While some in the mainstream media harp on the purportedly horrendous effects of possible across-the-board spending cuts on March 1, there is also an effort to distance President Barack Obama from responsibility.  An example of this is on CNN, which has shown more than once today a report on the sequester by chief business correspondent Ali Velshi.  An excerpt:

VELSHI: The forced budget cuts were created during the 2011 debt ceiling debacle. They were passed by Congress and signed by the White House.

So “the White House” signs bills into law?  That’s funny.   On August 2, 2011, the day the Budget Control Act became law, Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer told his audience:

Happening now, President Obama signs a bill to raise the debt limit, avoiding an economic debt crisis for now.

At CNN, when an economic debt crisis is avoided, it’s the achievement of President Obama.  But when the network’s Chicken Littles see the sky beginning to fall, simply “the White House” may be partially responsible.  

The rainbow halo over President Barack Obama's head on Newsweek's cover isn't sufficient for some in the mainstream media.  Now the meme is shifting to the inevitability of his re-election.  Or so it would seem based on CNN's Your Money today.  Anchor Ali Velshi devoted his heavy intellectual resources to the subject after discussing Mitt Romney's opposition to the auto bailout:

VELSHI: Joining me now from Washington is, CNN's chief national correspondent John King. John, I have a thesis I want to run by you. Mitt Romney has already lost the election because of this.

Voters in Ohio, auto workers and union members are alienated by his stance on the bailout. You know, John, because you spend a lot of time in Ohio like I have. It is GM country in large part.

They will hand that state to President Obama and without Ohio, probably Romney doesn't get to the White House. What do you think?

King at least partially agreed with Velshi's thesis: "You're absolutely right about the last part, without Ohio Romney most likely doesn't get to the White House."  He went on to say that "Romney needs to get off this," meaning the topic of the auto bailout.  "Would have, could have, should have, this is not a winning argument for him," said King.

Would have, could have, should have might well qualify as an Obama campaign slogan.  Obama's successes were denied him by George W. Bush, Congressional Republicans, earthquakes, Fox News, tsunamis, the Arab Spring, ATMs. . . the list is endless.

The one thing he's got on his side are huge segments of the mainstream media.  Having assiduously labored to get Obama elected, they're not about to admit their complicity in his many failures.  The canonization, complete with rainbow halo, will continue.  If Americans can be persuaded that the election's already been decided and Obama will work his miracles for the next four years, so much the better.  It might tamper down GOP turnout.

Next week, President Obama will unveil his jobs plan.  Details haven't been revealed, but that didn't make a difference today on CNN's American Morning.  Anchor Carol Costello announced the day's "talk back" question and anchors Ali Velshi and Christine Romans promptly chimed in:

COSTELLO: So today's talk back question -- doesn't bode very well, does it? The question is President Obama's jobs plan DOA before it is even unveiled? Facebook.com/americanmorning. I will read your comments later this hour.

VELSHI: Let's hope it is not DOA.

ROMANS: I hope not.    

Not knowing the specifics, Velshi and Romans express hope that it isn't dead on arrival.  Suppose it's a repeat of Obama's disastrous stimulus program.  That's a distinct possibility, with insiders such as ABC's George Stephanopoulos reporting Obama "wants the government to invest in clean energy and new construction projects."  Oh, and provide government-sponsored training to the jobless "while allowing them to still collect their unemployment benefits."  Sound vaguely familiar?

It doesn't matter.  Sight unseen, Ali and Christine are already worried about Obama's proposal.  Last year Ali held up a cake and sang "Happy Birthday" on the stimulus's "first birthday."  Maybe he and Romans can host a shower for Obama's new and improved plan next week.   I'll bring the diapers.

Wednesday on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight, Morgan interviewed GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum.  The host spent considerable time on Santorum's views on homosexuality.  Confirming the candidate is a Catholic, Morgan asked if he believes homosexuality is a sin.  Santorum stated he subscribes to his Church's teaching that it is.  Morgan asked how Santorum would react to learning one of his sons is gay and after listening to his response:

MORGAN: I guess one of the reasons it's troubling and difficult for people to come out is because of the level of bigotry that's out there against them. I have to say that your views you espoused on this issue are bordering on bigotry, aren't they?

So an orthodox Roman Catholic who adheres to his faith's determination that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" borders on bigotry.  Not Morgan, however:

MORGAN: Well, I'm a Catholic, too. I just think, unfortunately, we're in a different era. We're in a modern world. And the fact --

Morgan didn't say why he thinks it's unfortunate we're in a different era or why he claims to be a Catholic while rejecting Church teaching, but he didn't really need to.  Fellow CNN anchors were prepared to do the heavy lifting.

On today's American Morning, a clip was played of Santorum saying, in part, "Piers Morgan called me a bigot because I believe what the Catholic Church teaches with respect to homosexuality, I'm a bigot."  Anchors Carol Costello and Ali Velshi were not going to let that go unchallenged:

COSTELLO: In all fairness Piers did not call Santorum a bigot but said we live in a different era and views about moment sexuality (sic) have certainly changed.

VELSHI: That was their point of disagreement where Piers said, I'm also Catholic and I think these views should evolve. Rick Santorum says I don't think that's true. But that was the extent of it in the interview. So if you didn't watch the interview, you just watched that second part, you may think it was a different interview.

Ah, so the Church's views on homosexuality should evolve because Piers Morgan believes they should.  Someone had better get the word to Pope Benedict XVI pronto.  At the same time, perhaps Costello can explain how saying someone's views border on bigotry isn't the same as saying he's a bigot.  Don't tell me there's a strict constructionist at CNN, even if it only pertains to grammar.    

On a segment of CNN Newsroom today, Velshi spoke with an economics professor who's examined multiple studies reporting that many people find work shortly before their unemployment checks lapse:

VELSHI: Hey, complicated, complicated question that is at the root of our recovery as a nation; it is about jobs. The average person on unemployment is on it for about six months. You can get up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, with the certain extensions that we have passed these days. But the average person is on for about six months.

The question here is are long-term jobless benefits actually leading people to stay unemployed longer? I have somebody here who has actually crunched a few numbers for us. Robert Shimer is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, and inadvertently has gotten himself piled in with a bunch of unsavories who say -- who like to make the argument that people are choosing not to get jobs. And Robert, you have heard it said. This is the US Chamber -- not the US Chamber of Commerce. I'm sorry, the Club for Growth has said it on this show that it is causing people -- that it's a disincentive for people to go back to work because of unemployment benefits, which I think is a little bit insulting to the millions of people on unemployment. Your argument is it a little bit more nuanced than that.

SHIMER: Well, there is strong words involved in things like disincentive and lazy and so on. I don't know that we have evidence of why these facts are facts. But there are, as I said before, a lot of studies that have looked at actually what happens when you give workers longer unemployment benefits. They also look at what happens to workers when they reach the end of their unemployment benefits. A lot of people do find a job in the last week or the week after the last week that -- when their benefits lapse.

Now whether that says anything about laziness or not, it does say, as a positive statement, that if we didn't have extended unemployment benefits, we would expect to see fewer unemployed workers.

Earlier in the interview Velshi said "there are some people that make a remarkable nonsensical argument that does implies that -- lazy is my word -- but that people are choosing to take the minuscule benefits that are offered on unemployment, and not having health care -- because most people can't afford to buy Cobra on their unemployment benefits -- instead of working."

On Twitter last month, Velshi wrote: "Club for Growth guest's suggestion was outrageous & I told him so on air. Suggesting people choose unemployment is offensive"

Outrageous. Offensive. Nonsensical.  Insulting.  A theory advanced by a bunch of unsavories.  Perhaps Velshi should read "For the 'funemployed,' unemployment's welcomed," which appeared last year in the Los Angeles Times.  The article noted:

Buoyed by severance, savings, unemployment checks or their parents, the funemployed do not spend their days poring over job listings. They travel on the cheap for weeks. They head back to school or volunteer at the neighborhood soup kitchen. And at least till the bank account dries up, they're content living for today.

The Club for Growth is a perfectly respectable organization.  Founded by Stephen Moore and currently led by former Indiana Republican Congressman Chris Chocola, it helps elect candidates who agree with the group's stated philosophy that "the goal of tax policy should be to raise the amount of money needed to fund legitimate functions of government. . ."  It has endorsed Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) as well as Senate candidates Marco Rubio in Florida and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania.

Including such an organization with "a bunch of unsavories" tells a great deal about Velshi, if we needed to know any more.   Last month, he celebrated the anniversary of Obama's stimulus with a birthday cake on the air. "Happy birthday, dear stimulus," crooned Ali.  Talk about unsavory. . .    

Happy birthday, dear stimulus. Our producer Ben Tinker (ph) baked this cake. It is a stimulus happy birthday -- first birthday cake, which is also a pie chart. It is the birthday of the stimulus. It is actually very --

In the same segment Velshi assured guest Jared Bernstein, chief economic adviser to Vice President Biden, that "I don't think we give much sway to people who say nothing (in terms of jobs) was created, it's just hard to actually respond and say something was created, cause jobs were lost."

Presumably not celebrating the stimulus's anniversary with a cake were the 94 percent of respondents to a recent CBS/New York Times poll who don't believe the stimulus has created a substantial number of new jobs.  Of course, Ali doesn't give them much sway anyhow.

Those Americans don't matter.  At CNN, it's time to celebrate Obama's great achievement and those hundreds - or is it millions? - of jobs he's created or saved.  It's enough to send a thrill up your leg. 

Let's talk about this with Kenneth Rogoff, professor of public policy and economics at Harvard University. Ken, you have looked at this very, very carefully. I have to say, back when the stimulus bill was being discussed, most economists fell into the camp of timing and how much to spend. Very few said there is no need for an economic stimulus bill at all. Do you think this was a necessary thing to do a year ago?

Velshi's claim that few economists opposed government spending to stimulate the economy is false.  Last January, Frank Ahrens, the Washington Post's business reporter, wrote "Cato Lines Up 200 Economists Against Obama's Stimulus."  It began:

The conservative Cato Institute plans to buy full-page ads in The Washington Post and New York Times over the next several days urging President Obama to avoid what it considers excessive government spending as a way to get the U.S. out of recession.

In the form of a letter to Obama, the ad is signed by some 200 economists, including three Nobel laureates -- Edward Prescott and George Mason's Vernon Smith and James Buchanan -- listed prominently at the top.

Its point: Not everyone agrees that massive government spending -- say, Obama's $825 billion stimulus plan -- is the right way out of recession.

A group of 200 economists, including three Nobel laureates, doesn't qualify as "very few."  Many in the mainstream media are eager to protect and defend the man they helped put in the White House.  We can expect more rewriting of recent history as that crusade continues.