Category Archives: Early Show

Despite referring to it as "landmark" and "huge," the network morning shows on Tuesday mostly ignored Monday's Supreme Court ruling, which declared the Second Amendment a fundamental right that cannot be violated by state governments. Good Morning America, The Early Show and Today devoted just two minutes and 34 seconds to discussing the important decision.

ABC's GMA offered 21 seconds with a single Juju Chang news brief during the two hour program. This didn't stop the show's hosts from covering crucial topics, such as spending eight and a half minutes dissecting whether Michael Douglas' ex-wife deserves residuals from his upcoming Wall Street sequel.

CBS's Early Show allowed 25 seconds for Jan Crawford to explain the significance of the decision. Host Chris Wragge rushed, "Now what's the importance, if you can just tell us, quickly, of this 5-4 decision?"

Crawford exclaimed, "Chris, this was a huge ruling that basically extended gun rights nationwide." Apparently, it wasn't as compelling as the five minutes and 15 seconds the same show devoted to cooking flank steak for the Fourth of July.

NBC provided the most coverage, one minute and 48 seconds. This included an anchor brief by news reader Nancy Morales and a full report by Pete Williams. Morales described the decision as "landmark." Williams actually included a brief clip of NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre promising more lawsuits against cities and states that don't follow the court's instructions.

The lack of coverage follows the same pattern from 2008 when the Supreme Court overturned Washington D.C.'s gun ban. On June 27, 2008, all three morning shows gave a total of three minutes and 33 seconds to the story. Early Show, instead, focused four minutes on the extremely relevant subject of how to Feng Shui your house for pets.

A transcript of the coverage can be found below:

GMA

06/29/10

7:14

JUJU CHANG: Chicago's mayor is vowing to rewrite the city's ban on handguns, after a Supreme Court decision made it unenforceable. The high court ruled Americans have a basic right to own a handgun for self-defense, wherever they live. Chicago may instead demand that gun owners buy insurance, register guns with local police and equip them with traceable bullets.

Today

06/29/10

7:17

NATALIE MORALES: Major cities across the U.S. are bracing for new challenges to their gun control laws. On Monday the Supreme Court's ruling on Chicago's handgun ban said an individual right to keep and bear arms is among the fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

8:02

NATALIE MORALES: Some big cities in the U.S. are bracing for new battles over gun laws, following a landmark ruling Monday by the Supreme Court. NBC's justice correspondent Pete Williams has more. Pete, good morning.

PETE WILLIAMS: Natalie, for the first time in the nation's history, the court said the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, limits what state and local governments can do in restricting gun ownership.

POLICE VIDEO: We have got shots fired over here.

WILLIAMS: The ruling means the end of a 38-year-old Chicago law strictly banning handguns, challenged by city residents who wanted to have a gun at home for self-defense. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court said the nation's founders considered the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms among the fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty. Chicago officials said they might now try requiring gun registration or training courses. But, advocates of gun rights vow to fight any city that tries to raise barriers to gun ownership.

WAYNE LAPIERRE (NRA): I think the action goes to wherever the politicians make it so hard for average citizens to qualify, make the process so intimidating, so restrictive, citizens never get the guns.

WILLIAMS: The next legal battles are already brewing over carrying guns in public or taking them into bars and restaurants. But advocates of gun control say the court's ruling applies only to the right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

PAUL HELMKE (Brady Handgun Control): It doesn't mean anybody can have any gun any place, anytime. You are allowed to have reasonable restrictions in the middle on who gets guns.

WILLIAMS: Local governments can still impose some restrictions on owning a gun but this ruling sparks a new round of legal challenges on what's reasonable, Natalie.

Early Show

06/29/10

7:15

CHRIS WRAGGE: And quickly, on a separate note here, I want to talk about this Supreme Court ruling. They ruled that had state and local governments cannot ban guns. Now what's the importance, if you can just tell us, quickly, of this 5-4 decision?

JAN CRAWFORD: Chris, this was a huge ruling that basically extended gun rights nationwide. It said cities and states across the country cannot flatly outright ban handguns, that you have a fundamental right to own a gun in your own home to protect yourself.

While ABC's Good Morning America and NBC's Today spent little time on the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on Tuesday, the CBS Early Show featured a report from legal correspondent Jan Crawford, who cheered Kagan finally being able respond to Republican "attacks" in a "very agile" way.

Good Morning America devoted only a single news brief early in the 7AM ET hour to the hearings as news reader JuJu Chang noted how Kagan "will be questioned by Republicans who say she is too liberal and too political." Chang added: "Kagan promised to take a modest approach to judging."  

On Today, correspondent Kelly O'Donnell offered only a brief 7:09AM report on the hearings: "Weeks after her nomination, seated in silence for hours, finally Elena Kagan gets to make her case....[she] describes herself as a daughter of the American dream." O'Donnell described the arguments from both sides of the aisle: "No surprise, Democrats praised her intellect and the chance to broaden the Supreme Court....Saying they would be respectful, Republicans did not hesitate to get tough. From abortion rights to immigration, they found various ways to call her liberal." In an 8:04AM news brief, news reader Natalie Morales declared: "Republicans portrayed Kagan as a liberal activist with no judicial experience. Kagan promised an even-handed approach to the law."

In contrast, the Early Show devoted a full 7:10AM segment to Kagan, as fill-in co-host Chris Wragge proclaimed: "Day two of Elena Kagan's Senate confirmation hearings get underway this morning and the gloves are expected to come off." Crawford began the report that followed by observing: "After nearly two months of public silence while Republicans attacked her, Elena Kagan was sworn in and answered back. She vowed to uphold the law fairly."

Crawford previewed Tuesday's hearings: "...today the questions and the fireworks begin. Republicans say the questions won't be easy, as they try to paint her as a liberal activist." Wragge asked about the tone of the hearings: "...every word yesterday from Elena was just so measured and so deliberate. Can we expect more of that today with every response from the questions she'll be fielding?" Crawford replied: "No, it's going to have a very different tone today....they're really going to start pressing her on all these issues....what we'll see today is how agile and how effective she is at answering those and responding to those, engaging these senators without saying anything that can be held against her."

Wragge concluded the segment by asking Crawford to predict Kagan's performance. Crawford responded by gushing: "I think she's going to do, actually, very, very well. I've seen her argue before the Supreme Court. She's very agile, she spars with those conservative justices very well, so I don't think these Republicans are going to have too much of an easy time, you know, pressing her on some of these issues."

Here is a full transcript of Crawford's June 29 report:

7:10AM

CHRIS WRAGGE: Day two of Elena Kagan's Senate confirmation hearings get underway this morning and the gloves are expected to come off. CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford is on Capitol Hill with a look at today's session. Jan, good morning.

JAN CRAWFORD: Good morning, Chris. Well, you know Elena Kagan really stayed out of the public eye for two months and Americans finally got a glimpse of her, but today, she's going to face a lot of questions from the Republicans on this side of the aisle and they're going to see if she can handle the heat. After nearly two months of public silence while Republicans attacked her, Elena Kagan was sworn in and answered back. She vowed to uphold the law fairly.

ELENA KAGAN: I will listen hard to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues.

CRAWFORD: And she told a bit of her life story.

KAGAN: My parents lived the American dream. They grew up in immigrant communities. My mother didn't speak a word of English until she went to school. But she became a legendary teacher and my father a valued lawyer.

CRAWFORD: Kagan sat stoically for hours while senators gave their opening statements, but today the questions and the fireworks begin. Republicans say the questions won't be easy, as they try to paint her as a liberal activist.

JEFF SESSIONS: It's not a coronation, as I've said, but a confirmation process. Serious and substantive questions will be asked.

CRAWFORD: But Democrats will be ready to come to her defense.

CHARLES SCHUMER: She is brilliant, she is thoughtful, and I think she is straight out of central casting for this job.

SESSIONS: But proving that to the senators is what Elena Kagan is going to have to do and it all starts, Chris, in just a couple of hours.

WRAGGE: Jan, the last thing I would ever do is sit here and say this has got to be pretty easy on someone, but every word yesterday from Elena was just so measured and so deliberate. Can we expect more of that today with every response from the questions she'll be fielding?

CRAWFORD: No, it's going to have a very different tone today, Chris. You know, yesterday, her face – I mean, she really showed no expression all day, she just sat there and listened to these senators deliver these long opening statements. So today they're really going to start pressing her on all these issues that they've got ready. So what we'll see today is how agile and how effective she is at answering those and responding to those, engaging these senators without saying anything that can be held against her.

WRAGGE: And quickly, on a separate note here, I want to talk about this Supreme Court ruling. They ruled that had state and local governments cannot ban guns. Now what's the importance, if you can just tell us quickly, of this 5-4 decision?

CRAWFORD: Chris, this was a huge ruling that basically extended gun rights nationwide. It said cities and states across the country cannot flatly outright ban handguns, that you have a fundamental right to own a gun in your own home to protect yourself.

WRAGGE: Can I ask you real quickly, you know Elena Kagan very well. How do you think she'll perform today?

CRAWFORD: I think she's going to do, actually, very, very well. I've seen her argue before the Supreme Court. She's very agile, she spars with those conservative justices very well, so I don't think these Republicans are going to have too much of an easy time, you know, pressing her on some of these issues.

WRAGGE: Alright, Jan Crawford, thank you very much. We look forward to your report later on today.

CRAWFORD: Thanks, Chris.

On Monday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Whit Johnson reported breaking news of the death of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd and proclaimed: "By all accounts, he was one of the hardest working senators in modern history." Johnson touted Byrd's "four volume history of the Senate" and described him as the "unequaled master of the Senate rules."

Part of the "hard work" Johnson cited was the massive number of pork barrel projects Byrd secured funding for over his long career: "Byrd said he owed his success to the long suffering people of West Virginia and he returned the favor by steering billions of dollars in federal government projects to the state, dozens of them, named for him." Johnson noted how "Byrd reveled in his success at bringing home the bacon....His critics called him the king of pork. He called that hog wash."

Another aspect of Byrd's career that Johnson highlighted was the West Virginia Democrat's opposition to the Iraq war: "A harsh critic of the war in Iraq, Byrd said opposing the war in 2003 was his most important vote ever."

It was not until the end of his report that Johnson mentioned Byrd's controversial past on race relations: "His life was not without mistakes. He deeply regretted joining the Ku Klux Klan as a young man and participating in a filibuster against the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. Later in life, though, he became an advocate of civil rights."

Later, in a news brief in the 8AM ET hour, fill-in news reader Betty Nguyen declared that Byrd was "a master politician, an expert on Senate rules, and unrelenting lobbyist for his home state and a powerful force on Capitol Hill."

Here is a full transcript of Johnson's June 28 report:

7:00AM TEASE

ERICA HILL: Breaking news. The longest serving member of Congress, Senator Robert Byrd, has died. We'll look back at his remarkable career and tell you how this could impact the balance of power in the Senate.

7:01AM SEGMENT

ERICA HILL: First, though, we do want to get to the breaking news, of course, out of Washington this morning. The passing of Senator Robert Byrd early this morning. CBS News correspondent Whit Johnson is on Capitol Hill with the very latest. Whit, good morning.

WHIT JOHNSON: Erica, good morning. Senator Robert Byrd checked into a hospital late last week. Originally, he was thought to be suffering from heat exhaustion, but doctors found further complications. The longest serving senator in U.S. history passed away this morning at the age of 92.

ROBERT BYRD: The United States Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the whole world.

JOHNSON: Robert Byrd won nine elections to the U.S. Senate. He was the longest serving senator in American history. He grew up in poverty in the hardscrabble coal fields of West Virginia, where he learned to play the fiddle. For decades he used it to entertain audiences on the campaign trail and even performed at the Grand Ole Opry. By all accounts, he was one of the hardest working senators in modern history. He went to law school at night, receiving his degree at age 45 from President Kennedy. He wrote a four volume history of the Senate, became the unequaled master of the Senate rules and climbed to the top of the ladder, spending 12 years as Democratic leader. Byrd said he owed his success to the long suffering people of West Virginia and he returned the favor by steering billions of dollars in federal government projects to the state, dozens of them, named for him. Byrd reveled in his success at bringing home the bacon.

BYRD: Man, you're looking at big daddy. Big daddy! Rolled up my sleeves, man.

JOHNSON: His critics called him the king of pork. He called that hog wash.

BYRD: This notion that earmark spending is inherently wasteful spending is flat out wrong. W-r-o-n-g.

JOHNSON: A harsh critic of the war in Iraq, Byrd said opposing the war in 2003 was his most important vote ever.

BYRD: How long must the best of our nation's military men and women be taken from their homes to fight this unnecessary war?

JOHNSON: His life was not without mistakes. He deeply regretted joining the Ku Klux Klan as a young man and participating in a filibuster against the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. Later in life, though, he became an advocate of civil rights. His great loves included his children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, a Senate, which he so revered he called 'the temple,' and the Constitution, a copy of which he always carried in his breast pocket. But above everything else, there was Erma, Byrd's high school sweetheart and wife of 68 years. She passed away in 2006. Byrd said she was his greatest love of all. Washington is already reacting this morning to Senator Byrd's death. He's being remembered for his fighter spirit. Erica.

HILL: Whit, thanks. Whit Johnson in Washington this morning.

The Monday morning shows on CBS, ABC, and NBC all worked to portray President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a moderate and open-minded legal scholar, downplaying her liberal views. All three network programs also minimized her controversial decision to ban military recruiters on campus while Dean of Harvard Law School.

On CBS's Early Show, legal correspondent Jan Crawford touted Kagan as "an intellectual heavyweight and consensus builder." Crawford noted how Republicans had "several lines of attack" against Kagan and would "try to paint her as a liberal activist." Crawford herself recently described Kagan as having "stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left."

On ABC's Good Morning America, correspondent Claire Shipman did a fawning segment on Kagan in the 8AM ET hour, describing the former Dean as "intellectual" and "full of personal charm" during her tenure at Harvard. Shipman claimed that Kagan had "a determination to be open-minded," despite banning military recruiters from the university's campus over the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. On that issue, Shipman explained that despite Kagan's decision being unpopular "among student military vets....Iraq War veteran Kurt White says they were won over by Kagan's persistent outreach, another example of her political skills." Shipman failed to mention that White would be testifying on Kagan's behalf during the confirmation hearings.

Shipman went so far to portray Kagan as open-minded that she touted how "though her political views are quite different than his, she honored conservative justice Antonin Scalia at the law school a few years ago, calling him a great justice." Shipman even argued: " It's an openness to all voices that worries some liberals, but colleagues argue Kagan's style is just what the Court needs."

NBC's Today did not provide quite as strong a defense of Kagan, but a report by legal correspondent Pete Williams did feature a soundbite from Kagan supporter and SCOTUS blog founder Tom Goldstein declaring: "Elena Kagan isn't a political partisan." Williams, like Shipman, attempted to downplay the military recruiter ban: "Republicans also accuse Kagan of treating the military unfairly when she was dean of Harvard Law....But student military veterans say she made them feel welcome at Harvard and praised them for their service, even though she strongly opposed the policy on gays in the military."  

Here is a full transcript of Shipman's June 28 segment on Good Morning America:

8:15AM

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is preparing to take the stand for Senate confirmation hearings this afternoon, and they're meant to tease out the nominee's judicial philosophy. Well for some clues, Claire Shipman talked to some people who knew Kagan during the most substantial legal job of her career, the first woman dean of Harvard Law School.

CLAIRE SHIPMAN, ABC correspondent: Good morning, George, well that's right. We decided to look for clues at Harvard Law School where she had a very distinctive style. She was only there for six years, made a large number of changes. She was intellectual, yes, but also full of personal charm, say colleagues, and a determination to be open-minded.

It's an institution usually resistant to change, some might say an immovable object, until it was confronted with the irresistible force of Dean Elena Kagan.

ELENA KAGAN: This is a wonderful time, and it's so good to be with you.

LAURENCE TRIBE, Harvard Law professor: I've watched Harvard Law School go through lots of transitions, but there has never been anything like Elena Kagan.

MARTHA MINOW, Harvard Law dean: She was going to turn over every stone at this institution and figure out a way to make it better.

SHIPMAN: She thinks big.

MINOW: She thinks big.

SHIPMAN: But she was savvy enough at times to start small, offering perks like free coffee for students. Then bigger battles, fighting to hire more conservative professors like John Manning.
 
JOHN MANNING, Harvard Law professor: She felt that her job as dean was to foster an atmosphere in which all sorts of ideas would be presented.

SHIPMAN: And selling a total curriculum overhaul, the first in a hundred years.

KAGAN: For the most part, a first year curriculum now looks like what it looks like back in 1880.

SHIPMAN: Some say her meteoric rise is impressive, but also suggests a calculating careerism. Two of her best friends, roommates at law school, say she's just always just reveled in the work.

JOHN BARRETT, friend of Kagan: A visual that I have, a memory, is her sitting at her desk with a cigarette and a pen and a book and a little desk lamp, and she could kind of grind it out for a long time.

UNIDENTIFIED FRIEND OF KAGAN: I think what was clear was that she really loved the law, and reading about it, and thinking about it, and talking about it.

SHIPMAN: Her time as dean wasn't without controversy. She decided to renew a ban keeping military recruiters from using the career services office because of opposition to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Support was high on campus, but not among student military vets.

KURT WHITE, Harvard Law student: It didn't seem like banning military recruiters from the law school campus was going to be something that was likely to lead to a change in this law.

SHIPMAN: Still, Iraq War veteran Kurt White says they were won over by Kagan's persistent outreach, another example of her political skills.

WHITE: It was really her showing her appreciation for the military and being very supportive of us.

SHIPMAN: And though her political views are quite different than his, she honored conservative justice Antonin Scalia at the law school a few years ago, calling him a great justice.

MANNING: She as dean was able to recognize his accomplishments and celebrate them without reservation.

SHIPMAN: It's an openness to all voices that worries some liberals, but colleagues argue Kagan's style is just what the Court needs.

TRIBE: I think that her ability to find common ground, bring people along, see long-term implications, will make a very large impact on the Court.

SHIPMAN: It's certainly a good place to start hearings as a potential liberal justice when you have the support of a conservative justice, like justice Scalia. George, but of course the hearings will still be heated, they'll look at that military recruitment issue, and also try to pin her down specifically on how she might rule on some controversial issues.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's right, and in an election year, likely to get a lot of no votes as well. Okay Claire Shipman, thanks very much.

All three morning shows on Thursday ignored allegations of "unwanted sexual contact" by Al Gore against a woman in 2006. This is despite the fact that the claim was reported by the AP, the New York Times and the Washington Post.

CBS's Early Show, NBC's Today and ABC's Good Morning America failed to mention the charges made by an Oregon massage therapist that Gore tried to have sex with her.

Yet, on June 2, after Al and Tipper Gore announced their divorce, ABC reporter Claire Shipman wondered if the separation meant that "storybook endings" aren't possible. Logically, wouldn't the morning show want to follow up with this new development?

When Republican Nikki Haley was accused of having an affair with two different men, GMA had no trouble covering the story. On June 9, host George Stephanopoulos interviewed the South Carolina gubernatorial candidate about the allegations and demanded, "Can you assure South Carolina voters that they're not going to be embarrassed if they elect you?"

On June 7, he marveled, "And down in South Carolina, they can't just seem to get enough of it. In the gubernatorial primary, the leading candidate embroiled in a bit of a sex scandal." The program noted the story again on June 10.

Now, obviously, there are differences. Gore is a private citizen. Haley is running for office. However, there is an actual police report in the Gore case. Additionally, journalists were quite taken with the then-Vice President when he famously kissed his wife at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.

Those same reporters have a responsibility to cover unflattering allegations about Gore. ABC, although unable to mention the charges on GMA, did note them on the network's website. A sympathetic headline proclaimed, "Al Gore Sex Abuse Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence, Say Portland Police."

Apparently unmarried men don't have to bother ‘putting a ring on it' anymore.

A CBS' "Early Show" panel on June 23 made marriage look like an obsolete tradition by  highlighting several couples who've cohabited for years-with little or no intentions of ever saying "I do."

CBS co-host Erica Hill cited statistics showing a record-high 6.4 million couples currently cohabitate in the United States.

"This is a cautious generation," Seligson explained to Hill. "They want to get it right, and they want to make sure that this is the person with whom they can spend the next 60 or 70 years."

"Early Show" guest panelists Dr. Robi Ludwig of Care.com and Brian Balthazar of Popgoestheweek.com supported this shift in cultural attitude. Balthazar pointed out that to many individuals, particularly those whose families have experienced divorce, marriage has a less-than-sparkly image.

"They say, why do I want to put myself through that?" Balthazar explained. "If I love my partner, why do I feed a piece of paper and spend a lot of money?" He credited the trend to an "instant update society. I don't know what I'm having for dinner tomorrow let alone a week. People stayed at the same job for 20 years. Now that never happens. People are thinking, marriage forever? The vows are honor and obey? Who wants to sign up for that?"

Ludwig said cohabitation provides a way to experiment with marriage without the burden of commitment. "Living together really always gives the person the option to get out," she said. "And also it's like a trial for marriage. So you're trying out to be a husband, you're trying out to be a wife. Most of the time it's a wife trying out, like, ‘Do you want me to be your wife?'

Balthazar called cohabitation "a great test run." He cited comedian Groucho Marx, who is credited with saying, "Marriage is a good institution. But who want to live in an institution?"

Despite the guest panelists' efforts to characterize marriage as antiquated, Hill never mentioned the ways that marriage benefits both the couple and their children.

Hill also never mentioned the numerous studies compiled by groups like The Heritage Foundation and Focus on the Family and  that indicate the damaging results that cohabitation has on marriage (for couples who eventually plan on getting married), or the effect that this non-committal take on relationships can have on children reared in homes lacking the structure of marriage.

This isn't the first time "The Early Show" has promoted cohabitation without mentioning the downsides. On March 9, host Harry Smith neglected to ask author Hannah Seligson about the consequences of cohabitation in a discussion of her book, "A Little Bit Married."

 

Apparently unmarried men don't have to bother ‘putting a ring on it' anymore.

A CBS' "Early Show" panel on June 23 made marriage look like an obsolete tradition by  highlighting several couples who've cohabited for years-with little or no intentions of ever saying "I do."

CBS co-host Erica Hill cited statistics showing a record-high 6.4 million couples currently cohabitate in the United States.

"This is a cautious generation," Seligson explained to Hill. "They want to get it right, and they want to make sure that this is the person with whom they can spend the next 60 or 70 years."

"Early Show" guest panelists Dr. Robi Ludwig of Care.com and Brian Balthazar of Popgoestheweek.com supported this shift in cultural attitude. Balthazar pointed out that to many individuals, particularly those whose families have experienced divorce, marriage has a less-than-sparkly image.

"They say, why do I want to put myself through that?" Balthazar explained. "If I love my partner, why do I feed a piece of paper and spend a lot of money?" He credited the trend to an "instant update society. I don't know what I'm having for dinner tomorrow let alone a week. People stayed at the same job for 20 years. Now that never happens. People are thinking, marriage forever? The vows are honor and obey? Who wants to sign up for that?"

Ludwig said cohabitation provides a way to experiment with marriage without the burden of commitment. "Living together really always gives the person the option to get out," she said. "And also it's like a trial for marriage. So you're trying out to be a husband, you're trying out to be a wife. Most of the time it's a wife trying out, like, ‘Do you want me to be your wife?'

Balthazar called cohabitation "a great test run." He cited comedian Groucho Marx, who is credited with saying, "Marriage is a good institution. But who want to live in an institution?"

Despite the guest panelists' efforts to characterize marriage as antiquated, Hill never mentioned the ways that marriage benefits both the couple and their children.

Hill also never mentioned the numerous studies compiled by groups like The Heritage Foundation and Focus on the Family and  that indicate the damaging results that cohabitation has on marriage (for couples who eventually plan on getting married), or the effect that this non-committal take on relationships can have on children reared in homes lacking the structure of marriage.

This isn't the first time "The Early Show" has promoted cohabitation without mentioning the downsides. On March 9, host Harry Smith neglected to ask author Hannah Seligson about the consequences of cohabitation in a discussion of her book, "A Little Bit Married."

 

All three morning shows on Monday railed against BP CEO Tony Hayward for attending a yachting race in England on Saturday, but they found no such anger for Barack Obama's golf outing on the same day, ignoring the story. The pattern was nearly identical on Sunday, with only Good Morning America briefly mentioning the President's recreational activities.

On Monday's Early Show, Katie Couric appeared and derided, "But that image of Tony Hayward participating in that yacht race over the weekend probably hurt his image even more, as if that's possible." Good Morning America's Sharyn Alfonsi indignantly reported, "...Tony Hayward goes sailing, but residents weren't the only ones wondering what was he thinking?"

The morning shows even repeated the White House's assaults on Hayward's yachting trip, hypocritically ignoring Obama's golfing. On the June 20 Sunday Morning (CBS's weekend equivalent of the Early Show), host Charles Osgood parroted, "White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel labeled Hayward's outing another PR gaffe."

On Monday's GMA, ABC reporter Alfonsi featured a clip of Emanuel mocking, "Tony Hayward is not going to have a second career in PR consulting." The PR problems for the President went unmentioned by Alfonsi.

Today on Monday featured Matt Lauer asserting that Hayward is "under renewed fire, this time for attending a glamorous yacht race." On Sunday's GMA, Alfonsi chided the event as a "ritzy yacht race."

In total, Monday's Today, Good Morning America and Early Show all ran full reports on Hayward's activities. On Sunday, Today and GMA did the same thing. Sunday Morning ran an anchor brief on the race.

The only mention of Obama's golfing came during an exchange between Sunday GMA co-host Bill Weir and guest Jake Tapper, anchor of This Week:

BILL WEIR: I understand after your interview with Emanuel there, the White House announced that the President was spending his day golfing with vice president Biden. So, some might criticize that since the President has made clear he is ultimately the man in charge. The White House responded to those criticisms?

JAKE TAPPER: Well, I don't think they would see it exactly the same thing, yachting in a pristine environment by the man who runs the company responsible for this great environmental disaster is not the same thing as the President taking in some holes at a military base golf course, they say. Although Republicans say people on golf courses shouldn't throw stones.

If it's poor form to yacht while the Gulf Coast suffers one of the worst environmental and economic disasters in history, one would think the same would be true for the President. Viewers who watched the network morning shows wouldn't know that, however.

For more on this double standard, see a NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard.

(Thanks to Matt Balan and MRC interns Alex Fitzsimmons and Matt Hadro for transcript assistance.)

A transcript of Monday's GMA segment on Hayward, which aired at 7:04, follows:

ROBIN ROBERTS: Meanwhile, though, BP's CEO Tony Hayward is under mounting pressure to resign. So, what did he do this time? Sharyn Alfonsi is in Louisiana with more than on that. Good morning, Sharyn.

SHARYN ALFONSI: Good morning, Robin, Well, just when you think people here couldn't be positive more outraged, Tony Hayward goes sailing but residents weren't the only ones wondering what was he thinking? Today, this image of Tony Hayward racing ace 50-foot yacht off the coast. [Talking to a resident.] What does that say to you?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: That he really doesn't give a flying flip about any of us That's amazing.

ALABAMA GOVERNOR BOB RILEY (R): I don't know how many yachts are over there. But put a skimmer on the back of them, bring them back over here because we certainly need them.

ALFONSI: A spokesman for BP says Hayward's day off was a rare moment of private time. And said that "no matter where he is, he's always in touch with what's happening within BP." But, critics say he's clearly out of touch with everyone else.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: He wants his life back. Maybe he's trying to go on with his normal life, you know? It's unfortunate we can't do that.

RAHM EMANUEL (White House chief of staff): Tony Hayward is not going to have a second career in PR consulting.

ALFONSI: Exactly what Hayward's job is these days is unclear. BP's chairman told Britain's Sky News that Hayward was being relieved from the day-to-day operations dealing with the leak.

CARL HENRIC SVANBERG (Chairman, BP): He's now handing over the operations, the daily operations, to Bob Dudley. And he will be more home then be here.

ALFONSI: But, a day later, a BP spokesman said until the leak is capped, Tony Hayward is very much in charge. [A picture of him on his yacht appears onscreen.] Hayward at the helm, now navigating hot water. And Tony Hayward did issue a statement of sorts this weekend by twitter. He said, "The oil spill is still my top priority." That message came after that race. That is a real hard sell down here in the gulf right now. George?

On Thursday's Good Morning America on ABC, co-host George Stephanopoulos laid blame on BP and Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen for mishandling the Gulf oil spill response but depicted the Obama administration as having done everything it could. In contrast, on the CBS Early Show, guests from both sides of the aisle gave the President a 'C' grade for his response.  

At the top of Good Morning America, Stephanopoulos described how BP CEO Tony Hayward would be facing a "public execution" in Thursday's congressional hearings and how Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak promised to "slice and dice" Hayward. In a report that followed, correspondent Jonathan Karl furthered the theme of courageous Democrats standing up to the big oil villain: "Tony Hayward may be the most hated man in America. And he's heading right into a buzz saw of congressional outrage. In his prepared testimony, Hayward declares, 'I am deeply sorry.' But the chairman of the committee says that's not enough." A clip of Democratic committee chairman Henry Waxman was played.

Minutes later, Stephanopoulos interviewed Louisiana Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser and wondered: "...with everything the President and BP announced this week, do you think this is on the right track now?" After Nungesser expressed doubt about local fisherman being reimbursed for financial losses and a lack of organization in the response, Stephanopoulos deflected any criticism away from President Obama and suggested another target: "The White House has approved the building of berms, they've sent the boom down there, Admiral Allen is on the scene every day. Are you saying he is not giving you the help you need? And do you think he should keep his job?"

Nungesser replied: "I don't know if it's Admiral Allen. I don't know if the chain of command. Something's not working." Stephanopoulos pressed further: "So how does it get done? Is Admiral Allen the right man for the job right now?" The headline on-screen during the segment read: "Desperation On the Gulf; Residents Want More Action."

Meanwhile, on the Early Show, co-host Harry Smith invited Republican strategist Dan Bartlett and Democratic strategist Rob Zimmerman to grade President Obama's handling of the disaster. Bartlett replied: "Well I think, Harry, anything above maybe a C-minus would be difficult to score." Smith joked: " 'Gentleman's C,' we've heard that before." Zimmerman actually graded on the same curve: "Harry, I'd have to agree with Dan. I'd give him a C on this, a C at this point." Unlike the more generic ABC headline, the on-screen headline on CBS read: "Disaster in the Gulf: Day 59; What's Next Step for Obama Administration?"

Barlett later questioned the wisdom of the White House using the crisis to push controversial cap-and-trade energy legislation. Smith agreed with that concern, asking Zimmerman: "...you have to confess....At the end of the speech he says, 'Well now it's time for us to think about energy policy and this is a perfect, perfect jumping-off point,' was that, as you watched, were you thinking, 'Boy that's a good idea,' or were you thinking, 'Not now, not now!'"  

Zimmerman argued: "But unless we, in fact, put in place an aggressive energy policy, we run the risk of this tragedy happening all over again." Smith agreed: "That goes without saying." However, he reiterated: "But from a political standpoint, it's not as if he's saying, 'Okay, I've solved all the problems, I have got the bully pulpit, I've got the momentum. Now's the time to jump on this.'"

On Tuesday, while the Early Show and NBC's Today challenged White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the administration's response, former Democratic strategist Stephanopoulos lobbed softballs to the Obama staff member. 

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made the rounds on the network morning shows on Tuesday, ahead of President Obama's prime time Oval Office address on the Gulf oil spill. While he had confrontational interviews on CBS's Early Show and NBC's Today, on ABC's Good Morning America, co-host George Stephanopoulos made sure Gibbs's appearance was low-stress.

Stephanopoulos kept the questions bland, giving Gibbs plenty of room to maneuver, and made little effort to press the White House spokesman on the administration's response: "...the President struck a pretty hopeful note yesterday, but experts say this spill will change the ecosystem for a generation....Are they right?...So does the President believe that basically all the oil will stop spilling into the Gulf by the end of June?...Is it fair to conclude from that, that this is the most significant crisis the President has faced?"

By contrast, on CBS's Early Show, co-host Harry Smith began by quoting Florida Senator Bill Nelson saying there was "no command and control" during the crisis and asking Gibbs: "How has this President's most recent trip to the Gulf, how is that going to change any of this?" Smith later wondered why local authorities weren't being allowed to take charge of cleanup efforts, to which Gibbs replied: "I think that's what's happening in almost every instance." Smith quickly interrupted: "...it may sound like it from where you are, but from where we have heard on the other end, it sure doesn't feel like it."

On NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer also pressed Gibbs, asking if the President's prime time address was simply "a little bit of theater" and questioning Obama's refusal to meet with BP's CEO for several weeks: "...why wait 57 days to meet with the executives of this company after this disaster started?"

Perhaps the reason for Stephanopoulos's soft approach was due to his hope that the President had "contained the political damage" of the spill, as he expressed to Democratic strategist James Carville on Monday.

Here are some of Stephanopoulos's June 15 questions to Gibbs on Good Morning America:

7:07AM EST

-You know, the President struck a pretty hopeful note yesterday, but experts say this spill will change the ecosystem for a generation. And a lot of the public seems to agree. Half in a USA Today poll say that some beaches will never recover. And more say some species of fish and birds will never return to normal levels. Are they right?

-You know, the–BP wrote yesterday that it hopes to be able to capture 50,000 barrels of oil by the end of June. So does the President believe that basically all the oil will stop spilling into the Gulf by the end of June?

-The President also wants BP to set up an escrow fund. And Congress is calling for a $20 billion escrow fund. What if BP doesn't do it?

-We also saw yesterday the House Energy and Commerce Committee release a series of e-mails which paint a pretty damning portrait of BP....Previous investigations have shown the company was responsible for more than 90 percent of the safety violations on rigs. Given these concerns, why should BP be allowed to keep on drilling in the Gulf?

-Final question. The address tonight is the President's first Oval Office address. Is it fair to conclude from that, that this is the most significant crisis the President has faced?

Here are some of Smith's questions on the Early Show:

7:03AM EST

-Senator Bill Nelson from Florida sums up the situation down there with this quote, and it reflects the sentiments of a lot of folks there. He says 'the decisions are not timely, the resources are not produced, and as a result, you have a big mess with no command and control.' How has this President's most recent trip to the Gulf, how is that going to change any of this?

-I want to go back to the claims thing a second because we have talked to so many people down there who have been impacted. They try to make claims. They call BP. They get busy signal after busy signal. Sometimes they finally talk to somebody. That person never calls them back. It's not until, usually, the news media intervenes that somehow we can help push that person through the system. How can the President prevail upon BP to streamline the system and cut some of the red tape and well, you know, bologna?

-Along those lines, the locals down there say, you know, we know how to clean up our beaches. We've got better ideas about how to place booms and everything else. They've got to come up with ideas, they bring them to BP, they either get back to them or not get back to them. Why not cede control of these beaches and wetlands to the locals and just say, 'you know what, do whatever you need to do, keep that place clean, we'll deal with the mess in the ocean and we promise you that BP will pay for it in the end'?

-From my experience down there....it may sound like it from where you are, but from where we have heard on the other end, it sure doesn't feel like it.

Here are some of Lauer's questions on Today:

7:02AM EST

-When I sat down with the President last week and talked to him about some of the criticism being leveled at his administration for a cool, aloof, even slow response to this crisis, he said, "This is not theater." And he went on to say, "I don't always have time to perform for the benefit of the cable shows. What I do have is dedication and commitment to make sure the people who are actually being affected by this are going to get the best possible service from me." Yet Robert, in the days following that interview he's made not one but two trips to the Gulf. This last one a two-day visit, and tonight he's addressing the nation from the Oval Office. So is this now a little bit of theater, or is he admitting that perhaps it's important to have a little aspect of theater in this response?

-In, in the last few days, though, there's no denying that at least his public posture on this has changed. Would you agree to that?

-Let me ask you to comment on something else that I spoke to the President about last week. I asked him if he had spoken directly to Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP and, and let me play you what he said to me....Tomorrow he'll meet with Tony Hayward. What changed?...why wait 57 days to meet with the executives of this company after this disaster started?

-You keep saying he's gonna meet with the chairman of the board of BP. Will Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, be at that meeting tomorrow?

The network morning and evening news shows have all but ignored President Obama's Saturday letter to congressional leaders asking for $50 billion in additional spending to prevent the "massive layoffs of teachers, police, and firefighters." Only Sunday's Good Morning America on ABC has covered the President's request so far.

The chief executive's June 12 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader John Boehner urged "swift action" on the multi-billion dollar proposal to prevent the public sector layoffs and "give our nation's businesses added impetus to hire and grow."

ABC anchor Bill Weir brought up the President's letter with White House correspondent Jake Tapper 13 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour of Sunday's Good Morning America:

WEIR: And then, I guess, slightly more difficult than stopping the leak is keeping open the flow of federal stimulus money- I understand the President [is] asking for another $50 billion?

JAKE TAPPER: Another $50 billion, and this has been a tough sell for Democrats on Capitol Hill, not to mention, of course, Republicans. President Obama made the request in a letter yesterday. I will be sitting down today with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Leader John Boehner to see if they have any willingness to pass an additional $50 billion. The President says this is needed as emergency aid to state and local governments, to make sure there aren't massive layoffs of teachers and policemen and firemen. But, so far, Congress has shown no inclination to pass any more spending bills.

Neither Sunday's Today show on NBC nor CBS's Sunday Morning program mentioned the spending request. This omission continued on all three networks Sunday evening news programs.

The networks' morning shows on Monday also failed to mention the push for further spending by the President. By contrast, CNN's Christine Romans devoted an entire segment to it on American Morning:

JOHN ROBERTS: Twenty minutes now after the [7 am Eastern] hour- Christine Romans here 'Minding Your Business' this morning. And we heard mantras of 'drill baby drill'- now, I guess this one is 'spend baby spend,' right?

CHRISTINE ROMANS: Right, the President-

KIRAN CHETRY: But don't call it 'stimulus.'

ROMANS: Don't call it- whatever you do, do not call new spending in the economy 'stimulus' because we have mid-term elections coming up and Republicans and- you know, frankly, a lot of Democrats are not real keen on spending a lot more money. But the President this weekend sending a letter to congressional leadership, saying this is not the time to pull back on some important emergency spending measures because the economy is really at a critical juncture, he says, in the path to recovery.

The President, in this three-page letter to Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, saying basically, we cannot afford to slide backward, that we must take emergency measures. All told, maybe up to $50 billion in new spending for things like keeping teachers on the job, for helping people pay their premiums for health care insurance, for making sure that first responders have money so that they are out there actually being able to answer 911 calls and the like.

Here's the issue that the President points out in his letter. We have an economy that is in a recovery, but that recovery seems to be pretty fragile. You look at the number of people unemployed- it's still 9.7 percent. You look at the most recent retail sales number- retail sales fell 1.2 percent in the most recent month. That was a surprise to people. And you have you a 30-year fixed rate mortgage of an unbelievable 4.81 percent. Folks, that is so low for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. But you still have a lot of concerns with the housing market. It's just not going to recover until you see the job situation recover. So the President is asking for some- you know, solidarity behind some new spending. The letter went over like a lead balloon with Republicans-

ROBERTS: I'm sure.

ROMANS: And even some Democrats are concerned. Look, they can't support anything in the next few months that's going to turn up in a campaign ad against them as some kind of a new stimulus or spending money we don't have. So it's a tough fight the President has here.

CHETRY: All right. Christine Romans, thanks so much.

ROMANS: Sure.

CHETRY: Oh, what's your numeral? Sorry about that.

ROMANS: Oh, the numeral is 300,000. And this is one of the reasons why the President really makes it personal about this spending- 300,000.

CHETRY: This is how many people sign up for unemployment benefits each month?

ROMANS: This is- according to David Axelrod, if you don't spend more money, you're going to have 300,000 teachers out of work- 300,000. That means if you don't find the money to spend-

ROBERTS: That's true, yeah.

ROMANS: You're going to notice this in your school, in your classroom. This is something-

ROBERTS: State and local budgets.

ROMANS: It affects you, and the President noted that in his letter, that state and local people are really in big trouble here.

ROBERTS: Okay. And now it's time to say goodbye to all our company.

ROMANS: Or walk.

CHETRY: All right, Christine.

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

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

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

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

7:04AM EST

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

BOB SCHIEFFER: Hey, Maggie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RODRIGUEZ: Allegations.

SCHIEFFER: -without – without foundation.    

RODRIGUEZ: Right.

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Thank you. Thank you, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: You're welcome.

Promoting his latest HBO special on Monday's CBS Early Show, comedian Robert Klein turned his attention to the Gulf oil spill and who's to blame: "...we're all to blame. We're pigs. It's a parable for us. American pre-imminence is not guaranteed and unless we learn that this stuff has dangers – where are all those 'drill, baby, drills' now?" [Audio available here]

Those comments were prompted by co-host Harry Smith remarking: "BP would be such a spectacular target for your lampooning." Klein went on to add: "...all that oil that's fouling everything, it probably wouldn't run the automobiles in Texas for one day." Smith chimed in: "An hour." Klein proclaimed: "...it's minuscule, that's how much we use of that stuff. So let's get off it. I mean, and it's coming back to us in bullets, everybody knows this. But Americans have a memory of about 12 seconds."

On CBS's Sunday Morning program, a 'Fast Draw' segment by cartoonists Mitch Butler and Josh Landis similarly scolded Americans for wasting energy. Landis warned: "Our hunger for energy is driving oil companies to drill deeper and more dangerous wells..." Butler remarked: "Thankfully, these days everyone's talking about going green and saving energy. We know to ride bicycles to work instead of driving a car, don't use that air conditioner on a hot summer day. Air travel uses way too much energy. So don't take that vacation." However, Landis lamented: "...most Americans don't make enough of these kinds of sacrifices to save a meaningful amount of energy."

Butler noted: "America is only 5% of the global population but we use about 25% of the world's energy." Landis concluded: "And all that oil that's been pouring into the Gulf, the estimated 40 million gallons that's spilled so far, well, that's about the same amount America consumes in a little over one hour." Maybe Klein and Smith were watching Sunday Morning for their energy facts.

On the Early Show, in addition to bashing Americans for their energy usage, Klein described one of his favorite comedic targets: "...one of my main targets are these hypocritical infidelities, politicians who, you know, pray in the morning in their little residence and shtup everybody else's wife at night, you know." He cited former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer as an example of the fact that "people believe their own PR" during such scandals. Smith remarked: "Be careful of sanctimony."

Klein then seemed to regret using the New York Democrat as an example of hypocrisy: "Well he wasn't – he was just a little depraved for a moment there, I guess." He identified the real hypocritical adulterous politicians, all Republicans: "But, you know, these guys like Craig and Vitter and Governor Sanford..."

Smith concluded the interview by reminding viewers to watch Klein's HBO special: "...we will look forward to seeing your show on HBO, Unfair and Unbalanced, Saturday, June 12th on HBO at 10:00PM Eastern/11 Pacific Time. Really great to see you."

Here is a portion of Smith's June 7 interview with Klein:

8:40AM EST

HARRY SMITH: As you set about doing a new show like this, do you just let the currents of current events take you where it will or do you usually have an idea ahead of time, this is where this show will go?

ROBERT KLEIN: Well, it's always organic. I mean, I'm getting older now. I started, I'm now a geezer. I mean I've geezer-ized over the years, so my interests change a little. But when I do any kind of politics on my shows, I do it in a kind of historical perspective, not something that'll be forgotten next week.

SMITH: Right.

KLEIN: But, you know, one of my main targets are these hypocritical infidelities, politicians who, you know, pray in the morning in their little residence and shtup everybody else's wife at night, you know.

SMITH: There is that, it kind of never goes away.

KLEIN: You know, people believe their own – Spitzer, I mean people believe their own PR or-

SMITH: Be careful of sanctimony, is always the-

KLEIN: Well he wasn't – he was just a little depraved for a moment there, I guess. But, you know, these guys like Craig and Vitter and Governor Sanford, you know, Argentina, 'tell them on I'm on the Appalachian trail, I'll be back in four days. Senor, my baggage.'

SMITH: You know what, it's only – I almost said unfortunate – but BP would be such a spectacular target for your lampooning.

KLEIN: May I say that, you know, all this who's to blame and all the blame, we're all to blame. We're pigs. It's a parable for us. American pre-imminence is not guaranteed and unless we learn that this stuff has dangers – where are all those drill, baby, drills now? What, was there a dental convention? I mean, I want to see them pay for what – you can't just do it. If you don't have the technology to cap it at that it depth, it shouldn't be done. You know, all that oil that's fouling everything, it probably wouldn't run the automobiles in Texas for one day.

SMITH: An hour.
    
KLEIN: I mean – an hour. I mean, it's minuscule, that's how much we use of that stuff. So let's get off it. I mean, and it's coming back to us in bullets, everybody knows this. But Americans have a memory of about 12 seconds. You know, you couldn't get a Toyota prius, then gas went down. Forget it. Too many Prius's. And you can't stop a Prius. That's another thing.

SMITH: Robert Klein, we will look forward to seeing your show on HBO, Unfair and Unbalanced, Saturday, June 12th on HBO at 10:00PM Eastern/11 Pacific Time. Really great to see you.

KLEIN: A great pleasure, Harry. Thank you.            

SMITH: You bet.

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of the June 4 segment:

7:11AM EST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMITH: That's a good line.

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Harry.

After blaming the 2000 election for the breakup of the Gore marriage on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News, Sally Quinn of The Washington Post returned to CBS Wednesday morning for an interview with The Early Show, where she repeated the blame-Bush line, in a milder way: "You know one of the hard things is when you lose, this was their home. You can’t live here anymore." But mostly, Quinn suggested that if the Gores couldn’t make it, then maybe no one could:

And the interesting thing is that usually when something like this happens you get a sense of glee, people sort of saying, "I told you so, or I knew it," or whatever. I have only encountered sadness, and as you can imagine I’ve been on the phone with friends ever since I heard it yesterday and everyone feels as though somehow their own marriages have split up. You know watching the Gores is sort of looking at the possibilities of what a good marriage could be and when it doesn’t work for them you sort of think "oh my God, maybe it’s not possible."

People at CBS aren’t willing to consider that maybe someone’s selfishness is ruining the marriage. Quinn laid it on thick about how wonderful the Gores were in raising their children, and how talented they were:

I never heard one rumor ever in all the years that I’ve known Al and Tipper about an extramarital affair. And what I think is that they grew apart. I think what people are saying is actually true. You know one of the hard things is when you lose, this was their home. You can’t live here anymore. So they had, they were sort of nomads in a way. They went back to Tennessee but they didn’t really live there, and Al traveled a lot. They sort of migrated to the West Coast where Tipper has an apartment, and Al’s got a lot of business, but he was traveling all the time, and I think their interest just diverged.

And I also think Tipper has always played the good wife and she’s never been really able to set out on her own and be her own person, and it may be that she’s just tired of being the wife and wants to be someone who can accomplish something on her own. She’s a fantastic photographer, she’s also–and both of them by the way were great parents. And she spends a lot of time with her children, I think he’s on the road constantly. And I just have a feeling that this may be, as sad as it is, it might be a real opportunity for both of them–they’re only sixty, which is very young–to have a new and different life apart from each other.

Both were born in 1948. Quinn concluded with supportive happy talk: "You know, I think you have to listen to what they said, which is that this is mutually supportive, and think that, you know as sad as it might be, this might be the best thing for both of them." [Transcript by MRC intern Alex Fitzsimmons.]

Glee is not a proper response, but the intense personal admiration for their fellow liberals from the media is the opposite of their usual hard-boiled cynicism. They seem to want to avoid what's really been going on, and perish the thought that maybe some of the liberal media-boosted public romance had a plastic quality.

Washington Post writer Ellen McCarthy took Quinn’s panic and took it a step further, pleading with the Gores to stay together on Wednesday:

Please Al and Tipper, don't do this. For our sakes -- don't.

We can't handle it.

These kinds of things stopped bothering us long ago. Name almost any famous couple, and we're happy to place under/over bets on the date they'll divorce.

But the Gores were different. We believed in them. Even if we didn't agree with their politics, we admired their marriage -- the way, after all these years, they still genuinely seemed into each other.

They're like the couple down the block with the lush garden and the annual Labor Day cookout. The pair who are always power walking together and drinking wine on the front porch, who make you nudge your husband and say, "See? I want that."

Sure they had their ups and downs -- her depression, their son's life-threatening accident -- but after four kids and 40 years they were still in it. And still, we thought, held on to some enduring kernel of love.

So this doesn't just make us sad. It makes us scared.

It means that maybe marriage isn't something we can conquer. That you can have all the necessary ingredients -- romance, good morals, mutual respect and a healthy family -- and still see this precious thing, built over decades, crumble in the end.

It makes us frightened for our parents, our friends, ourselves. After all, couples together for more than 40 years almost never get divorced.

McCarthy broke the media mold as she even wrote she hoped there was adultery involved, which would melt her personal panic:

As news of the Gore's separation emerged, we jumped to speculate that that "something else" was really someone else, already waiting in the wings.

The truth is, we don't just think there's an affair involved. We hope there's one. That makes it easier and understandable -- unequivocally someone's fault. Then it can be detestable, not just sad.

"It's more threatening to us if we see a couple who we thought were happy just drift apart," [Johns Hopkins professor Andrew] Cherlin says. "If even well-behaved people get divorced after 40 years, then some of us will worry about what our own marriages will be like later in life."

McCarthy lamented that even the Gores foresaw this could happen:

The Gores knew as much. In their 2003 book, "Joined at the Heart," -- see how seriously they took this endeavor? They wrote a book about it! -- the Gores explored the way a prolonged life expectancy could affect American unions. "If couples are in unhappy marriages they are more likely to eventually divorce as they face so much of their lifetimes together after their child-rearing years are over," they wrote. [Italics hers.]

While the broadcast networks ABC, CBS and NBC have all failed to remind viewers that Israel allows regular aid shipments into Gaza over land from its side of the border, on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News correspondent Richard Roth highlighted complaints about the effect of the blockade on Gaza residents, used a soundbite of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to argue that "even [Israel’s] friends question the effect," and even noted that Egypt was opening its border with Gaza for humanitarian aid – all while still not informing viewers that the Israelis regularly screen aid shipments and allow them into Gaza.

RICHARD ROTH: The U.N. says 70 percent of its million and a half people live on less than a dollar a day. Smuggling through tunnels to Egypt provides much of what Gazans need but at prices not many can afford. Israel says the aim of the blockade is to control terrorism, but even its friends question the effect.

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable.

ROTH: Wary of sharing blame, Egypt's now opened its own border with Gaza – for humanitarian reasons, said Cairo – but probably not for long.

On the same day’s The Early Show, CBS anchor Betty Nguyen also noted Egypt’s actions: "This morning, Egypt has temporarily opened its border with Gaza to let in aid shipments after Israel's raid that killed nine people on a humanitarian flotilla."

Similarly, during the war in Gaza from late December 2008 to January 2009, CBS was the network most likely to air complaints about the blockade’s effect on the people of Gaza, and the least likely to report that humanitarian aid was being transported into the Gaza Strip.

ABC’s Simon McGregor-Wood and NBC’s Tom Aspell have at least noted in recent days that aid stored on the ships that were raided would be transported into Gaza by the Israelis, but they have not informed viewers that aid shipments into Gaza are already a common activity.

By contrast, on Monday’s Special Report with Bret Baier, FNC contributor Charles Krauthammer related: "There's no one starving in Gaza. The Gazans have been supplied with food and social services, education, by the U.N., by UNRWA, for 60 years, in part with American tax money. Second, when there are humanitarian needs, the Israelis allow every day food and medicine overland into Gaza."

And on Tuesday’s Fox and Friends, FNC’s Peter Johnson, Jr., informed viewers: "We know that 15,000 tons of humanitarian aid goes to Gaza every week that's sanctioned by Israel. They do check it for explosive materials, they check it for concrete that's being used to build tunnels."

Below are complete transcripts of the reports from the Tuesday, June 1, The Early Show and the same day’s Evening News on CBS:

#From the Tuesday, June 1, The Early Show on CBS:

BETTY NGUYEN: This morning, Egypt has temporarily opened its border with Gaza to let in aid shipments after Israel’s raid that killed nine people on a humanitarian flotilla. There were demonstrations against the Israeli action in New York, California and other cities yesterday. Israel says its forces acted in self-defense, and released video showing commandos being beaten as they boarded the ship.

#From the Tuesday, June 1, CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: Turning now to the Middle East, tensions there are high after U.N. inspectors reported Iran has stockpiled enough material to make two nuclear bombs. Then there's the uproar over Israel's deadly raid on ships delivering aid to Palestinians in Gaza. The White House said today the President supports an international investigation into what happened, and tonight there's word that activists are sending another boat to challenge Israel's blockade of Gaza. Richard Roth has more.

RICHARD ROTH: Leading them off as prisoners, Israel began deporting nearly 700 passengers from the flotilla who came from 37 countries. And around the world from every one of them, it seemed, there was more anger or questions about Israel's raid on the convoy and its continued blockade of Gaza. Visiting one of his wounded commandos, Prime Minister Netanyahu defended the assault in which nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed. Israel's claim – backed by its military video – is that troops only fired in self-defense when they were attacked and beaten by activists begging for a fight.

ALON BEN-DAVID, ISRAELI MILITARY ANALYST: It's like the road to hell. It's covered with good intentions. They were so eager to avoid a bloody confrontation, to avoid massive friction with the demonstration, that they sent troops that were poorly equipped, hardly armed.

ROTH: But some passengers insisted Israelis were the aggressors, needlessly attacking a convoy on a peaceful mission to deliver humanitarian aid. Aboard a sister ship, a retired U.S. diplomat didn't witness the violence, only the disappointment.

EDWARD PECK, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR: This could have worked out well, it could have been a contribution to what everybody wants, and instead it's going to be, it's going to get worse for a while.

ROTH: In Gaza, that's hard to imagine. The U.N. says 70 percent of its million and a half people live on less than a dollar a day. Smuggling through tunnels to Egypt provides much of what Gazans need but at prices not many can afford. Israel says the aim of the blockade is to control terrorism, but even its friends question the effect.

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable.

ROTH: Wary of sharing blame, Egypt's now opened its own border with Gaza – for humanitarian reasons, said Cairo – but probably not for long. Richard Roth, CBS News, London.

On Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez interrogated BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles on the Gulf oil spill: "Can you can understand why a Congressman told us that BP has lost all credibility?" However, on Thursday, fellow co-host Harry Smith went easy on Energy Secretary Ken Salazar, allowing the Obama administration official to shift blame to the oil company.

Rodriguez pressed Suttles repeatedly: "But it seems like every day we hear new allegations that BP had been cutting corners beforehand….So many of these keep mounting. How can you keep responding to this?…are you confident that BP will survive this?"

In contrast, Smith never asked Salazar if the Obama administration could "survive" its failures in responding to the crisis. Instead, he gave the cabinet secretary every opportunity to go after BP: "…The CEO of BP says the environmental impact in the Gulf is going to be minimal. Is this guy in touch with reality?" As NewsBusters’ Scott Whitlock noted on Thursday, hosts on both the ABC and NBC morning shows actually had some tough questions for Salazar.

Before Rodriguez’s interview with Suttles, correspondent Mark Strassmann reported on the spill from Louisiana and actually mentioned public anger not just at BP, but at the government as well: "…as more oil does wash ashore, a deepening frustration and fury and gloom is also settling here. Harsh feelings directed toward BP and the federal government."

Strassmann explained how: "People in Grand Isle had wanted the feds to build sand barriers. They’re still asking, but less politely." A clip was played of one local official pleading: "We want them to get off their butts, excuse my French. I’m telling you that you’ve got to give us a permit."

Despite featuring that criticism of the government response, Strassmann still credited Congress for putting "pressure" on BP. He featured a clip of Democratic Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey: "BP has lost all credibility. Now the decisions will have to be made by others, because it’s clear that they have been hiding the actual consequences of this spill."

Strassmann later followed up: "BP’s credibility is a major frustration, a complaint here, a sense that the company will not give people here the straight story about the magnitude of this disaster." He touted how "Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano agrees" and announced that she "has sent a letter to the company demanding a full and public disclosure."   

When will CBS join its network colleagues and start to question the Obama administration’s credibility on this issue?

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez’s May 21 interview with Suttles:

7:09AM EST

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us now from Robert, Louisiana is BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles. Mr. Suttles, Good morning.

DOUG SUTTLES: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: We’ve learned that BP has been using toxic chemicals to break up this oil. That you grossly underestimated the size of the leak, that Congress had to pressure you to reveal this live video feed of the well. Can you can understand why a Congressman told us that BP has lost all credibility?

SUTTLES: Well, Maggie, I understand the frustration. I know people want more information. I know they want – actually, they want this thing to come to an end, they want us to be able to clean it up very, very quickly and we’re trying to do these things. I can tell you we’re supplying information, we’re trying to give the data as quick as we can. We’ve tried to upload the video to our website. I think that’s up now. The chemicals we’re using for dispersants are actually approved by the EPA.

RODRIGUEZ: Yes, they are now.

SUTTLES: They’re actually the most widely used chemical in the industry.

RODRIGUEZ: But it seems like every day we hear new allegations that BP had been cutting corners beforehand. The most recent one is the company that was hired by BP to test the integrity of the well says that they were told to stop before the explosion, before they were finished. So many of these keep mounting. How can you keep responding to this?

SUTTLES: Maggie, I understand that people are very concerned and they’re trying to find what’s wrong. And I can understand that. Lots of things are being looked at. There’s – as you know, there’s many investigations taking place. I know they’ll get to the bottom of what caused this and I know they’ll figure out what needs to change. But at the moment, as you know, what I’m trying to do is figure out how do we get this thing stopped, how do we minimize the impact, and how do we fight this thing at sea.

RODRIGUEZ: So as the individual who is most focused on the response to this cleanup and stopping this leak, what is the best case scenario and the worst case scenario?

SUTTLES: Maggie, I think the best case scenario is actually either late Sunday or early Monday this ‘top kill’ procedure works and the flow stops. I know we all want that to occur. I know everyone is behind that. I think the worst case is it takes us until the relief well gets down, which would probably be about early August. But between now and then, we’ll try every technique available to us to actually get this flow stopped.

RODRIGUEZ: There are a lot of people who say they’re not sure if the environment will survive this. Are you confident that it will? And are you confident that BP will survive this?

SUTTLES: It’s hard to actually know for certain because I’m not an expert, but I do know there have been larger spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico has survived. The experts actually tell me that there are many things going for us in this case. It’s a – it’s a large body of water, it’s a warm body of water, it has natural oil seeps which the environment deals with. But we’re going to put a lot of effort into monitoring this and we’re going to do everything we can to minimize that impact. Time will tell, but I’m optimistic, I’m very optimistic that the Gulf will fully recover.

RODRIGUEZ: And as for your company?

SUTTLES: You know, Maggie, there are over almost 100,000 employees for BP, I think about 40,000 in the United States. We’re the largest investor in oil and gas in the United States, we’re the biggest producer. I believe we will. We have a great team of people that are very dedicated, their commitment has shown up. I’m very, very proud of what they’re actually doing. And I believe we will. I believe we’ll-

RODRIGUEZ: Our satellite seems to have frozen up, but we thank Doug Suttles for his time morning.

Early Show's Harry Smith on Thursday conducted a softball interview with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, allowing the Obama official to pass the oil spill blame to BP. He tossed this easy question to the cabinet member: "...The CEO of BP says the environmental impact in the gulf is going to be minimal. Is this guy in touch with reality?"

In contrast, hosts on NBC's Today and ABC's Good Morning America grilled Salazar during similar segments on their shows. Surprisingly, it was GMA's George Stephanopoulos who most stridently demanded answers.

He complained, "You gave BP and other oil companies permits without getting the proper clearances. You failed to conduct four monthly inspections of the rig over the last year."

Stephanopoulos continued, "Are these failures your responsibility? You were secretary at the time." CBS's Smith, however, never asked how responsible the department and the Obama administration are. He also ignored criticism from Republican Congressman John Mica of Florida.

Stephanopoulos didn't avoid the subject. He played the following clip of Mica and forced Salazar to respond to it:

REP. JOHN MICA: I call this the Obama oil spill time line. I think this is the first time we have a public copy of this. This is their approval. It's basically a carte blanche recipe for disaster.

Over on NBC's Today, host Meredith Vieira grilled, "On Capitol Hill this week you acknowledged that the Interior Department had been lax in policing offshore drilling activities and had been weakened by corruption. So, do you now take responsibility, sir, at least in part, for what's happened in the gulf?"

After not getting an answer, Vieira tried again: "So, do you take direct responsibility for what's happened here?"

The best Smith could do was highlight the need for images of how much oil has spilled out. He observed, "But, here we are a month later, Mr. Secretary, I know your agencies have asked for these pictures and BP has not provided them. Why not? Are they in charge out there?"

This still but the onus on BP. The Early Show host continued to place the blame on the company: "Are you satisfied they are using, at least, the proper methods to try and disperse this oil?"

Only CBS allowed the Secretary to get away with such responsibility shifting. For instance, Stephanopoulos highlighted the numerous problems with the response and scolded, "It sounds like you're shifting the blame back. These [problems] all happened on your watch."

Now, ABC and NBC shouldn't be praised too much for finally challenging the Obama response. After all, the disaster is a month old. However, unlike the Early Show, at least they are doing it, albeit belatedly.

A transcript of the Stephanopoulos' interview with Salazar, which occurred at 7:14am EDT, follows:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And for more on this, we're joined by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar down in Washington. Thank you for joining us, Mr. Secretary. You talk about everything we're doing. Yet, we still can't get an accurate measure of the flow out of British Petroleum. You know, you see some scientists estimate it could be five or ten-times, maybe more, than what BP is giving right now. Why can't we get an accurate estimate from BP? And will you demand it?

KEN SALAZAR (Interior Secretary): The answer is, we will get accurate numbers. We will not just rely on BP. We have our own efforts underway with NASA and other federal agencies, NOAA, the USGS, to make sure that we have accurate numbers. We need to have those numbers with respect to natural resource damages and a whole host of other things.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, sir- Excuse me. We're 31 days into this now. Why can't we get an accurate estimate?

SALAZAR: Yeah- there is a problem, in terms of the sub sea because you're 5,000 feet below. The robots that are working down there are working on what the immediate crisis and problem is. And that is stopping the source. Until we get this geyser stopped at the bottom of the ocean, it's going to continue to spread. And, so, the efforts have been focused on bringing the spill under control. And that essentially means killing the well. And, so, everything we have is being thrown at that particular problem. We will have good numbers for the American people and for everybody else. And they will be independent from B.P.

STEPHANOPOULOS: When?

SALAZAR: It's a matter of days to complete the satellite imagery and to make sure that we have good numbers that are out there. We have good numbers relative to the amount of oil that is now being collected through the so-called riser insertion tube, where there's approximately 3,000 barrels a day that are being collected and not going out to sea. So, we can give the numbers. In terms of how much oil has openly spilled into the Gulf Coast, I can assure you we're going to have good numbers that will be put together by NASA, by USGS, by NOAA and others who are working on this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You took some heat yesterday on Capitol Hill. Congressman John Mica of Florida, pointed out that your department gave BP a categorical exclusion last year from environmental regulations. Listen to what he said.

REP. JOHN MICA: I call this the Obama oil spill time line. I think this is the first time we have a public copy of this. This is their approval. It's basically a carte blanche recipe for disaster.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Carte blanche recipe for disaster. And that's not all. You gave BP and other oil companies permits without getting the proper clearances. You failed to conduct four monthly inspections of the rig over the last year. Approved dozens of projects without the right permits. Are these failures your responsibility? You were secretary at the time.

SALAZAR: You know, I think Congressman Mica should understand that this is not about finger-pointing. But, it's about solving an immediate problem. And the fact of it is there's responsibility to go around, from the companies to Congress, to the executive branch. The Congress is the one that mandates there be a 30-day approval of the exploration plans. And it's Congress has had that law in place for a number of years. And, so, Congress has a responsibility to step up and also to reform the laws of this country relative to the requirements of the development of energy in the outer continental shelf.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It sounds like you're shifting the blame back. These all happened on your watch.

SALAZAR: George- George- George, I'm not shifting the blame. I'm saying, we have responsibility here in the Department of Interior. We have been on a reform agenda from day one.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, sir, are you optimistic about efforts to cap the well on Sunday?

SALAZAR: You know, I am very hopeful that will happen. But, it's not risk-free. There's a possibility it will not happen on Sunday. But, right now, the schedule is to go ahead and do the so-called dynamic kill and finally put this thing to bed on Sunday. At least with respect to this first phase.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your time this morning.

SALAZAR: Thank you, George.

ROBIN ROBERTS: Everyone's patience wearing thin on this right now.

In an interviewing with senate primary winner Rand Paul on Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked the Kentucky Republican about Democratic spin: "What do you say to Democrats who actually are happy about your victory in this primary?...ready to pounce on you in the general election, saying that your views are way too controversial and they could take this Republican seat?"

Paul dismissed the idea and noted the unpopularity of Washington Democrats in the state: "I say, bring it on, and please, please bring President Obama to Kentucky. We'd love for him to campaign down here." Rodriguez acknowledged that fact by pointing out: "It didn't work too well for Arlen Specter to have President Obama on his side." Paul added: "the Democrats will really have to run away from President Obama if they have any chance down here."

Earlier in the interview, Rodriguez wondered if Paul could garner enough Republican support: "a lot of people say that you have your work cut out for you in the general election because how will you unite a GOP party...53% of voters who voted for your opponent in this primary don't like you, 43% said they wouldn't vote for you." After Paul discussed efforts to unify, Rodriguez followed up: "Do you think that your victory gives the tea party legitimacy? Will we see this become a legitimate political party?"

Prior to Rodriguez's interview with Paul, correspondent Jeff Glor reported on electoral results in various states on Tuesday, emphasizing one in particular: "The special congressional race here in Johnstown to replace the late John Murtha. This was seen as a critical bellwether....Democrat Mark Critz, a former John Murtha aide, was triumphant....Beating Republican Tim Burns in a blue collar district that actually went for John McCain in 2008."

Glor noted how both Democrats and Republicans "may have learned something" from the special election result, as a sound bite was featured from the Politics Editor for The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder: "Republicans are going to have to rethink their strategy, perhaps, of trying to nationalize the election, making it a referendum against Obama and the Democrats. Because, in this district, it didn't work." In reality, Critz ran against national Democratic figures like Nancy Pelosi and against ObamaCare.

No expert was brought on to discuss the lack of influence the Obama White House had on the Pennsylvania senate primary.  

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez's May 19th interview with Paul:       

7:04AM EST

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us this morning from Bowling Green, Kentucky, is the winner of the Republican primary, supported by the tea party, Rand Paul. Senator-elect, good morning – I mean, excuse me, not yet.

RAND PAUL: Good to be with you.

RODRIGUEZ: I guess you're optimistic that that will be-

PAUL: I'd like to skip the November – yeah, I'd like to skip the November election, also.

RODRIGUEZ: Oops, oops. Are you optimistic that that will be the outcome?

PAUL: Well, things look good in Kentucky. You know, if you look at all the polls, John McCain won Kentucky overwhelmingly, in a not so good year for Republicans. And President Obama's less popular in our state than he's ever been. And he never was very popular in Kentucky. So I think we have a very good chance in the fall.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Politics; Paul Wins, Capitalizes on Frustration]

RODRIGUEZ: But a lot of people say that you have your work cut out for you in the general election because how will you unite a GOP party that, according to at least one poll, has an unfavorable view of you, 53% of voters who voted for your opponent in this primary don't like you, 43% said they wouldn't vote for you in the general election.

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is we got nearly 60% of the vote, so I think that's a pretty good mandate from the Republican Party. And the other thing is, is that we're going to unify. I'm going to meet with Senator McConnell on Saturday. We've been talking, actually, for weeks now, about unifying. I've been talking with the Republican Party structure, and I think we will be unified going in to the fall. And I think the message we have is one that not only do Republicans like, a lot of independents like what I have to say. The tea party message is popular well outside the Republican Party.

RODRIGUEZ: But the tea party and the Republican Party, as you're stating, are not the same thing. Do you think that your victory gives the tea party legitimacy? Will we see this become a legitimate political party?

PAUL: No, I don't see the tea party really becoming a political party. But I see it having an influence on both parties. But I also see that the tea party really has ramifications outside the party, and that I think independents are attracted to it, as well.

RODRIGUEZ: What do you say to Democrats who actually are happy about your victory in this primary? Because they are ready to pounce on you in the general election, saying that your views are way too controversial and they could take this Republican seat?

PAUL: I say, bring it on, and please, please bring President Obama to Kentucky. We'd love for him to campaign down here.

RODRIGUEZ: Didn't work too well for Arlen Specter, did it?

PAUL: Run that by me one more time?

RODRIGUEZ: It didn't work too well for Arlen Specter to have President Obama on his side. What do you think that says?

PAUL: Yeah, I think you're right. I think you're right. And actually, in our Democrat primary a few years ago, Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by 30 points, and he's a lot less popular than he was. And so really, I think his message – the Democrats will really have to run away from President Obama if they have any chance down here. And he's the leader of their party. It's just going to be very difficult for them in Kentucky.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Senator-elect wanna-be Rand Paul. I'm sorry for the slip. Although I'm sure you didn't mind it too much. Thank you, sir.

PAUL: Not at all. Thank you.

CBS's Early Show on Tuesday completely ignored the front page New York Times story on Democratic senatorial candidate Richard Blumenthal and his claims to have "served in Vietnam," despite having never done so.

NBC's Today mentioned the subject once in a news brief, but anchor Ann Curry described the Connecticut Democrat only as a "U.S. Senate candidate." On ABC's Good Morning America, co-host George Stephanopoulos described the development as a "huge story."

Yet, the show devoted less than a minute to the topic. Unlike the Early Show, however, Stephanopoulos at least used a party label, explaining that "this was considered a safe Democratic seat. Now, it could be in play."

Remarking on the proximity of the GMA studios to this story, co-host Robin Roberts observed, "Next door in Connecticut, we, you know, wake up. We see in the New York Times this morning about what's going on for Senator Dodd's seat."

Considering that Connecticut is so close to New York (where all the morning shows are filmed), it certainly would have been easy to have a reporter live on the scene.

Over on CNN, the cable network's American Morning covered the developing story with three news briefs. Co-host Kiran Chetry simply discussed the "U.S. Senate candidate."

In other anchor briefs, substitute host Jim Acosta referred to the scandal as something that "could be the biggest political story of the day, coming out of nowhere." He also labeled the allegations "stunning." But, again, no one on the show found time to note that Blumenthal is a Democrat.

A transcript of the May 18 network coverage follows:

GMA

7:12

ROBERTS: Next door in Connecticut, we, you know, wake up. We see in the New York Times this morning about what's going on for Senator Dodd's seat. That was a surprise.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This is a huge story, Robin. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the Democrats had considered this a safe Senate seat.

ROBERTS: Yes!

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, the New York Times has discovered that on several occasions, he claimed to have served in Vietnam, even though he didn't. He served in the military during the Vietnam era. But, not in Vietnam. And the Attorney General is going to hold a press conference today to talk about that. But, as I said, this was considered a safe Democratic seat. Now, it could be in play.

Today

8:03

ANN CURRY: The New York Times is questioning claims by U.S. Senate candidate and Connecticut Attorney General Rich Blumenthal that he once served in Vietnam. Today, the paper is reporting that Blumenthal obtained military determents and served in the Marine reserves to avoid going to war. Blumenthal denies lying about his service, but says he may have misspoken.

On Monday, President Obama signed into law the "Press Freedom Act," but refused to answer a question from CBS White House correspondent Chip Reid at the conclusion of the signing ceremony. While Reid described the ironic incident on the CBSNews.com Political Hotsheet blog, neither Monday's Evening News nor Tuesday's Early Show mentioned the President's dodge.  

On the CBS blog, Reid described the purpose of the law, which "expands the State Department's annual human rights reports to include a description of press freedoms in each country." He then noted how "It seemed a good opportunity to showcase press freedom in this country....So after he signed the bill, and as the press 'wranglers' began aggressively herding us out of the room, I asked if he still has confidence in BP. He ignored the question."

Reid also pointed out that Obama "has not held a prime-time White House news conference in many months, despite much pleading from pundits and members of the media." However, not much of that "pleading" has been featured on CBS broadcasts.

Update below: Reid discusses the incident. 

In describing the exchange with the President, Reid recalled: "I tried this: 'In the interest of press freedom, would you take a couple questions on BP?' That did elicit a smile, and he told me I was free to ask questions. Someone else shouted, 'Will you answer them?' He said he's not holding a press conference today as we were escorted out the door."

RealClearPolitics.com featured video of the exchange. Interestingly, WhiteHouse.gov also posted video of the signing ceremony on YouTube, but made sure to edit out the President's back and forth with Reid. 

Update:  Talking to Mediaite.com's Tommy Christopher about the exchange with Obama, Reid declared that he was just trying to "express the frustration of the White House Press Corps" at the President's lack of press conferences. 

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reported on Conservative Party leader David Cameron becoming the new British prime minister, but downplayed the political shift: "Cameron is a conservative in the British sense. In favor of gay rights, a green agenda, and the welfare state."

While in American conservative terms Cameron would certainly be considered a moderate, for Britain, the swing from 13 years of rule by the liberal Labour Party to a Conservative becoming head of state was quite significant.

Palmer cited more evidence of Cameron's supposed liberalism: "In fact, in his victory speech, addressing the huge challenges facing debt-ridden Britain, he even paraphrased John F. Kennedy." A clip was played of Cameron declaring: "One where we don't just ask, what are my entitlements? But what are my responsibilities? When we don't ask where, what am I just owed, but more, what can I give?" Calling on people to not simply rely on government entitlements hardly sounds like a liberal tenet.  

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the Early Show fretted over President Obama's Supreme Court pick, Elena Kagan, not being liberal enough and possibly even conservative.

Palmer concluded her Wednesday report by noting: "President Barack Obama was the first foreign leader to call with congratulations and an invitation to visit Washington in July." She made no mention of Obama's strained relationship with Britain since taking office.

Here is a full transcript of the report:

7:11AM

BETTY NGUYEN: Britain's new prime minister is getting down to business today. David Cameron is the first prime minister from the Conservative Party in 13 years. CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer is in London with the latest. Good morning, Elizabeth.

ELIZABETH PALMER: Good morning, Betty. The British election was actually last Thursday. But the Conservatives didn't manage to win an outright majority then. So we've had a five-day political cliffhanger. Horse trading and back room dealing that finally, late last night, produced the first coalition government in Britain since the Second World War.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Strange Political Bedfellows; First Day of Britain's New Coalition Government]

Britain's new coalition partners shook hands this morning outside number 10 Downing Street. 43-year-old Conservative David Cameron is the youngest prime minister in 200 years. His deputy is Nick Clegg, from the Liberal Democratic Party. David Cameron, with his wife Samantha, paid the traditional visit to Queen Elizabeth last night, and accepted her invitation to form a government. Cameron is a conservative in the British sense. In favor of gay rights, a green agenda, and the welfare state. In fact, in his victory speech, addressing the huge challenges facing debt-ridden Britain, he even paraphrased John F. Kennedy.

DAVID CAMERON: One where we don't just ask, what are my entitlements? But what are my responsibilities? When we don't ask where, what am I just owed, but more, what can I give?

PALMER: President Barack Obama was the first foreign leader to call with congratulations and an invitation to visit Washington in July. Now, that's five months down the road and they're likely to be five – I beg your pardon, that's a couple months down the road. Likely to be very rough months, because Britain's facing enormous debt problems, and the government's already said it's going to cut billions from public spending in the next few months. Betty.

NGUYEN: CBS's Elizabeth Palmer in London. Thank you.

In an interview with Senator John Kerry on Wednesday's CBS Early Show on the Gulf Coast oil spill, co-host Maggie Rodriguez hit from the left on new energy legislation proposed by the Massachusetts Democrat: "correct me if I'm wrong, your legislation calls for expanding offshore drilling at a time when polls show most Americans no longer support it. Why do you believe it's necessary to do that?"

A CBS News poll flashed on screen showing that only 46% Americans now support offshore oil drilling in the wake of the spill, as opposed to 62% supporting it in 2008. Kerry responded by pointing out that his bill would "actually restrict the current plan of the President" to expand offshore drilling. Rodriguez pressed further: "Are you saying it does not call for expanded offshore drilling?" Kerry reiterated: "I'm saying that it restricts the current law and it restricts the President's current plan."

Kerry began the interview by touting his desire to restrict oil production: "we have to really take the steps that we've been talking about for 30 years, for too long now, to move away from our energy dependence on fossil fuels, and particularly on imported fuel....The importance is now to move to the new economy." Apparently anything short of an all out ban on offshore drilling was not enough for Rodriguez.

Later in the segment, spurred by Rodriguez, Kerry proclaimed: "we're not going to stop drilling all of a sudden....it isn't going to disappear until we put our bill in place."

On the April 1 Early Show, after the Obama administration first outlined a plan to expand offshore drilling, Rodriguez warned: "President Obama's controversial offshore drilling proposal is making big waves. Critics say the risks are obvious, but not the rewards." She later fretted that Obama was enacting the policy "at the risk of alienating his Democratic base."

Here is a full transcript of the interview:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us from Washington, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Senator Kerry, good morning.

JOHN KERRY: Good morning to you.

RODRIGUEZ: As we've just heard, BP keeps trying, and so far failing, to contain all these oil leaks. How can our government, how can you assure the American people that everything necessary will be done to make sure this doesn't happen again?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Blame Game; Sen. Kerry on Oil Spill Finger-Pointing]

KERRY: Well, it's going to be. We're – Senator Lieberman and I – are introducing legislation today called the American Power Act, which is a major shift in America's energy policy. What this spill in the Gulf tells us, above all, is that we have to really take the steps that we've been talking about for 30 years, for too long now, to move away from our energy dependence on fossil fuels, and particularly on imported fuel.

The importance is now to move to the new economy, the new – the new energy economy, if you will, where we're producing our energy at home. We're producing green energy. We're producing clean energy. Energy which can't ultimately have the kind of problem that we had in the Gulf. But we also, we know we're going to continue to drill for some period of time, so we have to make certain we know exactly what happened in the Gulf, and that we have the ability to prevent that from ever happening again.

Most importantly, we need to get in to the global marketplace and compete with China, with India, with Mexico, Brazil, other countries. America's falling behind. We want America to be number one in clean energy power production. We can reduce pollution, create jobs, and restore our energy independence, and that's the direction we have to move in.

RODRIGUEZ: But Senator Kerry, correct me if I'm wrong, your legislation calls for expanding offshore drilling at a time when polls show most Americans no longer support it. Why do you believe it's necessary to do that?

[ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC OF CBS NEWS POLL: Increase Offshore Drilling; Now: 46%; 2008: 62%]

KERRY: That's not what we do. We actually restrict the current plan of the President. We give states greater power, and say, over their future, we give them a choice-

RODRIGUEZ: Are you saying it does not-

KERRY: -as to what will happen.

RODRIGUEZ: -call for expanded offshore drilling?

KERRY: I'm saying that it restricts – I'm saying that it restricts the current law and it restricts the President's current plan. That is exactly what I am saying. It gives states greater power to be able to make a choice about what will happen in the future in terms of drilling. And in addition to that, it places a moratorium on current drilling until we know what happened in the Gulf, and then we proceed forward.

But, look, we're not going to stop drilling all of a sudden. Americans drive their cars every day. We heat our homes. We do things with this oil. And it isn't going to disappear until we put our bill in place. The American Power Act, which will move us to a new energy economy, where we're producing clean energy, a broader array of energy options for the country, so we could have clean energy produced in one part of the country, transferred to another part of the country. All of that is going to take time. And we are putting in place the mechanism so we can reduce pollution, clean up our air and our water, create jobs here at home, and increase America's energy independence, thereby strengthening our national security. That's exactly what our bill does today.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright. Senator John Kerry, thank you so much for your time.

KERRY: Thank you. 

As the MRC’s Tim Graham documented yesterday, ABC and NBC's morning and evening newscasts have so far refused to tag Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a “liberal,” with CBS’s Jan Crawford offering the sole ideological label of the nominee on Monday's Evening News: “Her career has put her solidly on the left.”

In contrast, all three networks made a major deal out of the last person nominated by a Republican President for a slot on the Court, Justice Samuel Alito. Out of the first 21 stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows after Justice Alito’s selection, correspondents conveyed ten explicit “conservative” labels during the first 36 hours of coverage. In contrast, Graham documented just one “liberal” label in 14 Kagan stories during the equivalent time period after her selection.

In Alito’s case, the networks began trumpeting ideology from the moment he was picked. Anchor Charles Gibson opened ABC’s Special Report announcing Alito’s nomination: “He is very conservative. This is a liberal appellate court, but he is the most conservative  member on it....The President has picked someone very conservative, but a very accomplished jurist as well.”

Over on CBS, correspondent Thalia Assuras began: “Well, this nominee is a conservative that should make conservative Republicans very happy....” After the announcement, correspondent Gloria Borger tweaked: “He may be called ‘Scalito’ because he’s quite conservative, but the conservatives say he is not bombastic like Justice Scalia can sometimes be.”

On NBC, Matt Lauer began his network’s live coverage: “In just a minute or so, President Bush will nominate conservative appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.” Co-anchor Katie Couric agreed: “Alito is a favorite on the right, and he would replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.”

Nearly all of the early coverage made Alito’s ideology the centerpiece: “This is the candidate conservatives wanted and Democrats feared,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos opined on the October 31, 2005 World News Tonight, a few hours after Alito was selected. “Conservatives love him, but some Democrats are already lining up to fight his nomination,” NBC’s Matt Lauer announced the next morning on Today.

But reporters did more than just note which ideological camps liked and disliked Alito — they saw no problem with affixing the “conservative” label on him themselves:

# ABC World News Tonight, October 31: Anchor Elizabeth Vargas: “He is said to be brilliant and A STAUNCH CONSERVATIVE.”

Reporter Terry Moran: “He quickly established a reputation on the bench as brilliant and deeply CONSERVATIVE.”

# CBS Evening News, October 31: Anchor Bob Schieffer: “Conservatives wanted a CONSERVATIVE on the Supreme Court, and said the President ought to risk a fight in the Senate to get one. Their wishes have been fulfilled.”

Correspondent John Roberts: “If confirmed, Alito would wipe out the swing seat now occupied by Sandra Day O'Connor, tilting the Supreme Court in a SOLIDLY CONSERVATIVE direction for years to come.”

# NBC Nightly News, October 31: Correspondent Pete Williams: “Alito is considered dependably CONSERVATIVE, though with an independent streak.”

Williams, later in the same story: “Perhaps because he and Justice Scalia are both Italian American, Catholic and CONSERVATIVE, he’s been nicknamed ‘Scalito.’”

# CBS’s The Early Show, November 1: Co-host Harry Smith: “A bitter partisan confirmation battle is brewing over President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito. We’ll speak with members of the Judiciary Committee and take a closer look at the CONSERVATIVE judge.”

Reporter Thalia Assuras: “Alito’s CONSERVATIVE stance would eliminate the swing vote of outgoing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor....”

# NBC’s Today, November 1: Co-host Katie Couric: “President Bush’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, is known for his solid CONSERVATIVE record and a well-developed sense of humor....”

Late in Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez interviewed 9-year-old actress Fatima Ptacek and wondered: "What do you want to be when you grow up?" Ptacek replied: "I definitely want to be the first female president. But I also want to be a lawyer, so I can protect those innocent people." Rodriguez gushed: "Oh, that's good. You sound like President Obama."

Rodriguez then remarked: "So he [Obama] went to Harvard. Where do you want to go to college?" Ptacek predictably responded: "Harvard."

Later in the interview, Rodriguez mentioned a recent television appearance by Ptacek: "And you've gotten to do some really cool things. What was it like to be on Sesame Street with Michelle Obama?" Ptacek declared: "It was an amazing experience, Michelle Obama is very sweet, very down to earth. She's great." Rodriguez asked: "Did she give you any words of wisdom?"

Ptacek revealed that she had written letters back and forth with the First Lady, prompting Rodriguez to excitedly proclaim: "You're pen pals with Mrs. Obama? Well that's a nice perk, isn't it?" Ptacek joked: "It's great. And I look up to her, literally." Rodriguez added: "Yeah, she's very tall. I look up to her, too."

Rodriguez concluded the segment: "Fatima, congrats....It's a pleasure to meet you, good luck....Madame President."

This is not the first time Rodriguez jumped to a Barack Obama comparison. On the April 13 Early Show, the President was the first person on her mind when she remarked to Entertainment Weekly assistant managing editor Dalton Ross that comedian Conan O'Brien would need a "young revolution, you know, a la President Obama" in order for his new TBS cable show to be a success.

On the March 8 broadcast, fellow co-host Erica Hill described a "compassion boom" of volunteerism in America, as her guest, Parade Magazine contributing editor Emily Listfield argued: "There's something we call the 'Obama Effect.' People are responding to the President's call to service."

Here is a transcript of relevant portions of Rodriguez's Tuesday interview with Ptacek:

8:34AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: I know school is super important to you. You're in an academically gifted program and you have high aspirations, right?

PTACEK: Yeah, so I got to keep up. But I'm doing it.

RODRIGUEZ: What do you want to be when you grow up? I heard you want to be the first female president.

PTACEK: Yes, I definitely want to be the first female president. But I also want to be a lawyer, so I can protect those innocent people.

RODRIGUEZ: Oh, that's good. You sound like President Obama. So he went to Harvard. Where do you want to go to college?

PTACEK: Harvard.

RODRIGUEZ: You want to go to Harvard?

PTACEK: Definitely.

...

RODRIGUEZ: And you've gotten to do some really cool things. What was it like to be on Sesame Street with Michelle Obama?

PTACEK: It was an amazing experience, Michelle Obama is very sweet, very down to earth. She's great.

RODRIGUEZ: And she has two daughters. Did she give you any words of wisdom?

PTACEK: No, not really. She was really, really focused on what she had to do because she had to flight out right afterwards.

RODRIGUEZ: Yeah.

PTACEK: But, you know, we got to speak, to get to know each other and sometimes we send letters to each other, say hello.

RODRIGUEZ: You do?

PTACEK: Yeah.

RODRIGUEZ: You're pen pals with Mrs. Obama? Well that's a nice perk, isn't it?

PTACEK: It's great. And I look up to her, literally.

RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, she's very tall. I look up to her, too.

In an interview with Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith lamented President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court: "Liberals feel let down because she would be filling a seat left by John Paul Stevens, they don't feel like she's enough – has enough gravitas to fill his shoes."

In his first question to Biden, Smith fretted: "Some people have said she's a person so careful as to leave no footprint. Do you really know what you're getting? Do the American people know what they're getting?" Smith went on to question Kagan's qualifications: "she's never been a public defender, she's never been a prosecutor, she's never been a judge. Most of her career has been in Washington or in an ivy or ivory tower."

In an interview with Republican Senator Jeff Sessions immediately following the Biden interview, co-host Maggie Rodriguez went so far as to wonder if Kagan would have a conservative influence on the court: "When she worked for the Clinton administration, Ms. Kagan asked the President to support a ban on all abortions of viable fetuses except when the mother's health was at risk. And some analysts have used that example to show that she may actually shift the court to the Right, compared with Justice Stevens. How do you respond to that?"

Rodriguez was referring to a Monday Associated Press report that detailed a memo Kagan wrote in 1997, advising Clinton to support a ban on partial-birth abortions. However, Rodriguez failed to note that the article concludes that Kagan's advice was "more of a political calculation than a legal brief." It pointed out:

The abortion proposal was a compromise by Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle. Clinton supported it, but the proposal failed and Clinton vetoed a stricter Republican ban. In a May 13, 1997, memo from the White House domestic policy office, Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, told Clinton that abortion rights groups opposed Daschle's compromise. But they urged the president to support it, saying he otherwise risked seeing a Republican-led Congress override his veto on the stricter bill.

In other words, Kagan recommended Clinton support the more moderate ban, rather than risk the possibility that the Republican Congress would push through tougher legislation. The memo was more about political expediency than a statement of principle by Kagan.

Rodriguez began the interview with Sessions by citing Biden: "I'd like first to ask you to respond to Vice President Biden's prediction that Elena Kagan will be confirmed with strong bipartisan support. Will, as he put it, his 'Republican friends' proceed as he expects they will?" At the end of his interview with Smith, Biden had proclaimed: "I am confident of that, assuming that our Republican friends proceed as I expect they will....I think she'll pass and I think she'll pass with strong bipartisan support."

On Monday night, the CBS Evening News was the only network evening newscast to identify Kagan as a liberal. It appears Tuesday's Early Show was trying to back off that label.

Here is a full transcript of Smith's interview with Biden:

7:06AM

HARRY SMITH Joining us from Wilmington, Delaware is Vice President Joe Biden. Mr. Vice President, good morning.

JOE BIDEN: Hey, Harry. How you doing, man.

SMITH: Very well. All kinds of criticism coming this morning about the choice of Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court justice, associate justice. Some people have said she's a person so careful as to leave no footprint. Do you really know what you're getting? Do the American people know what they're getting?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Supreme Choice; V.P. on Kagan Decision]

BIDEN: Well, the American people see what they're getting. They're getting a woman who is practical, a woman who is committed, a woman who is open-minded, and a woman who does what judges are supposed to do, listen to both sides of the argument. And I do know her, she used to work for me on the Judiciary Committee years ago, when we were both a lot younger, she's still young. And I do know her and she has an exemplary record, Harry, and she's a tenured professor at Chicago, left to go work for the government, then became Dean of Harvard Law School, the first woman in the history of that great institution, and she left to become solicitor general. And she's now what everybody calls the 10th justice, Supreme Court justice, solicitor general.

SMITH: Liberals feel let down because she would be filling a seat left by John Paul Stevens, they don't feel like she's enough – has enough gravitas to fill his shoes.

BIDEN: Well, look, John Paul Stevens, who swore me in as Vice President of the United States, is a friend and I don't know that anybody's going to fill his shoes. But when John Paul Stevens was appointed, I don't recall liberals being particularly happy at the time. And the fact of the matter is, this woman is incredibly qualified. Again, Dean of the Harvard Law School, solicitor general. I mean, look at the people whose record she is similar to. Rehnquist, Justice Jackson, Marshall. I mean, you know, these are – you know, she is – she comes with a very strong record.

SMITH: On the other side of this, though, Mr. Vice President, people will say, well, where is – she's never been a public defender, she's never been a prosecutor, she's never been a judge. Most of her career has been in Washington or in an ivy or ivory tower.

BIDEN: Well, I think that criticism will be made, but I point out Justice Jackson, Hugo Black, although he was a senator, you have Rehnquist, Chief Justice Rehnquist, who never was any of the things you just mentioned. And so her – I guess her career most closely parallels Rehnquist, except she's solicitor general. And she's the dean of a famous law school. But look, there are a number of really incredible justices who have never been prosecutors, never been a judge, never been a public defender.

SMITH: The political climate grows more contentious by the day. Are you confident-

BIDEN: That's true.

SMITH: -she is confirmable by the end of the summer and would be ready to take the bench by fall?

BIDEN: I am confident of that, assuming that our Republican friends proceed as I expect they will, they've had plenty of time, there's been plenty of notice. They moved expeditiously with Sotomayor and we moved with, when President Bush's last two nominees. We moved them in plenty of time. I think there'll be, you know, a lot of noise, but this is a mainstream incredibly qualified woman to be the third woman to sit on the Supreme Court. I think – I think she'll pass and I think she'll pass with strong bipartisan support.

SMITH: Vice President Joe Biden, we thank you for your time this morning. Do appreciate it.

BIDEN: Thanks a lot, Harry.

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez's interview with Sessions:

7:10AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Republican Senator Jeff Sessions is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He voted against Elena Kagan's nomination for solicitor general last year and this morning he joins us live from Capitol Hill. Senator Sessions, good morning to you.

JEFF SESSIONS: Thank you, good to be with you.

RODRIGUEZ: Good to have you. I'd like first to ask you to respond to Vice President Biden's prediction that Elena Kagan will be confirmed with strong bipartisan support. Will, as he put it, his 'Republican friends' proceed as he expects they will?

JEFF SESSIONS: I think the Congress and the Senate needs to examine her record carefully. This is not a coronation. She's going to be subjected to scrutiny. We need to know whether or not, once she obtains that robe and sits on that bench, will she be an objective person, will she say no even to the Obama administration and some of their agenda items if they're unconstitutional. She's got to demonstrate that or she shouldn't be given a lifetime appointment.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Concerns Over Kagan; Sen. Sessions on GOP's Objections]

RODRIGUEZ: When she worked for the Clinton administration, Ms. Kagan asked the President to support a ban on all abortions of viable fetuses except when the mother's health was at risk. And some analysts have used that example to show that she may actually shift the court to the Right, compared with Justice Stevens. How do you respond to that?

SESSIONS: I don't sense that she would, on that issue, move the court to the Right. That partial birth abortion situation was something that is to me unthinkable that somebody would oppose that. So she was correct on that for sure. But I don't know that that reflects any serious disagreement with the court's view on abortion.

RODRIGUEZ: What do you need to hear that would convince you to support her as a justice of the Supreme Court?

SESSIONS: I'm not sure what we'll be looking to hear. I'll be meeting with her personally, I look forward to that. She's got a good academic background. But not much actual practical experience. Her – most of her actual legal experience has been in sort of political law, been within the Clinton administration or the Obama administration. We need to know that she's got the personal discipline that good judges and good lawyers have so that day after day, week after week, it won't be her politics or her ideology, but the law and her fidelity to it, will – that will decide how she handles her cases.

RODRIGUEZ: Has she, in your view, shown otherwise as solicitor general?

SESSIONS: I think we're going to look at that record. It's not been long, just a little over a year. It's a good legal position. It's the first real significant legal position she's ever had. So I think it is something to examine.

RODRIGUEZ: And lastly, your prediction, will she or won't she be confirmed by the summer, ready to take the bench by the fall?

SESSIONS: Well, I'm not going to predict that. I think it'll depend on how well she does. The American people need to know that this appointment is very, very important for our country. The next Supreme Court, as configured, will decide many important issues about the limited nature of the federal government and is it actually limited still today. So those are important issues. Her background is on the other side. She's been a liberal political activist throughout her life. And she'll need to put that aside and be an objective judge. That will be, I think, the examination's center.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Senator Jeff Sessions, thank you so much for your time, sir.

SESSIONS: Thank you.

In the 7:30AM ET half hour on Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez lobbed softballs to disgraced former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer about his college friend and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan: "She's been labeled as moderate. If you had to put a label on her, would you say that one is accurate?" A headline on screen read: "Who is Elena Kagan?"

Spitzer replied: "I guess you could say moderate....it's very hard to pigeon hole her." Rodriguez's question was prompted by his insistence that Kagan "is not an ideologue of the Left or the Right and that is clear from what she did as dean of Harvard Law School. Just a perfect temperament to be a justice." Of course, during Kagan's tenure as dean of Harvard Law, she pushed for military recruiters to be barred from campus because of her opposition to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.   

Rodriguez wondered about Kagan's college days: "Can you think of a story or an anecdote from back then?" Spitzer recalled: "a friend and I were going back and forth about who could eat more, she goaded us into having a spaghetti eating contest." Rodriguez looked for the best way to spin the story to make it relevant: "I'm trying to take something from that, could it be that she's persuasive, can bring people together, which is what the President is hoping?" In response, Spitzer declared that once on the Supreme Court, Kagan "will get the fifth vote."

Rodriguez went on to fret: "When she was confirmed as solicitor general, she only had seven Republicans vote for her. Now it's even more contentious, it's an election year. Will there be any hurdles, in your view?" Spitzer reassured her: "everybody's been saying this is an election year, this is partisan politics. But the good news is, her paper record is pristine."

In an attempt at a challenging question, Rodriguez noted: "she's never been a judge before and she's going to the Supreme Court, that's something that hasn't been done in a long, long time. Can't you see that being an issue?" Spitzer dismissed the idea: "not being a judge is a good thing. She has seen the world from different perspectives. In my mind, and I don't say this as an ideological argument, one of the greatest chief justices Supreme Court in modern history, Earl Warren."

Rodriguez then requested a more personal side to Kagan: "You've told us a lot about her professionally, but people will want to dig into her personal life a little bit. What can you tell us about her as a person that we might not know?" Spitzer gushed: "good humored, always upbeat, looks at hard problems, knows how to figure them out. Can't imagine a better, more perfect nominee."

In reply, Rodriguez remarked: "Someone we want long term on there?" Spitzer agreed: "I hope so....she will be there for a long time and that is good for stability in terms of legal reasoning, the ability to project her thoughts for a long time into the court."

Following Rodriguez's interview with Spitzer, fellow co-host Harry Smith happily joked: "And conservatives are saying Earl Warren two? No!"

On ABC's Good Morning America on Monday, co-host George Stephanopoulos similarly tossed softballs to former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig, who followed Democratic talking points praising Kagan's nomination.

Here is a full transcript of the Early Show segment:

7:17AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Coming up here this morning, so just who is Elena Kagan, President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court? We'll hear from her former classmate and longtime friend, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.

7:21AM TEASE:

RODRIGUEZ: Back in 1977, Elena Kagan, President Obama's choice replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court, was a Freshman at Harvard, where she went on to be the first dean of the law school. Her classmate at the time, Eliot Spitzer, went on to be Governor of New York. He joins us exclusively this morning to give us a little insight. They've been friends for 30 years. We'll hear more about Elena Kagan from Eliot Spitzer in just a minute.

7:30AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: But first, President Obama's second nomination to the Supreme Court. His choice is Elena Kagan, she is currently the nation's solicitor general and she was the first female dean of Harvard Law School. But what is she really like and what do we know about her? These are questions a lot of Americans have, so we're going to put them to former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who has been friends with Ms. Kagan since their days at Princeton more than 30 years ago. Sorry to date you like that.

ELIOT SPITZER: I was going to say, this is – you didn't need to be quite so clear how long ago this was. But that's alright.

RODRIGUEZ: But the point is, you've known her a long time.

SPITZER: Absolutely.

RODRIGUEZ: Went to Princeton, went to Harvard. What can you tell us about her, going way back?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama's Pick; Who is Elena Kagan?]

SPITZER: First, from the perspective of the public, she is unbelievably smart and thoughtful and careful, the sort of perfect qualifications to be a justice of the Supreme Court. Somebody who will look at every case, think about the constitutional issues, and do what is right for the country. She is not an ideologue of the Left or the Right and that is clear from what she did as dean of Harvard Law School. Just a perfect temperament to be a justice.

RODRIGUEZ: She's been labeled as moderate. If you had to put a label on her, would you say that one is accurate?

SPITZER: I guess you could say moderate, but I would say she's really thoughtful and then passionate about what she believes, but very careful about what she believes. And that is why it's very hard to pigeon hole her. And that is why, I think, at Harvard she did a – such a spectacular job.

RODRIGUEZ: Can you think of a story or an anecdote from back then?

SPITZER: Well look-

RODRIGUEZ: That might interest the public?

SPITZER: I have to think of one that won't, you know, cause any problems in Washington. But, you know, it's typical of her – a friend and I were going back and forth about who could eat more, she goaded us into having a spaghetti eating contest. And then, since she worked in the newspaper at the time, put a big picture of it on the front page. The place we had the spaghetti eating contest went out of business two days later because of all we ate, so we felt guilty about that, but she was always the one sort orchestrating things, getting other people to do things. Smart, funny, witty, thoughtful, as clever as can be.

RODRIGUEZ: Okay, so I'm trying to take something from that, could it be that she's persuasive, can bring people together, which is what the President is hoping?

SPITZER: Well, she will – she will get the fifth vote. To put this in the context of the Supreme Court, when she is on the court and she's looking for a fifth vote because she needs to get the majority, she will argue for a perspective that will get, whether it's a Kennedy or Scalia, whomever it will be, she will be persuasive to get that vote.
                    
RODRIGUEZ: But first, she's got to be confirmed. When she was confirmed as solicitor general, she only had seven Republicans vote for her. Now it's even more contentious, it's an election year. Will there be any hurdles, in your view?

SPITZER: Well, of course there are hurdles. Because everybody's been saying this is an election year, this is partisan politics. But the good news is, her paper record is pristine. She has just been confirmed, she has not taken issues on some of the hot-button issues that give either side a reason to object, and everybody has agreed she's incredibly smart and thoughtful and careful. And those are the qualities that you want in a justice. And if she does not pass muster, who would? So I think that is argument people should make.

RODRIGUEZ: You're her friend. President Obama has worked with her a long time, they are also old friends. So you can see why both of you would give such ringing endorsements. But she's never been a judge before and she's going to the Supreme Court, that's something that hasn't been done in a long, long time. Can't you see that being an issue?

SPITZER: Disagree. In other words, not being a judge is a good thing. She has seen the world from different perspectives. In my mind, and I don't say this as an ideological argument, one of the greatest chief justices Supreme Court in modern history, Earl Warren. Earl Warren was the attorney general of California and then the governor of California before he was elevated to the Supreme Court. Experience as a judge or a justice is useful, but certainly not critical. What matters is life experience. Life experience, intellect, and the temperament to be a judge and think through these issues the way she will.

RODRIGUEZ: You've told us a lot about her professionally, but people will want to dig into her personal life a little bit. What can you tell us about her as a person that we might not know?

SPITZER: You know, when we go out to dinner and with friends, and look, there are a lot of us who have been friends for, as you pointed out, over 30 years, since college days, she's funny, she's witty, she enjoys having a good time, doesn't take herself too seriously. Looks at the world and can laugh at it the right way and say isn't it kind of amusing. There she was, in the White House, the dean of Harvard Law School, now she'll be, we hope, a justice on the Supreme Court. Somebody who is good humored, always upbeat, looks at hard problems, knows how to figure them out. Can't imagine a better, more perfect nominee.

RODRIGUEZ: Someone we want long term on there?

SPITZER: I hope so. Look, she's 50. She will – hate to admit it, Elena, you're 50 – but she will be there for a long time and that is good for stability in terms of legal reasoning, the ability to project her thoughts for a long time into the court.

RODRIGUEZ: Eliot Spitzer, thank you so much.

SPITZER: My pleasure, thank you.

RODRIGUEZ: Good to have you. Now let's go back-

HARRY SMITH: And conservatives are saying Earl Warren two? No! Alright. Thanks, Governor. Appreciate it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Nope. Nope.

COURIC: Alright.

SCHIEFFER: You're right.

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

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

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

JAN CRAWFORD: Hello.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRAWFORD: Thanks.

On Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith commemorated the 50th anniversary of the invention of the birth control pill: "This week is the golden anniversary of the birth of birth control, a medical breakthrough that has changed society and the sexual landscape forever....'The Pill' promised to free women from biological bonds and it did just that."

In a taped report, Smith described the breaking of those "bonds": "In the 1950s, women made up about a third of the workforce. Today, women hold nearly half of all U.S. jobs. In the 1950s, American women, on average, had 3.8 children. Today that number has dropped to 2.1." The report featured a clip of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, who proclaimed: "The invention of the birth control pill revolutionized life for women in America. It's completely changed women's options."

Smith noted how the contraceptive "was condemned by the Catholic Church and by many conservatives." A clip of historian Ellen Chesler followed: "It was really considered immoral to suggest that women's primary role should not be that of wife and mother. But, rather, that women should have rights to experience their sexuality free of consequence, just like men have always done."

Following the report, Smith lead a left-wing feminist panel discussion, featuring "women's movement pioneer" Gloria Steinem, actress Hilary Swank, and Early Show medical contributor Dr. Jennifer Ashton. Smith began by touting Steinem's writing on the subject: "The first piece you ever wrote? Do you remember what you said?" Steinem recalled:

Yes, in Esquire in 1962, I think it was, was about the Pill....I ended up saying that the problem was the acceptance of women's sexuality as much as the women's ability to control it. You know, were there enough liberated men to go around to the newly liberated women. Which turned out to be kind of prescient.   

Smith agreed with that assessment and added: "so many men wrote about it then and they were up in arms. They were afraid of what was being unleashed." Steinem replied: "Well, some of them still are, actually." Her and Smith then shared a laugh.

After remarking that the Pill was supposed to "change the planet," Smith fretted: "Relatively speaking, there are very few women who actually still have access to it, because of cost, because of all kinds of different reasons." Steinem lamented: "Right, and because of abstinence only education which has been a problem, because now pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription because of health insurance. So, you know, we still have a long way to go in expanding access."

Smith turned to Swank: "Your mother certainly had an attitude that was sort of in tune with the idea of being able to do anything you ever wanted to." Swank explained: "I think for my generation, people like Gloria, and you know, I played Alice Paul, one of the original suffragettes....these women have blazed trails for us, for my generation and generations to come and we still have a lot of work to do to be able to live, you know, our lives the way we want." She also declared: "this anniversary to me marks a real time for empowerment for women."

Moving back to Steinem, Smith wondered: "in all the time that you've been writing about this and talking about this and even protesting for this, was the Pill an important part in this journey?" Steinem responded: "Yes, absolutely. Because it dramatized what has been true throughout human history to varying degrees, which is that human sexuality is not entirely about procreation....there have always been methods of contraception, but this was much more dramatic, complete, and public." Smith added: "And something the woman actually could control."

Smith concluded the segment: "Thank you all very much for sitting on the couch with us....And walking down memory line for a few moments."

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

8:06AM

HARRY SMITH:  In this morning's 'Health Watch,' 50 years of 'the Pill.' This week is the golden anniversary of the birth of birth control, a medical breakthrough that has changed society and the sexual landscape forever. Today it is still – it still has critics, but about 100 million women around the world use it to control when and how, and how many times, they become pregnant.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Revolution In A Pill; 50-Year Anniversary of Birth Control Pill]

CECILE RICHARDS [PRESIDENT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD]: The invention of the birth control pill revolutionized life for women in America. It's completely changed women's options.

SMITH: 'The Pill' promised to free women from biological bonds and it did just that. In the 1950s, women made up about a third of the workforce. Today, women hold nearly half of all U.S. jobs. In the 1950s, American women, on average, had 3.8 children. Today that number has dropped to 2.1.

RICHARDS: It made them able to pursue higher education, to pursue careers. And to plan the size of their families. Which was something they had never been able to do before.

SMITH: For the first decade after its creation, the Pill could only be legally prescribed to married women. Still it was condemned by the Catholic Church and by many conservatives.

ELLEN CHESLER [HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR]: It was really considered immoral to suggest that women's primary role should not be that of wife and mother. But, rather, that women should have rights to experience their sexuality free of consequence, just like men have always done.

SMITH: And here with us to talk about the Pill are women's movement pioneer Gloria Steinem, two-time Oscar winner Hilary Swank, as well as our Dr. Jennifer Ashton. Good morning, all.

GLORIA STEINEM: Good morning.

SMITH: The first piece you ever wrote?

GLORIA STEINEM: Yes, in Esquire in 1962, I think it was, was about the Pill.

SMITH: Was about the Pill-

STEINEM: Which was then, fairly new.

SMITH: Do you remember what you said?

STEINEM: Well, I ended up saying that the problem was the acceptance of women's sexuality as much as the women's ability to control it. You know, were there enough liberated men to go around to the newly liberated women. Which turned out to be kind of prescient.

SMITH: Well it was so interesting because so many men wrote about it then and they were up in arms. They were afraid of what was being unleashed.

STEINEM: Well, some of them still are, actually.

[LAUGHTER]

STEINEM: In a political sense.

SMITH: Yeah, yeah. The other thing that's interesting about it was this notion that as it was being introduced, it was going to become – it was going to change the planet. Relatively speaking, there are very few women who actually still have access to it, because of cost, because of all kinds of different reasons.

STEINEM: Right, and because of abstinence only education which has been a problem, because now pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription because of health insurance. So, you know, we still have a long way to go in expanding access.

SMITH: Right. Very interesting also how many unintended pregnancies still exist even though there is a kind of a – especially, at least in the United States, this kind of widespread access to different kinds of birth control beyond the Pill. We're still talking about unintended pregnancies at a rate of about 50%.

JENNIFER ASHTON: And teen pregnancy is going up in this country for the first time in decades. So obviously there are still issues. And I think a lot of the aspects of the Pill really have to be uncoupled from the sexual, pregnancy, family planning aspects, because it is medication and it's used off label, albeit, but for many, many other medical indications.

SMITH: Hilary, you come along at a point at which women have been using the Pill for years. Your mother certainly had an attitude that was sort of in tune with the idea of being able to do anything you ever wanted to.

HILARY SWANK: Yeah. You know, I think for my generation, people like Gloria, and you know, I played Alice Paul, one of the original suffragettes, who helped women get the right to vote. You know, these women have blazed trails for us, for my generation and generations to come and we still have a lot of work to do to be able to live, you know, our lives the way we want. My mom said to me 'you know, Hilary, you can do anything you want in life as long as you work hard enough. You know, she believed in me, she gave me that gift. And so, you know, I'm here, this anniversary to me marks a real time for empowerment for women, you know. And to be here to say, you know, don't give up, don't give up what's right for you, don't give up your dreams, you know.

SMITH: Yeah. Do you think it – is it – in all the time that you've been writing about this and talking about this and even protesting for this, was the Pill an important part in this journey?

STEINEM: Yes, absolutely. Because it dramatized what has been true throughout human history to varying degrees, which is that human sexuality is not entirely about procreation. It's also about expressing love and communication and bonding. And there have always been methods of contraception, but this was much more dramatic, complete, and public.

SMITH: And something the woman actually could control.

STEINEM: Yes. Well, there have been other things that the woman could control, but the point was, I think, that it was such a big event and such a public one that it really changed the image of women and of women's lives.

SMITH: Yeah. Thank you all very much for sitting on the couch with us.

STEINEM: Thank you.

SWANK: Thanks for having us.

SMITH: And walking down memory line for a few moments. Do appreciate it very, very much.

Liberal political pundits frequently remind Americans that words matter, which makes broadcast network reporters' coverage of Arizona's new crack down on illegal immigrants so appalling.  

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a law on April 23 that would make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to not carry documentation proving they are in the country legally. The bill gave state law enforcement the power to determine the immigration status of any person during "any lawful contact." Amid allegations that this law would lead to "racial profiling," Brewer later amended it to allow law enforcement to only check the immigration status of those involved in a "lawful stop, detention or arrest."

Reporters on ABC, NBC and CBS misled the American people about the law by calling it "anti-immigration" twice as often as correctly identifying the law as "anti-illegal immigration" and reporting, as ABC's Bill Weir did on the April 24 "Good Morning America, "Police [in Arizona] now have the power to stop anyone and make them prove they are legal."

Between April 23, when the law was signed and May 2, reporters on ABC, CBS, and NBC correctly identified the law as an "anti-illegal immigration law" in only 4 percent (3 out of 72) of the references to the law. Nearly ten percent of the references (7 out of 72) referred to the bill as an "anti-immigration law." 

"Anti-immigration" and "anti-illegal immigration" are two distinct labels. The former is a xenophobic view. The latter makes it clear that immigrants are welcome, as long as they go through the proper channels to come to America.

But for the broadcast networks, there's no distinction between the two.

Two segments about Arizona's new measure seem to indicate that reporters don't understand illegal immigration was against the law before Brewer signed the bill.  

"The bill makes it a crime to be in Arizona illegally," reported CBS's Bill Plante during an April 24 "Early Show" segment.

Plante's colleague, Betty Nguyen, echoed him in her April 27 "Early Show" segment. "The law makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant," she explained.

J.D. Hayworth, a Republican challenger for John McCain's Senate seat, was the only person to ask on broadcast news programs the basic question around which the immigration debate should revolve. "Do you think illegal aliens have done anything wrong by being in this country without authorization?" he asked Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez during a joint May 2 "Face the Nation" appearance on CBS.

Rather than focus on that question and recognizing that illegal immigrants are already breaking federal law by simply being in the country without authorization, CBS instead sympathetically reported on the plight of illegal immigrants under the new law.

Bill Whitaker focused on illegal immigrant Gerardo in his May 1 "Evening News" segment.

"Gerardo, who asked us to conceal his identity, crossed illegally from Mexico to Arizona four years ago. With the new law, he knows there's a greater chance he will be arrested and deported," reported Whitaker.

Gerardo told CBS, "I've got no papers, I've got different color," before Whitaker continued, "He has a daughter, a state job, a home which his American born partner Jessica is packing up fearing they might have to flee."

Jessica lamented, "He cannot stay here. It will be difficult for him to go to work, to go to the store, to even be with my daughter outside."

All three broadcast networks mischaracterized the law in reports after the bill was first signed into law on April 23. ABC's Mike Von Fremd picked up where his colleague Bill Weir left off in his April 24 "Good Morning America" report. "The new law here requires local police to stop and demand proof of citizenship from anyone suspected of being illegal immigrant," he explained. That night on "World News," Clayton Sandell toed the same line, noting, "The new law allows police to demand papers from anyone they suspect may be here legally." NBC's Lester Holt claimed on the April 24, "Saturday Today," the new law "gives police broad new power to crack down on illegal immigration." Over at CBS, Bill Plante reported the law "requires police to question people about their status if there's reason to suspect they're illegal immigrants."

However, the reports missed a key part of the law: these checks of immigration status were to be done only upon "lawful contact." That means if in the course of doing other police work - a traffic stop or the investigation of a crime - an officer has a suspicion, he or she can ask for documentation. Nothing in the bill even suggested the power to "round up" illegal immigrants.

The text of the bill states:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.

Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, rebutted the claims of mainstream reporters during an April 26 "Today" appearance, calling them "hype." Host Matt Lauer asked him why the law wouldn't allow "law enforcement officials walking up to people on the street, questioning them simply because of their appearance, because they appear to be Hispanic?"

Arpaio replied, "Pursuant to their duties, they're not going to go on a street corner and grab people because they look like they're from another country. We haven't been doing that for the past three years and I know law enforcement officers will not do that. That's hype. Those are the critics."

No network reported on the specific changes made to the law on April 30. "Contact" was changed to the more explicit "stop, detention or arrest" and the clause "in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state," was added to guard against any "rounding up" of people.

ABC's David Kerley simply reported during the May 1 "Good Morning America," "Just yesterday Arizona's Governor signed some new changes to that law, which she says will prevent racial profiling." CBS's Bill Whitaker claimed the amended law  "strengthen[ed] restrictions against racial profiling while giving police more latitude to stop suspects and demand proof of citizenship." NBC did not note the changes to the law.

It seems odd that reporters wouldn't at least discuss changes made to address their concerns of police abuse of power in his law.

Filling in for host Bob Schieffer on Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, Early Show co-host Harry Smith grilled former Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth on Arizona's new immigration law: "Some people would contend that this law in Arizona is racist in nature. Some have equated it even with Jews having to carry identification during Nazi Germany. How do you respond to that?" [Audio available here]

Hayworth shot down the absurd comparison: "That is overblown rhetoric. And it's a tool that's been used before....what's going on is a deliberate distortion to move this from a question of enforcement to one of ethnicity. It's not the case. I read you the language of the bill-" Smith interrupted: "But hang on second...J.D. let me ask you this. If you were Hispanic and you were walking down the street today in Arizona, would you have some concern if a squad car drove by?"

Only minutes earlier, Hayworth had read from the Arizona law, citing a key provision that directly contradicted Smith's assertions: "It says the law, quote, 'shall be implemented in a matter consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons, and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.'"

Hayworth attempted to reiterate that point: "The law is very finely crafted, protecting-" Smith again interrupted: "It was amended Friday." Hayworth replied: "because good people of good will want to go the extra mile to ensure there is not a hint of racism here."

After having badgered Hayworth, Smith turned to his other guest, Democratic Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who declared: "Look, the law the discriminatory.... We're not criminals. We've come here to sweat and to toil and to work hard....And to say that somehow we are all this criminal element and to target us with the discriminatory law is just wrong."

Smith went back to Hayworth and touted the "unintended consequences" of the law: "We have different groups deciding to boycott, move their – move their events and even conventions out of Arizona to other states. There's even talk about wanting to move the all-star game out of – out of Phoenix. Certainly, that wasn't anticipated when this law was passed?"

Early in the segment, Smith lobbed softball at Gutierrez. He cited the Congressman's arrest at an immigration protest outside the White House and sympathetically wondered: "why did you want to be arrested yesterday?"

Moments later, Hayworth attempted to ask Gutierrez a real question: "Luis, do you think illegal aliens have done anything wrong by being in this country without authorization?" Smith intervened and offered Gutierrez an out: "Do you want to answer that?" The Congressman dodged: "Well, here's what I would like to say. I think it's time that we have a discussion and a debate, an earnest one."

Smith did follow up: "But the people who are here illegally, should they be allowed to be here?" Gutierrez again refused to give a direct answer: "The fact is, the federal government, and Mr. Hayworth was a member of Congress for many years when his party was in the majority and passed many laws. They didn't go away....People want to think that if we pass harsh laws, they're just going to go away. That's not going to happen."

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

10:44AM

HARRY SMITH: Now we turn to the other major story in the country this weekend, the uproar over the new Arizona immigration law. Former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth is a proponent of that law. He is in Phoenix. Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez was part of the protest yesterday in Washington. In fact, he was arrested outside the White House. But he is here with us this morning. Good morning, gentlemen.

LUIS GUTIERREZ: Good morning.

HAYWORTH: Good morning.

SMITH: Congressman, why did you want to be arrested yesterday?

GUTIERREZ: My arrest was part of a response to what I consider the immorality of our broken immigration system. We were protesting the fact that hundreds of thousands of immigrant families have been destroyed. Husbands losing their wives. There are 4 million, Harry, American citizen children whose parents have either been deported or are under threat of deportation. It's time to make families sacrosanct once again and to fix our immigration system. So I was arrested yesterday because it was time, I thought, to escalate and to elevate the level of awareness and consciousness for all of those who tried to reach our shores and can't because our system is broken.

SMITH: Let me ask Mr. Hayworth this question. This new law in Arizona, is it really designed to get rid of undocumented people or is it designed to get the attention of the government so that there is, in fact, some sort of comprehensive new immigration law passed?

HAYWORTH: Well, Harry, I would suggest that the law here in Arizona is designed, quite simply, to enforce federal law. And I think what has been going on here has been a massive disinformation campaign and distortion. For example, let me read directly from the law. It says the law, quote, 'shall be implemented in a matter consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons, and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.' The key phrase 'protecting the civil rights of all persons.' So what we're getting here is distortion.

And with all due respect, to hear Luis offer his evaluation, I can recall when Luis derided the 'amnesty' saying, quote,'there's an implication that you did something wrong and you need to be forgiven.' So I think the real question this morning is for Luis. Luis, do you think illegal aliens have done anything wrong by being in this country without authorization?

SMITH: Do you want to answer that?

GUTIERREZ: Well, here's what I would like to say. I think it's time that we have a discussion and a debate, an earnest one. Let me tell you what I propose. I want to end illegal immigration as we know it. How would I propose to do that? I think you have to go after employers that hire undocumented workers and be very severe with them.

I'll tell you something, Harry, the same Social Security card that my granddad got in the '30s is the same one my grandson, who is 7 years old, just got. It's time to bring new technology to make sure that everyone that works in America has a Social Security card. So I'm ready to give a little blood and a little DNA to prove that I'm legally working in the United States of America. That way we end the workers from being able to get those jobs.

SMITH: But the people who are here illegally, should they – should they be allowed to be here?

GUTIERREZ: Here's what I'm going to say. You see, J.D. Hayworth wants to say, if we just pass these laws, they're going to go away. The fact is, the federal government, and Mr. Hayworth was a member of Congress for many years when his party was in the majority and passed many laws. They didn't go away.

The fact is the following. People want to think that if we pass harsh laws, they're just going to go away. That's not going to happen. They have roots in the community. There are millions of American citizen children. And so what I say, make them learn English. Make them pay a fine. Make them pay into our system. And then put them on the track so that there's some relationship between what they did and the punishment.

SMITH: Okay. But I would guess, Mr. Hayworth, your contention was that doesn't really deal with the roots of the problem, which is a border that is porous, through which millions of people come into the country.

HAYWORTH: Harry, border security is national security. And it's not only illegals coming northward from Mexico, we've been getting Chinese. We've been getting people from the Middle East. There is huge criminal component. Just Friday afternoon, a Pinal County sheriff's deputy wounded, apparently surprising drug smugglers. Now 17 people in detention. Three of them persons of interest in the shooting of the deputy sheriff. This is a major problem. And for Luis to suggest that somehow we need to forgive people coming into the country illegally, that's the root of the problem. When you enforce the law, people respond to the law.

GUTIERREZ: And here's what I'm saying, look, I want to secure that border. But the fact is, Harry, 10 years ago, there were 10,000 Border Patrol agents, there's 20. Ten years ago there were no fences. Some places we've tripled the fences. It's not working. Because in the end, it is the jobs here in the United States that they're able to obtain-
                                                
SMITH: That's the magnet.

GUTIERREZ: -that brings them. It's that magnet. But let me just be very clear. I'm ready to triple that border. I'm ready to put more Border Patrol agents. Won't people like J.D. join us in a comprehensive plan so that we can take the 12 million that are here, legalize them, make them pay taxes, know who they are, fingerprint them, because I'm with J.D., I don't like criminals. But the people that J.D. is dealing with, they're drug smugglers. They're criminals. They're vicious, ruthless people. And I want to combat them with J.D.

SMITH: Okay. J.D., let me ask you this. Some people would contend that this law in Arizona is racist in nature. Some have equated it even with Jews having to carry identification during Nazi Germany. How do you respond to that?

J.D. HAYWORTH: That is overblown rhetoric. And it's a tool that's been used before. Former State Senator and immigration activist – or amnesty activist Alfredo Gutierrez put it this way, and I quote: 'We call things racism just to get attention. We reduce complicated problems to racism, not because it's racism, but because it works,' close quote.

Now, Harry, what's going on is a deliberate distortion to move this from a question of enforcement to one of ethnicity. It's not the case. I read you the language of the bill-
                                        
SMITH: But hang on second. Let me ask you – J.D. let me ask you this.

HAYWORTH: Yeah.

SMITH: If you were Hispanic and you were walking down the street today in Arizona, would you have some concern if a squad car drove by?

HAYWORTH: No, I would not, because there has to be reasonable suspicion. The law is very finely crafted, protecting-

SMITH: It was amended – it was amended Friday.

HAYWORTH: Because – because – because good people of good will want to go the extra mile to ensure there is not a hint of racism here.

SMITH [TO GUTIERREZ]: Okay, go ahead.

LUIS GUTIERREZ: And I would just say the following-

HAYWORTH: The other point-

GUTIERREZ: And I would just say the following, Harry. Look, the law the discriminatory. It's the way – the Latino community, the immigrant community, they feel like, 'God, you know, what about all those – all that garlic and grapes and onions we picked? What about the meat slaughter houses where we prepare the meat for the American public?'

Look, even in my district, you can find all the little carriages, and we see all those beautiful little babies of American citizens being raised by immigrants. We're not criminals. We've come here to sweat and to toil and to work hard. Yes, some of us cross that border and some of us overstayed our visa. But, by and large, we love this country. And to say that somehow we are all this criminal element and to target us with the discriminatory law is just wrong.

And what it's done is it's galvanized and unified. And in the end, doesn't it speak to, sadly, the lack of action of the federal government, the lack of action of us taking this core issue that's our responsibility?

SMITH: On those things – on that, I think, you can both probably agree. But, on the other hand, Mr. Hayworth, this notion that this – the passage of this law is having all kinds of unintended consequences. We have different groups deciding to boycott, move their – move their events and even conventions out of Arizona to other states. There's even talk about wanting to move the all-star game out of – out of Phoenix. Certainly, that wasn't anticipated when this law was passed?

HAYWORTH: Well, again, what Arizona wanted to do, dealing with the frustration of Washington D.C. – for example, my opponent, John McCain, has wafted between inaction and embracing amnesty. And there is a need to enforce the law in Arizona.

Now, you spoke of a boycott. What I heard from friends in California the other day is that they want to start a buy-cott, actually come to Arizona to reaffirm the fact that Arizona – all we're doing is enforcing federal law, enforcing laws on the books.

GUTIERREZ: And none of that solves the problem.

HAYWORTH: And as we've heard from Luis – excuse me. As we've heard from Luis, he wants to forgive law-breaking. The first act of people, no matter their later motivation, in coming to the country without authorization, is to break our laws.

Immigration policy, border security, and national security are synonymous. Crime is on the increase. Arizonans have had enough. And interestingly, a majority of Hispanics agree that this law should be enforced here in Arizona, those living here-

SMITH: J.D., hang on. Luis, I'm going to give you the final word.

GUTIERREZ: Thank you. The Cato Institute, not conservative, libertarian, says crime is down, statistically. Look, it's a red herring. The fact is, I want to secure that border, Washington D.C. has to get involved in securing that border.

Look, what is the greatest tool the police have in combating crime? I hate those drug dealers. I hate those involved in human smuggling. But the greatest asset that the police have are the eyes and the ears of the public. Let's not drive a wedge between the police and the public in general. And that's all.  You know who's happy with that law? Criminals and drug dealers. I want to end illegal immigration as we know it. I hope J.D. will – will join me in that effort.

SMITH: Congressman, thank you very much. J.D., we do appreciate your time this morning. Thank you very much.

HAYWORTH: Harry, thank you.

[FOOTAGE OF PROTEST AGAINST ARIZONA LAW]

On Friday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Bill Whitaker reported on protests against Arizona's new immigration law, citing several opponents of the new measure, but failing to feature a single supporter. On Thursday's Evening News, Whitaker filed a nearly identical report that included a clip of at least one proponent of the legislation.

In the Early Show report, footage was show of an immigration law protestor declaring: "We are America. Get over it." Whitaker followed by proclaiming: "Opponents say requiring police to demand proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect is un-American. Even the mayor of Phoenix is suing to have the law overturned." A clip was played of Mayor Phil Gordon ranting: "Arizona and Phoenix is not the Arizona or Phoenix that you have seen portrayed by some individuals that have brought this racist, this hateful law to the state."

Whitaker noted how "protesters turned up the star power. Pop star Shakira voiced her opposition." A clip was played of the singer fretting: "I'm worried about the impact that the implementation of this law will have on hard working Latino families." Whitaker added: "Mexican American singer Linda Ronstadt spoke out, as well." Ronstadt remarked: "Gee, I better pack my passport, you know, coming to Tucson."

In his Evening News report, Whitaker cited Ronstadt and other opponents of the new Arizona law, but also cited Republican Texas State Representative Debbie Riddle, who is considering proposing similar legislation for her state: "The citizens are sick and tired of political correctness. They want, they want to take their country back."

So while soundbites from the lopsided Evening News report were 4-to-1 against the Arizona law, Whitaker's Early Show report was even worse, with 4-to-0 against. 

In both the Early Show and Evening News reports, Whitaker pointed out the arrest of 105 illegal immigrants along the Mexico-Arizona border on Wednesday as bolstering support of the law.

Here is a full transcript of Whitaker's Early Show report:

7:12AM

BETTY NGUYEN: This weekend, protests against Arizona's new immigration law are planned in more than 70 cities. CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker is in Phoenix with more. Good morning, Bill.

BILL WHITAKER: Good morning, Betty. Now, one week after Arizona gained notice and notoriety with the toughest anti-immigration law in the country, protests are building, opposing sides are hardening, and outside pressure is mounting. Supporters of the tough new anti-immigration law need no more reason than this, 105 immigrants arrested Wednesday, crossing the border from Mexico to Arizona illegally.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Border Battle; Arizona's Immigration Debate]

UNIDENTIFIED MAN [IMMIGRATION PROTESTOR]: We are America. Get over it.

WHITAKER: But now the legislation is going to be challenged in court. Opponents say requiring police to demand proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect is un-American. Even the mayor of Phoenix is suing to have the law overturned.

PHIL GORDON: Arizona and Phoenix is not the Arizona or Phoenix that you have seen portrayed by some individuals that have brought this racist, this hateful law to the state.

WHITAKER: Arizona is being hit in the courts and the pocketbook. Cities across the country are threatening to boycott the state. Eight conventions have pulled out of Phoenix already. Each could cost the city up to $45,000. Yesterday, protesters turned up the star power. Pop star Shakira voiced her opposition.

SHAKIRA: I'm worried about the impact that the implementation of this law will have on hard working Latino families.

WHITAKER: Mexican American singer Linda Ronstadt spoke out, as well.

LINDA RONSTADT: Gee, I better pack my passport, you know, coming to Tucson.

WHITAKER: But there's just as much passion in support of the legislation. According to a new poll, 70% of Arizona residents are in favor of the law. And legislators in a number of states, including Ohio and Texas, say they plan to introduce Arizona-style laws there. On the other side, hundreds of thousands of Latinos and their supporters are expected to take to streets in cities across the country tomorrow calling for immigration reform. Betty.

NGUYEN: CBS's Bill Whitaker in Phoenix. Thank you.

Given the contentious debate over the proper role of religion in American public life, you'd think an important Supreme Court ruling on the issue would be a big story to the network news. But the Court's April 28 finding regarding a cross on a World War I memorial in the Mojave Desert elicited a yawn from CBS's "Evening News," a 78-word report from NBC's "Nightly News," and a one-sided segment from ABC's "World News with Diane Sawyer" that fretted if the Court "move[d] the bar on the separation of church and state."

The cross in question is part of a memorial built in 1934 in the federal-owned Mojave National Preserve to honor fallen WWI veterans. Lower courts ruled the cross unconstitutional and had it covered with a box, despite efforts taken in recent years by Congress to avoid constitutional questions over it by transferring that portion of the Preserve to private owners.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled this was not a clear-cut violation of the separation of church and state.

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. Kennedy noted specifically about this cross that it "evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."

ABC's Terry Moran examined the ruling in an April 28 "World News" segment and focused only on the "dismayed" reactions of those opposed to the cross. Neither soundbite in the segment came from anybody who was happy with the ruling.

Frank Buono, the former National Park Service employee who first raised the question about the cross told ABC, "It's a symbol of death and sacrifice only in the extent that it symbolizes the death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I mean, this is as religious as it gets."

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State called the ruling "an example of a bad trend" and accused the Supreme Court of not caring about "religious minorities and non-believers."

Moran pointed out that the Supreme Court "ruling sends the case back down to lower courts," but failed to note that the ruling doesn't allow the cross to be uncovered. He also did not note that the issue of religious symbols on war memorials is still not completely settled.

Kelly Shackleford of the Liberty Institute, an organization that seeks protection of religious freedom, outlined to OneNewsNow the work that still needs to be done to settle the issue.

"We've got to go back down to the district court and still get a ruling taking this box off. And then additionally, the issue is still open as to whether veterans' memorials that have religious imagery should be left alone or whether the ACLU can continue to file these kinds of attacks," he explained.

On MediaBistro.com's TVNewser blog, Chris Ariens reported on Wednesday that CBS News has announced a list of special guests seated at its table for Saturday's upcoming White House Correspondents Association Dinner, a list which includes a handful of celebrities as well as a seven prominent political figures, only one of whom is a Republican.

The public officials who will be sitting down for a meal with CBS anchors and correspondents are White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Attorney General Eric Holder, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty, Democratic Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, and the lone Republican, Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor. I wonder who Katie Couric will choose to sit next to?
                    
The non-political guests are actor Morgan Freeman, who narrates the opening of the CBS Evening News, actress Julianna Margulies, actress Betty White, talk show host Chelsea Handler, and Ayla Brown, the daughter of Republican Senator Scott Brown and newly named contributor to the CBS Early Show. 

 

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith lamented Republican opposition to the Democrats' financial reform legislation: "The Senate is expected to vote for a third time on financial reform. Republicans blocked the previous two attempts. President Obama says he can't understand why, and plans to make his case once again later today."

In the report that followed, White House correspondent Chip Reid described the Democratic strategy against Republicans:

Of course, both parties have accepted millions of dollars in political contributions from Wall Street over the years. But now Democrats are doing everything in their power to portray Republicans as the party of Wall Street. It's an argument the President believes is especially effective here in the heartland. President Obama was back where it all started, Iowa, this time denouncing Senate Republicans for blocking debate on financial reform.

A headline on screen read: "Presidential Push; Obama Takes on GOP on Financial Reform."

On Tuesday's CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric asked congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes about the Democratic posturing: "Republicans blocked the bill again today. Is this Harry Reid's plan? Hold a vote to bring the bill to the floor for debate every day and then force the Republicans to vote against that?" Cordes replied: "Democrats say they have a number of tactics planned to try to force Republicans to keep negotiations going behind the scenes. They think Republicans don't want to make too many more of these 'no' votes, which they believe paint Republicans as the party of Wall Street."

Couric then declared: "President Obama's doing all he can to portray Republicans as the party of Wall Street as he travels to the heartland. Over two days, he's visiting Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri, states where Democrats are facing tough contests in upcoming congressional elections." In a report similar to that on the Early Show, Chip Reid explained: "the White House believes that's a message that really resonates across the country, but especially here in the battleground states of the Midwest."
            
Reid highlighted how "At the top of the agenda is jobs....At a factory in Fort Madison, Iowa, the President....made no secret of the fact that the success of this plant is largely due to a $3.5 million tax credit from the stimulus bill." However, he also pointed out Obama critics: "protesters say it's offensive for the President to brag about creating jobs when unemployment in this town is 9.5%. Small business owner Randy Bradley says the President's policies are killing private-sector job creation."

Concluding the report, Reid declared: "Tomorrow, the President takes his jobs and financial reform message to small towns in Illinois and Missouri. I think it's fair to say that for the President, the midterm campaign has begun." It would seem that CBS is already on board with the campaign slogan.

Here is a full transcript of Reid's Wednesday Early Show report:

7:08AM

HARRY SMITH: The Senate is expected to vote for a third time on financial reform. Republicans blocked the previous two attempts. President Obama says he can't understand why, and plans to make his case once again later today. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid is traveling with the President and joins us from Des Moines this morning. Good morning, Chip.

CHIP REID: Well, good morning, Harry. Of course, both parties have accepted millions of dollars in political contributions from Wall Street over the years. But now Democrats are doing everything in their power to portray Republicans as the party of Wall Street. It's an argument the President believes is especially effective here in the heartland. President Obama was back where it all started, Iowa, this time denouncing Senate Republicans for blocking debate on financial reform.

[ON SCREEN HEADLINE: Presidential Push; Obama Takes on GOP on Financial Reform]

BARACK OBAMA: It's one thing to oppose reform. But, to oppose just even talking about reform in front of the American people, and having a legitimate debate, that's not right.

REID: Senate Republicans unveiled their alternative bill, which would force creditors and shareholders to take responsibility for dismantling large banks, create a council to ensure large banks don't take advantage of consumers, and restrict assistance to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

JUDD GREGG: I think a lot of other people would like to see this bill improved and that's why we're opposing going forward with the bill in its present form until we're allowed to participate in the negotiations on improving it.

REID: Meanwhile, the top of the President's agenda continues to be jobs. On this two-day campaign-style swing through the Midwest, that the President calls his 'White House to main street tour.'

OBAMA: Our economy is finally growing again. Our markets are climbing. Our businesses are beginning to create jobs again.

REID: Today, the President continues his swing through the Midwest with stops in small towns in Missouri, where he'll talk about jobs, and southern Illinois, where he'll talk about the need to pass financial reform. Harry.

REID: Chip Reid in Des Moines this morning. Thanks so much.

Here is a full transcript of Reid's Tuesday Evening News report:

6:35PM

KATIE COURIC: Meanwhile, President Obama's doing all he can to portray Republicans as the party of Wall Street as he travels to the heartland. Over two days, he's visiting Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri, states where Democrats are facing tough contests in upcoming congressional elections. Our chief White House correspondent Chip Reid is traveling with the President, and Chip, I know financial reform wasn't the first thing on the agenda, but in Iowa today, it certainly came up.

CHIP REID: Well, it sure did, Katie. At this town hall in Ottumwa, Iowa, the President had some unusually harsh words for Republicans.

BARACK OBAMA: I just want to let them debate it. And you know, you've learned these Senate rules are complicated. So they won't even let it get on the floor to be debated. It's one thing to oppose reform, but to oppose just even talking about reform in front of the American people and having a legitimate debate, that's not right.

REID: Now, the White House believes that's a message that really resonates across the country, but especially here in the battleground states of the Midwest. But as you said, Katie, financial reform is not at the top of the agenda on this trip. At the top of the agenda is jobs, and that has not been an easy sell. At a factory in Fort Madison, Iowa, the President was so fascinated by wind turbine blades that he asked perhaps one too many questions.

OBAMA: And then you inject the resin?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: That's proprietary, that's our secret.

OBAMA: Shhh.

[LAUGHTER]

REID: But he made no secret of the fact that the success of this plant is largely due to a $3.5 million tax credit from the stimulus bill.

OBAMA: Just a few short years ago, this facility was dark, it was quiet, nothing was going on. And today it's alive and humming with more than 600 employees.

REID: But in Ottumwa, Iowa, protesters say it's offensive for the President to brag about creating jobs when unemployment in this town is 9.5%. Small business owner Randy Bradley says the President's policies are killing private-sector job creation.

RANDY BRADLEY: This unprecedented federal spending has tightened credit markets because every dollar they spend they have to tax or borrow out of the private economy.

REID: Tomorrow, the President takes his jobs and financial reform message to small towns in Illinois and Missouri. I think it's fair to say that for the President, the midterm campaign has begun. Katie.

COURIC: Chip Reid traveling with the President in Iowa tonight. Chip, thank you.

Hitting from the left in an interview with Republican Senator John McCain on Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith worried about the ability of financial reform legislation to expand government control over Wall Street: "How are you going to dis – how does any of this dismantle these giant financial institutions?"

On April 22, ABC Good Morning America co-host George Stephanopoulos asked Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner a similar question: "Why shouldn't those big banks be broken up?"  

At the top of Tuesday's Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez put the GOP on the defensive: "Democrats continue to push for Wall Street reform. But are Republicans on board?" Smith later introduced the segment by portraying Democrats as fighting for reform: "Democrats refuse to give up on reforming Wall Street. Yesterday Republicans put the brakes on, but another vote could happen today."

In a report that followed, correspondent Nancy Cordes declared: "Senate Republicans voted last night against moving forward with debate on the massive financial reform bill. That drew angry recriminations from Democrats." A clip was played of Democratic Virginia Senator Mark Warner slamming Republican opposition: "I never got the memo that said our job wasn't actually to get stuff done."

Smith asked McCain about the bill's effectiveness in preventing another financial crisis: "will Americans be immune from the same kind of cataclysm that almost took the country off the economic edge two years ago?" McCain responded by pointing out problems with the legislation: "The bill, as it's constituted, I certainly couldn't give that guarantee....Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not included in any way in this legislation. They were the major catalyst behind this meltdown."

Smith went on to fret: "these giant financial institutions make most of their money now, not by mergers and acquisitions, not by investment banking, but by trading. They don't want to get out of the trading business. How are you going to dis – how does any of this dismantle these giant financial institutions?"

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Goldman Sachs executives get grilled on Capitol Hill today as Democrats continue to push for Wall Street reform. But are Republicans on board? We'll talk exclusively with Senator John McCain.

7:01AM SEGMENT

HARRY SMITH: First, Democrats refuse to give up on reforming Wall Street. Yesterday Republicans put the brakes on, but another vote could happen today. And in the hot seat this morning, the embattled head of Goldman Sachs. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes has more from Capitol Hill. Nancy, good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Harry. This is the first time that the CEO of Goldman Sachs will testify here on Capitol Hill since his company was accused of fraud. Now, the Senators have been conducting their own investigation here. They say the company was making huge bets against the mortgage market, hastening its decline. According to his prepared testimony, Lloyd Blankfein, the embattled CEO of investment banking giant Goldman Sachs, will tell senators today, quote, 'we certainly did not bet against our clients.'

CARL LEVIN: I don't think they've been forthcoming with the public.

CORDES: The Securities and Exchange Commission has accused Goldman of knowingly deceiving clients, not telling them that one of its mortgage related investments called 'Abacus' was designed to fail. Internal company e-mails just released by congressional investigators suggest Goldman was having trouble finding an outside manager to vouch for Abacus, with one trader writing that one manager, quote, 'declined given their negative views on most of the credits. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan will lead the questioning today. What is it that your investigation has uncovered that has troubled you the most?

LEVIN: I think what troubles me, probably the most, is the conflicts of interest which are fundamentally inherent.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The motion is not agreed to.

CORDES: Meanwhile, Senate Republicans voted last night against moving forward with debate on the massive financial reform bill. That drew angry recriminations from Democrats.

MARK WARNER: I never got the memo that said our job wasn't actually to get stuff done.

CORDES: Republicans say they want to get stuff done, too. They just have problems with the bill, the two sides are still at the bargaining table. They say those talks are going well and the Democrats could schedule another vote in the next few days. Harry.

SMITH: Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill this morning. Thank you very much. Joining us exclusively from Washington is Arizona senator and former Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Senator, good morning.

JOHN MCCAIN: Good morning, Harry.

SMITH: Finance reform bill. Dead, alive, comatose, how would you describe it?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Financial Reform; McCain, GOP Take on Obama Plan]

MCCAIN: I'd say alive. I think that there's been significant progress made. I think there's more progress that needs to be made. There's a lot of complexities here, a lot of members frankly don't understand all aspects of the bill. But I think there is a common desire to achieve a goal here.

SMITH: In the end, will Americans – if this gets passed – in the end, will Americans be immune from the same kind of cataclysm that almost took the country off the economic edge two years ago?

MCCAIN: The bill, as it's constituted, I certainly couldn't give that guarantee. For example, Fannie and Freddie are not – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not included in any way in this legislation. They were the major catalyst behind this meltdown.

SMITH: The big mortgage lenders, yeah.

MCCAIN: Exactly. I'm very worried about the fact that these – if financial institutions that are big have gotten bigger. So there's a lot of concern here. But I think there is a good faith effort being made to reach an agreement.

SMITH: One of the things that was talked about was this whole notion of 'too big to fail,' these giant financial institutions make most of their money now, not by mergers and acquisitions, not by investment banking, but by trading. They don't want to get out of the trading business. How are you going to dis – how does any of this dismantle these giant financial institutions?

MCCAIN: Well, I think that there are regulations over so-called derivatives and there's other measures. But what bothers me is that why not – don't we just, as I, Senator Cantwell and I recommended, just go back to the point where banks that do the traditional banking things, making loans to people so they can buy their homes and all of that, just make them separate from these financial institutions. As we'll find out today in the hearing with Mr. Blankfein, that they do a lot of other things. In fact, there is compelling evidence, as was just reported, that the kind of activity that Goldman was in hastened the – and deepened the crisis.

SMITH: Yeah. Do you feel like – or from what you understand of it anyway – that Goldman Sachs was literally betting against itself?

MCCAIN: I don't think they were betting against themselves. I think they were trying to hedge their bets the same way if you go to it Las Vegas, the sports book, and the sports book balances the bets. But it had the effect of worsening and deepening the housing crisis, in my view.

Near the end of an interview with Arizona Senator John McCain on Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith turned to the subject of illegal immigration and the new Arizona law to combat it: "a very tough immigration reform bill which basically makes it illegal for you to be in the state without some sort of documentation. Is this law the answer to the immigration crisis?"

McCain noted the number of illegal immigrants entering Arizona and the level of drug trafficking taking place: "Across the Tucson sector of Arizona last year, there was 241,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants....1.3 million pounds of marijuana intercepted on the Tucson border just last year." Smith followed up by wondering: "And for the millions of Hispanic Americans who live in Arizona, what do you say to them who feel like this bill is purely discriminatory?"

In a news brief on the topic at the top of the 8AM ET hour, fill-in news reader Betty Nguyen described how: "The Obama administration and activists are considering legal challenges to Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, which has reignited a national debate." A series of signs from an immigration protest in San Francisco appeared on screen: "Latinos Today, Who's Next? Shame on Arizona;" "Boycott Arizona;" "Brown Is Not A Crime."As footage of the protest rolled, Nguyen explained: "The law makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant." On Monday, an MSNBC headline made the same odd statement.

On Monday's CBS Evening News, correspondent John Blackstone argued: "many feel the sting of racism in the new law."

The Saturday Early Show also covered the passage of the Arizona immigration law, as co-host Chris Wragge declared at the show's opening: "Border War. Arizona's governor signs the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration. Will the new legislation help secure the nation's borders or expand racial profiling?"

Moments later, White House correspondent Bill Plante reported: "The bill makes it a crime to be in Arizona illegally....Brewer said that she would not tolerate racial profiling, but that's what federal officials fear. President Obama called the Arizona law 'misguided' and urged lawmakers to get going on immigration reform. 'Failure to act,' he said, 'opens the door to irresponsibility.'" A headline on screen read: "Arizona Crackdown; New Law Makes Illegal Immigration A Crime" Apparently neither MSNBC nor CBS seem capable of seeing the irony in that declaration.

Following Plante's report, Wragge moderated a debate on the issue between Republican strategist Bay Buchanan and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona. Wragge wondered: "Does Arizona's new immigration law go too far?" He then asked Buchanan: "Do you find it in any way unconstitutional?"

Turning to Cardona, Wragge continued his negative tone: "Why is this bad for the people of Arizona, in your eyes?" That gave Cardona the opportunity to rant: "It is not only horrendous policy, it is even worse politics. This is an insidious law that will actually make, not just all undocumented immigrants, but all legal and U.S. citizen Latinos, many of which, whose families have been in Arizona even before Arizona was part of the United States. It makes them under suspicion."

Following up, Wragge did challenge Cardona to present an alternative solution to the immigration problem: "$3 billion a year to educate, medicate, and incarcerate illegals in the state of Arizona. You're not in favor of this law, so what could have been done differently?" Cardona called for a "comprehensive" federal approach and again attacked the Arizona law: "The only thing this law will do is to make it open season for any immigrant, anybody who does not look Anglo, and it will make actually racial profiling legal in Arizona. It's insidious and it's wrongheaded."

Here is a full transcript of Wragge's discussion with Buchanan and Cardona:

CHRIS WRAGGE: So, does Arizona's new immigration law go too far? Let's get two points of view this morning. Bay Buchanan is a Republican strategist, who supports the measure. Maria Cardona is a Democratic strategist, opposed to it. Both are in our Washington bureau this morning. Ladies, good morning to the both of you.

BAY BUCHANAN: Good morning to you.

MARIA CARDONA: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Great Immigration Debate; Does Arizona's New Law Go Too Far?]

WRAGGE: Bay, I'm going to start with you. I know you fully support this bill, but do you-

BUCHANAN: Absolutely.

WRAGGE: -do you find it in any way unconstitutional?

BUCHANAN: Oh not – not whatsoever. You know what they're giving is the tools to the law enforcement officers of Arizona. The same tools that we now have given to the border agents. They have the ability to ask people about their legal status. And the key was what Russell Pearce, the Senator who's behind this bill, did. See he went to the police officers and the law enforcement officers, the prosecutors in Arizona and said, 'what can we do? What do you need to finally take care of this issue here in the state?' And they said, 'we need greater tools, we need these abilities,' and that's what they did, is they have now put it into law, given the law enforcement officers of Arizona the ability to secure the welfare and the safety of the people of Arizona.

WRAGGE: Lots of responsibility for local law enforcement in Arizona. Maria, why is this bad for the people of Arizona, in your eyes?

CARDONA: It is not only horrendous policy, it is even worse politics. This is an insidious law that will actually make, not just all undocumented immigrants, but all legal and U.S. citizen Latinos, many of which, whose families have been in Arizona even before Arizona was part of the United States. It makes them under suspicion. They become people of interest under this law. They could be speaking Spanish on a corner. Who knows what 'reasonable suspicion' means. The Governor herself could not answer the question yesterday about what an illegal immigrant looks like. So, law enforcement officers, a lot of – a lot of law enforcement officers in Arizona don't want this law. They understand that they need community policing and in order to be effective law enforcement officers, they need the trust of the Hispanic community, which will absolutely evaporate under this law.

BUCHANAN: But-

WRAGGE: Yeah, go ahead, Bay.

BUCHANAN: But you know, Chris, the law, as it stands before this was written, has not done the job. Arizona is a target for human and drug smuggling. It's the number one place, the number one state in the country where that's coming through, that's the target of the drug cartels to take them right through that state. And, as a result, Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the country and it's one of the top kidnapping capitals of the world now.

CARDONA: But, the-

BUCHANAN: The crime in Arizona is outrageous. People are being murdered, the crime is high. The schools are overloaded. This – laws have not worked and so now they're given the tools. They're taking the handcuffs off the police officers and they're going to be putting them on those who are violating the laws of this country.

WRAGGE: Alright. Maria, let me ask you this. $3 billion a year along the lines of what Bay is saying here, $3 billion a year to educate, medicate, and incarcerate illegals in the state of Arizona. You're not in favor of this law, so what could have been done differently?

CARDONA: Look, what we need, clearly, is comprehensive immigration reform. I absolutely understand the frustration of the folks in Arizona, of all of our leaders in the border states who – who look at this problem and have – and have had this problem for many, many, many years. It is an issue that we need to deal with at a federal level, which is why the President said yesterday that we need to deal with this by passing comprehensive immigration reform.

The law in Arizona is not the way to go. I agree with Bay that there is a huge problem with undocumented immigrants who are actually drug traffickers and – and all of the crime is clearly an issue. This law does nothing to address this. The only thing this law will do is to make it open season for any immigrant, anybody who does not look Anglo, and it will make actually racial profiling legal in Arizona.

WRAGGE: Bay, last word to you, Bay-

CARDONA: It's insidious and it's wrongheaded.

WRAGGE: Bay, last word to you. How do you apply this law without racially discriminating against people or profiling?

BUCHANAN: You know, our border agents do it every day. So, this is nothing new. And, so-

CARDONA: They are trained.

BUCHANAN: -what they're saying is – they are trained – and that is what the governor of Arizona said, she's going to train her police officers. The key here is this is what the people of Arizona want. They've had it with federal government. They have refused to do the job, and the answer is not amnesty for the 15 to 20 million illegals here. That's what Obama wants. That's what the Democrats want. It is not – that just increases the number of people coming into the country illegal. The people of Arizona on the front lines that are paying the price, they've had it. This will clean up the problem in Arizona. That's what it'll do.

WRAGGE: Ladies, I got to leave it there.

CARDONA: It'll do nothing to do that.

WRAGGE: Got to leave it there. Thank you both very much. We could probably spend the next two hours on this topic.

BUCHANAN: We could.

WRAGGE: It is a hot topic. Alright. Republican strategist Bay Buchanan, Democratic strategist Maria Cardona. Thank you both, ladies, we do appreciate you getting up early with us this morning.

BUCHANAN: Sure, thank you.

CARDONA: Thank you very much.

At the top of Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith referenced a possible Senate vote on the Democrats' financial reform bill and proclaimed: "Showdown in the Senate. Democrats are scrambling to get enough votes. Will anyone in the GOP break ranks?" It was just the latest example of a week of CBS coverage pressuring Republicans to sign on to the controversial legislation.

In a later report, correspondent Nancy Cordes explained: "both parties say they are for reform and they are deep in negotiations over it....But without a deal, many, if not all, Senate Republicans plan to vote 'no' today, blocking a floor debate on the bill." That was followed by a clip of Democratic Senator Chris Dodd declaring: "Here we are 17 months after someone broke into our house, in effect, robbed us, and we still haven't even changed the locks on the doors." A headline on screen read: "Financial Reform Showdown; Will Anyone in GOP Break Ranks?"

In his introduction to the report, Smith described the Democratic effort as a "test vote." Cordes pointed out: "this vote that Democrats have called for today could very well fail." She later concluded: "Even if the vote fails today, negotiations will go on and Republicans and Democrats seem confident that a financial reform bill will pass sooner rather than later." However, neither her nor Smith questioned holding the vote or suggested it was political theater to force a deal.

Following Cordes's report, Smith asked Republican Congressman Darrell Issa about GOP objections to the bill: "This legislation is supposed to help prevent big banks from taking risks that ultimately will take down the economy like we saw 18 or 19 months ago. Do you see things in this legislation, as it stands right now, that can do that?" Issa replied by pointing out an obvious flaw in the legislation:

What Republicans are asking for, when you say big banks, you have to realize the biggest bank-like entities involved in this were Freddie [Mac] and Fannie [Mae]....entities that had something to do with, you know, basically a meltdown that began with too many mortgages, many of them bought – bought and encouraged by the federal government.

Over the past week, the Early Show failed to note that the government-backed mortgage lenders were not addressed as part of the supposed reform of the financial industry. Even after Issa brought up the subject, Smith dismissed it as a side issue, instead wanting to only focus on the private sector: "In the end, though, those things were turned into derivatives that were traded all over the place, which gave impetus to the market that said this can go on forever."

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE

HARRY SMITH: Showdown in the Senate. Democrats are scrambling to get enough votes. Will anyone in the GOP break ranks? We'll take you to Capitol Hill.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Reform Showdown]

7:08AM SEGMENT

SMITH:  Now to the showdown in the Senate. Democrats are pressing ahead with a possible test vote on financial reform even though they may not have enough votes. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is in Washington with details and the numbers. Nancy, good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning to you, Harry. That's right, both parties say they are for reform and they are deep in negotiations over it. But they're not there yet, which means this vote that Democrats have called for today could very well fail.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Financial Reform Showdown; Will Anyone in GOP Break Ranks?]

RICHARD SHELBY: I think we will get a bill. If the Democrats want a bill and will give us some things that we think that are substantive in nature.

CORDES: But without a deal, many, if not all, Senate Republicans plan to vote 'no' today, blocking a floor debate on the bill.

CHRIS DODD: Here we are 17 months after someone broke into our house, in effect, robbed us, and we still haven't even changed the locks on the doors.

CORDES: Republicans think the bill needs to make it clear, failing firms will not be bailed out. And they think that consumer protections and regulations on derivatives in the bill are too onerous.

MITCH MCCONNELL: This is not a situation where anybody I know in the Senate wants no bill to pass, but it is important to pass a good bill.

CORDES: Tomorrow, the CEO of Goldman Sachs will come to Capitol Hill to testify. He'll likely be asked about newly released internal e-mails that show his company profited from the mortgage meltdown. 'Sounds like we will make some serious money,' emailed one employee to another as foreclosures mounted. In another online exchange, one trader told another, 'I'm not so convinced this is a total death spiral. In fact, we may have terrific opportunities.'

LARRY SUMMERS: This underscores what is at the center of the President's vision here. The importance of transparency, the importance of things being in the open.

CORDES: Even if the vote fails today, negotiations will go on and Republicans and Democrats seem confident that a financial reform bill will pass sooner rather than later. Harry.

SMITH: Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill this morning. Thank you. One of the critics of the financial reform bill is Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California. He joins us now from Washington. Congressman, good morning.

DARRELL ISSA: Good morning, Harry.

SMITH: This legislation is supposed to help prevent big banks from taking risks that ultimately will take down the economy like we saw 18 or 19 months ago. Do you see things in this legislation, as it stands right now, that can do that?

ISSA: Well, there are some things in this legislation. What Republicans are asking for, when you say big banks, you have to realize the biggest bank-like entities involved in this were Freddie and Fannie. And we're still sitting there with trillions of dollars of underwater loans. So, yes, we want to have reform, but it's clear that a 'no' vote today by 41 Republicans is a 'yes' vote to do more comprehensive reform, more balanced reform, including the other entities that had something to do with, you know, basically a meltdown that began with too many mortgages, many of them bought – bought and encouraged by the federal government.
                                    
SMITH: In the end, though, those things were turned into derivatives that were traded all over the place, which gave impetus to the market that said this can go on forever. We'll come back and ask a different question, though. This bailout fund that's sort of looming out there, this sort of idea of putting together about $50 billion, probably paid for by the banks, that would help deconstruct a bank if it came up to the edge and would be on the verge of going out of business, good idea or bad idea?

ISSA: Well, Harry, I think what we have to remember is there already is a fund for banks. What we're talking about here is bank-like entities. And the last thing we need to do is to further confuse what is bank and what isn't a bank. After all, AIG was an insurance company, but AIGFP in England, that did most of these guarantees that went bad, in fact, wasn't even an insurance company by real U.S. standards. So I think what we have to do in financial reform is say what is a bank and it gets one set of rules. Financial institutions get another. And insurance companies, quite frankly, have to be a big part of the new regulation, along with rating agencies that told us things were triple A, when they weren't even triple B.

SMITH: You got that right. Congressman Issa, thank you very much for your time for your time this morning, do appreciate it.

ISSA: My pleasure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the 8:30AM ET half hour of Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez introduced an Earth Day segment by proclaiming: "Americans throw away more than 30 billion plastic bottles every year....We have a film maker, Stephanie Soechtig, here with us, she has a documentary out called 'Tapped,' which looks the impact that all those bottles have had on the environment."

Rodriguez invited Soechtig to explain her mission: "What has your message been?" Soechtig responded: "we've been trying to educate people that bottled water's one of the greatest marketing scams of all time. 40% of bottled water is really just filtered tap water. And every day we throw away 30 million single serve bottles of water." A headline on-screen read: "Early's Earth Day; Filmmaker Says 'Get Off the Bottle!'"

Soechtig warned of the "tremendous impact" of bottled water on the environment: "there's a soup of plastic in the north Pacific that's twice the size of Texas, that's just littered with plastic. So this type of plastic getting out in the environment is hurting our sea life, it's hurting us....plastic is a byproduct of oil. So from the production of the plastic all the way through the disposal, it just has a tremendous carbon footprint."

Rodriguez then described Soechtig's solution to the problem: "if you encounter Stephanie along her travels, she will likely give you one of these. It's a 'Clean Canteen.' And you're advocating putting tap water in these instead of drinking bottled water." With that, Rodriguez held up a reusable water container made of, you guessed it, plastic.

Wanting to point out her commitment to saving the planet, Rodriguez bragged: "I only drink tap water." Fill-in news reader Betty Nguyen chimed in: "I do, too." Rodriguez also observed: "By the way, it saves me a ton of money, to boot, not only saving the environment."

In concluding the segment, Rodriguez declared: "Stephanie, thank you....Thank you for helping us commemorate Earth Day. Important message." She then handed a 'Clean Canteen' to fellow co-host Harry Smith, who replied: "Thank you very much. I want one of those."  

In a similar demand for people not to use a particular product, on Wednesday, the Early Show touted a report asking the government to "take salt off the table." 

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

8:30AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Welcome back to the Early Show on this Earth Day. Americans throw away more than 30 billion plastic bottles every year.

HARRY SMITH: Wait a minute, did you say billion? Billion with a 'B'?

RODRIGUEZ: 30 Billion with a 'B.'

SMITH: Okay.

RODRIGUEZ: We have a film maker, Stephanie Soechtig, here with us, she has a documentary out called 'Tapped,' which looks the impact that all those bottles have had on the environment. And for the past month, she has been collecting bottles in this truck so that everybody can see [Pointing to truck with transparent containers of plastic water bottles]. Good morning, Stephanie.

STEPAHNIE SOECHTIG: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Early's Earth Day; Filmmaker Says 'Get Off the Bottle!']

RODRIGUEZ: You've been traveling the country collecting these bottles. Why and what has your message been?

SOECHTIG: Well, we've been trying to educate people that bottled water's one of the greatest marketing scams of all time. 40% of bottled water is really just filtered tap water. And every day we throw away 30 million single serve bottles of water. [Pointing to the truck] So this represents about four seconds worth of what we throw away every single day.

BETTY NGUYEN: 4 seconds?

HARRY SMITH: 4 seconds?

SOECHTIG: 4 seconds every day, into landfills and the ocean.

RODRIGUEZ: And what impact has this had on the environment?

SOECHTIG: Well, it's had a tremendous impact. I mean, there's a soup of plastic in the north Pacific that's twice the size of Texas, that's just littered with plastic. So this type of plastic getting out in the environment is hurting our sea life, it's hurting us, it's ending up back in our food chain. Every step along the way seems to be bad. It's also oil – plastic is a byproduct of oil. So from the production of the plastic all the way through the disposal, it just has a tremendous carbon footprint.

RODRIGUEZ: So if you encounter Stephanie along her travels, she will likely give you one of these. It's a 'Clean Canteen' [holds up plastic reusable container]. And you're advocating putting tap water in these instead of drinking bottled water. I only drink tap water.

NGUYEN: I do, too.

RODRIGUEZ: By the way, it saves me a ton of money, to boot, not only saving the environment.

NGUYEN: Exactly. And this would save you money, too, because you don't have to go to the stores and keep buying that bottled water. You just have to think a little and pack it.

SOECHTIG: Right.

RODRIGUEZ: Exactly. Which is easy. Stephanie, thank you.

SOECHTIG: Thanks so much.

RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for helping us commemorate Earth Day. Important message. Your 'Clean Canteen,' sir.

HARRY SMITH: Thank you very much. I want one of those.

Cheering some Republican support for Democratic financial reform legislation on Wednesday, CBS Early Show co-host Maggie Rodriguez declared: "encouraging news out of Washington, that after a week or so of attacking this financial bill that the Democrats are proposing to regulate Wall Street, Republicans are changing their tone and they seem to be wanting to come on board."

Rodriguez turned to business correspondent Rebecca Jarvis and wondered: "Does it look, this morning, as though a bipartisan bill will emerge?" Jarvis replied: "Well, Maggie, it looks this morning like Republicans are warming up to the idea of a bipartisan bill on financial reform." She added: "With Obama, the President, coming here to Wall Street tomorrow to push the agenda forward, it looks like there will be a political expediency to getting the deal done." An on-screen headline read: "Financial Reform Push; Obama & Senate Take on Wall Street."

On Tuesday, the Early Show had on disgraced ex-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to discuss financial reform. Co-host Harry Smith introduced him as "the sheriff of Wall Street."

Smith asked Spitzer if a conveniently timed lawsuit against Goldman Sachs was "politically motivated." Unsurprisingly, Spitzer towed the Democratic Party line and dismissed the idea: "I don't want to say politically motivated. The SEC is trying very hard to say 'we're being tough, we're protecting the consumer'....I wouldn't say politics. I would say they're flexing their muscles."

Here is a full transcript of Smith's discussion with Spitzer:

HARRY SMITH: Joining us exclusively is former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was known as the sheriff of Wall Street when he was the state's attorney general. Good morning.

ELIOT SPITZER: Thank you, Harry.

SMITH: Is this case against Goldman, at least what we know of it so far, is it a clear case of a company trying to defraud its customers?

SPITZER: Well, the word 'clear' is the one people will fight over. They maintain, of course, that they disclosed everything they needed to disclose. The SEC is saying they kept material information from the marketplace. If I had to bet, I would say the SEC wins, at the end of the day, because materiality is determined after the fact and right now looking backwards, the fact that somebody other than Goldman made the choice about what mortgages to put into the CDO does look material.

SMITH: Because that decision was made outside of their company.

SPITZER: That's correct. It was made-

SMITH: By people who knew that these things were toxic.

SPITZER: By people who were intending that those lose money.

SMITH: Right.

SPITZER: That fact was not revealed.

SMITH: Here's what's interesting. Because you talk to guys downtown and they – well, they're not surprised, maybe, that a suit comes against Goldman, but not this suit. The sense is that this doesn't have the legs it needs to if it's really going to be prosecutable.

SPITZER: I think it's a reasonably strong case. Again, I don't like to bet on the outcome of cases like this, but I think it raises the much more important question, why are taxpayers bailing out Goldman Sachs if this is what they're doing? In other words, is this what investment banks should be doing, is this where we need our money to be going?

SMITH: The other question that becomes interesting is the SEC, the board, was split on this.

SPITZER: Correct.

SMITH: A lot of times – the last time they were talked to, they said we've got about 90% unanimity in terms of going forward with cases against – against banks. This – there was a decision on the board split 3-2 whether or not to even bring this.

SPITZER: Along partisan lines. Clearly this is a case that is closer to the edge, where Goldman is saying 'we were in conversations with the SEC, we thought we had addressed their concerns.' The investors in this product had all the information about the qualities of the mortgages. They just didn't know who chose them. And so that is where the legal dispute will come into play.

SMITH: And because it was split along political lines, people will suggest, as we talked about in the piece, was – from your sense, does this feel like it was politically motivated?

SPITZER: Well, I don't want to say politically motivated. The SEC is trying very hard to say 'we're being tough, we're protecting the consumer.' I happen to believe they wanted to bring a case – an important case – before the bill reached the floor of the Senate, that's a legitimate prosecutorial objection. So I think – I wouldn't say politics. I would say they're flexing their muscles.

SMITH: Okay. And last but not least, very quickly, financial regulatory reform legislation. Going to happen, going to not happen?

SPITZER: It will happen, but it's not fundamental enough. The critical issue is what should the investment banks do with all the money we've given them. They're not investing it where we need it to go, into the guts of our economy. They're playing games like this.

SMITH: Eliot Spitzer, we thank you for your time this morning.

SPITZER: Thank you.

SMITH: Do appreciate it.

At the top of Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez proclaimed: "the truth about salt, why a new report wants the government to take salt off the table." She later introduced a segment on the topic by explaining: "Americans eat about 1 ½ tablespoons of salt every day....there's a major new push this morning to curb that habit."

Rodriguez spoke with CBS medical correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton about the government intrusion and noted that there was "confusion" over "reports that the FDA might regulate salt." Ashton claimed: "there was a fair amount of misinterpretation of yesterday's news....the Institute of Medicine approached the FDA and asked for their assistance in working in conjunction with the food industry and other health services to help increase awareness about salt intake and hopefully, in the future, reduce the consumption of salt that Americans have."

However, near the end of the segment, after Ashton detailed the negative health effects of too much salt, Rodriguez observed: "So then there maybe is an argument for someone getting involved in making these companies put less sodium in their foods." Ashton agreed: "Exactly. And so we're going to be seeing more of that more aggressively from the government in the future."

Mid-way through the segment, Rodriguez asked if the Food and Drug Administration would actually regulate salt at some point, Ashton responded: "there is no plan to make salt a banned substance right now....this really was a shot across the bow from the Institute of Medicine....Now we need to bring in the big guns and really increase awareness and make this a priority."

Rodriguez followed up: "And why would the big guns, why would the FDA regulate salt?" Ashton explained: "the New England Journal of Medicine....by reducing the salt intake about one teaspoon a day for an average American, 150,000 lives can be saved a year."

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And the truth about salt, why a new report wants the government to take salt off the table.

7:14AM SEGMENT:

RODRIGUEZ: There have been some conflicting reports about how much salt should be in your diet. Americans eat about 1 ½ tablespoons of salt every day. That's more than double what we need for good health. And there's a major new push this morning to curb that habit. Here to hopefully help us clear up the confusion is our own Dr. Jennifer Ashton. Good morning, doctor.

JENNIFER ASHTON: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: This confusion stems from a report that came out yesterday about salt intake, and then reports that the FDA might regulate salt. What exactly is the FDA saying about salt?

ASHTON: So there was a fair amount of misinterpretation of yesterday's news, Maggie. What happened yesterday is that the Institute of Medicine approached the FDA and asked for their assistance in working in conjunction with the food industry and other health services to help increase awareness about salt intake and hopefully, in the future, reduce the consumption of salt that Americans have. Because, as you said, we're getting way too much and we're definitely seeing the health consequences.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Shake the Habit; Gov't Push to Curb Salt Intake]

RODRIGUEZ: So is the FDA planning, as of right now, to regulate salt?

ASHTON: No. At this time there is no plan to make salt a banned substance right now. But, again, I think this really was a shot across the bow from the Institute of Medicine to really say, look, we've been trying to do this ourselves for awhile. Now we need to bring in the big guns and really increase awareness and make this a priority.

RODRIGUEZ: And why would the big guns, why would the FDA regulate salt?

ASHTON: Well look, we've known for over 40 years that salt has been casually tied, or directly tied even, to things like heart attacks and strokes. But recently in the New England Journal of Medicine, they put some hard numbers to those estimates, and found that by reducing the salt intake about one teaspoon a day for an average American, 150,000 lives can be saved a year. And again, that's due to things like heart attacks and strokes. So when you see a number like that, you really have to sit up and take notice.

RODRIGUEZ: Why is our salt intake so high? Is it because we're just too heavy-handed with the salt shaker?

ASHTON: Well, you know, a lot of people say, 'I don't add salt to my food, so this doesn't apply to me.' And in reality, over 75% of our daily salt consumption comes in hidden forms. It comes in processed foods. It comes in things that you might not expect, like bread or cereal. Something like cottage cheese can have a lot of it. Only about 25% of our daily salt intake is with a salt shaker when we're eating or when we're preparing meals. So you have to read the labels, and everyone, but especially those people who have things like diabetes, high blood pressure, African-Americans, are at much higher risks for the consequences of hypertension.

RODRIGUEZ: So then there maybe is an argument for someone getting involved in making these companies put less sodium in their foods.

ASHTON: Exactly. And so we're going to be seeing more of that more aggressively from the government in the future.

RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Jennifer Ashton, thanks so much.

ASHTON: You bet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

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

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

7:04AM SEGMENT:

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

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

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

SARAH PALIN: This is the people's movement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: You bet, Harry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

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

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

7:04AM SEGMENT:

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

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

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

SARAH PALIN: This is the people's movement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: You bet, Harry.

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, fill-in news reader Betty Nguyen reported on President Obama's new plan to cut back America's space program, but failed to mention sharp criticism by astronauts Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell, and Eugene Cernan in a signed letter sent to the White House.

Nguyen noted: "President Obama unveils a revamped plan for America's manned space program....reviving part of a plan he canceled earlier this year. NASA will begin development of a crew capsule called Orion....[it] won't go to the moon, but will be used as an emergency vehicle on the space station."

In contrast, on ABC's Good Morning America, anchor Juju Chang began a news brief on the same topic this way: "President Obama under fire, accused by the first man to set foot on the moon of leading the U.S. space program down a path of, quote, 'mediocrity.'" Correspondent Jake Tapper followed: "Armstrong and two other former astronauts wrote that it was a terrible decision. They called it 'a misguided proposal that forces NASA out of the human space operations for the foreseeable future.'"

NBC's Today also covered the criticism, as anchor Natalie Morales explained how: "three Apollo astronauts call the changes devastating. In a letter, Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan write, 'The President's plan destines our nation to become one of second, or even third-rate stature.'"

The full Early Show 8:03AM ET news brief:

BETTY NGUYEN: Well tomorrow, President Obama unveils a revamped plan for America's manned space program. The President is reviving part of a plan he canceled earlier this year. NASA will begin development of a crew capsule, called Orion, that was originally pegged to return astronauts to the moon. Orion won't go to the moon, but will be used as an emergency vehicle on the space station. And NASA will speed up development of massive rocket. But there are no plans, so far, to use it.

Meanwhile, in space, things are getting a bit topsy-turvy. At this morning's news conference from the International Space Station, it was a full house. Check it out. There are 13 astronauts and cosmonauts, including four women, making good use of weightlessness.

The full Good Morning America 7:15AM ET news brief:

JUJU CHANG: Well, we begin with President Obama under fire, accused by the first man to set foot on the moon of leading the U.S. space program down a path of, quote, "mediocrity."  The sharp criticism from Neil Armstrong and other astronauts comes just as the President prepares to announce sweeping changes at NASA. Jake Tapper has details from the White House. Good morning, Jake. That's some tough talk.

ABC GRAPHIC: Astronauts Vs. Obama: Taking on Space Program Changes

JAKE TAPPER: That is, indeed, Juju. They say in space, no one can hear you scream. But that's not the case down here after President Obama and his budget in February, announced that he wanted to cut the constellation program to ultimately lead to a mission to Mars. Armstrong and two other former astronauts wrote that it was a terrible decision. They called it "a misguided proposal that forces NASA out of the human space operations for the foreseeable future." Now, President obama has since revised that policy, which he'll announce those revisions tomorrow at Cape Canaveral. He has a new possible use for the space capsule Orion that he had planned on cutting. New plans for a heavy-lift rocket to take astronauts deeper and farther into space. And he has the second man to walk the moon, Buzz Aldrin on his side to back his side on these changes. Juju?

The full Today 7:04AM ET news brief:

NATALIE MORALES: And President Obama is set to outline the future of NASA tomorrow at the Kennedy Space Center. With space shuttles due to stop flying soon, the plan calls for canceling the next generation of rockets that would take astronauts back to the moon and to rely instead on private companies to ferry astronauts to the Space Station. Meantime, three Apollo astronauts call the changes devastating. In a letter, Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan write, "The President's plan destines our nation to become one of second, or even third-rate stature."

On Monday evening and Tuesday, ABC, CBS, and CNN all highlighted a Catholic priest's call for Pope Benedict XVI's resignation due to his alleged mishandling of the Church sex abuse scandal, labeling him "outspoken," and even going so far to compliment him as "brave" and "gutsy." All three networks, however, ignored the priest's affiliation with a liberal group and his dissension from Church teaching.

During a report on the wider abuse scandal on Monday's World News With Diane Sawyer, ABC's Dan Harris mentioned Father James Scahill's public call for the Pope to step down during a recent sermon at his parish in Massachusetts. Before playing a clip from Father Scahill, Harris stated that "anger is clearly rising within the [Catholic] Church. In his Sunday sermon this week, Father James Scahill of Massachusetts called for the Pope to resign." The ABC correspondent did not give any details on the priest's background.

Father Scahill is the pastor of St. Michael's Catholic Church in East Longmeadow. In 2004, he accepted the "Priest of Integrity Award" from Voice of the Faithful. The organization, which purports to be Catholic, achieved some visibility in the media after the 2002 revelation of the sex abuse in the Boston archdiocese. It has taken heterodox positions on Church issues, such as calling for an end to priestly celibacy, and endorsed liberal dissenting theologians such as Rev. Charles Curran.  CNN featured Dan Bartley, the president of VOTF, during a March 26, 2010 segment which also featured two other liberal Christians who advocated radical changes inside the Catholic Church.

More egregiously, Father Scahill refused to sign a petition championed by the bishops of Massachusetts against same-sex "marriage" in 2005. The Republican, a newspaper out of Springfield, noted in a December 30, 2005 article that the "Rev. James J. Scahill, the East Longmeadow priest who has been outspoken critic of the church's leadership, said the clergy's lack of support for the petition reflects the refusal of priests to back an anti-gay measure. He said some of the priests are gay. He said priests' refusal to sign the petition is an acknowledgment that same-sex unions are among people willing to make public commitments of genuine love. Scahill said he didn't sign the petition because the state wasn't asking the church to 'sacramentalize' same-sex unions." By this public stance, the priest dissented from the Church's longstanding opposition to the legalization of same-sex "marriage."

On Tuesday, CBS's Early Show played two clips from Father Scahill during the 7 am Eastern hour. Correspondent Elaine Quijano highlighted that he was a "longtime critic of the Church's response to the sex abuse scandal," but didn't mention his dissenting positions.

Two hours later, CNN anchor Kyra Phillips lauded the Massachusetts priest as "brave," and played a report from their affiliate in the commonwealth, WCVB. Janet Woo, the local correspondent, asked Father Scahill, "Do you think the Pope is being untruthful?" He replied, "I would think- he's not being truthful." He later continued, "This church will not have my myopic obedience from me, like the myopic obedience of the soldiers of Hitler." This reference to Hitler is likely intentional, given the fact that the Holy Father was drafted into the German army during World War II. Phillips also played a sound bite of Scahill just after the beginning of the 10 am Eastern hour during a news brief, where she noted that "one outspoken pastor from Massachusetts [was] taking an extreme position regarding the on-going priest sex abuse scandal."

Later in the afternoon, anchor Rick Sanchez chose the priest as one of his "Most Intriguing People" at the bottom half of the 3 pm Eastern hour of his Rick's List program. After playing a different clip from Father Scahill, taken from an interview with CNN correspondent Mary Snow, Sanchez gushed over him: "Father Scahill is critical, outspoken, gutsy, and for that reason, whether you agree or disagree with what he has to say, he finds himself today on 'The List' of 'Most Intriguing Person' in the news."

Just under two hours later, The Situation Room played the full report from Snow:

WOLF BLITZER: Highly unusual for Catholic clergy to criticize the Pope, but one American priest is making the extraordinary move, suggeting the Pontiff should either take firm action in the sex abuse scandal, or resign.

CNN's Mary Snow spoke with him today. Mary, what is he telling you?

MARY SNOW: Well, Wolf, Father James Scahill told us that he believes people need to hear the truth about the Catholic Church, however harsh that may be. And on Sunday, as he celebrated Mass in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, he felt it was time to take a stand.

FATHER JAMES SCAHILL: ...Yours, almighty Father, forever and ever.

SNOW (voice-over): As he offers prayers, Father James Scahill is also call for punishment, over the handling of sex abuse cases involving priests. He calls Church leaders who covered up abuse felons, and takes direct aim at Pope Benedict.

SCAHILL: He should stand for the truth.

SNOW (on-camera): Does that mean stepping down?

SCAHILL: If he can't do it- if he can't take the consequences of being truthful on this matter, his integrity should lead him, for the good of the Church, to step down, and to have the conclave of cardinals elect a pope with the understanding that that elected pope would be willing to take on this issue transparently, not just in promise, but in fact.

SNOW (voice-over): Scahill says he doesn't understand why so few of his fellow priests haven't spoken out about the abuse scandals. His anger was reignited this past Easter, when Italian Cardinal Sodano dismissed criticism of the Pope's handling of the crisis as- quote, 'petty gossip.'

SCAHILL: I have met with countless victims of abuse. I have lives that I can relate this to, and I grieved for them- to be so insultingly dismissed as this whole case as 'petty gossip.' You know, anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows the media has not created this scandal.

SNOW: Sex abuse scandals have haunted this Massachusetts community. In 2004, the bishop of the Springfield Diocese resigned, and was later indicted on molestation charges, but he was never prosecuted.

SNOW (on-camera): You are one priest in one parish. How much influence can you have?

SCAHILL: One voice listened to can accomplish more than people might realize.

SNOW: Scahill has been pastor of the church for eight years, and is known for standing his ground. When a former priest pled guilty to abusing two boys, Scahill withheld church donations to the diocese until the priest was defrocked in 2003.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 1: Patty at St. Michael's- do you have messages?

SNOW: The phones have kept ringing at St. Michael's since Sunday's Mass, when Father Scahill delivered his sharp words. He says a majority of the messages have been supportive, but not all. And the bishop of Springfield issued statement saying, 'There is a sad irony in that Father Scahill's remarks were delivered on Divine Mercy Sunday, a day on which the Church throughout the world reaffirms Christ's forgiveness, reconciliation and mercy towards all his followers.' The bishop goes on to say, 'We are vigilant in the efforts undertaken to ensure such tragedies can never happen again.'

Last month, a senior Vatican official said the Pope had displayed wisdom and courage when he was a cardinal with responsibility for reviewing sex abuse cases. Father Scahill agrees the Vatican has made some progress, but only after scandals were exposed in the media.

SCAHILL: The Church is trying to do the right thing, but any healthy institution has to have a healthy, strong, secure foundation, and I believe all of these efforts are being built on a garbage heap of denials and coverups. Get rid of the garbag- confess to the garbage- build a healthy foundation from the ground up. You can't be healthy if you're untruthful.
    
SNOW (live): I asked Father Scahill about whether he worries about losing his job for being so outspoken. He does worry about that, and even though he has been an outspoken for critic for years, he says it has been stressful for him to take the stand, and he says doesn't see himself as a rebel. Wolf?

BLITZER: Interesting stuff, and we are going to stay on top of this story- Mary, thank you.

On Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez described how comedian Conan O'Brien could attract viewers to his new late night show on the TBS cable channel: "if he can get this young revolution, you know, a la President Obama, to follow him, that could be huge."

Rodriguez made the comment after guest Dalton Ross, the assistant managing editor for Entertainment Weekly, observed that O'Brien was: "now competing with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, he's not expected to have these mass numbers. As long as he brings his younger audience, his albeit smaller, but passionate audience to TBS, it's going to be successful."

Ross thought Rodriguez's comparison of Obama and O'Brien supporters was "exactly right."

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

8:09AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Because there's no question it's a risk.

DALTON ROSS: Well, you know, I think it's a smart move. I think it's a savvy move. A lot of people were caught off guard by it, but look, it's already been established that Conan, in terms of mass numbers, cannot compete with Jay and Dave. That's why we got into this whole predicament. So even if he went to Fox or another network, that really wasn't going to change. By going to cable, he sort of has taken his game to another field. He is now competing with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, he's not expected to have these mass numbers. As long as he brings his younger audience, his albeit smaller, but passionate audience to TBS, it's going to be successful.

RODRIGUEZ: That's right. Because when you consider 2,500 people, young people, went to see that show last night, he's got 30 or more cities to go, if he can get this young revolution, you know, a la President Obama, to follow him, that could be huge.

ROSS: That's exactly right, Maggie. And people are so behind him because of what he's gone through the past few months. You're finding people that maybe weren't even originally Conan fans but seeing the way he's gone through this whole situation and handled himself, now they relate to him.

At the top of Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: "At an historic summit, President Obama joins world leaders to try to stop terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons." He later declared: "It's the largest gathering of world leaders hosted by a U.S. President since the 1945 conference that founded the United Nations. And it's already yielded some quick results."

White House correspondent Chip Reid reported on some of those "quick results": "Ukraine announced it will send its entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium, enough to build several nuclear weapons, out of the country, perhaps to the United States, by 2012....China...has shown a new willingness to consider sanctions against Iran, but is still reluctant to fully endorse them because it gets so much of its oil from Iran." In a news brief at the top of the 8AM ET hour, fill-in news reader Betty Nguyen mentioned another dangerous regime giving up its nuclear stockpile: "Canada announced it's returning a significant amount of its spent nuclear fuel to the U.S."

In concluding his report, Reid touted: "Now, at most international summits, they try to lower expectations to kind of soften the disappoint of not accomplishing much. At this summit, the President is taking the opposite approach. He is building up expectations, promising that by the end of the day, there will be a concrete plan of specific actions to lock up those loose nukes." Given that dealing with rogue states like Iran and North Korea are not subjects of the summit, it is unclear how much will really be accomplished at the meeting.

Here is a full transcript of Reid's report:

7:00AM TEASE

HARRY SMITH: At an historic summit, President Obama joins world leaders to try to stop terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons. But is it too late? We'll bring you the latest from the White House.

7:03AM SEGMENT

HARRY SMITH: Now to Washington, and specifically the White House, where President Obama's nuclear summit wraps up today. It's the largest gathering of world leaders hosted by a U.S. President since the 1945 conference that founded the United Nations. And it's already yielded some quick results. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid has the latest. Chip, good morning.

CHIP REID: Well, good morning, Harry. The President is working on two fronts at this summit. Publicly, he is pushing these 46 nations to sign on to measures to lock up those loose nuclear materials all around the world, enough to make 120,000 nuclear bombs. Privately, he's spending a lot of time pushing China to sign on to U.N. sanctions against Iran. Groups like Al Qaeda are aggressively trying to obtain loose nuclear materials and would not hesitate to use them, according to the President's top terrorism adviser.

JOHN BRENNAN: We cannot wait any longer before we lock down these stockpiles.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Nuclear Threat; Obama, World Leaders Focus On Rogue Nukes]

REID: A step in that direction, Ukraine announced it will send its entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium, enough to build several nuclear weapons, out of the country, perhaps to the United States, by 2012. In an hour and a half sideline meeting with China's president, Hu Jintao, President Obama stressed the need for quick action against Iran's nuclear program. China, which is key because it has veto power in the United Nations Security Council, has shown a new willingness to consider sanctions against Iran, but is still reluctant to fully endorse them because it gets so much of its oil from Iran. CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate says failure to stop Iran's nuclear program could have catastrophic consequences.

JUAN ZARATE: If Iran acquires nuclear weapons or the expertise, you will see a nuclear arms race in the heart of the Middle East, with Sunni Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, feeling the need to compete with Iran and develop their own nuclear material.

REID: Now, at most international summits, they try to lower expectations to kind of soften the disappoint of not accomplishing much. At this summit, the President is taking the opposite approach. He is building up expectations, promising that by the end of the day, there will be a concrete plan of specific actions to lock up those loose nukes. Harry.

SMITH: We'll look for you on the Evening News tonight then, Chip. Thanks very much.

REID: You bet.

SMITH: Chip Reid.

At the top of the 8:30AM ET half hour of Friday's CBS Early Show, co-hosts Maggie Rodriguez and Harry Smith welcomed a new contributor to the broadcast, the daughter of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, Ayla Brown. As Smith put it: "she's about to graduate from college and she's agreed to come aboard as a special contributor with us here on the Early Show."

Rodriguez led into the announcement by recalling: "...remember back in January, Ayla Brown made headlines sort of by accident when her father, newly elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, announced during his victory speech that she was 'available.'" Smith followed by mentioning Brown's previous appearance on the show: "And remember then a couple of weeks later, we asked Ayla, who's a veteran of American Idol, to sing for us here on the Early Show. She knocked it out of the park."

After sharing the news, Rodriguez and Smith spoke with Brown, who was in studio. Rodriguez explained: "I remember that morning, not only did you do great singing, but you were such a natural fit with us here on the show.... I said you should work here." Brown replied: "You did say that. So should I thank you for having me here today?" Rodriguez gushed: "No, the viewers should thank me for having you here today."

Rodriguez asked if Brown was "excited" to be joining the show, Brown responded: "I'm so excited. It's just been a wonderful journey." She went to introduce her first report: "And I hope everyone likes this first piece. We had an incredible opportunity to meet a wonderful 13-year-old, Jordan Romero....He wants to climb Mt. Everest, not only that, but be the youngest person to do so." The full report followed later in the half hour.

The network morning shows on Thursday trumpeted Barack Obama's nuclear weapons treaty with Russia as "historic" and "landmark," with only Good Morning America allowing that the reduction plan could be "controversial." However, ABC's George Stephanopoulos also enthused, "But, [Obama and Russia's President] are here first and foremost to make history..."

Reporting live from Prague, Stephanopoulos was mostly light on details. He did explain that the treaty's goal is to cut "nuclear arsenals by about 30 percent over the next seven years." And while the ex-Democratic aide allowed that "critics call [the treaty] utopian and dangerous," he didn't explain why.

Co-host Robin Roberts announced, "George Stephanopoulos is there in Prague for the historic moment." She later teased, "George is traveling, of course, with the President, who just signed a landmark treaty."

Roberts labeled the agreement a "controversial arms control agreement," a term not used over on CBS's Early Show. Substitute new anchor Betty Nguyen described the treaty as a "new start" between Russia and the U.S.

Early Show reporter Chip Reid just regurgitated White House talking points: "President Obama arrived in Prague Thursday morning to sign what the White House calls a historic agreement with Russia on reducing nuclear arms."

He parroted, "White House advisers say a full year of intense negotiations has also helped foster better relations with Russia and with President Dmitry Medvedev."

On NBC's Today, Meredith Vieira hailed, "And one big step. President Obama and his Russian counterpart sign a landmark treaty overnight to slash both countries' nuclear arsenals." Co-host Matt Lauer proclaimed, "It's a major move in his push for a nuclear-free world."

Unlike Stephanopoulos, Chuck Todd, to his credit, provided more detail in explaining exactly what is in the treaty:

CHUCK TODD: The treaty limits deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 total for each country, a cut of 30 percent from the last treaty in 2002. Long-range nuclear weapons are limited to 700 for each country. Combined, the two countries account for 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons with seven other countries accounting for the other 10 percent. Experts say this treaty is only be a success if it leads to the Russians agreeing to even more cuts.

But, just as with the Early Show, the reporters and hosts on Today did not hint at any controversy.

A transcript of the April 8 GMA segment, which aired at 7:02am EDT, follows:

7am tease

ROBIN ROBERTS: This morning, breaking news. The President signs a controversial arms control agreement with Russia. George Stephanopoulos is there in Prague for the historic moment.

7:01

ROBERTS: And we know that George is traveling, of course, with the President, who just signed a landmark treaty- there's George- to reduce the two countries' nuclear weapons by a third. It comes almost exactly one year after President Obama pledged to put an end to cold-war thinking. But, it sparked heated debate here at home. And we'll get the latest from George in Prague in just a moment.

7:02

ROBIN ROBERTS: But, of course, we begin with the historic signing of the nuclear arms reduction treaty. George is in Prague, capital of the Czech Republic, where the signing just took place. Good morning, George.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Good morning, Robin. That's right. Except the two Presidents are running late because they had a very long business meeting, dealing with the situation in Iran. Also that unrest in Kyrgyzstan. But, they are here first and foremost to make history, by signing the most significant arms reduction treaty in two decades. The President was welcomed to Prague this morning with pomp and circumstance. After meeting Czech President Vaclav Klaus, Obama got down to business with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. High on the agenda, confronting Iran's nuclear program. Then, the main event. The two Presidents signed a landmark treaty that will reduce their nuclear arsenals by about 30 percent over the next seven years. An important step in the relationship between the U.S. and Russia. And a significant down payment on the ambitious nuclear agenda, critics call it utopian and dangerous, that Obama first outlined a year ago here in Prague.

BARACK OBAMA: So, today, I state clearly and with conviction. America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, the President said today that is the work of a lifetime, maybe even beyond. But he's taken important steps. Announcing earlier this week, he would put new restrictions on the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. And he's invited 47 world leaders to Washington on Monday for a nuclear security summit. Robin?

ROBERTS: All right, George. Now, the treaty is signed. It has to be ratified, of course, by the Senate. Expect a fight there at all?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Oh, there's no question there's going to be a fight, Robin. Remember, a treaty takes 67 vote in order to get ratified. That means the President is going to have to get at least seven Republicans. He's already gotten criticism from Republicans who worry that this treaty may restrict U.S. missile defense programs. And the Russians have said that as well. But the White House officials tell us they expect this to get ratified this year.

ROBERTS: This year. Well, you alluded a moment ago to the unrest in Kyrgyzstan. And it's such an important ally in the war against Afghanistan, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's exactly right. The President seems to have been ousted in Kyrgyzstan because he wanted support for a United States base in Kyrgyzstan, that's used to resupply Afghanistan. White House officials say that this base is still running, despite the fact that the President has left the capital. And this interim leader, this opposition leader who seems to have taken over in Kyrgyzstan, says there will not be any interference with the operation of that base.

ROBERTS: Such troubling situation in that region over there. I know you said the President is running a little bit late. But you have some time with him in just a little bit. Much to talk to him about, as always, right, George?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So much to talk to the President about. Of course, coming off the signing, we're going to talk to him about whether he can convince the Russians and the Chinese to really crack down on Iran's nuclear program. We also might get into the situation in Kyrgyzstan, the unrest in Afghanistan. There's so much to talk to the President about. And then Tomorrow, we move on to Russia. We'll talk to the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev. And we'll broadcast from St. Petersburg tomorrow and Moscow on Monday.

Of the three network morning shows, only Good Morning America has highlighted conservative outrage over Barack Obama's decision to limit the situations in which the America can use nuclear weapons. CBS's Early Show has mostly ignored the development.

On Wednesday's Today, reporter Mike Viqueira enthused, "...It was Prague about a year ago when the President made a speech outlining his vision for a world with no nuclear weapons. Well this is a start in the right direction."

On GMA, Jake Tapper alerted, "The pledge fueled conservative outrage across the air waves." He then played a clip of Rudy Giuliani and one of Rush Limbaugh slamming the President for "announcing to every regime out there, under circumstances they can nuke us."

In contrast, CBS's Early Show only discussed the story in a news brief on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the program skipped covering it completely. On NBC's Today, Viqueira featured no conservative or Republican voices to express outrage, despite calling the policy "controversial."

GMA co-host George Stephanopoulos, who asserted that conservatives are "lashing out" over the deal, will be in Prague on Thursday to cover the treaty signing. On Friday, the former Clinton operative turned journalist will interview President Obama.

On Monday, he will talk to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about the nuclear weapons policy. Will Stephanopoulos adopt the balanced tone of Tapper and ask the tough questions of Obama and Medvedev?

A transcript of the April 7 segment, which aired at 7:11am EDT, follows:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to shift gears now to the big story in Washington. Conservatives are lashing out at President Obama's change in U.S. nuclear policy, including a new pledge not to ever use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that comply with the non-proliferation treaty, even if those states strike first with chemical or biological weapons. Jake tapper is in Washington with more.

ABC GRAPHIC: New Era in Nukes: President Policy Faces Criticism

JAKE TAPPER: Good morning, George. Well, that's right. President Obama says the policy will limit the use of nuclear weapons while keeping the U.S. safe and secure. But conservatives and Republicans have their doubts. President Obama is pledging to not use nuclear weapons against any country that has assigned and is abiding by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, even if they attack the U.S. with chemical or biological weapons. This pledge has Republican critics up in arms.

REP. MICHAEL TURNER (R-OH, Armed Services Committee): It does, overall, diminish our operations. And, I think, certainly, that the American people should be concerned.

TAPPER: In a statement, Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl expressed concerns that "the Obama administration must clarify that we will take no option off the table to deter attacks against the American people and our allies." The pledge fueled conservative outrage across the air waves.

FORMER MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI: Seems to me, he has got his eye off the ball.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Announcing to every regime out there, under circumstances they can nuke us.TAPPER: But, the Obama administration says the new approach is aimed in many ways at Iran and North Korea. By not complying with the non-proliferation treaty, by pursuing weapons, they will now be less safe.

ROBERT GATES (Secretary of Defense): If you're not going to play by the rules, if you are going to be a proliferator, then all operations are on the table in terms of how we deal with you.

TAPPER: And former Bush State Department official Nicholas Burns agrees.

NICHOLAS BURNS (Fmr. Under Secy. Of State for Political Affairs): The President is clearly signaling that we're decades away now from the end of the Cold War. That the real threats are terrorist groups. And they're the renegade states like Iran and North Korea.

TAPPER: And, George, as you know, this announcement was the first part of a week devoted to nuclear weapons. Tomorrow, President Obama will sign that disarmament treaty with Russia in Prague. And next week, he'll host a 47 nation nuclear security summit here in D.C. George?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Jake, thanks. And we're going to have a lot more on this in the days ahead. Tomorrow, I'll be in Prague for that treaty signing. On Friday, we'll have an exclusive interview with President Obama. That will be followed on Monday, another exclusive interview, this time, with the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

CRITICAL UPDATES AT END OF POST including Matthews saying "Bush regime" in 2002.

Chris Matthews on Friday referred to conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh as a walrus underwater.

Chatting with guests Chuck Todd and Andrew Ross Sorkin about Limbaugh's recent comments concerning President Obama, Matthews quipped, "And this guy, this walrus underwater, makes fun of this administration, calling it a 'regime.'" 

Was this a vulgar reference to a walrus video that went somewhat viral on YouTube last year?

Before we explore the possibility, here's Matthews' defamatory comments towards Limbaugh on Friday's "Hardball" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t NB reader Mike, file photo):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: OK, let`s go to the politics pure and simple here, Chuck. Here`s the president -- I want you to respond to this. Here he is with Harry Smith this morning on CBS "Morning News" going over his enemies list, basically. I`ve never seen a president -- well, not since Nixon fought with Dan Rather have we really seen kind of rivalry where the president cites by names his critics. And they are his critics, in all fairness. Let`s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRY SMITH, CBS NEWS: Are you aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation about you?

OBAMA: Well, I mean, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck...

SMITH: It`s beyond that.

OBAMA: ... it`s pretty apparent, and it`s troublesome.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, we`ve got the response to that. Here`s -- here`s -- you know, this guy is no frail flower, if you will. He doesn`t hide. Here`s what Rush Limbaugh said to "The D.C. Examiner" today. Quote, "Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people purposely -- purposely. I have never seen the media so supportive of a regime amassing so much power, and I`ve never known so many people who literally fear for the future."

This is to me -- I`ll just give you a little editorial (INAUDIBLE) I`ve never seen language like this in the American press, referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election -- we will have another one in November, we`ll have another one for president in a couple years -- fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country. And this guy, this walrus underwater, makes fun of this administration, calling it a "regime." We know that word, "regime." It was used by recent presidents (INAUDIBLE) by George Bush, "regime change." You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They`re juntas. They`re military coups. The use of the word "regime" in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus to stop using it.

Your thoughts, Chuck.

CHUCK TODD: Well, I`ll say this. You know, which has come first, though, in this?

MATTHEWS: "Regime."

TODD: Are we seeing more of this out there, or does more -- do the -- or does this get more attention? I mean, if you go back in history, whether it was FDR, whether it was Kennedy, whether it was Reagan, you know, there`s been plenty of this, you know, overhyped attacks either from the left or the right...

MATTHEWS: I never heard the word "regime"...

TODD: ... in going after a president...

MATTHEWS: ... before, have you?

TODD: No, the point is, it`s out there. It just didn`t get the attention. And the question is, does this stuff just have more of a platform than it ever has before? But I want to get to another point on this, Chris...

MATTHEWS: You mean the John Birch Society now has a voice of radio, is what you`re saying. I mean, we`re now hearing...

TODD: That`s the point...

MATTHEWS: ... the kind of language...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... used to hear when those right-wingers would call Eisenhower a communist and his brother a communist, the Johns Hopkins -- all of a sudden...

TODD: Or FDR.

MATTHEWS: ... that kind of loony-toon talk...

TODD: Or Father Coughlin.

MATTHEWS: ... has found its way onto the airwaves -- Father Coughlin.

(CROSSTALK)

TODD: ... beyond AM radio anymore, Chris.

MATTHEWS: I don`t even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a "regime."

TODD: But let me get to this other point about the president, which is -- I thought you pointed out something very interesting at the beginning, how he calls out his media enemies, essentially, like Nixon.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

TODD: Unlike a lot of presidents, this president brings this issue with the media up constantly, to the point of where, you know, on one hand, you could look at it and said, Jeez, he`s being a little thin-skinned. On the other hand, he`s clearly trying to send a message of his frustration, I think, with the way that the collective media -- and when he`s talking there, he`s not just talking about journalists...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

TODD: ... he`s talking about opinion media -- that the entire noise that he sees here in Washington -- and so you wonder how much of it -- you know, is he bringing more attention to it than it deserves, as well?

Interesting. But what was the "walrus underwater" reference?

Well, a few months ago, a video was posted on YouTube of a walrus performing a sexual act on itself.

Was this what Matthews was referring to? What else could it have been?

A Google search identified no slang references to walruses other than the obviously famous Beatles' one.

Regardless of the answer, all of Matthews' hyperventilation concerning Limbaugh's use of the word "regime" was rather hypocritical, for all he'd have to do was go back in the MSNBC archives to find a so-called journalist similarly referring to the Bush administration on September 11, 2006 (h/t Mediaite):

Maybe Matthews should correct himself Monday, but don't hold your breath.  

*****Update: Olbermann wasn't the only person on MSNBC to refer to the Bush administration as a regime.

Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak did it on the January 8 episode of the "Ed Show":

In George Bush`s regime only one million jobs have been created in his whole eight years, net, and in President Clinton`s 23 million. 

Schultz himself said it on the August 21, 2009, installment of his show:

The Bush regime was still in power, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, the whole crowd was still there.

Rachel Sklar said it on the September 21, 2006, installment of "Scarborough Country":

Well, I mean, Rush`s statements kind of darkly suggested that the liberal media, expressing their dissatisfaction with the Bush regime, was emboldening other leaders and other countries. 

Ralph Nader actually said it on Matthew's own "Hardball" on July 7, 2004:

And if you look at our Web site, Chris, VoteNader.org, you'll see how we take apart the Bush regime in ways that the Democrats should emulate, if they had the nerve. 

Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry called for "regime change" in America while on the stump in 2003, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough discussed it in detail with guest Frank Luntz on April 11 of that year:

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSSETTS: What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq but we need a regime change in the United States.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: Now that guy was obviously playing - I mean Kerry's a smart guy, obviously playing to New England Democrats but how is that going to play on one of your focus groups next year that clip right there comparing the regime of George Bush to the regime of Saddam Hussein?

LUNTZ: Not does that not play with mainstream America but even with mainstream Democrats who are watching, people who voted for Al Gore, more than half of them are going to hear that clip and it's going to make them cringe. It's too strong actually equating a regime in America with a regime in Iraq, the fact that we are a democracy and they obviously were not, are not and we hope that they may be at some point in the future. That was targeted specifically at raising money from only the most left wing Democrats but here's the problem. He could end up winning the battle, which is the Democratic nomination. With quotes like that and that anger, with quotes like that he'll never become President of the United States.

SCARBOROUGH: It's going to kill him with the swing voters. It's got to kill him with the swing voters that you focus on every four years around the presidential election. 

But even better, Matthews said "Bush regime" on his own "Hardball" program on June 14, 2002:

So is the Bush administration using the, using the terror war to curb civil liberties here at home? Let's go to the Reverend Al Sharpton. Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime? 

You were saying, Chris? 

*****Update II: Matthews used the walrus underwater term later in the program while chatting with the Washington Post's Perry Bacon and Mother Jones's David Corn:

MATTHEWS: What about the walrus, walrus underwater, Rush Limbaugh? What do you make of a guy calling this a regime today to the D.C. newspaper? He calls this government a regime.

I have never heard that language. This is not Stalin. This isn`t some junta. He was elected the same way, and a Republican would be elected. And next time, if a Republican is elected, it will be a Republican administration. It won`t be a regime. We don`t have regimes in this country. We have Franklin Roosevelt. We have Truman. We have Ronald Reagan. We have administrations.

To use that word regime suggests to me, just kill the Nazis, regime change. More part of this neo-con lingo.

BACON: It certainly does. I disagree with David slightly here. I`m not sure the Republican leadership could stop these things if they wanted to. John Boehner --

MATTHEWS: What about waiving the flag, the "don`t tread on me" flag, the Gadsden Flag, that was rabble-rousing.

CORN: They appeared before an audience that was shouting Nazis, referring to the Democrats and Obama, and they didn`t stop it. They didn`t say don`t do that. So they actually got the permit for the crowd to appear and do that. It seems at least it`s implied acceptance.

BACON: They should condemn the rhetoric. I`m not sure John Boehner is the leader of the Tea -- if John Boehner condemned it tomorrow, do you think these things would stop?

MATTHEWS: Let me follow you up there, Perry, follow you up on the post. Why do you think the president -- let`s spread this around a bit -- do you think he is -- we had this Michele Bachmann, who is a figure on the right. She was saying that Nancy Pelosi, by walking past all the protesters during the vote over health care, was stirring them up, by creating kind of a civil rights rally look to it, that would trigger them. Do you buy that? Did that trigger the crowd up?

BACON: I don`t think that triggered the crowd up. The imagery with her and John Lewis was, I think, a design, in some ways, to say we are standing together.

MATTHEWS: Was it meant to be provocative?

BACON: I don`t think it was meant to be provocative. I wouldn`t agree with that at all. Yes.

MATTHEWS: What are about the president zeroing in -- the new phrase is calling out, going after Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, the fact that he is using the names of basically personalities, not office holders? Is that something you think is to provoke more trouble? Does he want them to hate him? Does he want them to be the chief haters? I`m trying to be open minded here. You`re on the liberal side. Why is the president naming names?

CORN: Listen, because we all know who the 80 pound gorillas or elephants are in the room. He was acknowledging reality.

MATTHEWS: I think it`s walrus in this case. 

According to LexisNexis, Matthews has referred to Limbaugh as a walrus underwater before, most recently on January 13:

RUSH LIMBAUGH (radio talk show host): (From videotape.) This will play right into Obama's hands -- humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community, the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made to order for him. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there -- could not wait to get out there.

MATTHEWS: What do you make of that? I mean, I've compared him -- he talks like he's a walrus underwater. But yet the words are worse than the sound. What do you make of that kind of commentary, stirring the pot on race in this country, on complexion within the black community, the whole thing, using this tragedy to do that?

For the record, this was six days after the Huffington Post published the viral YouTube walrus video (link withheld for decency).

The video in question was posted at YouTube on March 15, 2009. Three months later, on June 10, Matthews also used this expression: "Doug, it`s not too cartoonish to describe Rush Limbaugh as sort of a walrus underwater."

According to LexisNexis, these are the only times Matthews has used this phrase to describe Limbaugh, all subsequent to the walrus video's posting on YouTube.

In addition to the softball interview CBS's Harry Smith conducted with President Obama on Thursday, the Early Show co-host also played some one-on-one with the commander in chief on the White House basketball court, declaring on Friday's show: "it's not just talk, there's a little action too, as we bring in Clark Kellogg of CBS Sports to check out the President's basketball skills." [Audio available here]

In honor of Good Friday, at the top of show, Smith used some religious language to describe where the game took place: "This is the sanctum sanctorum....I'm not sure anybody has ever really been down there with cameras before." Meanwhile, co-host Maggie Rodriguez pretended that Smith actually conducted a hard interview: "you ask him all the tough questions...Does he then proceed to take it out on you on the basketball court?"

At one point in the game, Smith jokingly asked the President: "the question is – that everybody wants to know, can you go to your right?" Obama replied: "I can go to my right, but I prefer my left." Smith laughed gleefully in response. Rodriguez remarked that it was Obama's "comfort zone."

While teasing the basketball portion of the interview, Smith described Kellogg's basketball credentials: "an All-American and a first round draft choice and scored 51 points in a game...when he was at Ohio State." Rodriguez added: "So he probably did okay against the President." Smith wondered: "who would you be more intimidated by?" She replied: "Well, if it's the White House court with those special balls and the motto everywhere, probably the President." Rodriguez later remarked that the basketball court served as the President's place "to unwind after all that criticism."

Smith touted: "we started playing a game of PIG, P-I-G, it turned into a game of POTUS, President of the United States." He later added: "once he got warmed up...I excused myself from the court. Because Clark [Kellogg] – Clark and the President, they really-" Rodriguez interjected: "That's a match-up, yeah." Smith went on to promote when the game would  air on CBS: "Saturday, during the NCAA coverage of the Final Four, you're going to see the Clark, President, mano-a-mano...they end up having a really fun game...I mean we're talking high drama."

In a fawning interview with President Obama on Thursday, CBS Early Show co-host Harry Smith spoke of the "enmity" of conservative talk radio and sympathetically wondered: "Does it bother you a little bit?" The President replied: "you end up getting a pretty thick skin in this job....I am concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized." [Audio available here]

As NewsBusters' Brent Baker previewed earlier, Smith portrayed talk radio critics of Obama as extreme: "I've been spending time out and about, listening to talk radio. The kindest of terms you're sometimes referred to, out in America, is a 'socialist.' The worst of which I've heard is called a 'Nazi.' Are you aware of the level of enmity that crosses the air waves and that people have made part of their conversation about you?"

In the interview, which aired on Friday's Early Show, the President began to reply: "Well, I mean, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck it's-" Smith pressed further: "It's beyond that."  Obama continued: "It's pretty apparent and it's troublesome. But, you know, keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of – this kind of vitriol comes out."

The President particularly dismissed the "socialist" label, remarking: "The truth is, some of these comments, when you actually ask 'well, this is based on what? This notion that Obama's a socialist, for example?' Nobody can really give you a good answer." Smith feebly suggested: "They would say mandating that people have to buy insurance or something like that." Obama replied: "The sort of plan proposed by current Republican nominee Mitt Romney." Smith smirked at the response.

Obama didn't hesitate to "demonize" his critics: "it used to be that somebody who said something crazy, they might be saying it to their next door neighbor or it might be on some, you know, late night AM station at the very end of the radio dial." At the same time, he later pretended to take the high road in response to Smith asking if the criticism "bothered" him:

 I am concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized. I'm concerned about it when Democrats do it, I'm concerned about it when Republicans do it. I do think that there is a tone and tenor that needs to change. Where we can disagree without being disagreeable or making wild accusations about the other side and I think that's what most Americans would like to see as well.

At the top of the show, Smith preceded an earlier clip of the interview by pointing out the latest CBS News poll: "A CBS News poll out this morning shows the President's approval rating at all-time low. 44%, that is down five points from just last month. His approval rating for handling health care is also at an all-time low. 55% of the people we asked disapprove." Smith cited that poll to Obama and wondered how the President resurrected ObamaCare: "Health care was declared dead a bunch of different times over the last 14 months or so. Besides the efficacy of why you thought it was important to pass it, what made you think you could get it done?"

The President responded: "Well, because it's the right thing to do." Smith added: "But there were plenty around you, even people within that building, who said 'let's do it piece meal, let's do it one piece at a time.'" That gave Obama the opportunity to appear selfless: "The one thing I don't do, Harry, is to think short term based on day to day polls. I look at what does the country need long term."

Smith returned to his original question: "I'll ask you that question, why you thought you could do it?" Obama argued: "Because I have confidence that if you – if you have good policy and you're trying to do the right thing, that over time the politics works its way out."

Here is a transcript of portions of the interview:

HARRY SMITH: I want to talk about health care. Polls still coming out saying American people are not on board in-

OBAMA: A whole week after it passed.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama One-on-One; President Defends Health Care Reform]

SMITH: In significant numbers. Health care was declared dead a bunch of different times over the last 14 months or so. Besides the efficacy of why you thought it was important to pass it, what made you think you could get it done?

OBAMA: Well, because it's the right thing to do. Look, when I am seeing –

SMITH: But there were plenty around you, even people within that building, who said 'let's do it piece meal, let's do it one piece at a time.'

OBAMA: The one thing I don't do, Harry, is to think short term based on day to day polls. I look at what does the country need long term. And what we know is, is that insurance rates in the individual market are going up 30-40% for people if they don't work for big companies. Small businesses are getting killed. We know that Medicare and Medicaid costs are unsustainable. And so my attitude was that if I didn't make an effort now to change how we deliver health care, this country was going to go bankrupt.

SMITH: I'll ask you that question, why you thought you could do it?

OBAMA: Why I thought I could do it?

SMITH: Yeah.

OBAMA: Because I have confidence that if you – if you have good policy and you're trying to do the right thing, that over time the politics works its way out.

...

SMITH: I've been spending time out and about, listening to talk radio.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama One-on-One; President's Take On Partisan Bickering]

BARACK OBAMA: Right.

SMITH: The kindest of terms you're sometimes referred to, out in America, is a 'socialist.' The worst of which I've heard is called a 'Nazi.' Are you aware of the level of enmity that crosses the air waves and that people have made part of their conversation about you?

OBAMA: Well, I mean, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck it's-

SMITH: It's beyond that.

OBAMA: It's pretty apparent and it's troublesome. But, you know, keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of – this kind of vitriol comes out. It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling as if there's a lot of change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority of Americans.

The truth is, some of these comments, when you actually ask 'well, this is based on what? This notion that Obama's a socialist, for example?' Nobody can really give you a good answer. Much less when they, you know, make even-

SMITH: They would say mandating that people have to buy insurance or something like that.

OBAMA: The sort of plan proposed by current Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

[SMITH SMIRKS]

OBAMA: Yeah. So it doesn't make too much sense, it used to be that somebody who said something crazy, they might be saying it to their next door neighbor or it might be on some, you know, late night AM station at the very end of the radio dial.

SMITH: Very last question, does it bother you a little bit?

OBAMA: You know, the – you end up getting a pretty thick skin in this job. And obviously, when you've gone through a presidential campaign there are a lot of things that – that are said that, that thicken you're skin. I am concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized. I'm concerned about it when Democrats do it, I'm concerned about it when Republicans do it. I do think that there is a tone and tenor that needs to change. Where we can disagree without being disagreeable or making wild accusations about the other side and I think that's what most Americans would like to see as well.

In a fawning interview with President Obama on Thursday, CBS Early Show co-host Harry Smith spoke of the "enmity" of conservative talk radio and sympathetically wondered: "Does it bother you a little bit?" The President replied: "you end up getting a pretty thick skin in this job....I am concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized."

As NewsBusters' Brent Baker previewed earlier, Smith portrayed talk radio critics of Obama as extreme: "I've been spending time out and about, listening to talk radio. The kindest of terms you're sometimes referred to, out in America, is a 'socialist.' The worst of which I've heard is called a 'Nazi.' Are you aware of the level of enmity that crosses the air waves and that people have made part of their conversation about you?"

In the interview, which aired on Friday's Early Show, the President began to reply: "Well, I mean, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck it's-" Smith pressed further: "It's beyond that."  Obama continued: "It's pretty apparent and it's troublesome. But, you know, keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of – this kind of vitriol comes out."

The President particularly dismissed the "socialist" label, remarking: "The truth is, some of these comments, when you actually ask 'well, this is based on what? This notion that Obama's a socialist, for example?' Nobody can really give you a good answer." Smith feebly suggested: "They would say mandating that people have to buy insurance or something like that." Obama replied: "The sort of plan proposed by current Republican nominee Mitt Romney." Smith smirked at the response.

Obama didn't hesitate to "demonize" his critics: "it used to be that somebody who said something crazy, they might be saying it to their next door neighbor or it might be on some, you know, late night AM station at the very end of the radio dial." At the same time, he later pretended to take the high road in response to Smith asking if the criticism "bothered" him:

 I am concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized. I'm concerned about it when Democrats do it, I'm concerned about it when Republicans do it. I do think that there is a tone and tenor that needs to change. Where we can disagree without being disagreeable or making wild accusations about the other side and I think that's what most Americans would like to see as well.

At the top of the show, Smith preceded an earlier clip of the interview by pointing out the latest CBS News poll: "A CBS News poll out this morning shows the President's approval rating at all-time low. 44%, that is down five points from just last month. His approval rating for handling health care is also at an all-time low. 55% of the people we asked disapprove." Smith cited that poll to Obama and wondered how the President resurrected ObamaCare: "Health care was declared dead a bunch of different times over the last 14 months or so. Besides the efficacy of why you thought it was important to pass it, what made you think you could get it done?"

The President responded: "Well, because it's the right thing to do." Smith added: "But there were plenty around you, even people within that building, who said 'let's do it piece meal, let's do it one piece at a time.'" That gave Obama the opportunity to appear selfless: "The one thing I don't do, Harry, is to think short term based on day to day polls. I look at what does the country need long term."

Smith returned to his original question: "I'll ask you that question, why you thought you could do it?" Obama argued: "Because I have confidence that if you – if you have good policy and you're trying to do the right thing, that over time the politics works its way out."

Here is a transcript of portions of the interview:

HARRY SMITH: I want to talk about health care. Polls still coming out saying American people are not on board in-

OBAMA: A whole week after it passed.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama One-on-One; President Defends Health Care Reform]

SMITH: In significant numbers. Health care was declared dead a bunch of different times over the last 14 months or so. Besides the efficacy of why you thought it was important to pass it, what made you think you could get it done?

OBAMA: Well, because it's the right thing to do. Look, when I am seeing –

SMITH: But there were plenty around you, even people within that building, who said 'let's do it piece meal, let's do it one piece at a time.'

OBAMA: The one thing I don't do, Harry, is to think short term based on day to day polls. I look at what does the country need long term. And what we know is, is that insurance rates in the individual market are going up 30-40% for people if they don't work for big companies. Small businesses are getting killed. We know that Medicare and Medicaid costs are unsustainable. And so my attitude was that if I didn't make an effort now to change how we deliver health care, this country was going to go bankrupt.

SMITH: I'll ask you that question, why you thought you could do it?

OBAMA: Why I thought I could do it?

SMITH: Yeah.

OBAMA: Because I have confidence that if you – if you have good policy and you're trying to do the right thing, that over time the politics works its way out.

...

SMITH: I've been spending time out and about, listening to talk radio.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama One-on-One; President's Take On Partisan Bickering]

BARACK OBAMA: Right.

SMITH: The kindest of terms you're sometimes referred to, out in America, is a 'socialist.' The worst of which I've heard is called a 'Nazi.' Are you aware of the level of enmity that crosses the air waves and that people have made part of their conversation about you?

OBAMA: Well, I mean, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck it's-

SMITH: It's beyond that.

OBAMA: It's pretty apparent and it's troublesome. But, you know, keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of – this kind of vitriol comes out. It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling as if there's a lot of change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority of Americans.

The truth is, some of these comments, when you actually ask 'well, this is based on what? This notion that Obama's a socialist, for example?' Nobody can really give you a good answer. Much less when they, you know, make even-

SMITH: They would say mandating that people have to buy insurance or something like that.

OBAMA: The sort of plan proposed by current Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

[SMITH SMIRKS]

OBAMA: Yeah. So it doesn't make too much sense, it used to be that somebody who said something crazy, they might be saying it to their next door neighbor or it might be on some, you know, late night AM station at the very end of the radio dial.

SMITH: Very last question, does it bother you a little bit?

OBAMA: You know, the – you end up getting a pretty thick skin in this job. And obviously, when you've gone through a presidential campaign there are a lot of things that – that are said that, that thicken you're skin. I am concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized. I'm concerned about it when Democrats do it, I'm concerned about it when Republicans do it. I do think that there is a tone and tenor that needs to change. Where we can disagree without being disagreeable or making wild accusations about the other side and I think that's what most Americans would like to see as well.

Looks like -- hardly a surprise -- CBS’s Early Show on Friday morning will deliver a jovial and empathetic session with President Barack Obama just three days after NBC’s Today show had a friendly sit-down with the President. Thursday’s CBS Evening News previewed Harry Smith’s time with Obama on the White House basketball court, a segment which ended with Obama successfully hitting a jump shot, to which Katie Couric reacted: “Impressive!”

CBSNews.com features a video excerpt in which Smith despairs over the “enmity” toward Obama from talk radio where he’s supposedly called a Nazi:

After spending time, out and about, listening to talk radio, the kindest of terms you’re sometimes referred to out in America is a “socialist,” the worst of which I’ve heard is called a “Nazi.” Are you aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation about you?

Back to the CBS Evening News, “Mr. Smith went to Washington today, Mr. Harry Smith of the Early Show,” Couric cutely set up the preview, “for a couple of one-on-ones with the President. An interview and basketball.” Viewers were soon treated to Smith’s double-meaning query: “The question that everybody wants to know. Can you go to your right?” As he bounced the ball, Obama maintained: “I can go to my right, but I prefer my left.”

Over video of Obama missing the basket, Smith noted “he doesn't always sink his famous jump shot,” and Obama rationalized: “I've got a few other things on my mind.” Then, after he tried again and succeeded, leading into Couric’s “impressive” assessment, Obama proclaimed: “It's like health care. I always come from behind. I finish strong.”

From Tuesday:

> “Lauer to Obama: How Do You 'Move On' from the Vitriol, Sniping and Threats?”

> “NBC Nightly News Showcases Devotional Obama as Lauer Cracks: 'Spirituality Meets High-Tech!'”

On Thursday's Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan went after the Vatican for criticizing the slanted New York Times reporting on the priest sex abuse scandal: "Blame the messenger. The Vatican blasting the New York Times for telling the truth about Church – the Church and its harboring of sex abusers. It's the paper's fault."

Ratigan spoke with Democratic strategist Steve Hildebrand, an openly gay ex-Catholic, who ranted: "the bottom line is, the Catholic Church for the last couple of decades, has preached hatred, bigotry, discrimination against gay people. But they don't take ownership of their own homosexual problems that exist and have existed for decades. And they need to stop blaming everybody else." An on-screen headline read: "Killing the Messenger; Cardinal Slams NY Times for Vatican Coverage."

Meanwhile, on Thursday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Mark Phillips declared: "The Church, though, has been more direct in its response to the stories being printed and broadcast of child abuse in its institutions. It's attacked the messenger." Phillips later concluded that "The Church is faced with making an argument that is very difficult, that it has changed from the bad old days, at the same time as evidence keeps coming out, showing just how bald those old days were."

In a March 27 New York Times op/ed, left-wing columnist Maureen Down attacked the Church: "Yup, we need a Nope. A nun who is pope. The Catholic Church can never recover as long as its Holy Shepherd is seen as a black sheep in the ever-darkening sex abuse scandal." She later added: "the completely paternalistic and autocratic culture of Il Papa led to an insular, exclusionary system that failed to police itself, and that became a corrosive shelter for secrets and shame." Not exactly a neutral "message."

TimesWatch Director Clay Waters detailed the Vatican's criticism of the New York Times: "Levada made a plea for fairness for Pope Benedict under the headline “The New York Times and Pope Benedict XVI: how it looks to an American in the Vatican,” accusing Times religion reporter Laurie Goodstein “of anachronistic conflation” and of “rushing to a guilty verdict” against the Pope."

Cardinal Levada specifically cited Dowd and Times reporters for their bias: "I do not have time to deal with the Times’s subsequent almost daily articles by Rachel Donadio and others, much less with Maureen Dowd’s silly parroting of Goodstein’s “disturbing report”....I ask the Times to reconsider its attack mode about Pope Benedict XVI and give the world a more balanced view of a leader it can and should count on."

Neither Ratigan nor Phillips featured a longer excerpt of Cardinal Levada's statement. In addition, neither the CBS nor the MSNBC report featured a representative of the Church to address the issue. 

Introducing a segment on Thursday's CBS Early Show about President Obama's decision to open up some new areas to offshore oil drilling, fill-in co-host Jeff Glor warned that some of Obama's "closest allies are especially unhappy." In a report that followed, White House correspondent Bill Plante noted "Environmental groups are disappointed."

However, Plante also touted the idea that the move could help pass unpopular cap and trade legislation, a long-held liberal goal: "Many in Washington see this as a strategy to win Republican support for a climate bill aimed at slowing global warming." He later concluded: "The conventional political wisdom is that this is not the time to have another rancorous nasty debate, like the one over health care, on a climate change bill. But the betting here is that the President's energy policy may make it easier to have that debate."  

At the top of the show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez proclaimed: "President Obama's controversial offshore drilling proposal is making big waves. Critics say the risks are obvious, but not the rewards." In a discussion with CBS political analyst John Dickerson after Plante's report, she did little to hide her displeasure with the proposal: "Let's establish right off the bat that this will not – not even remotely free us from our dependence on foreign oil." Dickerson agreed: "You're exactly right."

At the same time, Rodriguez wondered why Republicans were not on board with the decision: "You would think that Republicans, the 'Drill, Baby, Drill' crowd, would be ecstatic over this. This is something they want. Why didn't they seem too overwhelmed?" Dickerson explained: "this is not a drill everywhere plan, it's quite limited, and that's why their support for him has been limited." Rodriguez replied: "Still, it's still a step in their direction, a step to the Right."

Rodriguez then fretted if that supposed "step to the Right" would hurt Obama with the Left: "Is he doing that at the risk of alienating his Democratic base?" Dickerson shared her concern: "You're right, it is a step to the Right and the Democratic base and progressives are angry with him. Some of the Democratic senators were quite fulsome in their denunciation of this plan."

However, Dickerson saw the political upside: "What he's doing...has three political benefits. He looks like a bipartisan president again...That might actually get a deal on this climate legislation. And if it doesn't, he then can call Republican's bluff and say 'I went in your direction and now you've got to take my own views.'" Rodriguez optimistically concluded: "as we usually see when something is new, there's a lot of anger on both sides. But maybe in the end, in the long term, it will turn out to be a positive for the President."

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

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Also this morning in Washington, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson. John, good morning.

JOHN DICKERSON: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Let's establish right off the bat that this will not – not even remotely free us from our dependence on foreign oil.

DICKERSON: You're exactly right. In fact, these leases in Virginia won't even start until 2012. But the President makes the case that while opening up this exploration won't rid us of our dependence on foreign oil, that combined with a more comprehensive energy approach, it might move America in that direction.

RODRIGUEZ: You would think that Republicans, the 'Drill, Baby, Drill' crowd, would be ecstatic over this. This is something they want. Why didn't they seem too overwhelmed?

DICKERSON: That's right. The praise for the President was muted at best because – the reason they didn't embrace it is because the President is not fully embracing their 'Drill, Baby, Drill' approach. And he argued in the last campaign, that that was, by itself, not enough to solve America's energy problems. And in this case he's cordoned off lots of areas north of Delaware and large parts of Florida and the west coast. He's also exempted Bristol Bay in Alaska. So this is not a drill everywhere plan, it's quite limited, and that's why their support for him has been limited.

RODRIGUEZ: Still, it's still a step in their direction, a step to the Right. Is he doing that at the risk of alienating his Democratic base?

DICKERSON: You're right, it is a step to the Right and the Democratic base and progressives are angry with him. Some of the Democratic senators were quite fulsome in their denunciation of this plan. What he's doing is sort of – has three political benefits. He looks like a bipartisan president again after this very contentious fight over health care and these appointments that were made when the Senate went out of town, that's gotten him a lot of grief from Republicans. Now some Republicans are saying this is an attempt to build that bipartisanship back. That might actually get a deal on this climate legislation. And if it doesn't, he then can call Republican's bluff-

RODRIGUEZ: Right, right.

DICKERSON: -and say 'I went in your direction and now you've got to take my own views.'

RODRIGUEZ: Right, so in the short term, as we usually see when something is new, there's a lot of anger on both sides. But maybe in the end, in the long term, it will turn out to be a positive for the President.

DICKERSON: You're right. And we look at the Democrats who are angry at the moment, but the question is will they be with him when this legislation comes up in the spring, if it does come up in the spring. So right now there's a lot of explosive talk, but we'll see where they really are in the end.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, John. John Dickerson, thanks a lot.

DICKERSON: Thanks, Maggie. 

CBS's Early Show and NBC's Today on Tuesday ignored the arrest of a man who was plotting to kill Republican Congressman Eric Cantor. ABC's Good Morning America mentioned the story only in a news brief in the 8am hour. Last week, however, GMA highlighted threats against Democrats and worried about "angry talk" from Sarah Palin.

The Early Show may have ignored the story of Norman Leboon and the violent, profanity-laced rants he posted online about the "evil" Cantor, but the same show on Tuesday did note the guilty plea of a man who threatened Barack Obama.

Substitute news anchor Betty Nguyen explained, "In Tennessee, a white supremacist has pleaded guilty to plotting a 2008 killing spree against blacks, including then presidential candidate Barack Obama."

GMA, the only morning program to cover the Leboon story, didn't mention that the Philadelphia man also donated to Barack Obama in 2008.

In comparison, last Thursday, the Early Show fretted that the GOP was using "violent rhetoric and imagery."

According to the MRC's Brent Baker, it was ABC and CBS who skipped the arrest of Leboon on Monday night's news programs. NBC's Nightly News only noted the story in an anchor brief.

A transcript of the March 30 news brief on GMA, which aired at 8:02am EDT, follows:

BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Meantime, a Philadelphia man is in custody for threatening to kill Congressman Eric Cantor, the House Minority Whip. In a profanity-laced video rant, Norman Leboon called Cantor pure evil. And said that he would, quote, "receive my bullets in your office." A bullet was fired at Cantor's campaign office last week but police do not believe it's linked to Leboon.

On Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked political analyst and writer for the left-leaning blog Slate.com, John Dickerson, if Democrats were "worried" about the "ton of momentum" behind the tea party movement. Dickerson replied: "What Democrats can only hope for is that tea party activists somehow overreach and that that ends up becoming a stain on the Republican Party."        

Rodriguez agreed and touted Democratic Party talking points on ObamaCare: "Right. And also, if you ask the Obama administration, they'll tell you maybe people will see the few health care changes that are taking effect immediately and actually like them and it'll turn the tide of public opinion."

"That certainly is the hope," Dickerson replied, but then lamented: "The polling right now does not give the Obama administration a lot of encouragement on that front." He explained that the American public was simply afraid of change: "The problem is that people are nervous about change and this is an enormous change in their lives....people really just don't believe it yet."

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

7:10AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Here at home over the weekend, we saw the growing tea party movement kick off this 42-city protest tour against the passage of health care reform with Sarah Palin leading the charge, promising the Democrats that the upcoming elections would be a referendum on health care reform. How worried do you think the Democrats are? Because this is a party that is growing. Look at the number of people there. And it has a ton of momentum.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Politics; Palin Leads Charge Against Obama & Health Care]

JOHN DICKERSON: Well, the worry is that conservatives and tea party activists are energized. And their key argument is that legislators in Washington and the President aren't listening to them and now that this health care legislation has passed that's a perfect piece of evidence in that complaint. And so what they're – what Democrats are worried about in particular is that the opposition, the conservatives, are just more energized, more exercised, and they'll turn out at the polls in November. What Democrats can only hope for is that tea party activists somehow overreach and that that ends up becoming a stain on the Republican Party.

RODRIGUEZ: Right. And also, if you ask the Obama administration, they'll tell you maybe people will see the few health care changes that are taking effect immediately and actually like them and it'll turn the tide of public opinion.

DICKERSON: That certainly is the hope. The polling right now does not give the Obama administration a lot of encouragement on that front. The problem is that people are nervous about change and this is an enormous change in their lives. And then, in addition to that, they saw a political process over a year that didn't give them much reason to be more confident. So now that it's passed, the President's out there stumping, trying to explain people what's in this bill. The problem is people really just don't believe it yet.

RODRIGUEZ: And lastly, how about Sarah Palin campaigning for John McCain and against his more conservative opponent this weekend. You good got to give her props for loyalty.

DICKERSON: Indeed you do. They have maintained their relationship even though there has been this extraordinary out-in-the-open feud between Palin and lots of the top members of McCain's campaign. Ultimately in that feud, McCain had to come out and say he still, sort of, stood behind the former leaders of his campaign. Anyway, all water under the bridge. She's now out there trying to help John McCain, who's in a very tough race.

RODRGUEZ: Alright, John Dickerson. Thanks so much, John.

DICKERSON: Thanks, Maggie.

On Friday's CBS Early Show, news reader Betty Nguyen continued the media barrage against the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict as she proclaimed: "They are circling the wagons at the Vatican, defending the Pope amid new charges that he helped cover up cases of sexual abuse when he was a cardinal."

In the report that followed, correspondent Allen Pizzey treated the Holy Father like a corrupt politician: "The abuse scandal, highlighted with pictures of the Pope, glared from the front pages of every major newspaper in Italy today. And in a clear sign of just how much trouble Benedict is in, only two of them defended him." Later in the report, a headline appeared on screen that read: "Catholic Abuse Cover-up? New Allegations About Pope's Role."

Pizzey noted how the Pope recently "told a Vatican youth rally...that the word of God would show them how to prevent falling into what he called 'the abyss of drugs, of alcohol, of addiction to sex and to money.'" He then added: "But victims of abuse...say the Pope failed to heed his own advice."

At one point, Pizzey mentioned how: "The Vatican has denounced what had it calls 'a smear campaign' against the Pope and his senior aides." Perhaps that campaign included Pizzey's own remark from a March 19 Early Show report, that the sex abuse scandal was "threatening to become a plague of biblical proportions" within the Catholic Church.

On Friday, Pizzey scoffed at the Church's defense: "Using a kind of 'it's not just us' defense, by pointing out that the problem of abuse is widespread in society in general and not restricted solely to the Church." He explained: "Abuse victims who came to the Vatican to protest, derided that stance." A clip was played of Barbara Blaine from the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, who ranted that it was "a very childish response" from the Church.

In concluding the segment, Pizzey took one more parting shot at the Church and the Papacy: "polls show that European Catholics are also beginning to lose faith in the Church. Bringing them back into the fold and increasing awareness of the Catholic Church was one of Benedict's primary objectives when he became Pope."

Thursday's Early Show also featured a report from Pizzey on the scandal, with co-host Harry Smith offering an introduction: "Now to a bombshell report this morning on the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal. Attorneys for a group of victims have released documents that show Pope Benedict and other top Vatican officials knew about one abusive priest in Milwaukee and did nothing." Ahead of Pope Benedict's first visit to the United States in April of 2008, Smith claimed that Americans were "unsure and fearful" of the new Pontiff because of his commitment to traditional Catholic values.  

In the Thursday report, Pizzey noted that allegations of a cover up of the Milwaukee priest's actions were "being laid at the feet of Pope Benedict XVI, almost literally." He continued: "The section of the Vatican that deals with such issues was headed at the time of the abuse by Pope Benedict, then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The victims charge that he initially did not respond to letters from the diocese in Wisconsin and instead of dealing with the offender, the Vatican fought efforts by bishops to oust the predator in order to avoid a scandal." A headline on screen shouted: "Papal Controversy; Report: Benedict Took No Action Against Priest Molester."  

Pizzey concluded: "The abuse victims who demonstrated here at the Vatican today say that the Vatican is still withholding evidence that it got from the United States. They want that evidence released. Words, they say, aren't enough. They want some action."
 

Introducing a report on passage of the ObamaCare reconciliation bill on Friday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez referred to a couple upcoming rescue stories on the show and cheerfully remarked: "And speaking of rescues, the Democrats have rescued health care reform, once on death's door, after putting the final touches, finally, on the sweeping legislation yesterday."

At the top of the show, co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: "Health care reform is a done deal after Democrats in Congress make final changes to the historic legislation." In the later report by correspondent Nancy Cordes, an on-screen headline read: "Done Deal; Obama Health Care Plan Gets Final Approval From Congress."

Cordes played a clip of Democratic Congressman Robert Andrews giving a glowing description of the bill: "Tonight the underdogs won. The people who have been abused by their insurance companies, turned down because they had asthma, or had their policies canceled because they got cancer, they won." She framed the GOP as against helping such people: "Republican opposition in the House and Senate was unanimous."

A clip was played of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham condemning the manner in which the unpopular legislation was shoved through Congress: "The process that led to the passage of this bill was sleazy." Cordes provided the White House defense: "But President Obama, who was in Iowa Thursday promoting the landmark legislation, dared Republicans to keep up their campaign to repeal the bill."

Near the end of the report, Rodriguez wondered about the fate of bipartisanship in the wake of the contentious health care debate: "Now going forward, these two parties still have to work together. What is this going to do to their already strained relationship?" Cordes replied: "Republicans say it's just going to shut down what little bipartisanship is left here on Capitol Hill. They say that issues like immigration, cap and trade, are now in even more jeopardy than before." Rodriguez expressed her frustration: "Ugh, not what the American people want to hear."

Rodriguez followed up: "What does the GOP plan to do next where this is concerned?" Cordes explained: "Well, they've been pushing this whole repeal campaign, repeal the bill, but that's really just an impossibility right now. They'd need to have a Republican president and Republican majorities, large majorities, in the House and Senate in order to do something like that, and so they'll have to wait a while if that's their goal."  

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Health care reform is a done deal after Democrats in Congress make final changes to the historic legislation. We'll hear President Obama's response as he tries to sell reform to a skeptical public.

7:01AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And speaking of rescues, the Democrats have rescued health care reform, once on death's door, after putting the final touches, finally, on the sweeping legislation yesterday. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes has the latest from Capitol Hill. Hard to believe it's over, for now anyway, Nancy.

NANCY CORDES: It is hard, Maggie. And disagreements over health care reform are not likely to go away anytime soon, but the formal debate, as you said, is actually over, with both houses acting quickly to do away with the final prong of legislation.

JOE BIDEN: On this vote, there are 56 yeas, 43 nays.

CORDES: Just hours after the Senate passed the last health care bill-  

NANCY PELOSI: The motion is adopted.

CORDES: It was the House's turn. And just like that, a year long fight in Congress was over.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Done Deal; Obama Health Care Plan Gets Final Approval From Congress]

ROBERT ANDREWS [REP. D-NEW JERSEY]: Tonight the underdogs won. The people who have been abused by their insurance companies, turned down because they had asthma or had their policies canceled because they got cancer, they won.

CORDES: Republican opposition in the House and Senate was unanimous.

LINDSEY GRAHAM: The process that led to the passage of this bill was sleazy.

CORDES: But President Obama, who was in Iowa Thursday promoting the landmark legislation, dared Republicans to keep up their campaign to repeal the bill.

BARACK OBAMA: I don't believe that the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver's seat. We've already been there.

CORDES: And while the voting may be over, tensions remain high among those who oppose and support health care reform. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor's office in Richmond, Virginia was fired on early Tuesday morning. And an envelope filled with white powder showed up at Democratic Congressman Anthony Wiener's New York offices on Thursday.

JOHN MERCURIO [EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE HOTLINE]: Certainly we've seen a lot of passionate opposition to this bill. It's a very emotional, very personal issue, that people, I think, get very, very upset about. Very fearful about what this bill could actually do.

CORDES: Now the bill that passed yesterday contained a major set of changes to the bill that the President signed in to law on Tuesday. Speaker Pelosi will sign this bill today and then it heads to the President's desk. Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Nancy, as you've been reporting all along, Republicans have criticized the Democrats for using reconciliation, this controversial budget process, to get this passed. Now going forward, these two parties still have to work together. What is this going to do to their already strained relationship?

CORDES: Well, Republicans say it's just going to shut down what little bipartisanship is left here on Capitol Hill. They say that issues like immigration, cap and trade, are now in even more jeopardy than before. They don't think that the two parties can recover from this. We'll see if parties are able to work together on anything going forward.

RODRIGUEZ: Ugh, not what the American people want to hear. What does the GOP plan to do next where this is concerned?

CORDES: Well, they've been pushing this whole repeal campaign, repeal the bill, but that's really just an impossibility right now. They'd need to have a Republican president and Republican majorities, large majorities, in the House and Senate in order to do something like that, and so they'll have to wait a while if that's their goal.

RODRIGUEZ: Maybe til' November or beyond. Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill. Thank you, Nancy.

At the top of Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez proclaimed: "The health care debate gets ugly as Democrats who voted for reform report violence and death threats." In a report that followed, correspondent Nancy Cordes promoted left-wing talking points blaming the GOP: "Democrats accuse Republicans of stoking the anger with violent rhetoric and imagery."

As one example of the threats against Democrats, Cordes played phone messages left for Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak: "You and your family are scum....We think you're a devil....I hope you die." However, the Early Show failed to mention any of the threatening phone calls made to Stupak last week, by liberals upset over the pro-life Democrat still being on the fence over the abortion language in ObamaCare. As NewsBusters' Tim Graham pointed out, CBS's own Political Hotsheet blog reported: "Stupak...says his life has become a 'living hell' because of the debate....'All the phones are unplugged at our house – tired of the obscene calls and threats,' Stupak said in an interview with The Hill."

Citing more examples, Cordes noted that Democrats "point to Sarah Palin's Facebook page, which uses cross hairs to denote districts where vulnerable Democrats voted for health care reform. 'Don't retreat, instead, reload,' Palin told fellow conservatives on Twitter." In addition, a picture of the Republican National Committee website appeared on screen, which featured an image of Nancy Pelosi surrounded by flames and the words 'Fire Pelosi'. On Tuesday, Rodriguez asked RNC Chair Michael Steele if such imagery was "a little bit extreme."  

Cordes also cited political analyst Reid Wilson from The Hotline blog, who claimed: "I don't think anybody's seen this level of anger for quite a long time. We saw an anger on the left at President Bush and the Republican Congress, especially around the war in Iraq, but nothing to this level." In reality, vile language and threats of violence were common place at anti-war rallies in the Bush years. 

Following Cordes's report, Rodriguez conducted an exclusive interview with Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and wondered: "How seriously are your colleagues taking these threats?" Hoyer replied: "I think they're taking them very seriously. As you heard, some of the threats that have been made are very, very serious and threaten bodily harm to our members....we need to be very careful in public life that our rhetoric does not turn to incitement of violence or violent acts." CBS spent no time detailing the threats against Republican Senator Jim Bunning in early March, when he held up passage of a spending bill.

Rodriguez went on to claim: "Some Republicans, though, have played this down, saying that this, unfortunately, comes with the territory. When you make a controversial decision, this is par for the course." She did not attribute those comments to any specific Republican and simply asked Hoyer: "Do you agree with that point?" Hoyer responded: "No, I don't think it's par for the course....I haven't seen the level of, frankly, threats or anger or threatening of violent acts that I've seen recently."

No Republicans were featured in the segment. The only GOP response to any of the accusations came in the form of Cordes mentioning: "Republican House Leader John Boehner has put out a paper statement denouncing some of these violent statements." She quickly added: "Democrats want him to do more. They say Republicans need to speak out to try to diffuse some of this anger." Congressional Republicans held a live press conference on Wednesday afternoon denouncing threats against Democrats, the least the Early Show could have done would have been to play a clip of it.    

Here is a transcript of Cordes's report:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: The health care debate gets ugly as Democrats who voted for reform report violence and death threats.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Health Care Threats]

CALLER TO REP. BART STUPAK'S OFFICE: You and your family are scum.

CALLER B: We think you're a devil.

CALLER C: I hope you die.

RODRIGUEZ: We'll have reaction from the Democratic leadership and tell you why the Senate has thrown a monkey wrench into the health care bill.

7:01AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: But first this morning, new developments overnight in Washington. Two things. Law enforcement this morning are keeping a close eye on a rising wave of threats to Democrats in Congress who voted for health care reform. This, as the debate over the fixes to the health care bill took an unexpected turn in the Senate overnight. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes has the latest this morning from Capitol Hill. Nancy, good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Maggie. That's right, the Senate was voting all night long and into the wee hours of this morning as Senate Democrats try to wrap up this reconciliation bill, the smaller package of fixes to the larger bill, before they head home for recess. Now, the Senate Democrats managed to strike down every single Republican amendment, keeping the bill largely intact so it will go back to the House for a vote, but it's expected to be fairly routine. For Democrats in the House, however, there has been another problem, threats that they've been getting since they voted yes for health care.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINES: Health Care Scares; FBI Investigating Death Threats to Dems]

CALLER TO REP. BART STUPAK'S OFFICE: You and your family are scum.

CALLER B: We think you're a devil.

CALLER C: I hope you die.

CORDES: These are just a sampling of the menacing voice mails Michigan's Bart Stupak received after agreeing to vote for the health care bill. Democratic leaders say at least 10 of their members have received violent threats. Windows were smashed at the Tuscan, Arizona offices of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the Niagra Falls, New York offices of Congressman Louise Slaughter.

LOUISE SLAUGHTER: I really deplore what's happening in my country. This kind of violence has no place in American life.

CORDES: In Virginia, tea party activists urged opponents of health care reform to go to Congressman Tom Perriello's home to express their displeasure with his yes vote. They even posted an address online, but the home belonged to the Congressman's brother. The gas line was cut there and police are now investigating.

REID WILSON [POLITICAL ANALYST, THE HOTLINE]: I don't think anybody's seen this level of anger for quite a long time. We saw an anger on the left at President Bush and the Republican Congress, especially around the war in Iraq, but nothing to this level.

CORDES: Democrats accuse Republicans of stoking the anger with violent rhetoric and imagery.

[ON-SCREEN: Picture of RNC website asking voters to 'Fire Pelosi,' with flames in the background]

They point to Sarah Palin's Facebook page, which uses cross hairs to denote districts where vulnerable Democrats voted for health care reform. 'Don't retreat, instead, reload,' Palin told fellow conservatives on Twitter. Republican House Leader John Boehner has put out a paper statement denouncing some of these violent statements, but Democrats want him to do more. They say Republicans need to speak out to try to diffuse some of this anger. Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill. Nancy, thank you.

On Wednesday, both NBC's Today and ABC's Good Morning America exclusively cited the latest Gallup/USA Today poll, which shows significantly more public support for ObamaCare than other recent polls. Both programs failed to mention several polls that continued to show public opposition to the massive legislation.

NBC Today co-host Meredith Vieira used the Gallup poll to grill Republican Senator Jim DeMint, suggesting the tide of public opinion had turned in favor of the bill: "by a margin of nine percent, Americans say it was a good thing that Congress passed this bill. Half describe their reaction as enthusiastic or pleased. 48 percent called the bill a good first step. So who is out of touch with the public? The Democrats or the Republicans?" DeMint replied: "we would expect hype with – with all the hype and propaganda – that we would get a bump....I don't think the anger's gonna go away. I think you're gonna see it continue to build."

On Good Morning America, fill-in co-host Bill Weir noted the poll after Democratic strategist James Carville touted it: "The new USA Today Gallup poll say 50 percent, or just under, 49 percent, say passing this bill is a good thing. 40 percent call it a bad thing." Weir then turned to Republican strategist Kevin Madden and wondered: "Those who are opposed to it, though, are very angry. Will that be enough? Will there be enough steam left in that anger come November?"

Despite media optimism over the Gallup poll, the latest Bloomberg News poll showed 50% of Americans opposed ObamaCare, with only 38% in favor of it. A CNN/ Opinion Research poll found an even wider gap, with 58% disapproving of the bill and 40% supporting it. Neither Today nor Good Morning America reported those findings.

Meanwhile, the CBS Early Show skipped the Gallup poll in favor of the latest CBS News poll, which showed that 48% of Americans disapprove of President Obama's handling of health care, with 47% approving of his performance on the issue. Despite those rather unflattering poll numbers, co-host Harry Smith still did his best to put a positive spin on it:

A new CBS News poll shows President Obama gets a bump from health care reform.... It was time to celebrate at the White House yesterday, as President Obama signed the health care bill into law. The latest CBS News poll shows public approval of Mr. Obama's performance on health care rose 6 percentage points to 47% after the bill passed Sunday night. Overall, 48% of those polled still disapprove.     

In the report that followed, White House correspondent Bill Plante revealed even more abysmal numbers in the CBS poll: "And in the new CBS News poll, the percentage of people who think the new law will help them has gone down from 20% to 16%. While more people, 78%, think health care reform will hurt them, or have no effect at all." But like Smith, Plante also looked for the silver lining: "Still, our poll shows 52% say it's a major accomplishment for the President."

The NBC and ABC morning shows neglected to mention the CBS News poll. 

In an interview with Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele on Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez touted the signing of ObamaCare into law: "the Senate bill...becomes law today. You're going to be stuck with a bill you don't like." She then wondered: "What if the catastrophic scenario that you've been warning about doesn't play out?"

Rodriguez referred to an interview that her fellow co-host Harry Smith had just concluded with White House advisor David Axelrod and asked: "What if, as David Axelrod suggests, now that it's a reality and people start to see the benefits, they actually like it?" Steele replied: "David Axelrod didn't talk about the $506 billion that's being taken out of Medicare....He didn't talk about the $500 billion in new taxes that are going to be imposed on those small businesses....there's a lot in this bill that have yet to be revealed to the American people. And when it's further revealed, it'll be less – less liked."

After Steele's response, Rodriguez felt the need to incredulously repeat: "If it turns out to be the catastrophe that you are predicting." She then criticized the RNC for being too "extreme" in its opposition: "I looked on the RNC website this morning. I have to say, I was surprised by what I saw. The home page shows a big photograph of Nancy Pelosi and in huge block letters it says 'Fire Pelosi' and she is against a backdrop of flames....Isn't this a little bit extreme?...What can you accomplish with this?" A still shot of the RNC website appeared on screen (see picture below). Rodriguez failed to point that in the latest CBS News poll, Nancy Pelosi only has an 11% approval rating.

Steele dismissed Rodriguez's characterization: "Actually, I tamed it down. You know, the reality of it is I don't know why you're surprised. Nancy Pelosi is the architect of the demise, in my view, of one-sixth of our economy. She should be fired for her failure to serve the interests of the American people."

In contrast to Rodriguez's contentious interview with Steele, Smith lobbed softballs at Axelrod. In his first question, Smith seemed to challenge him: "You and your boss have bet everything on this bill. Will you live to regret it come November?" However the question was far too vague and gave Axelrod plenty of room to spin: "No, I'm not going to live to regret it come November, or many Novembers to come, because I know what this bill means....things that are going to flow from this that are going to give people more security. So I have no regrets, nor do I have any fears about November as a result of this."

Smith followed up citing a lack of public support for ObamaCare, but quickly defined it as people simply not understanding the legislation: "you look at the polls, show plenty of Americans don't like this health care reform bill, but if you really look at the polls, they also don't know what's in it." Smith was referring to the CBS News poll, which asked Americans if they were "confused" by the bill, to which 54% replied yes. Turning to Axelrod, he observed: "It sounds like you have a monumental sales job ahead of you." Axelrod replied: "Now the bill's a reality....it's not a theory. We're not dealing with caricatures placed on it by the opponents and by the insurance industry, we're dealing with the reality of it."

In his final question, Smith invited Axelrod to predict victory for the Senate reconciliation health care bill: "Republicans are going to try every procedural possibility to try and stop this as it goes through reconciliation. Do you have any doubts that this will succeed in reconciliation?" Predictably, Axelrod proclaimed: "Well, no, I don't have any doubts that it will succeed....we're moving forward to reform the health insurance system in this country and give the American people more security. And this is a great day."

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez's interview with Steele:

7:06AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Now let's hear the Republican view on the bill being signed today. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is in Washington this morning. Mr. Steele, good morning.

MICHAEL STEELE: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Even if you do defeat these changes in reconciliation, the Senate bill, the original one, becomes law today. You're going to be stuck with a bill you don't like. What if, as David Axelrod suggests, now that it's a reality and people start to see the benefits, they actually like it? What if the catastrophic scenario that you've been warning about doesn't play out?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: GOP Health Care Pushback; State Attorney's General to Sue]

MICHAEL STEELE: Well, it was fascinating listening to David Axelrod describe this bill, because, you know, it reminded me of going to the doctor when you were a kid and you had to get the needle. And before you got the needle, the doctor put a nice juicy lollipop in front of you and said 'now here's a nice lollipop' and as you unwrap it and you go to lick it, bam, he hits you with the needle. And that's what's going to happen here.

Because David Axelrod didn't talk about the $506 billion that's being taken out of Medicare, that's an already bankrupt system that we're now going to extract $506 billion from. He didn't talk about the $500 billion in new taxes that are going to be imposed on those small businesses, that will more than offset any tax credit they get to pay for premiums for their employees. So there's a lot – there's a lot of a needle-type experience that people are going to have while they're sucking on the lollipop that David Axelrod has put in front of them and the reality of it is this is bad – a bad bill. And Nancy Pelosi was right. You know, now that they've passed it, we get to see what's in it.

I don't think that's the way you deal with one-sixth of our economy. Certainly not the way the American people wanted this thing to unfold. And I think every effort should be afoot right now to repeal it, to start with something that's centered on those cost centers that are driving the cost of health care right now, not this massive overhaul of health care, which by the way, included the government takeover of student loans programs around the country. So this government knows no bounds. And I think there's a lot in this bill that have yet to be revealed to the American people. And when it's further revealed, it'll be less – less liked.

RODRIGUEZ: If it turns out to be the catastrophe that you are predicting. And repealing it is not your only goal. I looked on the RNC website this morning. I have to say, I was surprised by what I saw. The home page shows a big photograph of Nancy Pelosi and in huge block letters it says 'Fire Pelosi' and she is against a backdrop of flames.

[STILL SHOT OF RNC WEBSITE ON-SCREEN]

STEELE: Yeah.

RODRIGUEZ: Isn't this a little bit extreme?

STEELE: No, no.

RODRIGUEZ: What can you accomplish with this?

STEELE: Actually, I tamed it down. You know, the reality of it is I don't know why you're surprised. Nancy Pelosi is the architect of the demise, in my view, of one-sixth of our economy. She should be fired for her failure to serve the interests of the American people. This administration and this Congress thumbed their nose at the American people over the last year. Countless town hall, tea party events, 30,000 people on the Mall the day that they're signing this bill, saying 'don't do this.' They did not listen. Their arrogance knows no bounds. And so I've asked people, I'm inviting people to join me in giving us a Congress that will work for the people and not for Nancy Pelosi.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright.

STEELE: Congressman Stupak should be ashamed of himself. So, you know, clearly her reach is strong. And I think that if we get folks to go to FireNancyPelosi.com, help me do it.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Congressman Stupak who was going to vote no but eventually voted yes. Michael Steele, thank you so much, sir.

STEELE: Thank you. 

At the top of Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith proclaimed the passage of ObamaCare: "A major victory for President Obama as House Democrats work late into the night to pass health care reform." A headline on screen read: "Historic Victory."

Co-host Maggie Rodriguez later introduced a report on the legislation by remarking that Smith, who was pleased with his NCAA March Madness bracket picks, was "not the only one who's happy this morning. So is President Obama." She went on to declare: "We begin with Congress's historic passage of health care reform late last night." Rodriguez recited ObamaCare talking points: "Now under this law...insurance companies will not be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. There will be no cap on lifetime insurance benefits and you can keep your children on your health insurance through the age of 26. Also, coverage will be available for uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions."

In the report that followed, correspondent Nancy Cordes began by describing the "sense of relief for Democrats," in the wake of the bill's passage. The on-screen headline read: "Historic Vote; Health Care Reform Passes; Heads to Obama's Desk."

Cordes made sure to highlight the President's role in pushing the unpopular legislation through: "Just before midnight, the President went to the East Room of the White house to hail his party's hard-fought victory....Mr. Obama had been working the phones and cutting deals right until the end. Even issuing this executive order, reiterating a ban on using federal funds to pay for abortion services, which secured six critical votes from anti-abortion Democrats."

Cordes only briefly referred to thousands of tea party protestors who descended on Capitol Hill over the weekend to voice their opposition: "Impassioned protesters swarmed Capitol Hill all day and into the night. Most of them urging members to kill the bill. Their intensity was matched by hours of heated debate on the House floor leading up to the vote." A clip was played of Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner berating Democrats for going against the will of the American people.

Despite the earlier celebratory tone, after Cordes's report, Rodriguez pressed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on the lack of public support for the bill: "The President has what some say is an even bigger challenge, which is selling had bill to an American public, which according to most polls, largely does not support it and according to the latest CBS poll, doesn't even understand it. 54% of the people that we polled say it's confusing. How does the President, considering the facts that the Republicans are out there constantly highlighting the problems with this bill, how does he convince the public?"

Sebelius replied: "I think what's been going on for the better part of a year is a lot of attempts to confuse and scare Americans....I am convinced that once people understand what's in the bill and the fact that a lot of what they've been hearing has never been contemplated, has never been in the bill, that they'll be very enthusiastic about what Congress did last night."

Rodriguez continued to challenge Sebelius, turning to the issue of abortion: "You got the votes needed to pass this after the President promised to sign an executive order vowing that no federal funding would be used to pay for abortion....Do we have the word from the White House this morning that...he will not go back on this order, that it will stand no matter what?" As Sebelius attempted to stick to talking points, Rodriguez interrupted: "But what about the abortion question?"

In a news brief at the top of the 8PM ET hour of the broadcast, reporter Betty Nguyen announced that Democrats were "ecstatic" over the passage of "historic health care reform legislation." White House correspondent Chip Reid agreed with Nguyen's "ecstatic" description and noted that "Republicans are furious and most Americans are simply confused." Reid cited the same CBS News poll that Rodriguez had alluded to earlier: "only 42% of Americans understand the bill, while 54% are confused by it. More Americans believe they will be hurt by the Democrats' plan than those who believe they will personally benefit from it. 35% compared to just 20%." Interesting that CBS chose to portray Americans as "confused" by ObamaCare, rather than opposed to it.

Despite the poll numbers, Reid added: "Still, supporters remain optimistic." A clip was then played of Democratic strategist Tad Devine, who dismissed the bill's unpopularity: "The popularity of this bill is – will inevitably grow and here's why, because the attacks against are going to be muted, they're going stop." No Republicans were featured in Reid's report.

Reid concluded that the President was "going to hit the road and try to explain to the American people that passing health care reform was a good idea."

On Friday's CBS Early Show correspondent Allen Pizzey made the over-the-top declaration that allegations of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church amounted to "a scandal that's threatening to become a plague of biblical proportions." A headline on-screen declared a "Catholic Crisis."

Pizzey was reporting on Pope Benedict XVI's efforts to address the scandal in a soon-to-be published Papal letter, but noted that such a statement "seems unlikely to assuage the anger of victims in parishes ranging from the U.S. to Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and Brazil." Pizzey cited one victim of abuse, Andrew Madden, who argued: "I don't think a pastoral letter is the proper context in which to respond to a report about the cover-up of the rape of children."

Madden has made his opinions of the Catholic Church well-known on Twitter. One of his tweets reads: "Actual photo of the Devil at work in the Vatican," with a link to a picture of Pope. In response to another tweeter complimenting him on a recent television appearance, Madden replied: "do my best, but these really are the scum of the earth, I'd never have said that 6 months ago but I truly believe it today."

Later in his report, Pizzey accused the Pope, once a German archbishop, of being complicit in a cover-up of sex abuse: "In fact, the practice of protecting offending priests at the expense of the victims involved even the Pope himself. When he was an archbishop in Germany, at least one known offender was moved from one parish to another." Pizzey of course provided no evidence of then-Archbishop Ratzinger having any direct knowledge of or involvement in the scandal. Perhaps Pizzey was simply reading another tweet from Madden: "If the Catholic Churh [sic] is to be led by a man who reflects it, then maybe it should be led by a man who has covered up for a priest rapist."

Pizzey concluded his rant against the Church by once again painting with a broad brush: "What really matters is how far the Pope will actually go to righting a massive wrong that just seems to keep on spreading."

Ahead of Pope Benedict's first visit to the United States in April of 2008, Pizzey attacked Pontiff's commitment to traditional Catholic principles: "a man who was once known as God's Rottweiler. As Pope he has not gone out of his way to appease the more liberal wings of the Catholic Church in the U.S."

Here is a full transcript of Pizzey's report:

7:10AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Some news this morning out of the Vatican. Pope Benedict is set to publish a historic letter addressing and apologizing for Roman Catholic priests who've sexually abused children. CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey is in London this morning with the story. Good morning, Allen.

ALLEN PIZZEY: Good morning, Maggie. Well, the Papal letter of apology is the latest effort to save the Catholic Church from a scandal that's threatening to become a plague of biblical proportions. Even Benedict has admitted that the church has been, as he put it, 'severely shaken.'

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Catholic Crisis; Papal Apology on Pedophilia to be Released]

POPE BENEDICT XVI: My hope is that it will help in the process of repentance, healing, and renewal.

PIZZEY: The letter will be released tomorrow, but seems unlikely to assuage the anger of victims in parishes ranging from the U.S. to Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and Brazil.                        

ANDREW MADDEN [VICTIM]: I don't think a pastoral letter is the proper context in which to respond to a report about the cover-up of the rape of children.

PIZZEY: Government-ordered inquiries in Ireland have documented cases of abuses and cover-ups between the 1930s and the 1990s that involve more than 15,000 children.

MADDEN: Children were sworn to secrecy, having made allegations against a priest, and subsequently that priest was allowed to carry on being a priest.

PIZZEY: In fact, the practice of protecting offending priests at the expense of the victims involved even the Pope himself. When he was an archbishop in Germany, at least one known offender was moved from one parish to another. German bishops have now recommended what they termed 'a compulsory registration' of suspected sexual and physical abuse cases to state prosecutors. 'I don't want to blame the Pope,' the Archbishop Reinhard Marx said, 'we as bishops have the responsibility in our dioceses.' Be that as it may, what really matters is how far the Pope will actually go to righting a massive wrong that just seems to keep on spreading. Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Allen Pizzey in London for us this morning. Thanks a lot, Allen.

On Friday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez proclaimed: "After more than a year of debate, Democrats say they're on the verge of passing historic health care legislation." And touted the massive legislation as fiscally responsible: "The government says the final version of the bill will cost $940 billion over ten years, but will reduce the projected budget deficit by $138 billion."

In a report that followed, correspondent Nancy Cordes gave a fully positive description of the legislation: "The final bill would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured. It would close the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage for seniors by the year 2020 and it would penalize businesses with more than 50 workers if they don't offer insurance."
                
After Cordes's report, Rodriguez spoke with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who praised CBS's adherence to the Democratic Party line: "Maggie, what I think is that we have seen yesterday very important information from the Congressional Budget Office, which as you indicate and Nancy indicated, shows that we are doing exactly what we said we would do."

On Tuesday, the Early Show followed a similar pattern, with White House correspondent Bill Plante issuing an ObamaCare press release and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd coming on to praise such slanted reporting: "Bill Plante gave you a really good picture of it....Bill made a good case for this." Neither the Tuesday nor Friday segments featured a Republican to provide criticism of the unpopular legislation.  

Despite the supportive tone during the Friday segment, Rodriguez did press Hoyer on some controversial elements of the bill, such as sweat heart deals for certain states: "Speaker Pelosi went to great pains yesterday to say that this does have equality for all states now. But there's still extra money in there for hospitals in Tennessee, there's still special spending in as many as 11 other states. What happened to the equality for all states in this bill?"

Rodriguez later pointed out the strong public opposition to the bill and wondered about the political fallout for Democrats: "A poll that came out this morning that shows that 50% of Americans say that they're less likely to vote for their representative in Congress come November if they vote yes on health care reform. Is your party prepared to lose the majority over this and potentially even more?" Neither NBC's Today nor ABC's Good Morning America made any mention of such polling data on Friday.

Here is a full transcript of Cordes's report:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Sunday showdown. After more than a year of debate, Democrats say they're on the verge of passing historic health care legislation, but how much will it cost Americans? We'll tell you.         

7:01AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: We begin with the looming battle over health care reform. The government says the final version of the bill will cost $940 billion over ten years, but will reduce the projected budget deficit by $138 billion. House leaders say that Sunday is decision day, but the big question, do Democrats have enough votes to get it passed? CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is keeping a tally on Capitol Hill this morning. Good morning, Nancy.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Maggie. Well, here's where things stand right now. Assuming that they get no Republican votes, then Democrats can afford to lose, at the very most, 37 of their own members. And take a look at our CBS News tally. Right now we're counting 20 Democrats who have already said they're voting no. And 45 who are still on the fence. Those are the ones that the President is working so hard to convince.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Sunday Showdown; House Dems Set Stage for Historic Health Care Vote]

ANNOUNCER: Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.

CORDES: The President is spending these last critical days before the health care vote working to win over wavering House Democrats.

BARACK OBAMA: I urge every member of Congress to consider this as they prepare for their important vote this weekend.

CORDES: He's postponed his trip to Indonesia and is meeting with holdouts, but he can't convince everyone.

STEPHEN LYNCH: I'm a firm no on it.

CORDES: Congressman Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts supported the House bill back in November. But even after talking to the President, he feels this final bill doesn't do enough to curb insurance company abuses.

STEPHEN LYNCH: We're paying the ransom, but at the end of the day, the insurers, the insurance companies, are still holding our people hostage.

CORDES: The final bill would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured. It would close the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage for seniors by the year 2020 and it would penalize businesses with more than 50 workers if they don't offer insurance. Some Democrats have been swayed by Mr. Obama's private talks. Congressman Luis Guttierez of Illinois had been a no vote over concerns about health care access for illegal immigrants.

LUIS GUTTIEREZ: After extensive discussions with the President, I believe I can vote yes.

CORDES: Now a lot those undecided members were waiting until they got a chance to see the final bill and the price tag before they made up their minds. They finally got a chance to see both of those yesterday, and so I wouldn't be surprised, Maggie, if starting today we start to hear a lot of those members announce which way they're coming down. Back to you.

RODRIGUEZ: Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill. Nancy, thank you.

CBS “Early Show” host Harry Smith used the top of the broadcast today to transmit liberal talking points on health care reform without bringing on a single conservative to articulate opposition.

First, CBS Senior White House Correspondent Bill Plante’s glowing description of the benefits of passing health care reform went unchallenged:

It is expected to increase assistance for lower income people to afford health care, increase federal funding for the Medicaid program, and raise prescription drug benefits under Medicare. If the bills are signed into law, they would immediately forbid insurers from setting limits on dollar coverage or canceling policies in most cases. Children could then remain on their parents' insurance until age 26. In 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance. There would be a health insurance exchange and insurers would then not be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. But meanwhile, the heat is really on. The President has been holding some one-on-one meetings with freshman House Democrats to try to persuade them. They are the people most vulnerable to the pressures to get this bill passed.

Instead of allowing a conservative guest to respond or at least pointing out the conservative criticisms himself, Smith turned to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who delivered an uninterrupted monologue on the need to pass the Democratic health care overhaul bill.

“The expectation that we wouldn't get anything done regarding pre-existing conditions, filling the donut hold on Medicare, stopping insurance companies from dropping all together,” said Dodd. “All of these provisions, to lose all of that, I think the public would react negatively, so I think we've got a good chance at passing this bill.”

Dodd also took the time to praise Plante’s reporting:

Bill Plante gave you a really good picture of it. I don't have a vote count, obviously, here in the Senate for you, Harry, but my instinct tells me – just watching this and listening to people – that I think Nancy Pelosi will produce the votes. She's got a wonderful record in doing that. And Bill made a good case for this.

To Dodd’s assertions, Smith merely changed the subject to the financial reform bill, which the Senate Banking Committee chairman seemed eager to address.

Wrapping up the interview, Smith and Dodd exchanged pleasantries about the benefits of, of all things, getting regular colonoscopies.

“It’s a good thing to do,” said Dodd, to which Smith agreed, “It’s the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you.”

The full transcript, from the March 16 Early Show, which aired at 7:04 a.m. EDT, is included below (emphasis mine):

HARRY SMITH: Now to health care reform. The make or break vote is expected to be this week, but it could be a real cliffhanger, as President Obama continues to scramble to get enough votes from within his own party. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has the latest. Good morning, Bill.    

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Harry. Cliffhanger for sure because the votes aren't there yet. The clock is running. The bill will go to the House floor in a day or two. So the President went to northern Ohio to try to fire up the voters to get them to put pressure on House Democrats to pass this bill.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Presidential Push; Obama Puts Pressure On Dems For Health Care]

BARACK OBAMA: We need courage. Did you hear what – did you hear what somebody just said? That's what we need.

PLANTE: Courage because more than two dozen Democrats are the target of an intense campaign by both lobbyists and the White House. Republicans are threatening supporters of the health care bill with defeat in this fall's elections. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, meeting with children's advocates for health care reform, insists that she will bring those members around.

NANCY PELOSI: When we bring the bill to the floor, we will have the votes.

PLANTE: House Democrats are now working on a bill to fix what they don't like in the health care measure that passed the Senate. It is expected to increase assistance for lower income people to afford health care, increase federal funding for the Medicaid program, and raise prescription drug benefits under Medicare. If the bills are signed into law, they would immediately forbid insurers from setting limits on dollar coverage or cancelling policies in most cases. Children could then remain on their parents' insurance until age 26. In 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance. There would be a health insurance exchange and insurers would then not be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. But meanwhile, the heat is really on. The President has been holding some one-on-one meetings with freshman House Democrats to try to persuade them. They are the people most vulnerable to the pressures to get this bill passed. Harry.

SMITH: Bill Plante at the White House this morning. Thank you very much. Joining us from Capitol Hill is Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, to talk about the giant financial reform bill he's trying to drag through Congress. But before we start that, Senator, let me just ask you what you feel like the odds are on this health care bill getting – getting enough votes in the House.

CHRIS DODD: Well, I think Bill gave – Bill Plante gave you a really good picture of it. I don't have a vote count, obviously, here in the Senate for you, Harry, but my instinct tells me – just watching this and listening to people – that I think Nancy Pelosi will produce the votes. She's got a wonderful record in doing that. And Bill made a good case for this. We've gone through the process debate now for months around here and I think people are – the expectation that we wouldn't get anything done regarding pre-existing conditions, filling the donut hold on Medicare, stopping insurance companies from dropping all together, all of these provisions, to lose all of that, I think the public would react negatively, so I think we've got a good chance at passing this bill.

SMITH: Alright, let's talk about financial reform. The bill that you're working on, more than 1,000 pages long. If it does nothing else, can it, in fact, prevent the reoccurrence of banks too big to fail, banks that would require being bailed out by the U.S. taxpayer?

DODD: Absolutely, Harry. That's a major provision of the bill and we've spent a lot of time, thousands of hours. It's two years ago today, Harry, that Bear Stearns was unraveling. And six months later, it was Lehman Brothers on September 15th, 2008. We've had countless hearings, meetings with all the various people and stakeholders. And one of the provisions that we have almost unanimous support on in the committee, thanks to people like Mark Warner and Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, who spent a lot of time on this issue, we will stop forever the notion that you're so big as a company that you have that implicit guarantee that the federal taxpayers or the government will bail you out, that will end with this bill.

SMITH: There are so many other factors, though, in this, and as I say, it's more than 1,000 pages. There's executive compensation, there's rules about the Federal Reserve, liquidation of large companies. Can you get all of that through or would you be better served just trying to do some single issues like the one you just talked about?

DODD: Well, I think we can get it through. It's, again – Dick Shelby said yesterday, the Republican ranking member of the committee, the former chairman of the committee, and I appreciate his comments, said we're about 80% - 85%, 90% together on this bill that I proposed yesterday.

SMITH: Really?

DODD: And that's a very – that would be a little high, frankly, but nonetheless, we're close to getting a lot of agreement on a lot of what you just described in this bill. There are a couple of areas where there's controversy. The consumer protection area, there's a lot of controversy around that, regrettably I might add. And there's some controversy around what they call the corporate governance issues as well. But aside from those two areas, we have a lot of agreement that's in this bill.

SMITH: Senator, thank you very much for your time. You're hard work this morning. Do appreciate it.

DODD: And thank you, by the way, for your colonoscopy effort. I've been through it every three years and I applaud you for it, Harry.

[Laughter]

DODD: It's a good thing to do.

SMITH: It's the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you-

DODD: I think I'm going through it right now with this health – this financial reform bill.

[Laughter]

SMITH: Senator, thank you very much.

DODD: See you later.

SMITH: Good luck with that. You may need some sedation. Alright.

DODD: I think I do already.

SMITH: Alright. Very good.

DODD: See you later.

SMITH: Alright, here's Maggie.

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: I told you, it is the talk of the world.

The White House may have to waterboard its congressional allies to compel enough Democrats to support the health care bill and Congress will definitely have to raise taxes if the bill passes, insisted Bob Schieffer, host of Face the Nation on CBS, this morning on The Early Show. [Audio available here.]

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