deceptive, and is threatening legal action against the undercover filmmakers posing as the couple." NBC’s Lisa Myers picked up the story on Today the next morning. While Myers used the conservative label five times in her report to describe ACORN’s critics, like CBS’s Bowers, she never described the community organization as liberal.

And, yet, just 17 hours after it was reported O’Keefe and three others had been arrested at Landrieu’s New Orleans office, ABC’s Thomas hyperbolically announced, "This morning, some Democrats are calling this case the Louisiana Watergate." NBC’s Pete Williams ironically referred to O’Keefe as a "media sensation." (He may have been one on Fox News, but the networks certainly had no interest in making O'Keefe a "sensation.")

The detached, out-of-touch response by journalists to the original scandal was summed up best by World News anchor Charles Gibson. Appearing on a radio station in Chicago on September 15, five days after the story broke, he was asked to comment on the lack of coverage. Gibson responded by laughing and then gave this bewildered reply: "I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning. "

A transcript of Wednesday’s Good Morning America’s coverage of the phone tapping story, which aired at 7:12am EST, follows:

JUJU CHANG: Well, we begin with accusations of political espionage. Four, young conservatives have been arrested in Louisiana in connection with a phone scheme targeting Senate Democrat Mary Landrieu. Among the suspects, the filmmaker behind an expose on the liberal group ACORN. Our Pierre Thomas is following the investigation. Good morning, Pierre.

ABC GRAPHIC: Louisiana’s Watergate? Phone Scheme at Senator’s Office

PIERRE THOMAS: Hi, Juju. This morning, some Democrats are calling this case the Louisiana Watergate.

JAMES O’KEEFE: Sex is kind of like dancing, right?

UNIDENTIFIED ACORN EMPLOYEE: Yeah.

THOMAS: Seen here in this undercover video, disguised as a pimp with his prostitute, James O'Keefe appears to enlist support for his illegal enterprise from employees of ACORN, an advocacy group which helps the poor.

SECOND UNIDENTIFIED ACORN EMPLOYEE: Let me make sure there’s a code for it, okay?

O’KEEFE: A code for prostitution?

THOMAS: The sting set off a firestorm of controversy and led to a congressional vote cutting off federal money for the organization. O’Keefe recently received an award for his investigation and he promised more.

O’KEEFE: So, this is not 15 minutes of fame. This is no joke. We are called to do this and we are going to devote our lives to doing it.

THOMAS: But, now, O'Keefe's undercover work has left him in the sights of the FBI. Authorities claim on Monday, O’Keefe posed as a visitor in senator Mary Landrieu's New Orleans office, wheel two associates impersonated employees of a telephone company. Complete with tool belts and hard hats.

JIM LETTEN (U.S. attorney, Eastern District of Louisiana): They were asking a number of probing questions. And that certainly, you know, triggered some suspicion.

THOMAS: They are now charged with sneaking into a federal building under false pretenses And trying to tamper with the Senator's phone. They could face up to ten years in prison. The senator called the incident, "unsettling." And said she wanted to know their motives and purpose. O'Keefe's attorney declined comment. It's unclear, Juju, whether this was an innocent prank gone too far or something far more sinister.

CHANG: Thanks, Pierre. Serious allegations. Thanks for the update.

CNN might call itself the most trusted name in news, but a new poll found Americans think the Fox News Channel is the organization deserving this honor.

In fact, according to Public Policy Polling, FNC is the only national television news organization that more people trust than distrust.

Kind of makes members of the Obama administration who regularly depict Fox as not being a real news organization look somewhat foolish, doesn't it?

Consider that as you read some of the poll's highlights:

A new poll asking Americans whether they trust each of the major television news operations in the country finds that the only one getting a positive review is Fox News. CNN does next best followed by NBC News, then CBS News, and finally ABC News.

49% of Americans say they trust Fox News to 37% who disagree. Predictably there is a large party split on this with 74% of Republicans but only 30% of Democrats saying they trust the right leaning network.

CNN does next best because it is the second most trusted of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. 39% say they trust it compared to 41% who do not, with 59% of Democrats, 33% of independents and 23% of Republicans saying it carries credibility with them.

The major networks all have the majority trust of Democrats but less than 20% from Republicans. NBC, perhaps because of the ideological bent of MSNBC, does the best among Democrats at 62%. Overall 35% of voters trust it to 44% who do not. CBS does the worst among Republicans, with 69% distrusting it. A plurality of independents express distrust of all five outlets we tested.

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin raised some interesting points in her Tuesday piece concerning this poll:

Perhaps all that vilification from the White House demonstrated that Fox wasn’t the patsy of the administration... It is also a lesson to the mainstream media: sycophantic coverage doesn’t play well with public.

No it doesn't, especially when the economy is doing poorly and the Treasury is creating debt faster than a subprime mortgage lender.

Of course, it is interesting that PPP didn't ask what people thought about MSNBC. Was the polling group making a statement by not including in its poll what many consider a disgrace to journalism?

Hmmm.

"For 15 Democratic and six Republican congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,400 tax dollars each. That`s $2,200 a day, more than most Americans spend on their monthly mortgage payment."

So said CBS's Sharyl Attkisson Monday in a remarkable follow-up to her January 11 "Evening News" piece concerning the out of control spending by members of Congress at December's United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen. 

Anchor Katie Couric teased viewers as the program opened, "CBS News exposed it: a congressional junket to the climate summit in Copenhagen. Now we can tell you how much it cost taxpayers as we followed the money."

Minutes later, Attkisson sliced and diced well-known members of Congress for their irresponsible spending of other people's money (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t NB John D. Seymour):

COURIC: Earlier this month, Sharyl Attkisson exposed a congressional junket to the climate conference in Copenhagen, a delegation of more than 100 traveling on your dime. Tonight we have a better idea of just how many dimes it cost you. Once again, Sharyl follows the money.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHARYL ATTKISSON, CBS CORRESPONDENT: There`s new light shed on the Copenhagen Climate Summit in Denmark and how much it cost you thanks to recently filed Congressional expense reports, official filings and our own investigation show at least 106 people from the House and Senate attended. Spouses, a doctor, a protocol expert and even a photographer. For 15 Democratic and six Republican congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,400 tax dollars each. That`s $2,200 a day, more than most Americans spend on their monthly mortgage payment.

We asked Congress and staff about whether they`re mindful it`s public tax dollars they`re spending. Many told us they never even see the bills or expense reports.

Congressman Henry Waxman is a key climate change player, shown here in Copenhagen. Last week we asked him about the $2,200 a day bill for room and food.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN, (D), CALIFORNIA: I can`t -- I can`t believe that. I can`t believe it but I don`t know.

ATTKISSON: But there it is right next to his name in black and white. The group expense report was filed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She wouldn`t talk about it when our producer tried to ask.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Regarding the Copenhagen expense account, madam speaker ...

ATTKISSON: Pelosi`s office did offer an explanation for the high room charges. Those who stayed just two nights were charged a six-night minimum at the five star Marriott. One staffer says they strongly objected to no avail. You may ask how they`ll negotiate a climate treaty if they can`t get a better deal on hotel rooms. Total hotel, meeting rooms and a couple of thousand dollar a night hospitality suites topped $400,000. Flights weren`t cheap, either. 59 House and Senate staff flew commercial during the Copenhagen rush. They paid government rates. $5,000 to $10,000 each. Add three military jets and the bill tops $1.1 million, not including all the Obama administration officials who attended, well over 60. In fairness, many attendees told us they did a lot of hard work and laid the ground work for a future global treaty.

WAXMAN: It was awfully cold and I was there because I thought it was important for me to be there. I didn`t look at it as a pleasure trip.

ATTKISSON: But considering the size of the deficit and the fact that no global agreement on climate change was reached, critics question the super-sized U.S. delegation. More than 165, leaving the impression there`s dollars to burn. In this case, more than a million. Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, Washington.

Brava, Sharyl! Brava!

The Washington Times’s Jennifer Harper picked up on a new study from the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs showing President Obama getting much more flattering news coverage from ABC, CBS and NBC (46% positive vs. 54% negative) during his first year in office than did Presidents Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush, all of whom received roughly three times more bad press than good from those same broadcast networks.

But one network did offer scrutiny roughly equal to that provided by the old networks in the past, according to CMPA: the Fox News Channel. Reviewing the first thirty minutes of FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier, CMPA found roughly three times more negative coverage of Obama (78%) vs. positive coverage (22%) during 2009. This compares to the broadcast networks doling out 74% bad press for Ronald Reagan in 1981 and 77% bad press for George W. Bush in 2001. In 1993, Bill Clinton fared better than his GOP counterparts (28% positive vs. 72% negative), but much worse than President Obama. (Chart below the jump).

As the MRC’s Tim Graham noted in a just-released special report from MRC, Omitting for Obama, the three broadcast networks were routinely late in picking up on negative storylines about the Obama administration, and gave paltry attention to major scandals such as the radical affiliations of ex-White House aide Van Jones, ACORN, and the pro-communist musings of then-White House communications director Anita Dunn. Instead, those stories were brought to light by alternative news sources, such as Fox News, talk radio and the conservative blogosphere, and then only grudgingly covered by the old media.

The CMPA study seems to validate the same point, as only the coverage on the Fox News Channel matches the level of scrutiny faced by previous presidents in their first year. CMPA also discovered that Obama’s level of good press was even higher at the New York Times (54% positive vs. 46% negative) and the newsmagazines, Time and Newsweek (53% positive, 47% negative). Adding the networks to the print outlets gave Obama an overall 49% positive, 51% negative press score, according to CMPA.

Here’s an excerpt from Jennifer Harper’s January 26 item:

During the entire first calendar year of his administration, Mr. Obama's mainstream media coverage was almost "perfectly balanced" — he rated 49 percent positive and 51 percent negative evaluations by sources and reporters.

That's pretty good compared to his predecessors during their first 12 months in the White house. Previous CMPA studies found that Mr. Bush received only 23 percent positive evaluations in 2001; Mr. Clinton had 28 percent positive evaluations in 1993 and Mr. Reagan had 26 percent positive evaluations in 1981.

"Obama's balanced media coverage in 2009 was still about twice as positive as the coverage received by Bush and Reagan during comparable time periods," the study said.

The proverbial press honeymoon waned with the White House in early summer, the study found. Presidential evaluations from January through April were 59 percent positive then dropped to 46 percent positive from May through July. In the last four months of the year, Mr. Obama received 39 percent positive reviews.

Fox News was never in the Obama fan club, however. Only 22 percent of their stories on Mr. Obama were positive during the year, some of it quite pointed.

"The president's story does not make any sense," said Fox News correspondent Jim Angle on June 3.

"His quest to secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago failed in spectacular fashion," commented Fox News' Bret Baier in October.

Relations between the network and the White House have been described as "a war" by many news analysts; the Obama administration is not shy about lobbing its own bombs at Fox by questioning its "point of view" as a news organization.

Full disclosure: I worked at CMPA until 1999, and helped the develop the methodology the Center uses for tallying good and bad press for presidents.

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell called on the CBS television network to stay the course in planning to air a life-affirming Super Bowl commercial featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, who was pressured to abort him during her pregnancy, after a bout of opposition has arisen among left-wing activist groups:

Radical leftist groups like the National Organization for Women have the gall to claim that this life-affirming ad is "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning." I have to wonder, what is so offensive about celebrating the decision of a mother to have her baby?

Bozell added that "CBS has the opportunity to make this a game-changer for network television," an "opportunity to show balance and fairness -- and simple decency" and "to stand against liberal liberal political censorship."

"If CBS caves to the leftist pressure, it's over for this network's credibility. On the other hand, CBS can make a very positive statement to all of America by holding its ground, Bozell concluded.

The MRC's Culture and Media Institute has more on this story here. For the full statement, visit MRC.org.

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.

Told ya so. When reports first surfaced a few weeks ago that Focus on the Family was planning to run a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl broadcast featuring University of Florida quarter back Tim Tebow, the Culture & Media Institute predicted liberals would be upset.

Like clockwork, an article in the Huffington Post on Jan. 25 reported that "a national coalition of women's groups" that includes the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority is demanding that CBS reconsider its plans to run the ad.

Tebow, a Heisman Trophy winner who led the Gators to an NCAA championship, is a famously outspoken Christian noted for wearing Bible verses on his game day eye-black. He is also a walking pro-life story: the Super Bowl ad will relate how Tim's mother, against the advice of doctors, carried him to term in a dangerous pregnancy while on a church mission to the Philippines.

While Tebow is wildly popular with Gator fans and a broad swath of college football fans in general, he's predictably garnered critics on the left. Huffington Post's own Mark Axelrod wrote last month, "So, am I to believe that Florida beat Oklahoma because Tim Tebow had John 3:16 painted beneath his eyes?"

Tebow's Christianity was bad enough, but an ad countering the secular left's pro-abortion orthodoxy was sure to mobilize the activists. And it has. The Huffington Post article quoted Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women's Media Center, as saying, "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year - an event designed to bring Americans together."

Each year, the Super Bowl broadcast is almost as anticipated for its ads as for the game itself. Many of them tastelessly use sex and the objectification of the female body to attract attention. You'd think "women's groups" might have something to say about that. But they reserve their censorship calls for what they really care about.

CBS has reportedly approved the ad's script, and doesn't appear to be backing off. And that's to its credit, especially in light of NBC's refusal to air an inoffensive pro-life ad last year.

Told ya so. When reports first surfaced a few weeks ago that Focus on the Family was planning to run a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl broadcast featuring University of Florida quarter back Tim Tebow, the Culture & Media Institute predicted liberals would be upset.

Like clockwork, an article in the Huffington Post on Jan. 25 reported that "a national coalition of women's groups" that includes the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority is demanding that CBS reconsider its plans to run the ad.

Tebow, a Heisman Trophy winner who led the Gators to an NCAA championship, is a famously outspoken Christian noted for wearing Bible verses on his game day eye-black. He is also a walking pro-life story: the Super Bowl ad will relate how Tim's mother, against the advice of doctors, carried him to term in a dangerous pregnancy while on a church mission to the Philippines.

While Tebow is wildly popular with Gator fans and a broad swath of college football fans in general, he's predictably garnered critics on the left. Huffington Post's own Mark Axelrod wrote last month, "So, am I to believe that Florida beat Oklahoma because Tim Tebow had John 3:16 painted beneath his eyes?"

Tebow's Christianity was bad enough, but an ad countering the secular left's pro-abortion orthodoxy was sure to mobilize the activists. And it has. The Huffington Post article quoted Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women's Media Center, as saying, "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year - an event designed to bring Americans together."

Each year, the Super Bowl broadcast is almost as anticipated for its ads as for the game itself. Many of them tastelessly use sex and the objectification of the female body to attract attention. You'd think "women's groups" might have something to say about that. But they reserve their censorship calls for what they really care about.

CBS has reportedly approved the ad's script, and doesn't appear to be backing off. And that's to its credit, especially in light of NBC's refusal to air an inoffensive pro-life ad last year.

The story behind Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow's arrival into this world is remarkable.

So-called "women's groups" would seem to prefer that as many Americans as possible not know the story about the courageous and faith-based decision Tebow's mother made to carry her pregnancy to term. That's the only plausible reason why they are opposing a 30-second Focus on the Family (FOTF) ad scheduled to air during the Super Bowl. So far, it seems that CBS, which will air the Super Bowl on February 7, seems disinclined to buckle.

David Crary's coverage of the story at the Associated Press (from which the photo at the top right was obtained) labels FOTF "conservative," but does not apply any descriptive label to the "women's groups" objecting to the ad.

As you'll see in the final excerpted paragraph, Crary's coverage included an over-the-top statement from the objectors:

CBS urged to scrap Super Bowl ad with Tebow, mom

A national coalition of women's groups called on CBS on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message.

"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year - an event designed to bring Americans together," said Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women's Media Center.

The center was coordinating the protest with backing from the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups.

CBS said it has approved the script for the 30-second ad and has given no indication that the protest would have an impact. A network spokesman, Dana McClintock, said CBS would ensure that any issue-oriented ad was "appropriate for air."

The ad - paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family - is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two BCS championships.

The controversy over the ad was raised Sunday when Tebow met with reporters in Mobile, Ala., before beginning preparations for next weekend's Senior Bowl.

"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe," Tebow said. "I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."

... "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.

Since when is telling the story of a key part of someone's life -- namely its beginning -- a "political stance"? NBC turned away a celebration-of-life ad during last year's Super Bowl. I hope that CBS holds firm.

Also missing from Crary's coverage: any indication of how many members and supporters FOTF has compared to the membership rosters of the so-called "women's groups." 

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

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.

Is the luster finally wearing off the love affair between the White House press corps and President Barack Obama? It is, if CBS White House correspondent Chip Reid's analysis of President Barack Obama's latest Wall Street proposals is anything to go by.

Reid appeared on the Fox Business Network's Jan. 25 "Imus in the Morning" program and offered an update on the president's financial and economic advisers, mainly Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Director of the National Economic Council Lawrence Summers. He said both Geithner and Summers should survive, despite a run-in with former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who chairs the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

"Well, you know, it's really the same as it's all been," Reid said. "That there's some unease about both of them, but the President has been satisfied with the jobs they've done. Behind the scenes, they both still have a lot of control. They lost this battle to Volcker, but now they're on board on this new plan for Wall Street, although it really sounds more like politics than a real plan because it's hard to believe it would get through."

According to Reid, Obama's decision to be vocal about policing Wall Street and the banks was politically motivated, and its potential impact on the economy.hadn't been thought through.

"You know, they're just looking for ways to grab this populist tone that he wants to have and beat up on Wall Street," Reid said. "But you know, and then they get home and they realize after giving a speech like that that the stock market goes down when you do things like that. You just can't beat up on Wall Street constantly for political purposes and expect nothing, nothing but good things to happen."

The Obama administration is at a fork in the road according to Reid, and the president has to decide whether or not to lurch further in one direction with certain policies or back off and moderate.

"So they are really in a moment here where they're just trying to figure out where they're going," Reid said. "Do they go - the president when he gave that town hall on Friday sounded like he was doubling down on health care. But you know, a lot of people even in the administration believe it's time to back off and pull out the most popular elements, try to pass something, but don't try to pass this whole big giant package down people's throats. But there are a lot of people on Capitol Hill and some in the White House would like to do just that."

After Obama's announcement on Jan. 22, stocks took a nose dive. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) sank 552 points over the course of three days following his strong rhetoric about the banks.

Speaking to former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith repeated standard liberal talking points as he urged Republicans and Democrats to quickly pass some form of health care reform: “...to help the 40 some million that don’t have insurance or the vast majority of other folks who are one medical catastrophe away from bankruptcy.”

Dean replied by lamenting how: “The President’s tried awfully hard to get even one Republican to support this.” He added: “They believe if they obstruct this agenda that they can benefit from it and I think that’s wrong for the country, but the Republicans have always been great at opposition, never very good at leadership.”

Prior to warning of disaster if health care reform does not pass, Smith asked Dean about the fate of the current legislation: “Should they [Democrats] start over from scratch or should they go and find what’s salvageable?” Dean responded: “I’d run it through the reconciliation program. You know, the Republicans are using this as a tactic to kill health care to embarrass the President. That’s not the right thing to do for America....we can’t get the whole thing, but I think we can get some good stuff done before the election.”

Smith began the interview by bluntly wondering: “Is health care dead?” Dean replied: “I don’t think so. I think the American people want health care reform....[they] really do want us to do something about this.”

Here is a full transcript of the interview:

HARRY SMITH: Also in Washington this morning is Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dr. Dean, how are you this morning?

HOWARD DEAN: I’m very well, thank you.

SMITH: Is health care dead?

DEAN: I don’t think so. I think the American people want health care reform. What they didn’t want was something that was written by the insurance industries. And you know, it was – this is a very Washington-centered proposal that finally came over to the House. And so I think they’ll try again, put something in there that the American people want. The American people really do want us to do something about this.

SMITH: The last time we talked, you said they should start over. Should they start over from scratch or should they go and find what’s salvageable? Say, for instance, making it illegal for insurances to deny protection to people with pre-existing conditions?

DEAN: Well, you just heard John Boehner, the minority leader, say that they weren’t going to vote for anything that we proposed. I would go back and do that, though. And I’d run it through the reconciliation program. You know, the Republicans are using this as a tactic to kill health care to embarrass the President. That’s not the right thing to do for America. America does need some real insurance reforms. You could simply expand the Medicare program that everybody knows to people who are over 55 instead of 65. The House and the Senate passed very good expansions in Medicaid, which helps young people, for example, and hard working people who can’t – work for people with no insurance. Those are the kinds of things that you can do. And we can run those through reconciliation. The chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate has already said he’d be willing to look at some things in the budget bill. I think we can get some decent – we can’t get the whole thing, but I think we can get some good stuff done before the election.

SMITH: Am I being Pollyanna to think that after all of this effort was put into this and now it doesn’t seem to be working, that both sides could sit down together and say ‘what do we really have in common?’ and work together to form something that might be palatable to – to help the 40 some million that don’t have insurance or the vast majority of other folks who are one medical catastrophe away from bankruptcy?

DEAN: Well, I always think that’s worth trying. The President’s tried awfully hard to get even one Republican to support this. They believe if they obstruct this agenda that they can benefit from it and I think that’s wrong for the country, but the Republicans have always been great at opposition, never very good at leadership. And so if we can work with the Republicans, we’d sure like to, but we’ve had our hand out for six months and they’ve had no interest. I think we just need to get this done for the American people.

SMITH: Dr. Howard Dean, Governor Dean, thank you very much for your time this morning. Do appreciate it, sir.

DEAN: Thank you.

Appearing on Thursday’s CBS Early Show, Politico.com White House reporter Nia-Malika Henderson argued to co-host Harry Smith that Senator-elect Scott Brown’s humorous remark that his daughters were “available” during his Tuesday night victory speech showed that: “this might be a senator who is gaffe-prone, who has to kind of walk back from remarks that he – that he makes.”

However, Henderson followed that statement by concluding that Brown’s style could make him a “hero for at least folks in the tea bag movement and grassroots folks because he says what’s on his mind.” Smith agreed: “Yeah, a breath of fresh air, as it were.”

Earlier in the segment, Smith admitted he did not see the controversy in the comments: “I’m not seeing sort of what was so horrible about it. And it feels like to me there’s a real sort of nice warm familiarity between the new senator and his daughters.” He then added: “But I guess it’s had other kinds of ramifications and there’s some blow back on this.”

read more

On Thursday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith introduced a segment on the future of ObamaCare in the wake of Scott Brown becoming the 41st Republican senator: “Democrats are trying to figure out their next move after Tuesday’s stunning loss of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. The big question continues to be what will it mean for President Obama’s agenda? Especially health care reform.”

In the report that followed, White House correspondent Chip Reid described how: “The President says he still wants Congress to move forward with reform, but in an orderly way.” Citing political analyst and executive editor of The Hotline, John Mercurio, Reid declared that: “not passing health care would be devastating for Democrats.” Mercurio added: “I think without that, they satisfy no one and they discourage a lot of their base voters from turning out in November.”

Following Reid’s report, Smith conducted an exclusive interview with Senator John McCain, asking: “Is health care...as the Democrats understand it right now, is it dead?” The headline on-screen read: “Capitol Hill Chaos; GOP Victory Could Halt Health Care Reform.”

read more

Americans are generous people, and they prove it every time a disaster strikes like last week's earthquake in Haiti. They have donated more than $275 million to relief efforts in the Caribbean nation in the week since the quake.

Nearly one-third of that money came from U.S. companies, a point rarely mentioned on the broadcast news. According to the Business Civic Leadership Center (BCLC), 203 companies donated a total of $83 million to Haitian relief so far.

Such positive actions should warrant media coverage, but the networks are inclined to practically ignore corporate charity in favor of attacking the current business target, whether it is banks, Big Oil or bottled water companies.

Despite constant coverage of the Haitian disaster, the three networks spent only 2 minutes 46 seconds talking about businesses donating cash, goods or services to aid the poor nation.

ABC's "Nightline" mentioned corporate generosity on Jan. 14, but her 3-second statement of $20 million in donations (the total raised at that time) was buried in the final minute of the hour-long broadcast.

read more

Speaking to political analyst John Dickerson on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show about Republican Scott Brown winning the Massachusetts Senate race, co-host Maggie Rodriguez lamented: “When it comes to health care, I think it’s so ironic that the late Ted Kennedy’s passion was health care. He dedicated his career to it. And the man who will replace him could be the one to derail it.”

Rodriguez wondered: “Do you think that’ll happen? Do you think that Senator Brown will be seated in time to vote no?” Dickerson replied: “I think so. It looks like there’s not any appetite to try and rush something through quickly. Health care is already unpopular in Massachusetts and across the country. It’s a very tricky thing indeed to take an unpopular bill and then sort of sneak it in through this back door way. So that’s politically too painful.”

Interestingly, Rodriguez’s concern over Kennedy’s health care legacy was almost identical to a question NBC’s Meredith Vieira asked Senator-elect Brown on Wednesday’s Today: “...you plan to do whatever you can to derail what Ted Kennedy called, called ‘the cause of his lifetime,’ which is health care reform?”

In addition to fretting over the future of ObamaCare, Rodriguez repeated the Democratic talking point that Brown’s victory was not a referendum on the unpopular legislation: “The economy is weak, unemployment is officially at 10%, the health care debate rages on. Do you think all of those factors, and not just health care, contributed to this upset?” Dickerson agreed: “That’s right. There was a soup here.”

In a report just prior to Rodriguez’s discussion with Dickerson, White House correspondent Bill Plante pushed the same liberal line: “Top officials here still insist that Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts was a referendum on the economy and not on health care.” During that report, an on-screen headline read: “Hanging In The Balance; GOP Win Could Derail Obama Health Care Plan”

Following Rodriguez’s discussion with Dickerson, fill-in co-host Jeff Glor spoke with former Obama campaign advisor David Plouffe about the Massachusetts election. Plouffe downplayed the loss: “Well, it was clear for the last few days we were going to have a potentially tough outcome last night. Obviously it’s disappointing.” He then took a shot at Democratic candidate Martha Coakley: “I think even a mediocre campaign up there probably would have been successful.” And actually complimented Brown: “...let’s give credit to senator-elect Brown, he ran a great campaign.”

At the top of the broadcast, correspondent Nancy Cordes reported on Democratic Party infighting over the loss:

And it’s already being called one of the biggest political upsets in U.S. history. It fundamentally changes the power dynamic in Washington. Republicans are celebrating. Democrats are turning on each other....The blame game has already started. ‘She ran a really bad campaign and they didn’t ask us for help until it was too late,’ carped one White House official. Coakley campaign workers shot back that it was gridlock in Washington souring voters on Democrats.

The Early Show had no Republicans on to discuss Brown’s historic victory.

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez’s discussion with Dickerson:

7:06AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Let’s talk more about this – what this means. In Washington, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson is standing by. John, good morning.

JOHN DICKERSON: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: The economy is weak, unemployment is officially at 10%, the health care debate rages on. Do you think all of those factors, and not just health care, contributed to this upset?

DICKERSON: That’s right. There was a soup here and the problem for the President and for Democrats in Washington is lots of Democrats are taking different lessons from different parts of this. What they know is there’s an unfocused anger out there and they may all be the victim of it and the problem with everybody taking their own interpretations of this is that with – it’s very hard to get everybody to move in one direction. So the White House is going to try and get the story straight first before they can get everybody to support a way forward.

RODRIGUEZ: But when it comes to health care, I think it’s so ironic that the late Ted Kennedy’s passion was health care. He dedicated his career to it. And the man who will replace him could be the one to derail it. Do you think that’ll happen? Do you think that Senator Brown will be seated in time to vote no?

DICKERSON: I think so. It looks like there’s not any appetite to try and rush something through quickly. Health care is already unpopular in Massachusetts and across the country. It’s a very tricky thing indeed to take an unpopular bill and then sort of sneak it in through this back door way. So that’s politically too painful. The leading least bad option, as far as Democrats are concerned at the moment, is this notion of passing the Senate bill through the House without any of these big changes they’ve been wrangling over for the last several weeks. But last night Democrats were saying that’s just not something they can stomach. So it’s very hard to see how they go forward here.

RODRIGUEZ: Because some Democrats have to be worried about what this victory means in terms of the midterm election. Do you think we’ll start to see some of them distance themselves, not only from health care, but from President Obama?

DICKERSON: Well, yes. Or just go their own way. Everybody’s looking over their shoulder now because of this idea that if in a blue state like Massachusetts independent voters, who are very unhappy about the economy, who see health care perhaps as a distraction from that crucial issue of jobs, if that unfocused anger can fall on somebody’s head, then you’re sort of on your own. And another thing that candidates are trying to figure out here is what role the President plays. He made one visit to stump for Martha Coakley. And you know, he can’t pull it out in a single visit. But he’s been talking about health care for months, he’s been talking about the economy for months, and hasn’t been able to change those minds. For a Democrat up in 2010, that means they don’t have a lot of political cover from their president.

RODRIGUEZ: Potentially huge implications for the President. John Dickerson, thank you.

DICKERSON: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ: You’re welcome.

There has been something of a debate over whether the Senate can properly delay seating Republican Scott Brown if he wins today’s special election, giving the Democrats time to ram through their unpopular health care bill. The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes has neatly summarized the arguments of GOP lawyers that the temporary Senator Paul Kirk’s term expires today with the election of a successor (either Coakley or Brown).

But Democrats are even now preparing the media to accept the idea that Kirk can remain at his post for up to two more weeks while the formal certification process proceeds at the pace chosen by officials in Democratically-controlled Massachusetts. Yet just two months ago, the lack of certification for two Democratic winners of congressional special elections was no barrier to their quick swearing in for a health care vote in the House — and it drew no complaints from the news media (and was enthusiastically received by MSNBC’s left-wing hosts).

As far as the Constitution is concerned, the first sentence of Article I, Section 5 would seem to leave it up to the Senate: “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” But the Senate should be expected to adhere to its own past precedents and rules — and the media should be ready to expose any hypocrisy or shenanigans by Senate Democrats hoping to delay the inevitable.

Yet the press seems willing to parrot the notion that Senate Democrats can squeeze out another few days of their super-majority. On Monday’s Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez mused: “It’ll be interesting to see if Brown, the Republican, wins, if the Democrats can defer his swearing in and get health care passed.”

ABC’s Matthew Mosk wrote on Sunday: “Should Brown prevail by a sizeable margin, Democrats could still slow the process enough to prevent him from being seated in time for a healthcare vote, election law experts said. Brown would have to be both certified the winner and formally seated in the Senate before he would be eligible to cast a vote. Both steps are overseen by Democrats.”

But Brown would not HAVE to be certified — Democratic House winners Bill Owens and John Garamendi had not been certified when they were sworn in just a couple of days after the November 3 election last year, with Democratic House leaders desiring their votes before the November 7 health care vote. Journalists thought the quick swearing-in was just fine.

Keith Olbermann celebrated at the top of his Countdown program on November 6, barely 72 hours after the polls closed: “The Democrats, with one more vote they can count on tonight, Congressman Bill Owens of the New York 23rd sworn in this morning. He will meet with the President at the White House tomorrow. In a statement, the congressman announcing his support for the Democrat`s health care reform bill. Quoting from that statement, ‘There is a fundamental need for reform and we must act with the sense of urgency.’”

On CNN’s Situation Room November 6, Dana Bash narrated video: “The Democratic winner of Tuesday's bitter New York special election sworn in....Giving Democratic leaders another vote on health care and making their enormous majority in the House even bigger. House Democrats now hold 258 seats. They need just 218 to approve their health care bill.”

The House voted to approve its health care bill late in the evening on Saturday, November 7. On Monday’s Today, NBC’s Chuck Todd saw Owens as crucial: “Despite a 40-seat advantage in the House, the Democratic leadership needed every vote it could find, including that of the new Democratic member from upstate New York, Bill Owens.”

And on The Ed Show November 9, host Ed Shultz hosted the newly-elected Congressman John Garamendi: “He went to Washington last week and voted for the House bill. Congressman, congratulations on your victory. Good to see a good Democrat can keep on moving for the people.” Shultz never suggested that Garamendi’s quick swearing-in was a problem.

If the media are really the watchdogs they claim to be, they’ll shine a bright spotlight on any Democratic attempts to have it both ways if Scott Brown wins tonight.

Appearing on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele criticized potential Democratic efforts to delay seating Republican Scott Brown as the Senator from Massachusetts as “unseemly,” but co-host Maggie Rodriguez replied: “Is that fair? Because wouldn’t your party do the exact same thing?”

Rodriguez went on to argue: “Isn’t it true that when the GOP had the majority and the Democrats would filibuster something, you know, you didn’t like that....They’re trying to keep you from doing the same thing to them that you did when you were – had the majority.” Steele began to reply: “You’re mixing an apple and an orange here.” Rodriguez interrupted: “No, no, I’m really not.”

Steele explained: “To filibuster on an issue is not the same as seating a member in the United States Senate regardless of what’s going on in the Senate. There is a process that unfolds....[Democrats] made it very clear that [they] will obstruct this process...will change the rules in order for [them] to get [their] way in the Senate.” A shocked Rodriguez asked: “So you’re implying that they would do something illegal?” Steele replied: “I’m not – illegal is left for lawyers to decide. What I’m saying is that there is a process.”  

Rodriguez elaborated on her unfair comparison: “And just so you understand what I’m saying, I was just saying that parties – as your party also has shown – will do whatever they can to get their agenda passed because obviously it’s in their best interests and in the best interests of the voters.”

At the top of the interview, Rodriguez described a Republican victory in Massachusetts as the end of health care in America: “I know that in your idea of a perfect scenario, Senator Brown, the Republican, would win, take his seat, and cast the one no vote that would derail health care. But the Democrats are trying to get this passed before he’s seated, even if he does win. Does that concern you? That a victory for Brown does not necessarily mean a defeat for health care?” Throughout the segment, a headline on screen read: “Decision Day; GOP Win Could Doom Obama’s Health Care Reform.”

On Monday’s broadcast, Rodriguez declared that it would be “interesting” to see if Democrats could delay Brown’s swearing in if he won the election.

Following the interview with Steele on Tuesday, Rodriguez spoke with former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and pressed him on efforts to force through ObamaCare: “Nancy Pelosi said yesterday, quote, ‘we will have health care one way or another.’ Is this really how you want this to go down, even though technically it may not be illegal, it’s still sort of unsavory because you’re forcing it through?”

An overly optimistic McAuliffe argued: “Martha Coakley will bring about the change that people want in Massachusetts....people want health care. President Obama ran for president of the United States promising Americans that those 48 million people who don’t have health coverage would get it.” Rodriguez replied: “Terry, if people want health care, why is a Republican so close to taking this seat and this state for the first time since 1972?”

Rodriguez actually brought Steele back on to have the last word: “I’ve been shaking my head because Terry’s great on the talking points....people are sending us a sound signal. Now either they’re going to get the message or they won’t. Come this November, we’re going play hard and fight for every seat in the Congress and every seat for governors around the country on the idea that it’s about time we listen to the people instead of the people having to do what Washington tells them they want to do.”

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez’s interview with Steele:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Michael Steele is chairman of the Republican National Committee and he joins me in studio to talk about this. You’re all smiles today, Michael. Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Decision Day; GOP Win Could Doom Obama’s Health Care Reform]
            
MICHAEL STEELE: Yeah, it’s a good day. I mean I think it’s been a fascinating process to watch unfold. I mean a year ago the landscape politically was very different than we see it today. And as we go into this election, what I’m excited about is that the American people have begun to take charge in these elections and the outcome. In the past it’s kind of been formulaic, you know, it’s a Boston, Massachusetts Senate race, ‘oh, it’s a Kennedy, okay, no problem.’

RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, a Democrat’s going to win. It was-

STEELE: Yeah, a Democrat’s-

RODRIGUEZ: -understood.

STEELE: Understood. Not so much today. And I think that’s the exciting part about all of this.

RODRIGUEZ: I know that in your idea of a perfect scenario, Senator Brown, the Republican, would win, take his seat, and cast the one no vote that would derail health care. But the Democrats are trying to get this passed before he’s seated, even if he does win. Does that concern you?

STEELE: It does concern me-

RODRIGUEZ: That a victory for Brown does not necessarily mean a defeat for health care?

STEELE: Well, it says a lot about the agenda here and it says a lot about the way the Democrat leadership in Washington views the voters out there. They really don’t care. ‘We’re going to do this whether you want it or not and you’re just going to live with it.’ And so the idea that, you know, you’ll have an election, a special election, to fill a seat and that individual’s elected and if it’s not of the party you want it to be, him to be, then you’re going to go ram through the process or change the rules, that, again, is an unseemly thing for them to do in Washington. But so typical of what we’ve seen over the past year.

RODRIGUEZ: Wait a minute, but is that fair? Because wouldn’t your party do the exact same thing? Isn’t it true that when the GOP had the majority and the Democrats would filibuster something, you know, you didn’t like that. They’re trying to keep you-

STEELE: I mean a filibuster – a filibuster-

RODRIGUEZ: Wait, wait, no, no.

STEELE: Look, Maggie, the filibuster over-

RODRIGUEZ: They’re trying to keep you from doing the same thing to them that you did-

STEELE: No, no, no-

RODRIGUEZ: -when you were – had the majority.

STEELE: You’re mixing an apple and an orange here.

RODRIGUEZ: No, no, I’m really not.

STEELE: To filibuster on an issue is not the same as seating a member in the United States Senate regardless of what’s going on in the Senate. There is a process that unfolds. The secretary of state does what they need to do, the Senate does what it needs to do. And the fact that they’ve already made it very clear that ‘we will obstruct this process, that we will change the rules in order for us to get our way in the Senate,’ to me, is not what the voters are going to – to the polls about.

RODRIGUEZ: So you’re implying that they would do something illegal?

STEELE: I’m not – illegal is left for lawyers to decide. What I’m saying is that there is a process. And when you have Congressman Wiener and others saying that ‘our job will be to delay and obstruct this process, or to speed it up, if we can do that,’ to me, goes counter to what the voters in Massachusetts are expecting. They’re expecting today they will elect a United States senator and when they – they expect that senator to be seated in a timely fashion and if that doesn’t happen, then it’s going to be a lot of weight on the Democrats’ head in Washington.

RODRIGUEZ: I understand what your saying. And just so you understand what I’m saying, I was just saying that parties – as your party also has shown – will do whatever they can to get their agenda passed because obviously it’s in their best interests and in the best interests of the voters.

STEELE: Oh, that’s very true, but there’s some things that have a natural process to them. As we saw when Ted Kennedy took – won this seat the first time, they seated him in one day. Mrs. Tsongas just recently came into Congress for her husband’s seat, two days. So now you have them saying, ‘well, we could do this in about three or four weeks.’ I mean, that’s the point.

RODRIGUEZ: Okay, you’re saying double standard when it’s convenient.

STEELE: Double standard. But you kind of expect that from the Democrats at this point, you know.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Michael Steele, thank you very much.

STEELE: Thank you.

While concluding a story on the Massachusetts Senate race on Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez acknowledged the possibility that Republican Scott Brown could win the long held Democratic seat but wondered: “It’ll be interesting to see if Brown, the Republican, wins, if the Democrats can defer his swearing in and get health care passed. We will watch that.”

At the top of the show, Rodriguez teased the story: “In Massachusetts it’s more than just a Senate race, it’s a battle that could end President Obama’s fight for health care reform.” Correspondent Nancy Cordes followed up with a report that also focused on the impact the race would have on health care: “The President was here campaigning yesterday for the Democrat. And no wonder, if she loses, it will be a major blow to his ability to get his agenda passed.”

Cordes observed how affective Brown’s opposition to ObamaCare has been: “Coakley’s Republican challenger...has made stopping the health care reform bill a signature issue. A message that seems to be resonating with voters.” She then fretted: “If Coakley loses this race, Democrats will lose their supermajority in the Senate. Meaning they won’t be able to pass Democratic priorities like health care reform unless they can convince a few Republicans to vote with them.”

Rodriguez asked Cordes what was to blame for the Democrats potentially losing the seat: “Is the consensus that this is more – Scott Brown’s rise – is more about a feeling of going against President Obama or is it an attack on how Coakley has run her campaign?” Cordes focused on Coakley’s weak campaign: “There’s a sense here that the Coakley campaign sort of took this race for granted after she sailed to victory in the primary because they didn’t properly read the political winds blowing in the country, didn’t think that those winds would blow into Massachusetts. Didn’t see the current dissatisfaction over health care reform.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: In Massachusetts it’s more than just a Senate race, it’s a battle that could end President Obama’s fight for health care reform. We’ll tell you why Republicans are smelling victory.         

7:08AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Right now to the hotly contested race in Massachusetts for the Senate seat left vacant by the late Ted Kennedy. The special election is tomorrow. This is key to the President’s battle for health care reform. And it is a sprint to the finish for both candidates. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is in Cambridge, Massachusetts with the latest. Nancy, good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning to you, Maggie, from snowy Massachusetts. Where it seems like the entire political world has congregated. Both sides are pulling out all the stops for this close race. The President was here campaigning yesterday for the Democrat. And no wonder, if she loses, it will be a major blow to his ability to get his agenda passed.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Race For Kennedy’s Seat; Obama Campaigns As GOP Hopes For Upset]

BARACK OBAMA: And I am here to tell you that the person for that job is your attorney general, Martha Coakley.

CORDES: Up until just a few weeks ago, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley was considered a shoo-in. After all, the seat she’s seeking has been in Democratic hands since 1962. But a spade of recent polls, including a new Suffolk University survey, show her losing to Republican opponent Scott Brown by a few points. Democrats decided late last week to send in the President. Coakley’s Republican challenger, Scott Brown, has made stopping the health care reform bill a signature issue. A message that seems to be resonating with voters.

SCOTT BROWN: Come Tuesday, we are going send a thunder clap around the country to let people know not only here in Massachusetts, but the people in Washington, that they’re tired and we’re tired of business as usual in Washington.

CORDES: If Coakley loses this race, Democrats will lose their supermajority in the Senate. Meaning they won’t be able to pass Democratic priorities like health care reform unless they can convince a few Republicans to vote with them.

JON KELLER [POLITICAL ANALYST, WBZ-TV]: It would be just the latest in a series of really eyebrow-rasing indications that the public is tiring of the show they’re seeing  in Washington.

CORDES: Many political analysts expect this race to hinge on turnout. Statewide, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one. But 51% consider themselves independent and they are the ones, Maggie, who will decide this race.

RODRIGUEZ: Nancy, I think it’s important to point out that Republicans haven’t won a Senate seat in that state since 1972. Is the consensus that this is more – Scott Brown’s rise – is more about a feeling of going against President Obama or is it an attack on how Coakley has run her campaign?

CORDES: Well, I think those two are related. There’s a sense here that the Coakley campaign sort of took this race for granted after she sailed to victory in the primary because they didn’t properly read the political winds blowing in the country, didn’t think that those winds would blow into Massachusetts. Didn’t see the current dissatisfaction over health care reform. And so they ran a kind of laid back campaign where she didn’t hold a lot of events, she didn’t run a lot of ads. At the same time that Brown was coming on strong, blanketing the airwaves, and holding events everywhere.

RODRIGUEZ: It’ll be interesting to see if Brown, the Republican, wins, if the Democrats can defer his swearing in and get health care passed. We will watch that. Nancy, thank you.

On Friday’s CBS Early Show, People magazine editor Betsy Gleick discussed the latest issue, featuring an interview with Barack and Michelle Obama on their one-year anniversary in the White House, declaring: “I think the headline is that they are feeling optimistic that the country is back on track, and that they do feel that there are still some, obviously, huge challenges ahead.”  

Co-host Harry Smith added his own insight into President Obama: “...sometimes when you’re not talking to him, in particular, about the news events of the day, he says a lot about himself and what his experience has been like and he talked a lot about being in the bubble.” Gleick agreed: “Absolutely. I mean, one of the most touching parts of the interview is that he just talked about the loneliness of the job and some of the loneliness he embraces, he realizes that he has big decisions that he alone needs to make. But he misses being out among regular people.”

Smith was also in awe of new photos of the first couple: “These pictures also that accompany the piece are just stunning... these may be among the best pictures, I think, we’ve seen of the two of them.” Gleick replied: “They’re beautiful, I agree.”

As photos of the Obamas appeared on screen, Smith wondered: “What do you think the pictures say about what they’re like?” Gleick gushed: “Well, they really are genuinely affectionate with one another....They’re comfortable. They have sort of taken to life in the White House.” Smith added: “Starting to wear it a little bit more.”

At the top of the segment, Smith noted that “First Lady Michelle Obama’s 46th birthday is Sunday” and near the end of the discussion with Gleick he pointed out a few of her favorite things that he had in studio: “We know she likes french fries. This is a real life, honest to goodness, deep dish pizza from Chicago, from UNO’s on Ohio Street. And a copy of ‘Do The Right Thing,’ Spike Lee’s ‘Do The Right Thing,’ which was the movie they saw on their first date, I guess.”

Smith concluded: “We’ll look forward to seeing the piece in People magazine.”

While the Early Show made room for President Obama’s one year anniversary and the First Lady’s favorite foods, the broadcast completely ignored the tightening Massachusetts Senate race for the seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. A Suffolk University poll released on Friday had Republican Scott Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley 50% to 46%.  

Here is a full transcript of the Obama story:

8:38AM

HARRY SMITH: First Lady Michelle Obama’s 46th birthday is Sunday, just a few days before President Obama marks the first anniversary of his inauguration, and People magazine sat down with the first couple to talk about the past year. And People’s executive editor, Betsy Gleick, is here to tell us all about it. Good morning.

BETSY GLEICK: Hi, Harry.

SMITH: What a revelatory interview. If there’s a headline from this, what do you feel it would be?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: A Year In The White House; Obamas On Personal Life & First Lady’s B-Day]

GLEICK: I think the headline is that they are feeling optimistic that the country is back on track, and that they do feel that there are still some, obviously, huge challenges ahead.

SMITH: Yeah, what’s interesting to me, because sometimes when you’re not talking to him, in particular, about the news events of the day, he says a lot about himself and what his experience has been like and he talked a lot about being in the bubble.

GLEICK: Absolutely. I mean, one of the most touching parts of the interview is that he just talked about the loneliness of the job and some of the loneliness he embraces, he realizes that he has big decisions that he alone needs to make. But he misses being out among regular people.

SMITH: Yeah. These pictures also that accompany the piece are just stunning. I’m looking at them now. And these may be among the best pictures, I think, we’ve seen of the two of them.

GLEICK: They’re beautiful, I agree.

SMITH: Yeah. What do you think the pictures say about what they’re like?

GLEICK: Well, they really are genuinely affectionate with one another. And I think the pictures show that. They’re comfortable. They have sort of taken to life in the White House. Their children have taken to life in the White House. And they are – they are relaxing into the job. Not relaxing. I mean, it’s a difficult job, but they are comfortable.

SMITH: Starting to wear it a little bit more.

GLEICK: Absolutely.

SMITH: The part of the interview were they’re talking about the kids and observing the kids when they got to meet the Pope and them trying as best they can to make life as normal as possible. But it’s not.

GLEICK: That’s right. They’re adorable anecdotes about Sasha and Malia and just the fact that the girls are starting to feel like it’s home.

SMITH: And how is the garden?

GLEICK: The garden has produced pounds and pounds of food.

SMITH: Thousands of pounds, it turns out.

GLEICK: Yes, yes.        

SMITH: And it seems to me that if there is one takeaway about Michelle Obama from this first year, it really is this thing about eating better and – and about being able to sustain yourself in some ways.

GLEICK: That’s right. And she tells us we’re going to be hearing a lot more this year from her about childhood obesity and healthy eating for families.

SMITH: Yeah. We have some things out here, it’s Michelle’s birthday this weekend. We know she likes french fries. This is a real life, honest to goodness, deep dish pizza from Chicago, from UNO’s on Ohio Street. And a copy of ‘Do The Right Thing,’ Spike Lee’s ‘Do The Right Thing,’ which was the movie they saw on their first date, I guess.

GLEICK: That’s right, yes.

SMITH: There you go. Betsy Gleick, thanks for stopping by this morning.

GLEICK: Absolutely.

SMITH: We’ll look forward to seeing the piece in People magazine.

The controversy over Harry Reid's crack about Barack Obama's lack of a "Negro dialect" is apparently over, at least according to the broadcast networks. Although the story only broke Saturday afternoon, the last network news story aired Tuesday night on Nightline.

An MRC analysis found that from Saturday to Tuesday the networks ran a combined 37 items on Reid's "Negro" remark, including interviews and panel discussions. Broadcast opinions were heavily skewed in Reid's favor: 71% of interview guests, soundbites or quoted sources were supportive of the Democrat, vs. 29% who were critical of Reid.

It's an excellent case study in how the liberal media aid in Democratic scandal control. Over four days, the networks morphed the story from one of an embarrassing racial gaffe by the Senate's top Democrat into one about Republican over-reach in going after Reid, with some journalists even crediting the Senator with keen insight on race relations:

# Day One, Reid's In Trouble: ABC's and CBS's Saturday evening newscasts both carried short items on the quote from Reid (NBC's Nightly News was pre-empted). CBS anchor Jeff Glor called it "a controversial remark [that] is shaking the political world."

# Day Two: Sunday Morning Fodder: On ABC's Good Morning America, George Stephanopoulos sounded like a Reid shill: "This was a private conversation....His choice of words, obviously, was unfortunate. The Senator knows that." Later on This Week, Stephanopoulos moderated a panel discussion in which PBS anchor Judy Woodruff relayed the White House line: "This is the Mormon from Searchlight [Nevada] with an ear of tin and a heart of gold." Of the show's five panelists, only conservative Liz Cheney condemned Reid, calling his remark "outrageous."

# Day Three: Rallying Around Reid: NBC's Andrea Mitchell was toughest Monday morning, calling Reid's remark "demeaning" of Obama. But NBC's Today also supplied a 100% pro-Reid panel: PBS host Gwen Ifill, who rejected any insult from Reid — "I don't understand what's demeaning" — and NBC analyst (and soon-to-be Senate candidate) Harold Ford, Jr.: "I don't believe in any way that Harry Reid had any animus, racial animus."

Ifill on Today also argued that "there's actual political science" supporting Reid's suggestion that lighter-skinned candidates face less prejudice. ABC's Jake Tapper made the same point on Monday's World News (later expanded on Tuesday's Nightline): "Many prominent African Americans we spoke to today were offended by Reid's words, but many also said his observation was correct."

On NBC's Nightly News, Andrea Mitchell dismissed the idea that Reid was comparable to Republican Trent Lott, forced out as Senate Leader for his own racial gaffe in 2002. "Reid was praising Obama, not longing for a pre-civil rights America," Mitchell insisted. "And while what Reid said was politically incorrect and clearly outdated, he wasn't inaccurate." To prove her point, Mitchell showed a soundbite from her boss, NBC Washington bureau chief Mark Whitaker: "Black politicians with a lighter skin have been more successful. It may not be a pleasant fact...[but] that's been the case historically."

# Day Four: Enough Already: On CBS's Early Show, co-host Harry Smith was itching to be done with the controversy: "Is the Reid story over, and should it be?" After GOP Senator John McCain swiped at Reid ("I didn't know those words were still in the American lexicon"), Today's Matt Lauer demanded to know if Reid had ever appeared to be "someone who is racially insensitive or worse." McCain said no.

The networks that quickly closed the books on Harry Reid's gaffe would be far rougher on any conservative who dared utter the same inflammatory phrases as the Senate's top Democrat.

It was a year ago this weekend that the Israeli military halted its three-week campaign, Operation Cast Lead, against Hamas militants in Gaza, during which Israel had responded to thousands of rockets and mortars launched from Gaza over several years. During Israel’s military campaign, on a number of major stories, many American television newscasts were more inclined to report accusations made by U.N. or Palestinian officials that the Israeli military had acted improperly than they were to update viewers after the military held investigations and released reports disputing the accusations made against it. At one point, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric went so far as to claim that the Israelis "may have used a banned weapon."

Below is a compilation of NewsBusters postings which document how the morning and evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FNC, and PBS reported a number of major stories from the Gaza War, highlighting examples of the media either engaging in distortion or omitting relevant information that would have cast Israel in a more favorable light, including several times when the broadcast and news networks even ignored reports issued by the Israeli military after it had taken time to investigate and dispute accusations made against its troops which had previously been reported by the media.

On January 6, 2009, there was an infamous explosion near the U.N.-run Fakhura school at the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza, as the Israeli military did battle with Hamas fighters. The Israeli military’s official account of the incident, released in February 2009, contended that 12 people died outside the school, nine of whom were identified as Hamas members. But, as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FNC, and PBS reported the incident early on, all cited a substantially higher account of the death toll which was claimed by Palestinian officials and the U.N. as being "more than forty" or "dozens," claiming that many civilians – who were sheltering inside the school to escape the danger of Israeli airstrikes – were among the dead. While most news shows did relay the Israeli account that the explosion occurred because their troops were battling Hamas members, these news shows did not report to viewers the official Israeli account that nearly all who died were Hamas terrorists. In fact, some earlier news reports had cited the number of Hamas members in the group as being as low as two.

Some news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC also referred to the incident – which caused damage to the school wall but no deaths within the school building – as an Israeli "attack on the school," leaving the impression that the school building was the intended target. By contrast, news reports on CNN and FNC used more neutral words like "hit" or "struck" when relaying that Israeli shells damaged the building, which would not give as strong a suggestion about whether the building itself was the intended target. And while some news reports on NBC, CNN, and FNC did at least describe those who were killed as being either "outside" or "near" the building, ABC, CBS, and PBS did not make such a clarification and left the impression that those who were killed were inside the building where civilians were taking refuge.

For more details, see: "Media Inflated Civilian Deaths at Gaza School, Ignored Israeli Account."

When U.N. officials accused the Israeli military of killing the driver of a vehicle delivering relief aid to Gaza, all the broadcast and news networks reported the accusation on January 8, 2009, and the U.N.'s resulting cessation of relief aid deliveries. But, after the Israeli military conducted an investigation and within days charged that Hamas was responsible for the killing, very few of the shows that reported the initial charges by the U.N. updated viewers on this important development. An examination of the morning and evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FNC, and PBS – including American Morning and The Situation Room on CNN; as well as Fox and Friends, the Fox Report, and Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC; and PBS's NewsHour – between January 8 and January 12, 2009, found that all these shows – with the exception of ABC’s Good Morning America – reported on the truck driver’s death at least once, with nearly all shows also directly relaying the U.N.’s charge of Israeli military culpability.

But only CNN's The Situation Room, on the January 9 show, took the time to briefly inform viewers that the Israeli military had denied responsibility for the incident as correspondent Nic Robertson related: "[The U.N.] said that two of their workers were killed by Israeli tank and machine gun fire. Israeli Defense Forces say they have investigated it. Now, they say it wasn't them, which implies that it must have been Hamas."

For more details, see: "Media Reported UN Accusation Israelis Killed Truck Driver, Ignored Israeli Denial."

After months of investigation, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) released a report addressing accusations from some humanitarian groups that its use of white phosphorus (WP) munitions in the Gaza War was a violation of international law, as the report distinguishes between the use of WP as a weapon and the more common non-weapon purposes such as providing smoke screens to conceal troop movements. The pro-Israel group CAMERA in September quoted from the report in the article, "Did Israel’s Use of White Phosphorus Constitute a War Crime?" by Steven Stotsky, on its Web site. The report not only argued that the military's decision to explode the munition in the air was safer for civilians than it would have been to explode it on the ground, but it also suggested that the use of WP to facilitate troop movements also meant civilian casualties were lower than they otherwise would have been by making attacks on Hamas more accurate.

Last January, evening newscasts and some morning newscasts on the broadcast networks and on CNN and FNC reported on accusations from humanitarian groups – with varying degrees of accuracy – with CBS even incorrectly referring to WP as a "banned weapon," and a "horrific new weapon, " and contending that the IDF may have committed "war crimes." At one point, CNN similarly incorrectly identified WP as a "banned substance." ABC showed a clip of a wounded Palestinian boy charging that Israelis have "no mercy" even for children. But, according to a Nexis search, none of these news programs updated viewers once the Israeli military had made public its say on the matter.

As previously documented by NewsBusters, the January 22 CBS Evening News ran a report (video here), introduced by anchor Katie Couric, which left the impression that the Israeli military had used a "banned weapon," without informing viewers that there are non-weapon uses for WP, and passed on accusations of "war crimes." Couric: "Hamas just ended a bloody war with Israel in Gaza, and tonight there is growing evidence the Israelis may have used a banned weapon. Some even accuse them of war crimes."

On the January 25 World News Sunday on ABC, as he introduced a report by correspondent Simon McGregor-Wood, anchor Dan Harris played up complaints against "both sides" in the war, and even suggested that the Israeli side may have been worse in its conduct of the war as he highlighted that there was "especially tough criticism" leveled at Israel. Harris: "Both sides are being dogged now by complaints that they violated the rules of war. Israel has come under especially tough criticism for its use of a chemical agent."

For more details, see: "Media Hyped ‘War Crime’ Accusations Against Israel, But Ignored Report by Israeli Military."

In March 2009, both the NBC Nightly News and ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson repeated charges that Israeli troops had witnessed the deliberate killing of Palestinian civilians by fellow troops during the Gaza War. At the end of March, the New York Times informed its readers that, after investigation, the Israeli military concluded that the incendiary claims were untrue and that the soldiers in question had actually been repeating rumors rather than describing events they had witnessed. But neither NBC nor ABC updated their viewers on the story. And in the case of ABC, even though some of the allegations had already been debunked, as reported in the conservative Jerusalem Post on Tuesday, March 24, the original inaccurate accounts were still repeated two days later on the Thursday, March 26, World News.

Anchor Charles Gibson introduced the March 26 story: "There is a debate under way right now throughout Israel about soldiers, war and morality. Two months after the war in Gaza, Israeli soldiers are providing the accounts of what they saw and did on the battlefield. And some of those accounts are deeply disturbing."

After recounting that Palestinians had previously made accusations of war crimes against the Israeli military, ABC’s Simon McGregor-Wood continued: "The army denied it. And the public accepted the denial. But now, for the first time, disturbing evidence from Israeli soldiers themselves. Personal accounts from the front line, published word for word in the newspapers. From Aviv, a squad leader: ‘One of our officers saw someone walking on a road, an old woman. He sent people up onto the roof, and, using machine guns, they took her down.’"

On the March 19 NBC Nightly News, correspondent Martin Fletcher had similarly charged: "The Israeli army insisted during the war they were extra careful to avoid unnecessary damage and to protect Palestinian civilians. But today Israelis were shocked by reports of soldiers speaking out, saying they intentionally destroyed Palestinian property and killed civilians."

For more details, see: "ABC & NBC Relay Phony Claims of Israeli War Crimes, Fail to Retract."

Within the first few days of Israel’s campaign in Gaza, the Israeli military struck the Islamic University of Gaza, charging that the school served as a weapons research facility for Hamas. But while CNN, FNC and MSNBC all at some point reported on the school’s links to Hamas, CBS and NBC ignored the terrorist group’s connection in all its reports, as ABC vaguely noted that it was popular with Hamas students while still calling it a "non-military target." CBS, which had initially ignored the strike when it happened in late December, 2008, ran a report on the Friday, January 30, 2009, CBS Evening News in which correspondent Alan Pizzey, instead of informing viewers of the school’s reported role in terrorism, seemed more concerned that the damage would delay students from graduating, and relayed that "even the Islamic University" was bombed, suggesting it was an unreasonable target. After beginning the story focusing on a college-aged Palestinian man who was collecting explosive material to build bombs for revenge against Israel, Pizzey continued: "It will go in Qassam rockets – payback, the bomb maker says, for the destruction that has been part of his life since birth. Even the Islamic University was pounded by airstrikes, putting students' chances of graduating in jeopardy."

Then came an anti-Israel soundbite from one female student, named Nasser Barakat: "It's clear for us they want to attack everything, single thing in our life and every place in Gaza in order to destroy the whole community – not only the fighters, but the whole community."

For more details, see: "Nets Ignore Gaza University’s Hamas Links, CBS: Israel ‘Jeopardizing’ Graduation for Students."

When Dr. Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor who had a history of expressing support for the 9/11 attacks, showed up treating injured patients at a hospital in Gaza during the war, he was seen a number of times in the first couple of weeks of the war on broadcast network news shows – primarily on CBS and NBC. Without mentioning his extreme views, anchors and correspondents treated him as a trustworthy source, as if he were a neutral foreign observer, regarding civilian casualties arriving at Shifa Hospital in Gaza. But, according to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America (CAMERA): "When asked by Dagbladet (a Norwegian publication) if he supported the terrorist attack on the U.S., he replied: 'Terror is a bad weapon, but the answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned.' (Sept. 30, 2001)"

The article "Norwegian Doctors in Gaza: Objective Observers or Partisan Propagandists?" by Ricki Hollander, can be found here.

On the January 5, 2009, The Early Show, correspondent Mark Phillips cited Gilbert’s charges that Israel was conducting an "all-out war against civilians" as "compelling evidence" contradicting "repeated claims by Israelis that civilians are not being targeted." Phillips: "Despite repeated claims by the Israelis that civilians are not being targeted and that they are even being warned by leaflets and phone calls to stay away from target sites, the dead and injured continue to be brought into Gaza's overrun hospitals. And the evidence provided by foreign doctors in Gaza is compelling." Then came a clip of Gilbert: "So anybody who tries to portray this as sort of a clean war against another army are lying. This is an all-out war against the civilian Palestinian population in Gaza, and we can prove that with the numbers."

For more details, see: "CBS, NBC Cite Pro-9/11 Source Who Charges Israel in ‘All-Out War Against Civilians’"

For CBS News viewers following the first week of the Gaza War, which news shows began reporting the morning of Saturday, December 27, 2008, one could easily have gotten the impression that Israel was starving the people of Gaza by barring food entry as part of its blockade, as the network’s newscasts – The Early Show and the CBS Evening News – not only ignored news of aid shipments being allowed to cross Israel’s border into the Gaza Strip – which did receive a little attention from evening and morning newscasts on the other broadcast and news networks – but CBS also ran reports about the Israeli military blocking food and other aid into the territory. On the December 29, 2008, CBS Evening News, correspondent Sheila MacVicar claimed: "But the violence was not one-sided. Israel carried out targeted killings, and more importantly, for the people of Gaza, imposed and tightened an economic blockade that cut off supplies of food, medicine and even electricity." During the second week of the war, on the January 7, 2008, The Early Show, correspondent Richard Roth even gave the impression that aid had not been allowed into Gaza in weeks as he reported on the humanitarian ceasefire: "Trucks full of food, water, medical supplies and fuel started moving after waiting for weeks on Israel's side of the Gaza border."

For more details, see: "CBS Portrays Israel as Starving Gazans While Giving Less Attention to Aid Shipments Than Other Nets."