Anchoring CNN Tonight, correspondent Erica Hill reported the findings of a new poll:

While Democrats and the president may be cheering the bill's passage, a majority of Americans still oppose the Senate plan. According to a CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll, 56 percent say they are against the measure. Now that's a slight shift actually in favor of the plan from a weeks ago. When as you can see opposition was as high as 61 percent, 42 percent support the plan, that number also up at six points.

And when asked for the effect the health care bill would have on their own family, 34 percent of respondents thought it would change things for the better, 37 percent thought it would make things worst. While 39 percent said it would have no effect. And when you figure the sampling error, almost works out to even across the board.

The responses to the second question total 110 percent, an unlikely result.  Unless, of course, the poll were taken in Chicago by federally funded ACORN operatives.  That doesn't appear to be the case.  The actual poll question (#23) and results:

Thinking about the health care and health insurance that is available to you and your immediate family, do you think the proposals in the Senate bill would change things for the better, change things for the worse, or not make any real changes at all?
Dec. 16-20, 2009
Change things for the better 22%
Change things for the worse 37%
No change 39%
No opinion 2%

So more than three out of four respondents think that the Senate plan will either have no effect or change things for the worse for their own families.  Only slightly more than one out of five persons polled believe the Senate bill will make it better.  Hill was completely wrong in concluding the result "almost works out to even across the board."

It's likely the erroneous number came from replies to another question in the survey, one that asked respondents about the impact on "most Americans" rather than their own families.  That larger number could be attributable to the barrage of mainstream media stories highlighting people seemingly hurt by the current system.  

No, I don't think Erica Hill intentionally misrepresented her network's findings.  It's interesting, however, that neither she nor her script writer nor anyone else at CNN caught the error, especially since the graphic (I believe) reflected the correct numbers.  Could it be because they'd expect more public support for the Senate's health care plan?  

Will CNN correct the record for its viewers?  It is, after all, the most trusted name in news.  

On CNN Saturday Morning News today, anchors Betty Nguyen and T.J. Holmes reported on a U.S. senator who nominated his girlfriend to serve as a federal prosecutor earlier this year:

HOLMES: Well, it is something -a player, a name that a lot of people normally might not know a whole lot about, from a state that most people don't know a whole lot about. He's been important in the health care debate.

NGUYEN: That is true.

HOLMES: Senator Max Baucus, out of Montana, he is a key player on a Senate committee that has been putting together some health care legislation. News coming out that he actually nominated his current girlfriend for a U.S. attorney position, while the two were involved. They are both divorced here. So that is not an issue and not accused of breaking up each other marriages.

NGUYEN: Yes, there was no affair or anything like that at all.

HOLMES: Nothing like that.

NGUYEN: The question lies in the fact, should he have been able to screen the applicants, she being one of them, and go ahead and nominate her for the position?

HOLMES: Of course, she did not. They decided that once the process moved along and they gotten more involved in their relationship that she should withdrawal her name. So she didn't get the position. She now works at the Justice Department. But it is raising, just a few questions about what you should be able to do, a person in power, as far as trying to have influence, or nominate someone you are romantically involved with.

NGUYEN: And should it have gone even that far? Because she was down to like, what, three applicants?

HOLMES: The final three.

NGUYEN: Yes, the final three applicants. Let us know what you think about that. Go to our Facebook and Twitter sites. As well as our CNN blog, you can reach out to us several ways. We do want to hear from you. We will be reading your responses today. Let us know what you think.

Neither anchor told viewers  that Baucus is a Democrat.  If he were a Republican, would that fact have been deemed newsworthy?  We all know the answer to that.    

On August 28, CNN Newsroom anchor Rick Sanchez shared disturbing information with his viewers:

A CNN source with very close to the U.S. Secret Service confirmed to me today that threats on the life of the president of the United States have now risen by as much as 400 percent since his inauguration, 400 percent death threats against Barack Obama -- quote -- "in this environment" go far beyond anything the Secret Service has seen with any other president.

This "confirmed" information, of course, was eagerly picked up by sites like Daily Kos and Racism Review.

On September 16, Sanchez started backing off from his earlier statement in this exchange with the always objective CNN political analyst Roland Martin:

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think he (former President Jimmy Carter) is obviously painting a broad brush, but what he's realizing is that you do have elements of race when you talk about the level of criticism, when you talk about the viciousness, if you will, in some of the things that are being said, when you look at comments being made at rallies, when you look at posters, things along those lines, the stuff you're seeing online, all kind of different responses, when you see the kind of hateful language being targeted to the first lady.

You got Tammy Bruce calling her trash. You got people who say he hates white people and white culture. And, so, not only that -- reports show a 400 percent increase in terms of threats against this president. Now, explain to me what's the difference between him...

SANCHEZ: By the way, by the way, by the way, just let me -- just as a caveat, I checked on that, and the Secret Service has told me that that figure has been exaggerated. We did a reporting. But, nonetheless...

MARTIN: So, what's the number?

SANCHEZ: But it does appear to be up.

MARTIN: Absolutely.

OK, so according to Sanchez, threats against Obama are up.  Maybe not 400 percent, but up.  Until now.

On today's CNN Newsroom, Sanchez was forced to change his story once more, and tried to wash his hands of any role he played in disseminating bogus information.  He began with a video clip of Washington, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton today questioning the head of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan.

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D), WASHINGTON, D.C. DELEGATE: It is well known and in the press over and over again that this president has received far more death threats than any president in the history of the United States, an alarming number of death threats.

I'm not going to ask you for the details on that. But here we had the first state dinner, not of just any old president, but of the first African-American president. Was there any attempt to increase security given all you know, which is much more than we know, about threats to this president of the United States?

SULLIVAN: Ma'am, no matter who the president is...

NORTON: I'm asking about this president. And my question is very specific. Given death threats to this president, was there any attempt to increase the security at this event, yes or no?

SULLIVAN: Ma'am, I can't talk about that.

I would be more -- number one, I will address the threats. I have heard a number out there that the threat is up by 400 percent. I'm not sure where that number...

NORTON: Is it up at all? We're not asking for the threat number.

SULLIVAN: Well, I would -- I think it can answer you, ma'am. It isn't at 400 percent. And I'm not sure where that number came from, but I can...

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can't hear, gentlemen.

NORTON: Please don't assign to me a number in my question. I just asked you if the threats were up. Are the threats up or not, Mr. Sullivan?

SULLIVAN: They are not. The threats right now in the inappropriate interest that we're seeing is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point.

NORTON: This is very comforting news.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Comforting, indeed. Did you hear that? That was the head of the U.S. Secret Service answering a question that we have been asking for months on this newscast. Are assassination threats against the president of the United States up 400 percent?

We have heard that number tossed around again and again. We have seen it written, we have asked the Secret Service. And they would not give us a direct answer as well. Today, they did.

The answer is no. Threats against this president are about the same, you heard, as they were for two immediate predecessors of this president. And, as you heard Delegate Norton say, that is comforting news.

Sanchez has indeed "heard that number tossed around again and again."  And he's one who tossed it, although he doesn't even now admit it.  He's just patiently been waiting for a direct answer, don't you know?

The theme that Barack Obama is in greater danger than other presidents because of American racism is a popular one throughout the mainstream media. Don't people like Rick Sanchez just hate it when facts get in the way?

On yesterday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips shifted to "Bad Boys" mode:

Lenders, lenders -- what you gonna do when they come for you? Call it an early Christmas present for people on the edge of losing their homes. The Obama administration cracking down on mortgage companies.

We'll tell you about it.

After the break:

PHILLIPS: Well, from your health (ph) to your home, the foreclosure crisis shows no signs of letting up, so the Obama administration is trying to fight back.

Personal Finance Editor Gerri Willis joining us live from New York.

So, Gerri, new hope for struggling homeowners?

To her credit, Willis was considerably more restrained:

GERRI WILLIS, CNN PERSONAL FINANCE EDITOR: Well, we'll see, Kyra. You know, lots of changes announced today to the Making Home Affordable program. And as you know, this is the program the administration has put into place to change those mortgages that people had so much trouble with during the mortgage meltdown.

Unfortunately, it's really not helping a lot of people right now. It's scheduled to help four million. It's helping less than two percent of those people right now. So here are the changes they're putting in place.

And after reporting the details:

WILLIS: The administration here trying to make some changes to it, tweaks to it here and there, to make it more effective. But the devil's in the details.

We'll be watching these reports monthly to see how many people they're helping and if more Americans are really getting assistance. But some interesting changes, Kyra. More stick, less carrot.

Gerri's cautiousness is justified.  When Obama announced his plan in Mesa last February, the New York Times reported:

“This plan will not save every home, but it will give millions of families resigned to financial ruin a chance to rebuild,” Mr. Obama told a crowd here, in one of the communities hardest hit by the housing crisis.

Millions of families?  Not according to the the Congressional Oversight Panel's October report, "An Assessment of Foreclosure Mitigation Efforts after Six Months."  The liberal Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch.org summarized:

To no one's surprise, the Congressional Oversight Panel released a report in October showing that these programs are failing. Fewer than 2,000 of the 500,000 loan modifications then in progress had become permanent under the program, and only a handful lowered the principle. The pace of the Treasury Department programs is so slow that most people are being foreclosed upon before they are even able to apply.

Yet to Kyra Phillips, fiddling at the margins of yet another failed Obama experiment is "an early Christmas present" and "the Obama administration is trying to fight back."  Bah, humbug! 

On today's American Morning, anchor Kiran Chetry engaged Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele in a discussion of the Democrats' health care bill.  Citing a recent CNN poll, she claimed that a majority wants "some kind of public option":

CHETRY: I know one of the things that Republicans are very much against is the public option. And this is a huge hurdle that has to pass. This would mean that the government would have a government-sponsored insurance plan competing with private insurers. And that's a very controversial move.

But our latest CNN poll shows that 56 percent are now in favor of some sort of public option. What is that telling you, as Republicans go out there and talk to their constituents...

STEELE: Well, it doesn't...

CHETRY: ... about the need for some sort of affordable insurance?

STEELE: Well, it's a nice poll. I like to see how the question was asked to the people, because that number tells me that they don't know exactly what it is. When you say some kind of public option...

CHETRY: Well, let me -- this is...

(CROSSTALK)

CHETRY: Let me just read it to you so we're not confused here.

STEELE: That could be anything.

CHETRY: Just asked, would you be in favor or a public health insurance option administered by the federal government. In favor, 56 percent, opposed, 42 percent.

Interestingly, what Chetry claimed had been asked in the survey wasn't the actual question.  The CNN poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation, was worded this way:

Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?

That private health insurance companies would still be available to compete with a public option is a major consideration in how Americans answer such questions.  Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News, wrote in August:

While we found 62 percent in favor of a public option in June, that dived to 37 percent if it would put many private insurers out of business because they couldn’t compete, as critics charge.

Contrary to what Chetry intimated, her own network's poll doesn't show 56 percent simply favoring "some sort of public option," but rather one that specifically would be in competition with private insurers.  She's the one who's confused, not Michael Steele.

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.   

On CNN Saturday Morning News today, anchor Betty Nguyen interviewed a psychiatrist about Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 and wounded 30 others in a shooting spree Thursday in Fort Hood, Texas.  She began by delving into possible reason for Hasan's actions:

NGUYEN: Dr. Paul Ragan, a psychiatrist who specializes in post-traumatic stress disorder joins me now from Nashville. Dr. Ragan, let me ask you this. Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from PTSD?

DR. PAUL RAGAN, SPECIALIZES IN POST-TRAUMATIC SYNDROME: I think actually that's fairly unlikely. Dr. Hasan just finished a two-year fellowship at the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress and he had only been an independent Army psychiatrist for about four months. That is at an operational base. So for him to have been suffering from PTSD I think is highly unlikely.

NGUYEN: Doctor, let me ask you this, then. A lot of people find it awfully ironic too, he was a psychiatrist, someone to help people when they have issues, yet he's also accused of shooting of this magnitude. What would cause someone, especially with that kind of training and that kind of background to do something like this?

RAGAN: Well, that's the huge question before us. I don't have the exact answer. I can give a little guidance. To put it bluntly, the wheels came off many, many months or even years probably before he showed up at Ft. Hood. Usually, in the military after you finish your residency, you go and do your operational tour. That's what I did. Then, the Army allowed him to do a two-year fellowship. There's some evidence that he may have been trying to avoid deploying. And so where did he not identify with the military mission? He had been in the military as the soldier said earlier, over 10 years. What was it that happened that he couldn't fulfill his military obligations?

Nguyen then moved on to another potential reason for the massacre:

NGUYEN: Yeah. So, the question, too, is it the fact that he disagreed with the mission or was it taunting, was it teasing, was it harassment? Could these things have played a role as well?

RAGAN: They may have. I can tell you, in the medical community over 25 years I have been intermittently teased for being a psychiatrist. That, I don't think, was the tipping point for him. And clearly, there's a good deal of prejudice in certain areas of our society toward Muslims, but, again, as the soldier told us, the Army has been pretty strict about not engaging in that type of harassment. So again, I don't think that was the tipping point. I think it was earlier.   

So who would taunt, tease or harasss a field grade Army officer?  It's implausible that anyone lower than him in rank would be so foolish.  People at his rank and above are probably astute enough in terms of political correctness to realize that their careers could easily be over with just one career ending utterance.

Moreover, earlier in her program Nguyen aired an interview of an Army sergeant who is Muslim conducted by correspondent Sean Callebs.  When asked about harassment because of his religion, the sergeant responded:

The only experience that I did have was while I was in basic training and a friend, a battle buddy is my own -- basically the guy I room with, the guy who I have to look out for and he has to look out for me, just made a joke regarding my religion and my drill sergeant took that very seriously and had him disciplined from my entire company and he was punished for his actions, even though he was jokingly saying it to me.

Still, Nguyen wanted to explore that as a reason for what happened.  With both PTSD and harassment effectively set aside, she moved on to one last reason:

NGUYEN: What about religious beliefs? Do you think that might have played a role because there were reports that he gave out the Koran the day of the shooting, also reports that he may have yelled Allah akbar right before the shootings. Could religion have played a role?

RAGAN: I think religion did play a role. Evidently he was counseled about proselytizing patients which was clearly a boundary violation. We have a report that he gave in his class at the fellowship, he was talking about endorsing suicide bombings. He was clearly engaging in some type of tunnel vision where this kind of radical view, which is not, as again the soldier said before, is not a part of mainstream Muslim religion. And so, he was -- there was something going on there, very much so.

Hasan's motivation may never be determined with absolute certainty.  Still, it's interesting that some in the mainstream media look for other reasons - as remote as they may be - before considering a more obvious one. 

On her segment of CNN Newsroom this morning, anchor Heidi Collins asked business correspondent Christine Romans about Senate action on extending yet again unemployment benefits:

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: You're right. And Heidi, all of those things that you mentioned are incredibly important to your money and all of them could affect you very, very near-term here. This extension of the unemployment benefits, it would be the third.

The Senate has passed it. It goes to the House. It's expected to be voted on and passed very, very quickly here. Because, remember, your Congress member and your senator, they are being inundated in their offices with questions from people saying, wait, how am I going to survive when this check runs out? Seven thousand checks running out every week.

It would be a 14-week extension nationwide, 20 weeks of unemployment. More unemployment benefits for the states with 8.5 percent unemployment or more. And this would be paid by a two-year extension of an existing -- existing tax on employers. So this would be paid for by a tax on employers.

It would not come out of your pocket and my pocket. But it would be the third extension here, Heidi. And it's critically important. Like I said, so many people are losing their unemployment benefits right now. Some 200,000 have lost their jobless benefits just as the Senate has been negotiating this.

In parroting the liberal theme that big bad business, not taxpayers, will actually foot the tab, Romans does a disservice to viewers.  The late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in Economics, explained why in 2005 testimony given the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform:

All taxes ultimately -- the consumer pays the taxes.  Nobody else pays the taxes.  Corporations don't pay taxes.  They collect them, but they don't pay them.  The only people who pay taxes are people and people are all consumers.

Yet Christine Romans claims you and I won't pay for the extension of unemployment benefits.  One way or the other, we will.   

CNN's Rick Sanchez often describes his Newsroom segment as a national conversation.  Increasingly, however, his program primarily consists of Sanchez mouthing current liberal talking points.

So it was today, as he excitedly asked viewers:

Do you want the public option that could make health insurance more competitive and cheaper, because it's looking like we may get it in some form at this point. Here's who else is going to be speaking in just a little bit, Senator Harry Reid is about to announce his position on this. I asked you this same question, by the way, a little while ago. How you felt about public option. You know, I've got to tell you, the numbers seem to show right now, it's about 61 percent in favor.

That 61 percent figure came from a recent CNN poll.  He could have, but didn't, cite another poll, one mentioned recently in The Hill:

Polling experts, however, have documented that many people don’t know what a public option is, and that small changes in language can cause poll results to vary widely. An August poll by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates showed that only 37 percent of those polled correctly identified the public option from a list of three choices.

So there's substantial confusion over a public option, which more accurately should be termed a government option.  That's to be expected. Neither Obama nor his congressional Democrats seemingly have a clue about what "their" health reform will be, so why should the public?

But noting that confusion might put a crack in Sanchez's perceived momentum for the public option, and he wasn't about to do that:

And you, on Twitter, are in favor as well. Go to the Twitter board if you can, Zack. Look at the first one -- "Yes, it makes not sense why we can't have another public option.

Under that: "Absolutely, it is a must."

I have no idea what just happened that thing. But you know, sometimes technology gets the best of you, as it today. Let me go back here.

"Absolutely, it's a must."

Next one, here's something I want to know, "Would you like to see a public option? Yes, public option is the whole point."

Next one: "Yes, to the public option."

"I would love to see a public option, without the state opt out. Repeal the anti-trust laws, give real choices to us."

"One word: Yes."

Next one, "yes, but it should be for everyone, not just for a few. We should all be able to opt out from our current coverage if we want."

So, you get a sense there that there is starting to be -- a sense that Americans are embracing this idea of a public option in this country. And there are other people now who are getting involved and embracing it as well.

The reason viewers may have gotten "a sense that Americans are embracing this idea of a public option" is Sanchez didn't read a single tweet from anyone opposed to the idea.  I know he received at least two, but they didn't fit into his storyline.  So he simply pretended they don't exist.   

Sanchez still wasn't done with peddling a major feature of ObamaCare.  He had yet another card to play:

Nebraska's conservative Democrat Ben Nelson, is now saying that he -- this is interesting, remember what I just said, conservative Nebraska Democrat and Senator Ben Nelson, who hasn't been keen on the idea in the past, has over the last couple of days maybe possibly going through a shift in this. He's now saying he would not be opposed to the public option in some form.

Wow, even conservatives are jumping on the public option bandwagon.  It's a landslide!  Sanchez didn't tell his viewers exactly how "conservative" Nelson is.

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

Ben Nelson may be many things.  A conservative isn't one of them.

To contend, as Sanchez does, that a government option could make health insurance more competitive and cheaper flies in the face of all reality.  What company could possibly compete against an entity with unlimited tax dollars at its disposal?  And if Medicare, which is defrauded to the tune of $60 billion a year is any example, the public option will be staggeringly expensive even if all other waste is squeezed out of it, a highly unlikely occurrence. 

Rick Sanchez may be many things.  An objective journalist isn't one of them.

On his segment of today's CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez went for the hat trick, likening Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to the infamous Theophilus “Bull” Connor, Birmingham, Alabama’s late segregationist police commissioner who ruthlessly used police attack dogs and fire hoses to thwart 1963 civil rights demonstrators, no fewer than three times.

Sanchez prefaced his interview with the Arizona sheriff:

Well, perhaps not since Bull Connor whose aggressive police tactics against blacks in the South sparked civil rights legislation in 1964 has our country seen a showdown like the one going on right now between Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio and Washington, as in the feds.

You heard it here on Friday, right? Immigration and Customs Enforcement assistant secretary came on the air and told me that while they do want local sheriffs around the country to help with immigration issues and immigration arrests, he specifically said they don't want Sheriff Joe Arpaio's help.

And during his interview:

SANCHEZ: Like Bull Connor in 1960s, you're going to sit there and tell the feds, you don't care what they say, you're going to do it your way and you're going to do it when you want to do it?

ARPAIO: No, they don't tell me how to do my job enforcing state laws. I worked 25 years as a top Justice Department drug enforcement official. I think I know the federal law and how to operate under the federal blanket. So...

SANCHEZ: All right. Well, for the record, they're saying you don't and they're saying you're violating it.

ARPAIO: Then come on after me, if he thinks I'm violating any of the federal laws.

Then after the interview with Arpaio, he spoke with a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune:

SANCHEZ: I hope many of you saw my interview just about 20 minutes ago with Sheriff Joe Arpaio out of Maricopa County. He's sticking to his guns. He says he's doing nothing wrong. The Feds are telling him, back off. We don't want your raids anymore. We don't want your sweeps. We don't think that your police procedure is proper. But he's saying he's going to continue to do these anyway.

You know, it reminds one of the standoff between the Feds and Bull Connor back in the 1960s. It began what today we know as much of the civil rights laws that are written in this country.

Has it gone that far? Let me ask somebody who's followed Joe Arpaio since the 1990s. He's a -- a colleague of mine. He's a -- he's a -- I shouldn't say correspondent. He's a writer. He writes columns. His name is Ruben Navarrette.

Unsurprisingly, Navarrette was quite simpatico with Sanchez, beginning with the observation, "I'm glad you talked to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. What would a circus be without the clowns?"

The truth is Joe Arpaio has little in common with Bull Connor.  Connor was an ardent, life-long Democrat who served as Alabama's Democratic National Committeeman.  Arpaio is a Republican.

Connor viciously attacked citizens exercising their Constitutional rights.  Arpaio arrests criminals.

Sanchez isn't the first to liken Arpaio to Connor.  ACORN chief executive officer Bertha Lewis has characterized Arpaio as "the 21st century's answer to Bull Connor."  Says Rev. Al Sharpton:

I am calling for an end to the civil and human rights violations being committed in Maricopa County. . . and the immediate resignation of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The egregious nature of Arpaio’s abuses, marking him as the Bull Connor of the 21st Century, demands nothing less.

The Communist Workers World last month gleefully reported "Racist Sheriff Arpaio greeted by angry, militant protest."  The story noted:

Inside, the event was disrupted by four protesters, one of whom paid the $30 entrance fee and stood in line to get Arpaio’s autograph. When she got to the front of the line, Liliana, a Colombian immigrant, handed Arpaio a certificate and loudly proclaimed, “I am here to present to you the Bull Connor Award for your promotion of racial discrimination, disregard of human rights, abuse of power and general hatred of the ‘other.’

So Sanchez's comparing Sheriff Joe to Bull Connor isn't original.  The only difference is he has a daily show on CNN.  ACORN, Sharpton, and Workers World can only aspire to such exposure. 

On yesterday's The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger spoke with host Suzanne Malveaux about polling done on ObamaCare:

MALVEAUX: Gloria, I want to start off with you.

One thing that the polls were showing is that most Americans, they support this idea of this public option, but they also believe that the president wants the government to take over the health care system.
Well, how does that -- how do you make sense of that?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, in fact, 53 percent believe that Obama wants to take over the health care system, and 42 percent say no. And I think what this shows is that the Republican PR about President Obama being big government, big deficit, big spender, has really taken hold over the congressional recess. People believe that he wants big government.   

What Borger is missing here is that the principal reason Americans view Obama as a big government, big deficit, big spending liberal is because he is.  "Republican PR" might emphasize that simple truth, but the facts speak for themselves and many Americans would have arrived at the same conclusion regardless.

Last month, The Heritage Foundation's Brian M. Riedl reviewed some updated statistics from Obama's own administration:

The Office of Management and Budget has released its annual mid-session review that updates the budget projections from this past May. They show that this year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household. The federal government will increase spending 22 percent this year to a peacetime-record 26 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). This spending is not just temporary: President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President George W. Bush.

Admittedly, most citizens don't know those precise numbers.  At the same time, as they see Obama's heavy hand of government interference intruding more and more into our daily lives, as they see budget projections that even a year ago were unimaginable, as they come to a realization that there aren't enough "rich" people to fund more socialist schemes, they see Obama for what he is.

That doesn't require Republican PR.  Is they weren't so biased, even the mainstream media could figure it out. 

 Yesterday on The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger discussed President Obama's rapidly declining approval ratings.  A question was posed by host Suzanne Malveaux:

MALVEAUX: What does it mean, Gloria, for the president to be losing out on these Independents?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it's a real possible for him. Remember that President Obama won the election with 52 percent of Independent voters. That number is down considerably to 43 percent, and Independents are the margin of difference here for him.

Now, the key to keeping those people is, right now, they are worried about the deficit. They see the president as a big spender. They see him aligned with so-called liberal leaders in the Democratic Congress. So, what he's got to do when -- after Labor Day is kind of show them that he is the kind of so-called post-partisan president that many of them thought they were electing.

The good news for President Obama in this is that they are not realigning themselves with the Republicans yet, because the Republican Party still has very high disapproval ratings.

Now, Jessica, you've been watching something as well, which it looks like to be a generational gap in these numbers.

Borger's choice of words was revealing.  By using "so-called," she introduced an element of doubt as to whether Congressional Democratic leaders are, in fact, liberal.  Synonyms listed at thesaurus.com include pretended, dubious, and questionable.

I don't see there's any question as to if the Democratic leadership in Congress is liberal.  These are the folks who, spurred on by Obama, have given us unprecedented spending and deficits, expanded federal meddling in the private sector, and are now attempting to take over the one-sixth of the economy represented by health care.  It's no coincidence that last July's deficit was bigger than that for all of 2007.  Americans for Tax Reform calculated that this year's Cost of Government Day, the day on which the average American has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government at all levels, fell on August 12, a full 26 days later than just last year.

I can only shudder in imagining what damage would be wrought if Obama aligned himself with real liberal leaders in the Democratic Congress rather than Borger's "so-called" ones.   

On CNN's American Morning today, business correspondent Christine Romans explained to anchor Kiran Chetry why there are new estimates showing the Federal deficit to be much worse than originally projected by the Obama administration:

ROMANS:  Why? OK, this is really -- it's a complicated problem with a very simple analysis. It's how much money the government is taking in and how much money is going out.

Let's look at how much is going out. Government spending has skyrocketed as you all know over the past couple of years, up 21 percent in the first ten months of this year. Unemployment benefits, health care, bailout programs. We are spending more money than we take in. We are spending gobs of money constantly on lots of different programs to try to get this economy out of the mess it's in. At the same time, revenue is plunging.

The money that's coming in to the Treasury Department is plunging down 17 months in the first ten months, or 17 percent, rather, in the first ten months, declining income and peril taxes. People are out of work. We're not making as much money.

CHETRY: Right.

ROMANS: That's going down. Non-wage income. All other kinds of income people have down sharply. And then that stimulus tax credit -- that has to come from somewhere. Right? Everyone is getting this big tax break, that means less money going in.

So this is the situation. Money is not coming in like it used to, and money is going out much, much, more quickly than it used to. And the bottom line is that's red ink, red ink, red ink, red ink for ten years.

Giving credit where it's due, Romans accurately noted that Obama's administration has routinely been "overly optimistic" in budget projections.  But what about "this big tax break" everyone is getting?

On February 22 of this year, USA Today carried the Associated Press article "Obama: Stimulus tax cuts will be felt by April 1."  According to the AP:

Most workers are to see about a $13 per week increase in their take-home pay. In 2010, the credit would be about $7.70 a week, if it is spread over the entire year.

Barack Obama and his Democratic Congress did not deliver a big tax break to everyone.  However, Romans's observation that he is "spending gobs of money. . . to try to get this economy out of the mess it's in" is correct.  It's Obama's profligate expenditures that are undeniably the principal cause of huge deficits, not illusory big tax breaks.    

On Saturday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Don Lemon played a clip of his interview with Allen Hardage, identified as the director of America's Town Hall:

LEMON: Where was the outrage five years ago, ten years ago, 15 years ago? Why all of a sudden this outrage now? At least the president is trying to reform health care, so where did the outrage suddenly come from?

ALLEN HARDAGE, DIRECTOR, AMERICA'S TOWN HALL: Don, this is the second town hall he's done in the last week that I actually saw real Americans get up and ask questions. It wasn't a pre-selected group or a --

LEMON: But hang on, before you do that. Real Americans, that's another term that really sets people off.

HARDAGE: Well, let me tell you what I mean by that.

LEMON: We're all real Americans. Everybody.

HARDAGE: Where anybody can get in and anybody can ask a question. And you have seen a completely different tenor in -- in the town hall he held on Tuesday and today, than town halls we have been seeing so far in this debate. That's what I mean by real Americans.

LEMON: OK. Or maybe you know what, the whole real American thing -- can we lose that real Americans?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure.

LEMON: Because everybody in this country, who is a citizen...

(CROSSTALK)

HARDAGE: Absolutely.

LEMON: ...we're all real Americans.

HARDAGE: Absolutely.

LEMON: And that is part of the issue that really sets people off and divides people. So let's get rid of that real Americans. We're all -- I'm real American. You're real American.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure.

LEMON: Conservatives, liberals, independents, we're all poor or rich real Americans.

HARDAGE: Absolutely.

LEMON: Continue your point.

HARDAGE: But here's my point. If we're going to open this debate up and have everybody come in and put their ideas forth. Virginia is absolutely right. He said it himself, this is a hard issue. So we need to -- we need to bring everybody to the table. Let's hear everybody's ideas and concerns, and come up with a consensus.

Lemon's defense of Barack Obama (at least the president is trying to reform health care) came as he asked why there's a "sudden" outrage.  The outrage has been building for months, as Obama set records for unprecedented spending and deficits, expanded federal meddling in banks and auto companies, fired executives and guaranteed the government would back up auto warranties.  The disastrous cap and tax legislation he's pushing through Congress will have a devastating impact on energy prices, destroy jobs, and give government even greater power. 

Now the man with zero credible executive experience wants to expand his authority over an additional one-sixth of the economy.

This wasn't the only time Lemon set aside any pretense of objectivity to laud Obama.  On November 1, 2006, he interviewed Michelle Obama at a birthday celebration for Jesse Jackson.  Santita Jackson, Jesse's daughter, became part of the segment:

LEMON: Are you ready to be first lady?

OBAMA: No comment.

LEMON: Where's hubby tonight?

OBAMA: He's coming. He is flying in. His flight doesn't come in until late. My date is Santita Jackson.

LEMON: Santita, get over here.

OBAMA: Get over here.

LEMON: Santita Jackson and Michelle Obama. Let me get you guys right here. Daughter of the great one who's turning 65. Wife of the great one now.

The great one now. Obviously, that journalistic detachment doesn't extend to people who use inflammatory language such as "real Americans," disparaged by the anchor Saturday as "another term that really sets people off."  Well, at least some people in the mainstream media.  It appeared as though Hardage was merely suggesting town hall participants are average citizens, rather than, as he said, "a pre-selected group." That wasn't good enough for Lemon, who bullied the guest into an admission that every citizen is a real American.

Several mainstream media types have gone to work for the administration.  Perhaps as Lemon reminds viewers that at least Obama is trying to reform health care, a White House opening for another dependable news reader will develop.

On The Situation Room today, CNN congressional correspondent Brianna Keilar reported on "almost a love-fest" for Arkansas Democratic Congressman Mike Ross:

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, compared to some of the other town hall meetings that we've seen, some very contentious town hall meetings, this one was almost a love-fest.

It started with a standing ovation as soon as Congressman Mike Ross was introduced. He, of course, is a prominent Blue Dog Democrat, a fiscally conservative Democrat. He and some other Blue Dogs forced House Democratic leaders to postpone a vote on their health care reform proposal until after Congress comes back in September.

That said, he also support many of the things in this health care reform push. But talking with some of the constituents, those who are for this health care reform push, those who are against it, they say that they think Congressman Mike Ross is really doing right by them.

There's about 700 people at this event. We were able to speak with about a dozen of them going into the meeting.

Keilar's description of Ross as "a fiscally conservative Democrat" is revealing.  Project Vote Smart compiles ratings of congressional members issued by many different groups and Ross's record reflects that The National Taxpayers Union gave him a grade of F in 2008 and 2007. He supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 5 percent in 2007-2008.  For 2007, Americans for Tax Reform gave Ross a grade of 5. The American Conservative Union gave Ross a rating of 12 percent for 2008.

And over at The Club for Growth, Ross received a zero on its 2009 House RePORK Card, which measures support for anti-pork legislation.

Ross's record shouldn't be a surprise.  On the very first day of this Congress, he voted for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker.

My guess is that Brianna Keilar would describe that vote as the action of "a fiscally conservative Democrat."  It's all in a day's work at the most trusted name in news.