Category Archives: Face the Nation

As NewsBusters previously reported, America's media on Saturday had a collective hissy fit over BP CEO Tony Hayward having the nerve to participate in a yacht race on his day off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's what hockey fans call a hat trick!

Nice going, folks.

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

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

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

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

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

An Instapundit reader sent Glenn Reynolds the following:

 

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

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

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

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

7:04AM EST

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

BOB SCHIEFFER: Hey, Maggie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RODRIGUEZ: Allegations.

SCHIEFFER: -without – without foundation.    

RODRIGUEZ: Right.

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Thank you. Thank you, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: You're welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of the June 4 segment:

7:11AM EST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMITH: That's a good line.

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Harry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10:41 AM EST

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

ALEXANDER: Yes, I can.

SCHIEFFER: You can?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10:48 AM EST

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Can you tell us what job?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LAUGHTER]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10:41 AM EST

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

ALEXANDER: Yes, I can.

SCHIEFFER: You can?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10:48 AM EST

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Can you tell us what job?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LAUGHTER]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript:

10:54AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Nope. Nope.

COURIC: Alright.

SCHIEFFER: You're right.

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

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

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

JAN CRAWFORD: Hello.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRAWFORD: Thanks.

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, 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.

On Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer asked columnist Kathleen Parker about her views on the tea party: "the rhetoric that's coming out from the right side, especially from the tea party....you think it may be dangerous." Parker replied: "this heated rhetoric and some of these words...that are pretty loaded, 'reload,' 'targeting'...there's a danger there."

Parker, syndicated with the Washington Post Writers Group, claimed she was not casting negative aspersions on the whole political movement: "I'm not saying the tea party people are violent or racist or any of that....I'm not saying that the tea partiers are bad people or dangerous," but warned: "I just think we have to be very vigilant....and be extremely careful, because I do think there is a lot of anger and it could become something else."

Schieffer brought up internet journalism as a possible source of some of the "dangerous" anger: "some of this really nasty rhetoric that shows up on the Internet....the only vehicle to deliver news that has no editor....And that is the added factor to the volatility of this stuff and where it goes." Parker agreed, and moments after warning of tea party extremism, made this comparison: "It's, sort of, like terrorism. You know, we don't know where to aim our bombs, so we can't go after a country because there are – you know, there's no one place to focus on it. And it's the same thing with – with the Internet. You can't really – you don't know who to go after."

After making such an over-the-top analogy, Parker again warned of hateful rhetoric from the Right: "people who are not well-grounded and who may have these more violent tendencies suddenly find a place where they can convene and find validation and even find company. And I don't know where that all leads, but it's – it's, kind of, scary."

Speaking of questionable stories on the internet, on Friday, the White House went after CBS News over a column posted on CBSNews.com in which author Ben Domenech claimed potential Supreme Court nominee and current Solicitor General Elena Kagan was "openly gay." CBSNews.com editor Dan Farber admitted that the article: "just got through our filters."

Of course CBS is certainly not immune from having false information on its broadcasts as well, as demonstrated by the forged national guard memos ex-Evening News anchor Dan Rather promoted in a 2004 story, in an attempt to damage President Bush in that year's election.  

Later in the Face the Nation segment with Parker, Schieffer turned back to the tea parties: "This is really the core of the opposition to Barack Obama....they have a greater dislike of Obama than even those in the mainstream of the Republican Party." Parker proclaimed:

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

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

10:46AM

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

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

[LAUGHTER]

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

PARKER: That's right.

SCHIEFFER: I'm just teasing. Congratulations.

PARKER: Thank you.

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

PARKER: From the-

SCHIEFFER: -right side.

PARKER: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PARKER: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

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

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

7:04AM SEGMENT:

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

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

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

SARAH PALIN: This is the people's movement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: You bet, Harry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

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

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

7:04AM SEGMENT:

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

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

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

SARAH PALIN: This is the people's movement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: You bet, Harry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10:47AM TEASE:

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

10:48AM SEGMENT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tea Partiers = George Wallace’s Racist Legacies

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

Peaceful Tea Party Rally = Kristallnacht, 2010

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

ObamaCare Opponents = Violent Thugs

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

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

Bottom Line on ObamaCare: We’re All Winners

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

Seems Like a Lot More than a Kiss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read a full transcript of the broadcast here. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bravo, Jake!

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

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

TIM KAINE: Mm-Hm.

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

TIM KAINE: Yeah.

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

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

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

TIM KAINE: Mm-Hm.

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

TIM KAINE: Yeah.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Was that appropriate?

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

In what way is “kill the bill” nasty?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of Plante's report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Maggie.

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

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

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

RODRIGUEZ: Like health care-

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: You bet.

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

For more than a year after Barack Obama became president, there was no word from Colin Powell about a man he described as having “great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature.”  Today, Powell broke his silence.  Did he have the courage to admit his mistake, his blunder, his betrayal?

No.  Speaking on Face the Nation, Powell said he did not regret endorsing Obama, though the former Republican appointee could not bring himself to say much of anything positive about him.  He claimed, absurdly, that the nation is more financially secure since The One took office and that “slowly but surely we are starting to see the kind of improvements the American people wanted and voted for him for.”  Lackadaisical leadership, cronyism and corruption, massive unemployment, soaring deficits, weakness overseas – does General Powell really believe that these are the changes the American people wanted?

Let’s compare Powell’s analytical skills now with his purported sagacity during the campaign.  Just weeks before the 2008 presidential election, he went on television to attack John McCain and the Republican Party.  He then, in his wisdom, endorsed Barack Obama:

“I watched Mr. Obama during this seven-week period.  And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one.  And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.  I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.

Mr. Obama has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people.  He’s crossing lines–ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines.  He’s thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities – and we have to take that into account – as well as his substance – he has both style and substance – he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.  I think he is a transformational figure.  He is a new generation coming into the world — onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

And I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues.  He speaks authoritatively.  He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature.  And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have.  And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand.  And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.”

Can you honestly say you are still confident, General Powell?  If not, the nation deserves an apology from you.  General Powell, Douglas MacArthur’s words from 1962 speak to you today: “the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAROLD FORD JR.: Good morning.

DAN BARTLETT: Good morning, gentlemen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMITH: Running or not running?

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

SMITH: First?

BARTLETT: I won't weigh in.

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

BARTLETT: Absolutely.

FORD: Good to see you, Dan.

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

FORD: Thank you for having me.

BARTLETT: Good to see you, Harold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAROLD FORD JR.: Good morning.

DAN BARTLETT: Good morning, gentlemen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMITH: Running or not running?

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

SMITH: First?

BARTLETT: I won't weigh in.

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

BARTLETT: Absolutely.

FORD: Good to see you, Dan.

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

FORD: Thank you for having me.

BARTLETT: Good to see you, Harold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GREGORY: Was the war worth it?

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

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

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

JOE BIDEN: I bet he did.

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

BOB SCHIEFFER: So, your response to that one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Harry.

SMITH: Alright.

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

SMITH: We'll look forward to that. 

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

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

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

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

Here is the full transcript of Schieffer’s commentary:

10:54AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Never step in front of a firing squad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice analysis, Jan. Good job.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Never step in front of a firing squad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice analysis, Jan. Good job.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

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

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Harry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Strong letter to follow.

[LAUGHTER]

SMITH: Yeah, hold back next time, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Alright.

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

Check out the latest episode of NewsBusters’ Notable Quotables comedy show.

This week we have CBS’s Harry Smith on death watch for the Republican Party, Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift worshiping a new deity, and MSNBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman has some issues with white men.

Enjoy the show!

To see past and current episodes in a larger format, check out the NQ Show Eyeblast channel. 

CBS devoted half of Sunday's Face the Nation to the pressing question of “divisions within the Republican Party: Is there room for moderates?” Fill-in host Harry Smith of the Early Show allowed guests Dick Armey and Ed Gillespie plenty of time to reject his premise, but he forwarded the media's widely-held presumption in a series of statements as he simply cued up Dede Scozzafava, the Republican who endorsed the Democrat in the special New York House race: “Do you think you were too moderate?”

To Armey and Gillespie, Smith cited a list of principles some in the GOP want candidates to agree to in order to earn party support, and then posed a series of loaded questions, such as, “Is this litmus test a good idea?” and “some have called it a suicide pact,” as well as: “Is moderate a dirty word now in the Republican Party?” Smith was also bewildered anyone could consider South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham inadequately conservative: “Can someone with that kind of credentials be not conservative enough?”

Smith told Armey “some people suggest that the Republicans are fighting a demographic battle that they can't win, that this is going to end up being exclusionary...”

At the top of the November 29 show, after previewing his interview on Afghanistan with Democratic Senator Carl Levin, Smith announced:

Then we'll turn to divisions within the Republican Party: Is there room for moderates. We'll talk with former Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and former Republican chairman Ed Gillespie.

All of Smith's inquiries to the three guests:

- The headlines out of the GOP this week, this notion, the Republican National Committee considering a list of ten principles. Some have called them “The GOP Ten Commandments,” which include things like support for the surge in Afghanistan or opposition for instance to the Obama health plan. As a candidate if you agree with the eight out of ten -- with eight out of ten, you’ll get support from the national GOP. And, if you don’t, you're out of luck. Dick Armey, is this litmus test a good idea?

- Ed Gillespie, some have called this pact -- or the idea of this pact as apparently the GOP will have a serious conversation about this over the next couple of months to decide whether or not to adopt it. Some have called it a suicide pact. Is it a good idea?

- [to Scozzafava] Would you have been able to at least get, agree on seven or eight out of ten?

- [to Scozzafava] Yet as a conservative -- a conservative insurgent in your district you ended up ceding the nomination to him. Is this kind of a list a do or die list, in the end counterproductive because in your district – in the twenty-third district, which I'm familiar with, if somebody would’ve suggested a year ago a Democrat would’ve been elected there, they would’ve been laughed at. There's a Democrat who is going to Congress now.

- Mister Armey, did this, did it work, this, the push by conservatives to try to seize control by the people, to seize control, which is a sort of one of the ideas of the Tea Party movement. Did it-work in the 23rd District?

- Let me ask Ed Gillespie this question. Is moderate a dirty word now in the Republican Party?

- Lindsey Graham is a frequent guest on this program. His ratings from the Conservative Union are ninety percent. He's under fire. There’s a big piece in the New York Times today, in South Carolina because he’s not conservative enough. Can someone with that kind of credentials be not conservative enough?

- Dick Armey, some people suggest that the Republicans are fighting a demographic battle that hey can't win, that this is going to end up being exclusionary and you'll end up in a position of not being able to take back the seats you want to take back in this next year.

- Dede, let me ask you this question. Do you think you were too moderate?

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

10:53AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:01AM TEASE:

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

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: I know.

SMITH (Pumps fist): Really.

RODRIGUEZ: And they are fighting back.

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

7:11AM TEASE:

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

7:15AM SEGMENT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Harry.

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

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

SMITH: Really?

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: You bet.

SMITH: Alright.

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

10:33AM

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: Do you plan to investigate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GRAHAM: Yes sir.

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

GRAHAM: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: Islam doesn’t have a majority-

GRAHAM: A corner on that-

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

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

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

GRAHAM: I know.

SCHIEFFER: I’m just suggesting-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy the show and the weekend.

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

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

7:07AM SEGMENT:

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

SCHIEFFER: Good morning to you, Harry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIEFFER: You bet. Okay.

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

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

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

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

Audio: MP3 clip that matches the video.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Sunday’s CBS Evening News, political analyst John Dickerson brushed aside criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney that the Obama administration was “dithering” on Afghanistan: “...it puts Cheney out there as a kind of boogie man the administration can point to. He’s not terribly popular outside of conservative circles...in some ways, Dick Cheney is a gift for the White House.”

Dickerson, who is a contributing writer for the left-leaning blog Slate.com, has also filled in for Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer twice in the last six months, on the October 18 and July 5 broadcasts. He was responding to a question from Sunday Evening News anchor Russ Mitchell, who cited Cheney and wondered: “Are you hearing other sentiments out there along those lines?” Dickerson claimed: “Well, there’s been some elite opinion about the pause in the President’s thinking.”

An October 9 CBS News poll showed that there was more than simply “elite opinion” on the subject: “President Obama has a slide in his approval ratings on his handling of the situation in Afghanistan. In April, 58 percent approved of his handling of the conflict; by August, that number had fallen to 48 percent. In the most recent survey it has hit its lowest level yet, 42 percent.” An October 18 ABC News/ Washington Post poll placed public approval of the President’s handling of Afghanistan at 45 percent, with 47 percent disapproving of his handling.

Dickerson went on to explain why Cheney’s criticism would be a “gift” to the Obama White House: “And also, it allows the administration to talk about the situation they inherited, and the neglect of the Bush-Cheney years. And that neglect is something not just Democrats talk about, but the generals who are fighting this war and trying to win it, talk about that same neglect.  So in some ways, Dick Cheney is a gift for the White House.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

6:03PM

RUSS MITCHELL: For some perspective on how today’s [Baghdad] bombings could affect Obama administration policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are joined in Washington by CBS News analyst John Dickerson. John, good evening to you.

JOHN DICKERSON: Good evening, Russ.

MITCHELL: Can this be seen as a big setback for the Obama administration in Iraq?

DICKERSON: I don’t think so, if it’s – of it’s just a kind of one-off. The way administration officials talk about it is in that way. What would worry them is if this were the beginning of a long string of attacks. But they hope that it’s just one big, ugly event and that things will settle back down again afterwards.

MITCHELL: Of course, the President still has to decide what to do in Afghanistan, send more troops, bring some home, stay the course. Will what happened in Iraq this weekend, in your mind, affect the Obama administration’s decision on Afghanistan?

DICKERSON: There are so many other things to think about on Afghanistan, the nature of the government there, the situation in the various parts of Afghanistan, that this is much further down the list and that’s what administration officials say. So this probably won’t have much of an effect on Afghanistan. However, if the President does decide to add more troops, it does make the environment in which he would have to make that case to the American people a little more difficult. These kinds of bombings remind people of just the carnage that’s associated with more troops overseas.

MITCHELL: Former Vice President Dick Cheney is accusing the Obama administration of dragging its feet on Afghanistan. Are you hearing other sentiments out there along those lines?

DICKERSON: Well, there’s been some elite opinion about the pause in the President’s thinking. The benefits for the White House of having Dick Cheney come out and use the word ‘dithering’ is, one, Senator John McCain came out and said, well, he wouldn’t use that word. And so it puts Cheney out there as a kind of boogie man the administration can point to. He’s not terribly popular outside of conservative circles. And also, it allows the administration to talk about the situation they inherited, and the neglect of the Bush-Cheney years. And that neglect is something not just Democrats talk about, but the generals who are fighting this war and trying to win it, talk about that same neglect. So in some ways, Dick Cheney is a gift for the White House.

MITCHELL: CBS News analyst John Dickerson, as always, thank you very much.

DICKERSON: Thanks, Russ.