NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Martha Stewart Says Sarah Palin Is 'A Dangerous Person'

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:50:43 -0500

Martha Stewart on Friday said former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is "a dangerous person," and "anyone like that in government is a real problem."

Speaking with HLN's "Showbiz Tonight" producer Jenny D'Attoma, Stewart also said Palin is "very boring" and "confused."

Ironically, when asked if she has seen any of Palin's recent interviews, Stewart replied without recognizing the hypocrisy, "I wouldn't watch her if you paid me" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Mediaite):

HLN 'SHOWBIZ TONIGHT' PRODUCER JENNY D'ATTOMA: Now, on to Sarah Palin, why do you think she's so polarizing to so many people?
MARTHA STEWART: She's a very boring to me. Very boring, and a very, to me, kind of a, a dangerous person. I mean, to, she's dangerous.
D'ATTOMA: In what way?
STEWART: She speaks, she's, she's so confused. And anyone like that in government is a real problem.
D'ATTOMA: Meanwhile, they're saying her book is already a bestseller. Do you find it...
STEWART: Good for her. Good for her.
D'ATTOMA: Have you been able to catch Sarah Palin's interviews?
STEWART: Why's everybody asking that? I wouldn't, I wouldn't watch her if you paid me.

Well, Martha: how do you know Palin's boring, confused, and dangerous if you don't watch her?

Typical of liberal elites, isn't it?

Maybe more interesting is how the folks on "Showbiz Tonight" actually defended Palin and bashed Stewart:

Fascinating.

Harry Reid Rips WaPo's David Broder On Senate Floor

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:17:41 -0500

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Saturday said the Senate shouldn't "focus on a man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in a while."

This comment was directed at Washington Post columnist David Broder whose article to be published Sunday and already available online was harshly criticial of the healthcare bills in both chambers of Congress.

Given Broder's well-known stance as a left-leaning writer, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) referred to the piece in his opening remarks to Saturday's healthcare legislation debate noting that the Post's "distinguished senior columnist, certainly not a political conservative, expresses his reservation as a citizen about the steps that we could be about to take."

This led Reid to make his disparaging remark moments later (video embedded below the fold, relevant sections at 1:00 and 8:45):

What a difference a year makes, for according to The Hill, "In 2004, Reid praised Broder as 'a long-time syndicated columnist who is nonpartisan and fair' and last year, he called him a 'moderate columnist.'"

Here's some snippets from Broder's piece that may have changed Reid's mind about the Post columnist:

The day after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave its qualified blessing to the version of health reform produced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Quinnipiac University poll of a national cross section of voters reported its latest results. [...]

Nine of 10 Republicans and eight of 10 independents said that whatever passes will add to the torrent of red ink. By a margin of four to three, even Democrats agreed this is likely.
That fear contributed directly to the fact that, by a 16-point margin, the majority in this poll said they oppose the legislation moving through Congress. [...]
While the CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one Reid has drafted meet Obama's test by being budget-neutral, every expert I have talked to says that the public has it right. These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters.

Yeah, we wouldn't want the Senate focusing on such inconvenient truths now, would we?

Bill Clinton Blames Keith Olbermann for Having to Skip Charity Event

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:17:59 -0500

A major charitable event is happening in Little Rock, Arkansas, Saturday, and former Bill Clinton apparently will not be in attendance because MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has politicized it on his "Countdown" program.

As Arkansas News reported hours ago, "Nine hundred people or more will get free medical attention from noon to 7 p.m. at the Statehouse Convention Center."

Unfortunately, according to the liberal website FireDogLake, Clinton has decided not to attend as a result of some of the things Olbermann has done on his program related to this event (h/t Hot Air):

Bill Clinton told FDL’s Eve Gittelson that it would be problematic for him to attend a free medical clinic being held in Little Rock, Arkansas tomorrow because MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann had “politicized” the event.” He indicated that some were turning the event into a primary kickoff against Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln.
Eve ran into Clinton Thursday in the gift shop of the Clinton Library. She’s in Arkansas covering the Keith Olbermann’s free clinic event, organized by the National Association of Free Clinics. The former President is in town for the 5th anniversary of the Clinton Library. [...]
Eve told Clinton that she was in town for the clinic, which at least 1,500 patients are expected to attend. Clinton said that he had heard about it.

"I really wanted him to come," she said. "So I made my pitch." [...]

Clinton responded that Olbermann was politicizing the clinic, and that it wasn’t helpful for Olbermann to do that. He said he did not feel he could show up now, because the event had turned political. [...]

Clinton replied that the event was becoming political, and that it was clear what was happening: a primary of Blanche Lincoln.

Olbermann, who has invited his viewers to contribute to the National Association of Free Clinics in advance of the event, has said on his show that “I want Sens. (Blanche) Lincoln and (Mark) Pryor to see what health care poverty is really like in Little Rock.” Lincoln has met recently with Joe Biden and President Obama, but has yet to agree to vote for debate on health care to proceed in the Senate.

I wonder if Clinton will be Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" Monday.

ABC's Johnson Recites Canard Lack of Health Insurance Kills 45,000 Annually

Brent Baker — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:06:48 -0500

In contending America already has health care rationing, ABC's Dr. Tim Johnson, a universal coverage advocate, on Friday night's World News asserted “we have a lot of rationing, based on income, the kind of insurance you have, the way you can navigate the health system” and “a recent Harvard study estimated that 45,000 people died each year in this country because of lack of health insurance. If that's not rationing, I don't know what is.”

That “Harvard study,” which the CBS Evening News promoted two months ago, was really produced by the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a left-wing advocacy group which touts itself as “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.” Study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of PNHP is one of five signers of an “Open Letter to President Obama to Support Single-Payer Health Care.”

My September 18 NewsBusters item, “CBS Disguises Single-Payer Group's 45,000 Deaths Claim as a 'Harvard' Study,” recounted:

Trying to boost the rationale for ObamaCare, Thursday's CBS Evening News ran two stories from far-left sources, but the network disguised the agenda behind both. Katie Couric announced that "while the debate goes on over the cost of insuring everyone, a new study reveals the cost of not doing it. The Harvard study says nearly 45,000 American deaths every year are linked to a lack of insurance." Neither she, nor reporter Jim Axelrod, noted that the report was really produced by Physicians for a National Health Program, "the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program."

....with the numbers on screen credited to "Harvard Medical School" and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler identified on screen as with "Harvard Medical School," Axelrod reported Woolhandler "was part of a team that tracked more than 9,000 people for up to 13 years, comparing the health of those with insurance to those without. After factoring in education and income, smoking, drinking, obesity, researchers found the uninsured had about a 40 percent higher risk of death. In 1993, it was 25 percent."

Woolhandler is one of five signers of an "Open Letter to President Obama to Support Single-Payer Health Care" and the CBSNews.com online version of Axelrod's story provides a link to a PDF of the "study" – as posted on the Physicians for a National Health Program's site.

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth caught this exchange on the Friday, November 20 World News on ABC anchored by George Stephanopoulos, following a story on task forces on breast and cervical cancer which recommended fewer and later cancer-screening tests:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Tim, let me begin with you. You know, we see this political debate already beginning. Let's start out with a little reality check. How much is what we saw this week the future of health care, and how much is what's being debated now on Capitol Hill going to accelerate that process?

TIM JOHNSON: Well, George, I'm always amused when I hear a politician imply that we already don't have rationing, that it's something in the future. We have a lot of rationing, based on income, the kind of insurance you have, the way you can navigate the health system. A recent Harvard study estimated that 45,000 people died each year in this country because of lack of health insurance. If that's not rationing, I don't know what is. The real question is, who's going to do the rationing? Will it be 535 politicians subject to lobbyists and special interest groups, or experts who really wrestle with objective evidence? I would vote for the latter.

'Louisiana Purchase' Landrieu Blames ABC Report of $100 Million Buyoff on 'Very Partisan Republican Bloggers'

Jeff Poor — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:30:27 -0500

What's $100 million of taxpayer money between a few U.S. Senators?

After reports surfaced of $100 million for Louisiana was added to the Senate's health care reform legislation, originally from ABC News, and subsequently commented upon by prominent lefties, like U.S. News and World Report's Bonnie Erbe as my colleague Noel Sheppard pointed out, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., took the Senate floor on Nov. 21 to announce she would vote in favor to proceed forward with the Senate Democratic leadership's bill.

She also responded to allegations that $100 million earmarked for the Louisiana was added to that legislation to sway her vote. She referred to the likes of ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl and Erbe as "very partisan Republican bloggers."

"I know that might time is up, but I would like to ask personal privilege for just one more minute to address an issue that has come up unfortunately in the last 24 hours by some very partisan Republican bloggers so I need to respond I think and will do so now," Landrieu said. "One of the provisions in the framework of this bill that I've just decided to move on to debate has to do with fixing a very difficult situation that Louisiana is facing and any other state that might have a catastrophic disaster - let's hope they don't - like we did in 2005."

But Landrieu's assertion that "any other state" would be eligible isn't completely honest, as Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out on Fox News Nov. 20.

"If you look at the sections, it is 2006 in which the Louisiana money, it looks as if it is provision for all states which have had a proclamation of a disaster area in the last seven years, and then the fine print inside eliminates all the others except Louisiana," Krauthammer said.

Still, Landrieu elaborated on how federal aid in wake of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina disrupted the state's economy and this $100 million was deserved.

"In 2005, Louisiana experienced two of the worst natural disasters in recent memory and in an effort to aid the recovery, Congress stepped in with a massive aid package for Louisianans. Thank you, that infused grant dollars in direct assistance. Some of these one-time recovery dollars, in addition to the increased economic activity, were calculated into our state's per capita income. The result Madame Chair has been that Louisiana's per capita income ... was abnormally inflated. You can understand that. There were billions of dollars that came in from insurance, and from road, home and community development block grants. In addition, labor and wage costs went up because there was a constriction in the market which any economist could tell you always happens after a natural disaster."

Based on that logic, a fix was needed according Landrieu to counter this artificial government-created wage inflation. But she claimed that aid was not just $100 million, but an astounding $300 million (emphasis added).

"And as a result, when we did the calculations, under the law, it made us seem as if we were Connecticut and not Louisiana, like we had sometime overnight become rich," Landrieu continued. "That is not the case, Madame President. Our state is still as poor as it was, if not poorer. I am not going to be defensive about asking for help in this situation and it is not a $100 million fix, it is a $300 million fix."

But, she denied that $100 million provision was the reason she had decided to vote in favor of cloture.

"I'm proud to have asked for it," Landrieu said. "I'm proud to have fought for it and I will continue to. That is not the reason I am moving to debate. The reason I am moving to the debate, as expressed - in this statement and in hundreds of statements and speeches I've given over the last year or two on this subject, which should be self-explanatory."

Jews May Get Frosty Feelings as Obama White House Cuts Hanukkah Party Guest List in Half

Tim Graham — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:07:49 -0500

With the holiday season approaching, the latest liberal fashion in media bias by omission will be papering over any hard feelings about White House holiday celebrations. Already (as Patrick Gavin of Politico has pointed out), the Jerusalem Post reported that the guest list of the annual White House Hanukkah party is being shrunk in half, from 800 to 400.

Hillary Leila Krieger wrote "Though several Jewish leaders expressed understanding for the economic and other reasons behind the cut, they acknowledged that it would likely help feed feelings in some quarters of the American Jewish community that the White House is giving them the cold shoulder."

It comes as a different attempt at outreach to Jews -- an Obama appearance before the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations last week -- was cancelled so Obama could attend the Fort Hood memorial service. Krieger added:

"I don't know which people will be more upset about," said one Jewish leader, comparing the disappointment of those who had expected to see Obama speak with those who wouldn't be getting an invitation to the Hanukka celebration.

Given the current climate, the Jewish official continued, "The pressure on the White House to have the right people at the Hanukka party is going to be enormous."

A White House aide said the number is roughly the same as Bush invited in 2001, although that number doubled over his two terms. The Obamas want to have room for "natural growth" of the list over the next few years, he said.

But Bush faced lower demands for tickets. While there were only three Jewish Republican members of Congress last year, there are ten times as many Jewish Democrats, and the number of Jews with strong ties to the Democrats is a larger group, as well. Krieger added:

Still, the Jewish official said, "They want it to be more intimate," explaining that "the president and Mrs. Obama do not want to sit around for 800 photos."

Another major concern was cost, with the Obamas seeking to avoid the appearance of lavish holiday parties during the recession. The need to serve kosher food only increases the cost.

"A lot of people who were invited year after year will not necessarily understand that there's a cost with having kosher food, and not understand why they're not getting their photo with the president," noted one Jewish leader.

And despite the expense of kosher food, another said that cutting down the guest list could be viewed as a snub by the Obama administration at a time when many American Jews are sensitive to White House slights.

One leader seemed upset at the idea of complaints against the Obamas. Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Orthodox Union of Hebrew Congregations, insisted: "As we know from Biblical times, we Jews are very good at complaining," he said. "People shouldn't complain."

(HT to Goyish Ganache)

CBS News.com: Democrat Nelson 'Has Cast Many a Conservative Vote'

Mike Bates — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:58:48 -0500

Yesterday, CBS News.com's Political Hotsheet blog reported on "Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and the Politics of the Health Care Vote." It notes:

The focus is also on some Democrats with doubts, notably Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Nebraska's Ben Nelson, who aren't up but do represent very red states, and Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, who is, and could face a tough test in 2010.

The piece later states that Nelson:

has cast many a conservative vote in representing a state that, while historically willing to send Democrats to the Senate, is nonetheless firmly Republican overall.

Many a conservative vote? According to interest group ratings compiled by Project Vote Smart, for 2008 the American Conservative Union assigned Nelson a rating of 16. The National Taxpayers Union gave him a rating of F. Nelson received a 100 from the liberal AFL-CIO for 2008 and an A for 2007-2008 from the liberal National Education Association. For 2007, Nelson racked up a 5 with Americans for Tax Reform.

Quite clearly, Nelson's voting record isn't conservative. It appears that at CBS News, as in much of the mainstream media, a conservative is anyone to the right of Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm. Mmm. Mm!

Bonnie Erbe Shockingly Bashes Mary Landrieu's $100 Million Bribe

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:52:54 -0500

U.S. News and World Report's Bonnie Erbe came down strongly Friday on the $100 million "bribe" given to Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) in the Senate's healthcare reform bill.

What makes this shocking is Erbe's consistently far-left leaning views regularly reported by NewsBusters.

Readers are advised to strap themselves in tightly, for the following blog posting by Erbe is quite a departure from her normal liberal views:

I know politics is the art of the possible and compromise is key. But I'm sickened by the taxpayer cash being doled out as "walking around money" to lure Democrats into the healthcare fold. Here's what the Wall Street Journal said:

Take Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. She's now likely to vote with Mr. Reid on Saturday after an amendment was inserted to increase her state's federal Medicaid subsidies by $100 million. The amendment devotes two pages to language making certain that only Louisiana would be entitled to the extra cash.

A Senator's healthcare vote should be based on whether he or she believes in public subsidies, from middle class and wealthy taxpayers, to provide healthcare for low income Americans. It should not be based on the government equivalent of a bribe.

Well, moments ago Landrieu on the Senate floor agreed to vote in favor of debating the healthcare legislation.

Regardless of her claim that these funds going to her state had nothing to do with her decision, her dramatic change of heart on this matter suggests otherwise.

But there were still more shocks to come from Erbe:

Who loses on both ends of this type of deal? Middle class taxpayers, that's who. We are the ones who get taxed ad nauseam and unlike wealthy taxpayers, we can ill afford higher taxes.

Healthcare needs fixing in this country. Insurance companies have gotten away too long with scams such as "preexisting conditions" and charging certain customers more because they happen to be old or happen to be female. That does not mean we need the wholesale sea change proposed by the Obama administration which includes cheap insurance premiums funded by the federal government for people who claim they can't afford insurance.

Readers are encouraged to review previous NewsBusters articles on Erbe to fully appreciate just how shocking the positions she expressed Friday are.

John King: Holder Didn't Want To Admit KSM Trial Precedent Setting

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:55:52 -0500

CNN's John King on Thursday claimed Attorney General Eric Holder intentionally avoided Sen. Lindsey Graham's "stumping" question during the previous day's Senate Judiciary Committtee hearing because he didn't want to admit that trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 suspects in a criminal courtroom is indeed precedent setting.

As NewsBusters reported Wednesday, Holder appeared stumped when Graham asked, "Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?"

Speaking with WOR radio's Steve Malzberg Thursday, King said, "He knew the answer to the question. He just wasn't going to say it because...he did not want to be the one saying this is the first time we've ever done this" (15-minute audio available here, relevant section at 6:50, partial transcript follows along with embedded video of Graham-Holder exchange):

STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: I want you to comment on this. This was Eric Holder's testimony yesterday before the Senate Judiciary committee on, you know, moving the trials of the five skunks in my view including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York City. Now, Sen. Graham asked Eric Holder this. This was the Q&A. To me, this is, this is the huge headline. This is what he said about Osama bin Laden also possibly being tried in New York City if they catch him. But listen to this, cut, play the cut.
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.

MALZBERG: How could the Attorney General of the United States, who said that he labored with this decision, and he went over the facts, and he studied, and he labored, and he took months, and he talked to people. How could he not know the first thing any two-bit lawyer would ask in making a decision or trying to make a decision, or advising on a decision, has this ever happened before? How could the Attorney General of the United States, first of all, six seconds of silence, and he couldn't, "I don't know, I'll have to get back to you?" How, that's question number one. And question number two is I reported on this, I did this all day yesterday. National Review, Andy McCarthy reported on this. Even NPR. But the networks, not one of them ran this sound bite. Not one of them pointed out that this is an incompetent Attorney General who couldn't answer a basic, basic question. What's your take on this?

JOHN KING, CNN: Well, let me do it in reverse order. I'll run it Sunday, there's my promise to you and we'll talk about it on "State of the Union." Here's my, I don't like to read minds. We've had this conversation in the past. But, here's my bet, 21 years Washington experience. He knew the answer to the question. He just wasn't going to say it because he did not want, he did not want to be the one saying this is the first time we've ever done this because that adds to the. Look, this is controversial. This is a big deal. This is a risk for the Administration, and it is a step that Sen. Graham and others, and Sen. Graham and listeners don't know that, is an accomplished military attorney. He still goes back in the Reserves and deals with this type of issues. Goes to Iraq and helps out over there. His point is, you know, this is why we created military justice systems. This is why it exists, when you scoop somebody off the battlefield, that is where they are tried. If you get scooped up on the streets of New York City, you are tried in New York City. Eric Holder did not want to wander down the path and add to the controversy about this. That would be my 99.9 percent bet on that one.

Fascinating.

Here's the video of the Graham-Holder exchange:

Is King right? Is that why Holder refused to answer the question?

If King's right, why aren't more media members reaching such a conclusion and asking for Holder's elaboration on the matter?

Tax Increase Campaign Item 3: Wars Cost Money And Rich Must Pay, MI Senator Levin Tells Bloomberg

Tom Blumer — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:37:22 -0500

At this point, there should be little doubt that there is a concerted attempt underway to use the war in Afghanistan as a justification for punitively taxing high earners.

Last weekend (noted at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), the New York Times discovered that wars cost money. It cited Wisconsin Democratic Congressman David Obey's concern that funding the Afghanistan effort at the level requested months ago by General Stanley A. McChrystal would "devour virtually any other priorities that the president or anyone in Congress had."

Thursday, as reported by AFP (noted last night at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), House Democratic heavy-hitters Barney Frank, John Murtha, and (no surprise) Obey announced the "Share The Sacrifice Act of 2010," an income-tax surcharge that overwhelmingly targets high-income earners.

Now Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin has weighed in. Bloomberg dutifully carried his water, as seen in this graphic containing the first four paragraphs of the report:

Levin, as is the custom of his party, confuses "wealth" with "income." The Michigan Senator also attempts to perpetuate the rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer income-inequality myth, which is indeed a myth, at least as of 2007. Since Democrats took over Congress and Barack Obama has become president, that may have changed. Income inequality increased during Bill Clinton's 2nd through 8th years in office (measurement methods were changed during his first year in office).

Levin's idea further supports my take on all of this, mentioned yesterday:

.... the administration is putting the idea out there now as a prelude to justifying what it and Democrats in general have been referring to as an end to the Bush tax cuts -- something that should really be seen as a tax increase above what everyone has gotten used to during the past six years -- as necessary to pay for the Afghanistan War, and to try to rhetorically hogtie gullible conservatives into acquiescing to it ("You do want our soldier to have what they need, do you not? Then you'll just have to agree to let taxes increase").

The likelihood that all three parties involved -- the Times, the House members, and Senator Levin -- all had independent "Eureka!" moments leading suddenly to the notion that taxing "the rich" to pay for the war is the way to go is very, very tiny.

The likelihood that anyone in the establishment media will look into and confirm that there is an orchestrated campaign to tie the war effort to a tax hike on high earners, and to see who is behind it, is even tinier.

What would really be worth knowing is whether President Obama's obvious dithering on an Afghanistan War troop deployment decision has been purposeful. Has he been biding his time all these months specifically for the purpose of pushing a year-end "war-related" tax increase"? The likelihood that the establishment media will ever look into this possibility is miniscule to non-existent.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Saturday Sports Open Thread

NB Staff — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:25:04 -0500

What are today's biggest Big games and biggest upsets?

Open Thread

NB Staff — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:19:51 -0500

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: WHAT ELSE?

SENATE DEBATES HEALTHCARE REFORM

ON CSPAN 2 RIGHT NOW

NYT: New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Working

P.J. Gladnick — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:01:23 -0500

Once I built a railroad, I made it run, made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad; now it's done. Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower, up to the sun, brick, and rivet, and lime;
Once I built a tower, now it's done. Brother, can you spare a dime?

Forget about the Great Recession. Pay no heed to home foreclosures. Ignore double digit unemployment.

The stimulus package is working! That is thrust of a New York Times article written from the alternate economic universe. Here is the happy face appraisal of the stimulus package presented by Times writers Jackie Calmes and Michael Cooper who counter the criticism of that program with this gem:

But with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.

Unemployment? Not to worry. President Obama is "roughly on track" to solve this problem next year with his magic wand:

The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama’s promise to “save or create” about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.

What you think of as a poor economic program is mostly an illusion because without the stimulus package things would have been much worse according to one economist:

“It was worth doing — it’s made a difference,” said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass.

Mr. Gault added: “I don’t think it’s right to look at it by saying, ‘Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn’t work.’ I’m afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus.”

Worse? Well check the unemployment graph below. The light blue line represents projections made by the Obama economic team early this year about where the unemployment rate would go without their stimulus package. The dark blue line represents where the same team predicted the unemployment rate would go with their stimulus package. And, oops, those nasty red dots represent where the unemployment rate actually went. Note that with the stimulus package the October unemployment rate should have been just under 8% which would have been great. Unfortunately the red dot of reality shows that the October unemployment rate ended up at 10.2%, the first double digit unemployment rate in over 25 years.

And any failure of the stimulus package is due to...Republicans. I kid you not:

Even the $787 billion price tag overstates the plan’s stimulus value given changes made in Congress, economists say. Nearly a tenth of the package, $70 billion, comes from a provision adjusting the alternative minimum tax so it does not hit middle-income taxpayers this year. That routine fix, which would do nothing to stimulate the economy, was added in part to seek Republican votes. But to keep the package’s overall cost down, provisions that would stimulate the economy — like aid to revenue-starved states and infrastructure projects — got less as a result.

Bad Republicans! Whatever the failure in Obama's beautiful stimulus package, it's your fault because we had to placate you. Bad Republicans!

However, despite those wascally Wepublicans, the stimulus is working just fine according to economist Mark Zandi:

Even so, “the stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do — it is contributing to ending the recession,” he added, citing the economy’s third-quarter expansion by a 3.5 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate. “In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent. And there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than would have been out there without the stimulus.”

But what of that inconvenient chart showing unemployment with and without the stimulus plus the unfortunate results of what actually happened, Mark? Eh, never mind. Why interrupt him with the inconvenient truth when he is on an alternate reality comedy roll?

And as to the unemployment charts showing Obama unemployment claims versus brutal reality, the Times writers sound annoyed with Republicans for even bringing up that ugly truth:

Politically, however, the president is saddled with his original claim that, with the stimulus, the jobless rate would peak at 8.1 percent — a miscalculation that Republicans constantly recall. While the administration has said its economic assumptions were in line with private forecasts, most of which also underestimated the recession’s punch, it was more optimistic than most.

Oh, just a "miscalculation?" And will you Republicans quit bringing this up? He made a bit of a mistake and you guys just keep pointing out what actually happened with unemployment. No fair! Plus it keeps people from focusing on just how wonderful the stimulus package is:

Christina D. Romer, chairwoman of Mr. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said attention to that too-rosy projection “prevents people from focusing on the positive impact of the fiscal stimulus. So of course I find that frustrating.”

And now for one last slam at those nasty Republicans who caused a blemish on what would have otherwise been a perfect stimulus package:

...most temporary tax cuts cost more than the stimulus they provide, according to research by Moody’s. That is true of two tax breaks in the stimulus law that Congress, pressed by industry lobbyists, recently extended and sweetened — a tax credit for homebuyers (90 cents of stimulus for each dollar of tax subsidy) and extra deductions for businesses’ net operating losses (21 cents).

Economists said Republicans’ recent proposals to rescind unspent money would be a mistake.

Yecch! Giving money back to the taxpayers? What a horrible idea!

Bad Republicans! We're going to slap you over the head with a newspaper and stick your noses into the economic mess you made this year. Your fault! Bad Republicans! Bad!

Bozell Column: Words for Potent Jerks

Brent Bozell — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:36:05 -0500

It is amazing how a phrase can emerge seemingly out of nowhere to become the statement du jour – used, overused, and ultimately abused. Last year there was "low hanging fruit" everywhere. Today everyone’s being "thrown under the bus."

Sometimes, it’s just one word.

"As a writer, you’re always reaching for a more potent way to call somebody a jerk," Dan Harmon, the creator of the new NBC sitcom "Community" told The New York Times. In a surprisingly controversial front-page story on November 14, Times reporter Edward Wyatt tried to identify the zeitgeist by one hot "potent" word for jerk: "douche."

In total, the word has surfaced at least 76 times already this year on 26 prime-time network series, according to research by the Parents Television Council, which compiled the statistics at the request of The New York Times. That is up from 30 uses on 15 shows in all of 2007 and just six instances on four programs in 2005.

Dan Harmon from NBC explained: "This is a word that has evolved in the last couple of years — a thing that sounds like a thing you can’t say."

The word has "evolved" so much that the excuse-makers for trashy talk are suggesting that hip teens today don’t even mean to toss the word in a vulgar way, since they probably don’t even know the word’s feminine-hygiene origins. Which raises the question: then how would it "sound like a thing you can’t say"? How would it have any naughtiness attached to it?

Bloggers and trashy gossip sites scolded the Times for using a scold like PTC in its story. One even implied the Times should hire its own staff to watch the five broadcast networks for nine months at a time to avoid any association with annoying pressure groups who scandalously fail to love all the vulgar words. But the story was another fascinating episode in Hollywood’s ridiculous attempts to explain itself when this kind of raw data is exposed in the nation’s most prestigious establishment newspaper.

When confronted by questions about D-word-employing shows in the "family hour" like her network’s "The New Adventures of Old Christine," Nina Tassler, the president of CBS Entertainment, commented that the "family hour" was antiquated and CBS shows "merely reflect a different family dynamic."

That "different dynamic" is the assumption that families don’t watch television together, and that if anyone under 12 is watching sleazy shows at 8 pm, it’s the fault of careless parents, not the blameless vulgarity distributors. (It was just last year that Tassler was touting their CBS Seventies-polyester-orgy flop "Swingtown" as "something fun and fresh in the summer...the summer gives you a kind of different license." She said that sensationalistic series was right in her "sweet spot." )

But there were funnier quotes in the Times story. "We are still in the line-drawing business," said Martin D. Franks, executive vice president for planning, policy and government relations at the CBS Corporation. "We may not have a formal family hour at 8 o’clock, but we are trying to be respectful of our audience and who makes up our audience at a particular time of day."

Forget it. The Times reported that recent research by Barbara K. Kaye of the University of Tennessee and Barry S. Sapolsky of Florida State University found that in 2005 television viewers were more likely to hear offensive language during the 8 pm and 9 pm hours than at 10 pm.

The Times also found that TV producers think the recent "evolution" of cable stations re-running bedtime shows in mid-afternoon isn’t a reason for more caution, but a reason for more carelessness. Neal Baer, an executive producer of the sex-crimes show "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," said that because his show was repeated in syndication and on cable during daytime hours, producers "could not worry" about who might see it. "It’s hypocritical to say that you have to have shows on broadcast networks at 10, but they run at 3 or 4 or 5 in the afternoon on cable," Mr. Baer said. "Kids have access to cable." In fact, TNT will run an "SVU" marathon all day on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

People need to listen to Hollywood, for their words may be foul, but they are quite clear. Hollywood believes broadcast standards aren’t fair. They are not in the line-drawing business. The only use for rules is to break them for fun and profit. The only use for words in a script is to search for "a thing that sounds like a thing you can’t say."

'Screaming' Time Writer Tells Maddow It Was Army Corps of Engineers Who Killed '1,000' During Katrina

Tim Graham — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:22:22 -0500

You could call it progress in media bias. For years, liberal journalists have blamed Team Bush for the death of hundreds in Hurricane Katrina. The major media found that theme of fatal incompetence simply irresistible. Time’s Michael Grunwald, who has written in-depth articles and a book about the Army Corps of Engineers, is bringing the focus back to long-standing government policies over decades.

But even Grunwald is using harsh language that Time magazine would usually disparage as talk-radio bluster. He said "Hurricane Katrina was a man-made disaster. And some of us have been screaming about that for several years...those of us who have followed this -- you know, we‘re angry about the Army Corps killing 1,000 people."

The occasion to revisit Katrina came from federal District Judge Stanwood Duval, who ruled in favor of plaintiffs who sued the federal government for compensation over hurricane damage. Duval charged the Army Corps with "monumental negligence" in its maintenance of a man-made shipping channel called the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet:

MADDOW: First of all, let me ask you if I've just got the essentials right. I mean, this is history and law and science. And I don't pretend that I totally understand all of this. Have I misstated anything?

GRUNWALD: I think you got the basics, Rachel. I think, you know, Hurricane Katrina was a manmade disaster. And some of us have been screaming about that for several years.

Now, unfortunately, the main problems that the Army Corps had involved this sort of the way they built the levees, the way they designed them, the way they engineered them. The levees were a mess. But you can‘t sue them over the levees.

It is true that this Mississippi River gulf outlet did sort of intensify and amplify and increase the velocity of the storm surge. Everybody always knew that this was really kind of a hurricane highway pointed at the city‘s gut.

So that sort of provided a loophole for this judge to say, "Hey, the Army Corps -- you‘re allowed legally to screw up your flood protection, but you can‘t build a navigation channel." It‘s like if, you know, a Navy cruiser bumped into these levees and broke them, you know, the Navy would be responsible.

MADDOW: Well, as you say, the narrowness of this ruling is mostly because of the legal constraints here and the legal precedents and the laws that prohibit you from suing them for some other specific things. But despite that narrowness, do you see this as having a bigger political impact than just the potential for people being paid compensation?

GRUNWALD: Well, it‘s interesting. I mean, you could sort of sense in the judge‘s anger at the Army Corps, which he felt was misleading him, you know, was sort of cooking the books to try to make the case that the gulf outlet didn‘t matter, which has really been a pattern with the Army Corps.

And of course, you know, those of us who have followed this -- you know, we‘re angry about the Army Corps killing 1,000 people. Now, that said, it‘s really hard to make the case that the Mississippi River gulf outlet is the -- you know, the best example or even, you know, a primary example of the way that the corps screwed up.

But you know, I think this will provide a hook for people to say, "Hey, you know, the federal government did this. You know, this wasn‘t the fault of people living in harm‘s way. They were put in harm‘s way. Now, what can we do about it?"

This is where liberal journalists fail to be moderate enough to be trusted by political independents. It's scientifically ridiculous to insist Katrina was a "man-made disaster," as if the Bush administration or the Army Corps created the hurricane and directed it into New Orleans.

It's liberal political pandering to insist that there people living "in harm's way" should never be judged as irresponsible for failing to evacuate.

Krauthammer on Landrieu $100 Million 'Louisiana Purchase' Buyoff: 'It's a New Kind of Business as Usual'

Jeff Poor — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:26:04 -0500

Remember earlier this year when the new era of hope and change was ushered into Washington, D.C. and President Barack Obama made the statement on day one his policies would "represent a clean break from business as usual"?

Not so fast says Charles Krauthammer, columnist for The Washington Post and Fox News regular. Krauthammer on the Nov. 20 broadcast of Fox News "Special Report with Bret Baier" explained that a certain provision put into to the Senate version of health care legislation to favor undecided Democratic senators, specifically Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., represents a different brand of politics from what Obama advertised (emphasis added).

"You asked what [Sen.] Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas will ask for," Krauthammer said. "Well, after watching Louisiana get $100 million in what have some have called 'The Louisiana Purchase,' she ought to ask for $500 million at least. And that's because Obama said he would end business as usual in Washington. If you look at the sections, it is 2006 in which the Louisiana money, it looks as if it is provision for all states which have had a proclamation of a disaster area in the last seven years, and then the fine print inside eliminates all the others except Louisiana. So it's a new kind of business as usual. I think that Steve [Hayes] is right. There is almost no way imaginable that the vote will fail tomorrow. If it is, it is the ultimate humiliation. It's the rejection of the debate even before it starts."

Krauthammer explained the ultimate passage of this bill in the U.S. Senate isn't a foregone conclusion - there are still some questions about abortion that could alter votes in the end.

"I think the Democrats who, even Lincoln who will have to be for re-election, will have a second shot at killing the bill later after the amendments," Krauthammer continued. "All of this is, are we going to have the beginning of a debate? Now, you've got Nelson, who is against the abortion provisions. He will allow a debate, but if it's not changed in the course of these amendments, he will oppose the bill at the end, which is why I think the bill at the end is going to strip out all the abortion stuff."

The other issue beyond abortion that could alter the outcome is the public option, a policy issue pushed by many on the far left, but could change one or two votes, according to the Post columnist.

"And then on the private -- on the public option, they're going to lose Lieberman in the end, not tomorrow night, but in the end if it stays in. But they could possibly gain Olympia Snowe of Maine if a trigger is in," Krauthammer continued. "So it can in the end pass, but it has to be amended in precisely the right way."

AFP Writes Up Proposed Tax With 'Next to No Chance' of Passage to Set Stage For the Real Thing

Tom Blumer — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:59:14 -0500

You've got to hand it to the propagandists at the AFP. When heavy-hitting members of the party they favor announce an idea whose main purpose is, as the New York Times suddenly "discovered" last weekend, to remind people that wars cost money and distract from supposedly more important priorities, the wire service leaps into action.

Even AFP acknowledges that the tax proposal by several top-tier Democrats has no chance of becoming law. But again, that's not the point. Their proposal's purpose is to remind people that spending money on wars supposedly takes money out of the mouths of children and other living things, even those in non-existent congressional districts, and to attempt to make the climate for increasing taxes in the near future more favorable.

Here are key paragraphs of the unbylined report (bolds are mine):

US lawmakers: New tax should pay for Afghan war

Influential US lawmakers on Thursday called for levying a new income tax to pay for the war in Afghanistan, warning its costs pose a mortal threat to efforts like a sweeping health care overhaul.

"Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for," the lawmakers, all prominent Democratic allies of President Barack Obama, said in a joint statement.

The proposed "Share The Sacrifice Act of 2010" came with Obama set to announce within weeks his decision on whether to send more US troops to fight the war, now in its ninth year.

The group included House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey; Representative John Murtha, who chair that panel's defense subcommittee; and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank.

The proposal, a heavily symbolic measure seen as having next to no chance of becoming law, would impose a war surtax on income beginning in 2011 -- though it would allow the president to delay implementation by one year upon deciding the US economy is too weak to sustain such a tax shift.

..... If the war is not paid for, its costs "will devour money that could be used to rebuild our economy by fixing our broken health care system, expanding educational opportunities and job training possibilities, attacking our long term energy problems and building stronger communities," they said.

The measure would create a three-tiered change in income tax with the goal of paying for all of the war's costs. Couples earning up to 150,000 dollars per year would see a one-percent increase in their regular tax level, from 15 percent currently to 15.15 percent.

For those making between 150,000-250,000 dollars per year or 250,000 dollars or above, the president would have to set the rate increase high enough to pay for the remaining war costs, and in such a way that the middle-tier earners pay half what the top earners do.

Currently, the war costs roughly 68 billion dollars per year, which would mean that the middle tier would see its rate rise from 28 percent to 29.5 percent, while the top would climb from 33 percent to 36.6 percent, according to a person familiar with the plan.

The numbers and spin in the final paragraph would appear to indicate that the administration is putting the idea out there now as a prelude to justifying what it and Democrats in general have been referring to as an end to the Bush tax cuts -- something that should really be seen as a tax increase above what everyone has gotten used to during the past six years -- as necessary to pay for the Afghanistan War, and to try to rhetorically hogtie gullible conservatives into acquiescing to it ("You do want our soldier to have what they need, do you not? Then you'll just have to agree to let taxes increase").

AFP is clearly willing to play along and try to set the stage for that.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Bad Headline: 'Homeowner Holds Burglar Hostage'

Tim Graham — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:40:14 -0500

Cam Edwards giggled as he shared his "Headline of the Week" with his audience Friday night at NRANews.com. It comes from Indianapolis: "Homeowner Holds Burglar Hostage."

Understandably, while that headline remains on Google, WXIN (Fox 59) has changed the headline now to the more appropriate "Homeowner holds burglar until police arrive." The lesson is a gun owner beats a burglar with a screwdriver:

22 year-old Jorge Barrera now faces burglary charges.

According to police, Barrera entered the home on the southwest side of Indianapolis late last night armed with a screw driver.

When Barrera began looking around the house with a flashlight the homeowner grabbed his gun and fired a shot, striking a glass door.

When police arrived, they found the homeowner holding Barrerra at gunpoint.

He wasn't a hostage. He was simply caught red-handed.

NYT Environmental Writer Confirms Probable Authenticity of Hacked Climate Change Messages

P.J. Gladnick — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:39:00 -0500

Let us give New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin credit. He is one of the few in the mainstream media reporting on the hacked global warming e-mails story which has gone viral in the blogosphere and was covered in-depth by NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard. If you aren't yet familiar with this brewing scandal then I recommend you get up to speed on this controversy by reading Sheppard's blog post.

Despite Revkin's commendable willingness to at least cover this controversy, he is still stubbornly clinging to his global warming belief...for now. Perhaps his stubbornness against veering away from the global warming doctrine is more a matter of inertia. After all, he has invested over 10 years of his life in that particular dogma and it is not easy to give it up overnight despite the shocking revelations of the e-mails. Here is Revkin's not very convincing money quote disclaimer:

The documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.

That sounds more like the weak hope of a latter day Millerite but the bulk of Revkin's report is actually quite good considering that the implications of this scandal could lead to the shattering of the global warming belief:

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

And another money quote. This time about the impact of these hacked e-mail messages:

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

As Revkin points out, some e-mails display an incredible level of insecurity among the scientists promoting global warming. They sure don't sound very confident in their own data:

Portions of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.

As to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, Revkin strongly suggests that they are indeed valid:

Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.

But several scientists and others contacted by the Times confirmed that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mails included in the file.

And what will be the impact of these documents on the upcoming climate change meeting in Copenhagen?

The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate as hundreds of negotiators prepare to hammer out an international climate accord at meetings in Copenhagen next month, and at least one scientist speculated that the timing was not coincidental.

Baby steps, Andrew. Correct me if I'm wrong but it sure sounds like Revkin is more shaken by this scandal than he is letting on. Perhaps he is not yet ready to give up the global warming ghost but the newly released hacked information seems to be loosening his moorings to a widely accepted liberal belief.

CNN's Phillips: Kids Who Bully Pledge Spurner Are 'Wads, Dork Wads'

Mike Bates — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:15:08 -0500

On today's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips went after the kids who supposedly bully a 10-year-old boy who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance because homosexual marriage isn't widely accepted. Some of his classmates allegedly call him names. Phillips's weapon of choice was name calling:

And a message to you boys who are bullying Will, shame on you. It's obvious you are jealous that Will is smarter and more well spoken than you are. Hopefully one day you will grow up and realize that you were being the wads, dork wads.

Phillips didn't say how she knows that Will is smarter and more well spoken than his purported tormentors. On Monday, she reported that Will is "a terrific kid." So what makes him so smart and terrific?

That was answered earlier Monday in an interview with anchor John Roberts on CNN's American Morning:

ROBERTS: A 10-year-old boy from Arkansas is taking a stand by sitting down. Will Philips is refusing to pledge allegiance to the flag in his fifth grade classroom until there really is, as the pledge says, liberty and justice for all. He says until gays and lesbians have equal rights.

Joining us now in an exclusive interview are Will Phillips and his father, Jay. They're in West Fork, Arkansas this morning. Will and Jay, good to see you this morning. Thanks very much for being with us. And Will, let me ask you first of all, when did you decide that you weren't going to stand up and recite the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS, WONT SAY PLEDGE UNTIL GAYS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS: I decided that I was going to do that the weekend before when I did it. I was analyzing the meanings of it because I want to be a lawyer.

ROBERTS: All right. So what did you decide in analyzing the meanings of it that caused you not to stand up and recite the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS: Well, I looked at the end and it said "with liberty and justice for all." And there really isn't liberty and justice for all. There's -- gays and lesbians can't marry. There's still a lot of racism and sexism in the world, yes.

ROBERTS: All right. So you think that the country isn't living up to the ideals of the pledge and you took it upon yourself to sit down and not recite the pledge of allegiance until the country comes in line to embody the ideals that are embodied in the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS: Yes.

ROBERTS: All right. So, your teacher, who is a substitute teacher at the time, was giving you grief about not standing up. This went on for a few days. What did you eventually say to that teacher?

WILL PHILLIPS: I eventually very solemnly with a little bit of malice in my voice said, "Ma'am, with all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge."

And later:

ROBERTS: Got you. All right. Let's bring in Will here again. Will, why is this issue so important to you that you would commit as your dad said this atypical act of juvenile delinquency?

WILL PHILLIPS: Because I have many -- I've grown up with a lot of people and good friends with a lot of people that are gay and I really -- I think they should have the rights all people should. And I'm not going to swear that they do.

ROBERTS: So what's the reaction been from your fellow students at school to you not standing up for the pledge and the views that you hold about this issue?

WILL PHILLIPS: Not very good. They've taken from what I said an assumption that I'm gay and the halls and the cafeteria, I've been repeatedly called a gay wad.

ROBERTS: A gay wad. What's a gay wad?

WILL PHILLIPS: I really don't know. It's a discriminatory name for homosexuals.

Roberts spoke again with the child's father briefly and then:

ROBERTS: He does seem to have very strong opinions we should say and obviously they are very reasoned out. We should say that he's an extraordinarily bright child. He skipped the fourth grade, went right from the third grade to the fifth grade.

But Will, as we prepare to leave you here, what will it take for you to stand up and say the Pledge of Allegiance? And I ask this question based on what we saw in the off year election just a couple of weeks ago. Same-sex marriage initiative was put to the test, put to the voters in the state of Maine. And every state across the nation where it has been put through the voters, it has gone down to defeat.

So, the Democratic process is taking place here, it seems to be something that voters at large do not support. So what will it take for you to return to saying the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS: For there could truly be liberty and justice for all.

ROBERTS: And what does that entail?

WILL PHILLIPS: That entails everyone being able to marry.

ROBERTS: All right. Will Phillips, Jay Phillips, great to see you this morning. Thanks so much for joining us. We'll keep watching the story. It's certainly an interesting one.

ROBERTS: Wow. He's got his arguments down.

Yes, he certainly has his arguments down. But isn't a 10-year-old who asserts he's "grown up with a lot of people and good friends with a lot of people that are gay" worth a journalistic follow-up?

Not at CNN obviously. There it's just a matter of him being smarter, and terrific, and having his arguments down. And if other children disapprove, then they're nothing but wads, dork wads. Back in the day, Kyra Phillips must have been one tough cookie down by the schoolyard.

CNBC’s Regan Worries 'Freshman Congressmen from Timbuktu' to Have Too Much Policy Influence if Fed Audit Bill Passed

Jeff Poor — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:51:06 -0500

It's an issue that libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-proclaimed socialist agree on: Congress should have the authority to call for the Federal Reserve to be audited.

But it is also something that some in the financial media are reluctant to support, especially judging from the tone of CNBC "The Call" co-host Trish Regan and comments CNBC senior economics reporter Steve Liesman. On the Nov. 20 broadcast of "The Call," CME Group reporter Rick Santelli made the case that Federal Reserve should be audited. He cited opposition to the Fed audit proposal from Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., which was based on Congress' inability to be fiscally responsible.

"He said, ‘You know, there independence is important to protect the soundness of the dollar,'" Santelli said. "Has he read any papers lately or looked at any charts? Come on. Amen, amen that this process is happening. They're not taking away their independence to make a decision on interest rates. We need to know where the money is going. I remember when Ben Bernanke faced committees of elected officials and said, ‘We can't audit the Fed because then you might look unfavorably on some of the counterparties we deal with. That's like finding paraphernalia under your kids bed and then not asking where he got it."

That prompted Regan to ask Santelli a question that contained a tinge of elitism.

"Do you really want one of these freshman congressmen from Timbuktu having a big say in Fed monetary policy?" Regan asked. "Do you think that's the right thing?"

Santelli reaffirmed his position and said he didn't believe an audit would impact monetary policy.

"I want them audited," Santelli said "The congressman you're talking about isn't going to impact whether they raise or lower rates. We're just going to get a better glimpse as to who's involved with the Fed and any clarity - if it's one-one-millionth it's better than nothing."

CNBC senior economics reporter Steve Liesman shared Regan's concern and warned of unintended consequences should Congress have the authority to call for an audit and proposed a "freshman congressman" could call for an audit days before a Federal Reserve meeting and create a "chilling effect" when rates were to be raised.

But "The Call" co-host and host of "The Kudlow Report" dismissed that concern and explained the audit wouldn't occur immediately.

"In fairness, whatever your view is on the bill, the bill has a six-month lag on the audit," Kudlow explained. "It would not affect current meetings."

Oops! Frequent Maddow Guest Cox Undercuts Nicolle Wallace's Catty Claims About Palin

Jack Coleman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:18:47 -0500

Don't be surprised if McCain '08 campaign adviser Nicolle Wallace passes up future chances to vent for Rachel Maddow.

Wallace did not appear on the Maddow show, agreeing instead to go on the record off-camera with her criticisms of Sarah Palin's new book, "Going Rogue: An American Life."

Maddow told viewers of her MSNBC show Tuesday that John McCain held a conference call Nov. 13 and asked that if they wanted to respond to Palin's book, to "at least avoid being interviewed about the book on TV," Maddow said --

MADDOW: The Rachel Maddow show, however, has been able to do an off-camera but on-the-record interview with one of Palin's main targets in the book. She is campaign senior adviser Nicolle Wallace. Palin blames her in the book for her expensive wardrobe being charged to the Republican Party, for her disastrous interview with Katie Couric, and for a lot else besides.

On the Couric interview, Palin writes that Nicole Wallace pushed her into that interview for dubious reasons, saying "Nicolle went on to explain that Katie really needed a career boost. 'She just has such low self-esteem,' Nicolle said. She added that Katie was going through a tough time. 'She just feels she can't trust anybody.' I was thinking, And this has to do with John McCain's campaign how? Nicolle said, 'She wants you to like her.' Hearing all that I almost started feeling sorry for her."

Asked if that was accurate, Nicolle Wallace told us this -- "The whole notion there was a conversation where I tried to cajole her into a conversation with Katie is fiction ... I am not someone who throws around the word 'self-esteem.' It is a fictional description. Katie Couric was selected because we did evening anchors. ... I did not advocate an interview with anyone I am friends with."

Gov. Palin was also asked by Oprah Winfrey about the Katie Couric interview. (footage shown of Palin on Oprah show)

WINFREY: You do say that it wasn't your best interview. Were you prepped for that interview?

PALIN: Not so much because it was supposed to be kind of a light-hearted, fun, working mom speaking with working mom and the challenges that we have with teenage daughters ...

MADDOW: Nicolle Wallace told us that that too is not at all accurate. She says, "We set up this interview on the day of the U.N. General Assembly, with a walk-and-talk in front of the U.N. It was never made as two working gals. It's either rationalization or justification or fiction. That was supposed to be to highlight her foreign policy savvy (in the context of) the U.N. General Assembly. The picture is in front of the U.N. to highlight her expertise and readiness to be vice president -- it wasn't about two working gals."

Finally, when asked for her overall reaction to "Going Rogue"'s theme, that the Republican ticket in 2008 would have been more successful if the campaign had just followed Gov. Palin's instincts rather than those of people like Wallace and campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace gave us this response -- "I think she has probably a legitimate complaint that things could have been better conceived and executed. A book about that would have been painful but not entirely unfair. What she gets wrong is this personalization that Schmidt and I were these lone villains -- and that took place entirely in her imagination.

"Just like the Obama and Clinton campaigns, we were consensus driven. ... I think she fixated on me from very early on. She hated me from the beginning. I try not to take it personally; the fact is that she wrote a book based on fabrications. She gave a brilliant convention speech -- other interviews that inspired support. But this book is a bizarre fixation on things that everyone else has moved on from.

With the notable exception of Nicolle Wallace. Maddow then introduced Air America Radio host and former Wonkette blogger Ana Marie Cox, who wasted no time undercutting Wallace's claims --

MADDOW: So you spent a lot of time covering the campaign, you obviously know Nicolle Wallace from then. What do you make of her rebuttal to Sarah Palin? Does that sound like her voice to you?

COX: It sounds very much like her voice to me and it sounds pretty, end of discussion to me, almost about the book in general. I think that Nicolle speaks about, she has the same feelings about the book that a lot of the other senior staffers have, which is that there are things that sound like they happened, they involve the same people in the same, you know, scenes like at the UN, but that actually, the words that are exchanged and the background to those stories is just not true.

MADDOW: In terms of that last very personal quote from Nicolle Wallace saying, she told us that Sarah Palin 'hated me from the beginning.' From your experience covering the campaign, again, was the relationship between Palin and the staffers quite personally heated or at odds? Was there a lot of personal friction?

COX: There, see, one of those things that's sort of strange to me, in reading the book, in reading the back and forth between them now, is that at the beginning I didn't sense that at all. I should say, I covered Sarah Palin very briefly and did not get to know her or her staff the way that I got to know the McCain staff, having traveled with them through the primaries and the general election.

It was clear by the end of the campaign that there is a lack of patience, let's say, among the senior staffers for Sarah Palin. I never saw it as hate and I wonder when that started and if it might not have started for Sarah Palin after the campaign was over. And so she sort of projected backwards to the very beginning.

"She" being Palin -- or Wallace?

Cox's remarks are more credible if one name is substituted for another -- I never saw it as hate and I wonder when that started and if it might not have started for Nicolle Wallace after the campaign was over. And so she sort of projected backwards to the very beginning.

You know, with that curiously similar timeframe that Wallace provided to Maddow -- "from the beginning."

Cox was also a guest on Maddow's show the preceding Friday and based on Maddow's introduction of her that night, and their remarks on Tuesday, it's hardly a stretch to conclude that Cox persuaded Wallace to go on the record for Maddow.

Here's how Maddow introduced Cox on Friday (as seen in the third segment of the embedded video) --

MADDOW: Joining us now, the most sentient person with good sources in the McCain camp who will agree to come on this show ...

Notice also how on Maddow's show Tuesday Cox described her experience covering the '08 campaign -- "I covered Sarah Palin very briefly and did not get to know her or her staff the way I got to know the McCain staff, having traveled with them through the primaries and the general election."

... cultivating Wallace as a source all the while. Funny how Cox's campaign coverage provided her with just enough distance from Palin as needed in the future, but plenty of proximity to summarily dismiss Palin's assertions in the book.

Cox also had this to say about Palin on Maddow's show Tuesday (at end of second part of embedded video) --

COX: I'd also like to say that all the McCain staffers I talked to, not a single one of them believes that she even wants to run for elected office ever again. They see her as having grabbed as much of the spotlight as she can. She's interested in being as big a celebrity as she can. But I think that there's a fundamental realization, I think she must realize it too, she cannot run for office having written a book like this. This kind of score-settling book, who would ever work for Sarah Palin again after reading this?

Just as Wallace must be wondering -- will Republicans ever hire me again after I've spilled my guts to moonbats like Maddow and Cox?

MSNBC’s Matthews Finds Obama’s Weakness: He’s ‘Too Darned Intellectual’

Kyle Drennen — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:35:14 -0500

At the top of Friday’s Hardball on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews discovered the reason for President Obama’s political difficulties in recent months: “President Obama has his chin out on just about every hot issue out there....He’s exposed and vulnerable. His poll numbers are dropping. Is he just too darned intellectual? Too much the egg head?”

Later in the show, Matthews talked to Atlantic Media’s Ron Brownstein and USA Today’s Susan Page about Obama’s great flaw. He began by wondering: “I’m not attacking intellectuals because I do appreciate their contribution – but when politicians begin to get a little too intellectual, they lose connection with the American people....I begin to think this administration’s getting almost like one that you would imagine Adlai Stevenson running. Highly ethereal, highly intellectual, egg head. Not connected to real people and their emotional gut feelings about things.”

Page agreed and pointed out: “...there are many strengths to the Obama administration, but they’ve got an awful lot of people who went to Ivy League schools, which is great, but you also need some people who went to big state colleges.” Luckily, Page found an ‘average Joe’ in the administration: “Vice President Biden’s been the target of some fun, he is maybe the only voice in that inner circle that reflects that kind of big state school mentality.”

Page went on to conclude: “...your strength is always your weakness and that the great intellectual fire power around the president, the highly educated Ivy Leaguers, you need some other voices there of people who are maybe very connected with – with folks back home.”

Matthews then turned to Brownstein, who defended Obama’s brilliance: “One of the reasons people have liked Obama from the beginning, and particularly in his portion of the electorate, is that he seems cool, calm, rational, not just kind of a gut decider. But in fact, there is that kind of reserve and that kind of a step away.” Brownstein also mentioned some other down-to-earth players in the White House in addition to ‘average Joe’ Biden: “Look, the inner circle is not completely devoid of people who have been in kind of the rough and tumble, Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod.”

Brownstein explained: “The modern Democratic coalition that Obama not only kind of benefits from, but personifies. It relies more on those kind of well-educated voter than blue collar folks.” Matthews pressed him: “So you don’t want to say it’s an egg head administration.” Brownstein concluded: “No, I think that It has – it definitely has tendencies in that direction but it’s not clear that that is really the core of the problem right now.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

5:00PM TEASE:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Plus, President Obama has his chin out on just about every hot issue out there. Health care, terror trials, job losses, even the breast cancer report. He’s exposed and vulnerable. His poll numbers are dropping. Is he just too darned intellectual? Too much the egg head? Why did he bow to that Japanese emperor? Why did he pick Tim Geithner to be his economic front man? Why all this dithering over Afghanistan. And who thought it was a wonderful idea to bring the killers of 9/11 to New York City, the media capital of the world, so they could tell their story? Is Obama channeling Adlai Stevenson for heaven’s sake?

5:17PM SEGMENT:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball. Health care, Afghanistan, terrorist trials up in New York, the economy, after ten months on the job, has President Obama stuck his chin out too far on too many things? How badly does he need a big win now? Ron Brownstein is political director for Atlantic Media and Susan Page is Washington bureau chief for USA Today. Susan, I want to start with you because you and I are familiar with history, as is Ron. And I want to talk about the possibility that this president – and I know I’m not attacking intellectuals because I do appreciate their contribution – but when politicians begin to get a little too intellectual, they lose connection with the American people. I look at Geithner, I don’t think he’s a great political spokesperson. I look at this decision to put the trial up in New York City. I look at – look at releasing a mammogram report that says we can do better with less testing. And I begin to think this administration’s getting almost like one that you would imagine Adlai Stevenson running. Highly ethereal, highly intellectual, egg head. Not connected to real people and their emotional gut feelings about things. Your thoughts.

SUSAN PAGE: Well, you know, I have a thought that one possible, there are many strengths to the Obama administration, but they’ve got an awful lot of people who went to Ivy League schools, which is great, but you also need some people who went to big state colleges. And it seems to me while, you know, Vice President Biden’s been the target of some fun, he is maybe the only voice in that inner circle that reflects that kind of big state school mentality. That would say, ‘hey, wait a minute, we better not do this.’ And would say at this point, you know, ‘health care is great but what I’m really hearing from people about is concern about jobs.’ I think that – I think it’s fair to say that – that your strength is always your weakness and that the great intellectual fire power around the president, the highly educated Ivy Leaguers, you need some other voices there of people who are maybe very connected with – with folks back home.

MATTHEWS: You know, I wonder whether – to make Susan’s point – I wonder if people know how much Geithner looks like all the guys on Wall Street? He even wears that same European cut shirt. He – he dresses and acts like them. He has the same manner of all those guys with all the money. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, but they’re not Democrat. Number two, the mammogram. To tell women – our doctors, our intellectuals – to decide it based on data that you’re – you don’t have to have these tests. Everybody’s been taught since birth, get tested.

RON BROWNSTEIN: Although in fairness, the administration really back pedaled away from that.

MATTHEWS: Not fast enough.

BROWNSTEIN: As fast – almost as fast as they could. Look I – Susan said something very profound. Your strengths are your weaknesses. One of the reasons people have liked Obama from the beginning, and particularly in his portion of the electorate – is that he seems cool, calm, rational, not just kind of a gut decider. But in fact, there is that kind of reserve and that kind of a step away. Now, their – their inner circle-

MATTHEWS: It helped him in beating Hillary.

BROWNSTEIN: Absolutely – and in beating Obama – I’m sorry – beating McCain. By seeming cool when McCain seemed to melt down during the financial crisis. Look, the inner circle is not completely devoid of people who have been in kind of the rough and tumble, Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod, as you said Vice President Biden. But there is a lot of that other element and in fact-

MATTHEWS: You mean Sarah Lawrence was the key to this administration?

BROWNSTEIN: You know, look, as we talked about before, the modern-

MATTHEWS: Just kidding.

BROWNSTEIN: The modern Democratic coalition. The modern Democratic coalition that Obama not only kind of benefits from, but personifies. It relies more on those kind of well-educated voter than blue collar folks.

MATTHEWS: Do you buy her argument that it’s too egg head? I mean, maybe it’s my argument, this week.

BROWNSTEIN: I – I think – I agree with Susan that your strengths are your weaknesses. There are assets-

MATTHEWS: So you don’t want to say it’s an egg head administration.

BROWNSTEIN: No, I think that It has – it definitely has tendencies in that direction but it’s not clear that that is really the core of the problem right now.

Americans Want to Live Longer? How Gauche, Sniffs the New York Times

Clay Waters — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:05:10 -0500

Friday’s front-page “news analysis” by New York Times health care reporter Kevin Sack, “Culture Clash in Medicine,” dealt with two recent recommendations from quasi-government panels on limiting testing for breast cancer and cervical cancer. The recommendations have caused some outcry as a possible prelude to Obama-care rationing, concerns Sack dismissed as “anger and confusion” and some “political posturing.”

That stance is predictable: Previous front-page Times stories have nudged readers toward rationing with tales of “costly” new heart valves for the "frail" old, "wasteful" medicines and "expensive" new medical procedures that are only worth "a few months" of extra life.

The Times, which editorially supports universal health care coverage, seems to be trying to soften people up into accepting future limits on end-of-life care in the name of reducing national health care costs.

Sack managed to make the desire of Americans to live longer sound gauche, while suggesting that those who fear the recommendations are a harbinger of rationing are confused or just grandstanding against Obama:

This week, the science of medicine bumped up against the foundations of American medical consumerism: that more is better, that saving a life is worth any sacrifice, that health care is a birthright.

Two new recommendations, calling for delaying the start and reducing the frequency of screening for breast and cervical cancer, have been met with anger and confusion from some corners, not to mention a measure of political posturing.

The backers of science-driven medicine, with its dual focus on risks and benefits, have cheered the elevation of data in the setting of standards. But many patients -- and organizations of doctors and disease specialists -- find themselves unready to accept the counterintuitive notion that more testing can be bad for your health.

“People are being asked to think differently about risk,” said Sheila M. Rothman, a professor of public health at Columbia University. “The public state of mind right now is that they’re frightened that evidence-based medicine is going to be equated with rationing. They don’t see it in a scientific perspective.”

Bloviating Dick Cavett Bashes ‘Know-Nothing’ Sarah Palin, Obsesses Over His Brilliance

Scott Whitlock — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:27:20 -0500

Talk show host Dick Cavett, whose TV show went off the air in 1982, appeared on MSNBC, Friday, to trash Sarah Palin as a "know nothing" and someone who has "no first language." Mostly, however, he seemed interested only in talking about himself, prompting News Live host Norah O’Donnell to chide, "Dick, this segment is about Sarah Palin, not about you, Dick." [Audio available here.]

John Harwood, New York Times writer and CNBC contributor, co-hosted and kicked off the segment with this condescending question: "Let me ask you what you make of the Sarah Palin phenomenon and, in particular, the argument that some people make, well, she might not be a good President, but she'd be a good talk show host. You think so?"

Cavett clearly wanted to bash Palin, but he really wanted to tout his own brilliance and a column he wrote for the New York Times over a year ago: "The subject is a dear one to me because I wrote a notorious, apparently, column about Sarah Palin called the Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla for my Times Online blog. And, you know, it is interesting. When you are quoted for something you said on the air, it's one thing. But, when they quoted something you wrote, it is pleasing in a different way."

Continuing to cite himself, he recounted, "The two things people remember from this column seem to be, A, she seems to have no first language and that I really felt sorry for John McCain because he aimed low and missed."

The ex-TV host, who, as the MRC’s Tim Graham pointed out, was last culturally relevant with his cameo in the 1988 film Beetlejuice, claimed he was bothered that John McCain "was willing to put a know-nothing in the White House."

Cavett talked about himself so much that he prompted O’Donnell to jokingly ask about "your column, how many times was it e-mailed around, by the way? How popular was it?" The aging former TV host chided, "I'll send you a list, Norah. Are you still reading these days?" He then quipped, "Hey, and thank you for returning my phone call, by the way. But, we won't go into that."

Is MSNBC this desperate for Palin bashing that the network would highlight a year-old column from a talk show host who hasn’t been on television since Ronald Reagan was in the White House?

A transcript of the segment, which aired at 2:19pm EST on November 20, follows:

NORAH O’DONNELL: Next up on the op-edge, Rogue. American woman. Op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd, love her, takes a look at Sarah Palin’s current book tour.
JOHN HARWOOD: Dowd writes, quote, "Of course the subtitle of Sarah Palin's book is an American life. Because she is the lovely avatar of real Americans, ordinary, hard working, God-fearing, common sense, good, ordinary, real Americans. If you are not living an American life, you are, to use a Palin coinage living bass-ackwards. Joining us now for more on Sarah Palin is an op-ed contributor for the New York Times. It’s a privilege to have him on. Dick Cavett. Dick, I was watching your show for years and I’m delighted that you’re on. Let me ask you what you make of the Sarah Palin phenomenon and, in particular, the argument that some people make that, well, she might not be a good President, but she’d be a good talk show host. You think so?
DICK CAVETT: No.
HARWOOD: Why?
CAVETT: Oh, should I go on?
HARWOOD: Yes, please.
CAVETT: The subject is a dear one to me because I wrote a notorious, apparently, column about Sarah Palin called the Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla for my Times Online blog. And, you know, it is interesting. When you are quoted for something you said on the air, it’s one thing. But, when they quoted something you wrote, it is pleasing in a different way. The two things people remember from this column seem to be, A, she seems to have no first language [Harwood laughs at this] and that I really felt sorry for John McCain because he aimed low and missed.
NORAH O’DONNELL: Well, Dick, what did you think about the stuff we showed on the book tour. I mean, I was just out there in Michigan, of course, in Indiana with Sarah Palin and to talk to a lot of the crowds out there. What do you think about her as a communicator and her difference between her and as a communicator and Barack Obama, say?
CAVETT: Well, you have to say that she obviously communicates, because so many people seem to like her. And she looks nice and has got energy and so on. The fact that you can take any five consecutive words out of any long sentence of hers and put them anywhere else in that paragraph without changing the meaning bothers me. And the fact that a presidential candidate was willing to put a know-nothing in the White House leading the leading country of the world must have been popular because my blog was the most forwarded and most responded to piece they have had of the Times of this time.
O’DONNELL: Dick, this segment is about Sarah Palin, not about you, Dick. [Harwood and O’Donnell laugh.]
CAVETT: Did I mention my name once?
O’DONNELL: Yeah. Or your column, how many times was it e-mailed around, by the way? How popular was it?
CAVETT: I'll send you a list, Norah. Are you still reading these days?
O’DONNELL: I hear you. I hear you, Dick.
CAVETT: Hey, and thank you for returning my phone call, by the way. But, we won't go into that.
O’DONNELL: Okay, Dick.
CAVETT: Obama is an excellent communicator as we know, of course. And Oprah, my God. I must confess, Norah and John, I stopped reading in the third paragraph of the Times today that I don't care if Oprah is on network or cable or radar, I just want her available to me and there's still time for me to be the only person in media who has not been on Oprah's show. Is that about me or not?