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.       

On CNN Newsroom today, anchor Kyra Phillips interviewed Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele on the topic of President Obama's healthcare push.  Part of the interview:

PHILLIPS: But whether government-run or private, I mean, no one's going to demand that you go one way or another. You're still going to have a choice.

STEELE: We don't -- maybe we do. I don't know. We haven't had that debate. I mean, you're talking about -- you're talking about the possibility of reorienting one-sixth of our economy with legislators who haven't even read the legislation. I mean, are they going to do to health care what they did with cap and trade? Are we going to get amendments at 4 a.m. in the morning and no one reads them? And then only after the Health and Human Services Department has to begin to implement this craziness, we're going to find out exactly what's in the bill?

Steele was exactly correct, of course.  No one knows what Obama's healthcare program will ultimately mandate.  That's because, like the economic stimulus, Obama left it in the hands of his Democratic comrades in Congress to put something together.  There are currently three versions in the House and another two in the Senate.  None has been voted on by either the full House or the full Senate.

That didn't prevent Phillips from speaking with certainty on the matter again during the conclusion of the interview:

PHILLIPS: Want to point out, though, we're still talking about the fact that people will have a choice. They won't be told to go one way or the other.

Really, Kyra?  How could you possibly know that?  Looks like on the subject of ObamaCare, you've bought the Obamaganda.  Big time.

On today's CNN Newsroom segment at 1:00 PM (ET), anchor Kyra Phillips interviewed White House senior advisor David Axelrod.  Phillips asked about the Senate's rejection of an $80 million request from President Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba:

PHILLIPS: All right. Let's push forward, then, and talk about Gitmo. You know, your party voted overwhelmingly not to give the president the money for Gitmo. I mean, 90-6. Is it the bad economy, or is there truly a huge divide in convictions on this?

AXELROD: No, I think that members of the Senate were asking for a plan. We'll give them a plan as to how we're going to move forward. I think the president offered a framework for that today, and we're going to work with the Congress on whatever path that we take here.

The bad economy, Kyra?  I'm unaware of any senator, Democratic or Republican, who used a bad economy as justification for stripping what in Washington passes as chump change from a more than $90 billion spending bill.  Along with Obama, Congress has been squandering money like the proverbial drunken sailor and all in the sacred name of "stimulus."  Only today, KMOV in St. Louis carried an Associated Press story reporting that Missouri is using $250 million, more than three times the Gitmo funding total, of federal economic stimulus money just to pay state income tax refunds.  

The principal reason senators, including a big majority of Democrats, shot down Obama's $80 million request was identified yesterday at Bloomberg.com in a piece by Brian Faler and James Rowley, "Senate Rejects Request for Money to Close Guantanamo:"

Some Democrats said they agreed with Republicans that the White House hasn’t adequately explained its plans for Guantanamo. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat, called the decision to drop the funding “rather easy” because “the administration has not yet forwarded a coherent plan for closing this prison.”

So, no, the bad economy, which we all know was inherited by The One and he's fixing just as fast as he can, isn't the reason most members of his own party gave Obama a hard slap yesterday.  It's because his inexperience is once again showing. 

Maybe Kyra is just too courteous to have suggested that as a possibility.   

Yesterday fundraiser Norman Hsu was convicted of of illegally funneling tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  The Wall Street Journal reported:

On Tuesday, a jury convicted Mr. Hsu of four counts of campaign-finance fraud after about 2½ hours of deliberations. Each count carries up to five years in prison.

The latest example of political corruption was met by much of the mainstream media with a collective yawn.  CNN mentioned it only twice.  The Situation Room featured CNN anchor T.J. Holmes briefly touching on the story:

Also, a name you might remember making some news again. He gave money to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And he was already found guilty for mail and wire fraud. Well, today, Norman Hsu was convicted of violating campaign finance laws. He was accused of getting donations from people, including from celebrities, who funneled money that exceeded campaign finance rules to Democratic campaigns. His sentencing is scheduled for August.

 On Lou Dobbs Tonight, the host noted:

A top fund-raiser for the Democrats, Norman Hsu, today, convicted of corruption. A New York jury found Hsu guilty of breaking laws that restrict the amount of money an individual or group can donate to a political party. Hsu raised more than $800,000 for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, money that she later returned.

The lack of comprehensive coverage was notable, especially when considering how CNN has treated other political scandals.  On January 3, 2006, for example, lobbyist Jack Abramoff  pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion.  CNN couldn't give its viewers enough information on Abramoff, whose activities primarily targeted Republican politicians.

So on Your World Today at 12:00 PM (ET), CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry reported live from outside the federal district court building.   The following hour on Live From. . . , Henry spoke with anchor Kyra Phillips:

PHILLIPS: All right. Let's talk about how this scandal could affect congressional elections, leadership in the House. What do you think?

HENRY: That's the main event this year. As you know, the president's no longer on the ballot. It's the midterm elections this coming November. And the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi and others have been making this case they believe there's a culture of corruption in the Republican Congress, which has now been in power since 1995. Republicans, of course, reject that argument. But this is going to add more fuel to the Democratic fire that, in fact, this was a Republican super-lobbyist, mostly had contacts with high-profile Republican leaders like Tom DeLay.

But again, I want to underline there are Democrats who have been implicated here. So while Democrats are sort of feasting on this right now, they may have some of their own lawmakers pulled down by this as well, Kyra.

Henry again talked with Phillips about the Abramoff story during the 3:00 PM segment of Live From. . .   The next hour on The Situation Room, anchor Wolf Blitzer interviewed Ed Henry once again and then spoke with CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider, who identified two schools of thought on the matter:

SCHNEIDER: President Bush himself called Abramoff -- quote -- "an equal money dispenser to people in both political parties."

JACK ABRAMOFF, LOBBYIST: I have no choice but to assert my various constitutional privileges.

SCHNEIDER: The second school points out that most of Abramoff's money seems to have gone to his fellow Republicans, including one very high profile Republican. And even if voters turn against all incumbents, Republicans have more at stake. Most incumbents in Congress are Republicans.

When asked in October which party in Congress would do a better job dealing with corruption, Democrats held an 11-point advantage, not because people believed Democrats are less corrupt, but because people know Democrats are out of power and money follows power.

Still, Blitzer wasn't through talking about Abramoff.  CNN Internet reporter Abbi Tatton, correspondent Dana Bash, Democratic strategist Bill Press, and Human Events editor Terry Jeffrey all had their say.  The next hour of The Situation Room included mention of Jack Abramoff no fewer than 20 times.

At 6:00 PM, CNN host Jonathan Mann devoted a full hour to the "Jack Abramoff Scandal" on Headline News.  Lou Dobbs Tonight at the same time included more than two dozen references to Abramoff and featured senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and longtime Democratic operative Stanley Brand.

Wolf Blitzer got back in the saddle during the 7:00 PM Situation Room, allotting plenty of time to the Abramoff story and coaxing from Democratic attorney Richard Ben-Veniste that, "This is the biggest scandal to come down the pike in a long, long time."

Both the Abramoff and Hsu scandals involved politicians at the highest levels of government.  Both involved huge contributions to candidates.  Both involved the possibility of lengthy jail sentences.  The disparity in coverage by CNN can't be explained away with a claim that Abramoff's offenses were so much more serious than Hsu's that they warranted wall to wall coverage for most of the news day while the Hsu story merited merely two brief references.

One striking difference is that Hsu, unlike Abramoff, almost exclusively favored Democrats with his artificial largess.  Is it possible - just possible - that could make a difference in CNN's treatment of the stories?     

On Wednesday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez focused on enhanced interrogation methods, a favorite topic of his.  He spoke with Jane Mayer, author of "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals."  The title itself suggests where Mayer stands, so it didn't take long for Detective Sanchez to uncover the true malefactor:

SANCHEZ: You know, I would bet you if you -- if you and I went around right now and we did some kind of random sample all over the country and just asked average Americans who do you think was the person who was really behind all of this, I know this doesn't get talked a lot about in the media, but I bet you most Americans would say Dick Cheney.

Would they be right?

MAYER: Well, you know, as you said, I have written a book about it. It's called "The Dark Side." And it's out in paperback now, and it tells the story of who really was behind this.

And I have to say, there are certain mysteries still. There are many more documents to come out. But it's incredible how many fingerprints lead off into the vice president's office.

Cheney is the person who keeps pushing forward. There -- there were many people in the Bush administration who fought back against this, not just liberals, not just civil libertarians. There were military people. The FBI, a number of lawyers who said, this is how our country does. This is what the enemy does. We don't -- this demeans us. We don't torture people, but Cheney kept pushing.

You have to wonder what Sanchez is reading and watching for him to claim that Cheney's role "doesn't get talked a lot about in the media."  CNN's own Web site carries recent stories titled "Cheney defends dark side interrogations" and "Senate report: Rice, Cheney OK'd CIA use of waterboarding."  It also has the commentary "Cheney says U.S. can torture but can't heal" by the always impartial Paul Begala.

This week Bloomberg.com published "Cheney’s Smirk Takes Us to ‘Dark Side’ Again."  In The New York Times, Al Hunt's Letter From Washington noted:

The bitterness is evident with a glance at blog sites. On the liberal side, there are pictures of obscene practices, shrill denunciations of Mr. Cheney, and headlines like, “Torture is foreplay for war.”

Last month NewsBuster Noel Sheppard reported "Saturday Night Live Introduces Dick Cheney's ‘Torboto: The Robot That Tortures People.’"  And it's been almost two years since The Washington Post told readers:

Cheney and his allies, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden "torture" and permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods of questioning. They did not originate every idea to rewrite or reinterpret the law, but fresh accounts from participants show that they translated muscular theories, from Yoo and others, into the operational language of government.

Sure, Rick, there are matters that the media devote more coverage to.  You know, important stuff like Obama's supposed eloquence and Michelle's well toned arms.  But your sidekicks in the mainstream media have carved out no small amount of time to blame Dick Cheney.  For anything they can.    

On today's American Morning, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta covered the weekend canvass sponsored by the Democratic Party's Organizing for America.  Volunteers collected signatures of support for Barack Obama and his agenda.  Acosta's voice over, interspersed with statements from others, began:

Don't tell them the race is over. Once volunteers for the Obama campaign...a vast grassroots network of supporters is back on the trail.  Reactivated. This time, to sell the president's agenda.  Michael Lafemina was one of hundreds of volunteers who went door-to-door from New York...to California on behalf of something called Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic Party run by remnants of the Obama campaign.

So in a matter of seconds, Acosta's supposed vast grassroots network was reduced to only hundreds of people.  Initial reports in other media suggest the response to Obama's personal call to arms was less than overwhelming.

According to the Christian Science Monitor:

The group (Organizing for America) claims that there were more than 1,200 canvassing groups out nationwide this weekend. But many places saw fewer volunteers than expected.

The Washington Post reported on North Carolina activity:

Randall Stagner staged an event Saturday in his home in Raleigh, N.C. For the former campaign volunteer, it started with a call from Organizing for America. He tapped into the 2008 Obama Web site and sent an e-mail in hopes of rustling up some interest.

He received 300 replies.

"I was overwhelmed. There was a lot of pent-up desire to go and do things," said Stagner, 49, a retired Army special operations colonel. He identified 10 people across the state willing to organize a canvass. In all, he expects 30 events.

All that pent-up desire translated to fewer than a dozen folks willing to organize?

The Salt Lake Tribune noted that canvassers there included a 14- and 15-year old girl:

After 90 minutes, Flanigan and Nelson had collected only 15 signatures. Most people did not answer their doors.

"They could very well have phobias about people with clip boards," Nelson quipped.

Or maybe they didn't have the inclination to explain to high school kids why they're not tripping over themselves supporting The One.

A piece in The Nation described efforts in Ft. Green, Brooklyn.  Author Ari Berman writes:

There are few places in the country where Obama's support is stronger than in Ft. Greene--a vibrant, multi-ethnic, racially and socio-economically mixed neighborhood with tree-lined streets, old brownstones and a spacious park in the middle. On a sunny afternoon, about two dozen OFA volunteers gathered on the edge of the park, across from a farmer's market selling Apple Cider and fresh pies.

Working together, three of the volunteers managed to garner 26 signatures in an hour.  This, in true blue Obama Country.

Rather than collecting signatures, Obamatons should have gone door-to-door apologizing for their complicity in putting Barry in the White House, an assignment so obviously and painfully above his pay grade.

All of this isn't to deny that Obama does have a vast network cheering him on.  He does.  It's called CNN.

After earlier this week defining what a moderate Democrat is, on Saturday CNN tried its hand at defining what a moderate Republican is.  CNN Newsroom featured a segment on governors who are refusing stimulus funds because of the inevitable Federal strings.  Anchor Fredricka Whitfield had this exchange with CNN deputy political director Paul Steinhauser:

WHITFIELD: Well, that's interesting, because perhaps one other Republican whose name has been tossed into the whole could he run for president, but he can't, he did accept money for his state, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

STEINHAUSER: Exactly. That is very -- a very different case there, too, because Arnold Schwarzenegger is very much of a moderate Republican. He's kind of on the different end of the spectrum from Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford and Bobby Jindal.

OK, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a moderate Republican.  That may come as a surprise since he's widely been deemed a liberal by a variety of sources.  In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle's Washington bureau chief titled a column "Schwarzenegger's liberal views leave GOP flummoxed: Actor is pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-gay rights."  At about the same time, National Review editors determined "Schwarzenegger, it seems clear, does not merit conservative support."

The following year, columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote: "No matter what Schwarzenegger's boosters may claim, at the end of the day Schwarzenegger is a liberal Republican."  Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, who knows a thing or two about matters leftist, has written the "fact is that Schwarzenegger is for all intent purposes a Democrat to the consternation of Republicans and quiet glee of Democrats in the great Golden State."

The Sacramento Bee reported in 2007 that the UK's Daily Telegraph compiled a list of America's 100 most influential liberals and conservatives.  Schwarzenegger made the list - as a liberal.

Then we have today's Arnold, the one who commends Barack Obama "for the courageous leadership and the great commitment that he has displayed over these last few months." The one who calls Obama a "fantastic partner."  The one who counsels fellow Republicans: "You know, you've got to go beyond just the principles."

So that's what a moderate Republican looks like.  If CNN hadn't told us, we might still think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a liberal.  Oh, that's right.  At CNN there's no such thing.   

On yesterday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Susan Roesgen reported on cities ranked by Twitter usage.  Speaking with co-anchor T.J. Holmes, Roesgen introduced colleague Rick Sanchez's name toward the end of the item:

ROESGEN: Yes, Chicago's number three. You know why? Because in this new result, it says that the guy in Chicago who twitters the most, like 12,000 people...

HOLMES: Oh, yes.

ROESGEN: ... he writes about things like what the back of the cab smelled like when he took -- this is why it's insane.

HOLMES: Those are little things.

ROESGEN: OK.

HOLMES: But you're just getting tidbits of information, you're giving people updates about you.

ROESGEN: Yes, well -- OK, Rick Sanchez.

HOLMES: Hey, Rick has a heck of a following with that twittering. Don't insult his viewers.

ROESGEN: Oh, OK. I'm not. Hey, no. I'm just -- anyway.

HOLMES: All right. But San Francisco, it's up in the top five as well. Seattle, Toronto, Atlanta, where we are, and Boston and Austin, Texas, round out the top 10.

ROESGEN: Yes.

HOLMES: We are going to get you on the Twitter thing, Susan...

ROESGEN: We'll see. We'll see.

Now CNN Newsroom anchor Rick Sanchez has an ego that's almost as big as Barack Obama's ears.  He's particularly proud of integrating social media such as Twitter and Facebook on his program.  His CNN blog features entries modestly claiming "Who’s the TWITTER KING? C’mon…you have to ask?" and "But we know who started it (using social media) all, right?"

NewsBuster Ken Shepherd took note last month when CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen told Sanchez: "you're CNN's chief twit."  Sanchez thanked her for "the compliment" and then said, "Good Lord."

When Sanchez heard Roesgen's reference to him, he began tweeting about it:

The first tweet: "wow, susan just dissed my using twitter on cnn. im calling in to get on the air. can't believe she still doesn't get it."

His second tweet: "roesgen she said to tj, kiddingly,still that "twitter is people talking about what the back of cabs smell like" what? i called in,but...."

Then finally: "no rick on phoner live... they don't want to play! oh well, i tried"

If Sanchez had been watching his network earlier, he'd have heard Susan Roesgen on CNN Saturday Morning News describe Twitter usage as "Dim, dim, dumb!" and tell co-anchor Holmes she had two "kind of dimwitted Twitter questions" about his interview with Charles Barkley.  And Sanchez should have known that Roesgen wasn't "kiddingly" talking about tweets concerning the smell of the back of cabs.  The Chicago Sun-Times reported on that last Thursday.

Rick must have been profoundly disappointed that he couldn't do a "phoner live" and present his case.  Perhaps it will give him a small taste of what it's like for conservatives whose views have been edited by the mainstream media for so very long. 

On CNN's absurdly named Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull program yesterday, network political analyst Roland Martin again tailored his "facts" to support his liberalism.  He, former Bush staffer Ron Christie, and CNN political analyst Gloria Borger were discussing Attorney General Eric Holder and his America is "a nation of cowards" speech:

MARTIN: Ron, in the Black History Month -- Ron, in the Black History Month speech he gave, he acknowledged yet when you talk about in terms of not reaching the Promised Land in this country right now. White women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to a white male. African-American men, 72 cents, black women, 68 cents, for the exact same job. So don't sit here acting as if somehow we have reached equality when it comes to gender and race. He was simply being honest.

And Martin would have been simply honest if he hadn't claimed women and blacks earn significantly less than white males "for the same exact job."

The Census Bureau figures apparently cited by Martin are, as noted by John Leo in U.S. News & World Report in 2005, "a raw number, not adjusted for comparable jobs and responsibility."

Even the National Committee on Pay Equity doesn't assert wage inequality for identical jobs is a widespread problem, but rather contends it is the result of the types of employment held:

Many women and people of color are still segregated into a small number of jobs such as clerical, service workers, nurses and teachers. These jobs have historically been undervalued and continue to be underpaid to a large extent because of the gender and race of the people who hold them.

Wage disparities exist for many reasons.  Martin's misstatement blurs the discussion.  Then again, that may be why he's so valuable a member of the CNN team.

CNN anchor Campbell Brown began her No Bias, No Bull program Friday evening with only part of a major story.  Reporting on Barack Obama's stimulus plan "saving" 25 police jobs in Columbus, Ohio, she overlooked an essential fact: the jobs Obama took bows for yesterday may well not be permanent.  She started her broadcast:

CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, everyone.

On a day when the number of Americans out of work reached a 25- year high, President Obama made a visit to a place where he could show just how in fact his stimulus plan really is saving jobs.

Bullet point number one tonight: the president in Columbus, Ohio, where two dozen police cadets whose jobs were saved as a result of the stimulus were sworn in as officers today. It's a story we have been following for some time now. The president insists today the nation is now on the right track.

Later, Brown invited CNN political analyst Roland Martin to expand on the narrative:

BROWN: Our political analyst Roland Martin first brought the Columbus story to our attention and he's joining us tonight from Milwaukee to talk about it.

And, Roland, you heard about the situation from the mayor of Columbus himself. What did he tell you?

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I was in Columbus for several speeches over the court of three weeks. And he called me and he said -- he said, Roland, we're hurting. He said, and we're having to lay off people.

I was listen to the morning radio. And they were talking about the police class. But also what he talked about -- and this is very important -- that Columbus is a diversified economy. It's the state capital of Ohio. The Ohio State University is there.

But also they have a city income tax. So, when you lose jobs, they're losing their biggest source of revenue. So, he said, hey, we had to cut all kinds of different police. And so the police class was so important because you have to maintain public safety to give confidence in companies why they should continue investing.

And so it's a very difficult issue they had to confront that many other cities are confronting as well.

BROWN: Today's announcement, though, Roland, it saves 25 jobs. And I don't mean to undercut that because for those 25 families this is huge. It's great news for Columbus as well.

But for the president to go all the whole way to Columbus to tout 25 jobs, I mean, there are a lot of people who are going to say that's just a drop in the bucket.

MARTIN: Well, here is the deal. Whenever I talk to folks around the country and talk about how to save money, I say, look, you can't save a million bucks unless you start saving $1. And you can't get to 100 bucks unless you get to $10.

So the reality is the only way we're going to build this economy if you build it job by job, one by one. The 25 jobs, frankly, represents a microcosm in terms of how cities are being affected by this economy.

And so to say that, look, the stimulus package was able to affect these 25 jobs, here's what it means with public safety, here's what it means with building confidence, and so it's frankly giving you the example.

Whenever the president does these things, it's all a matter of saying here is an example of what happens when the government does something and has a much broader meaning. So, you are right, it is 25 jobs, but I will tell, you we can't replace any of those jobs unless we build it one by one. And so it may sound small, but in the long term, it all adds up.

Neither Brown nor Martin reported how much Obama's obvious PR stunt cost taxpayers.  If he starts showing up to showcase every two dozen jobs he's "saved," he'll soon have a bigger carbon footprint than Al Gore.

More significantly, neither Brown nor Martin pointed out that the police jobs may well not be permanent.  According to the Associated Press:

The recruits were rehired using money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. The stimulus bill included $2 billion for that program, and the money is being delivered to local departments by a predetermined formula.

Breann Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for Rep. Pat Tiberi, one of eight Ohio Republicans who voted against the stimulus, noted that the money that saved the recruits' job will run out next year. (Mayor Michael) Coleman hasn't said how he'll pay the officers' salaries after that.

No doubt the mayor will look to Washington for more tax dollars when the time comes.  Maybe Obama can fly back to Columbus to take credit for that joyous example of all the jobs he's "saving."

In the meantime, Campbell Brown and her maternity leave replacement Roland Martin might want to amend their newscast's name.  "No Bias, No Bull, Just Obama Talking Points" seems about right.

On this morning's CNN Newsroom, anchor Heidi Collins gave Barack Obama some cover by characterizing the omnibus spending bill, larded with thousands of earmarks, as left over from the Bush administration:

A controversial $410 billion spending bill hits a snag in the Senate. This is the bill we've been talking about with about $8 billion in earmarks. Republicans and a few Democrats are mad about all that pork barrel spending. That led members from both parties to push President Obama to veto the bill.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid says the measure will be opened up for changes next week in an effort to gain more support. The bill is a hold-over from the last administration.

Collin's reporting comes straight from the Obama playbook.  Last Sunday on "This Week," Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag defended his boss's support for the measure:

"This is last year's business.  We want to just move on.  Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward."

Time's Michael Grunwald got it right in explaining why the budget from last year is still pending, and it isn't President Bush's fault:

It was originally drafted last year, but congressional Democrats didn't want to send it to President Bush, so it will only fund the government from April through September.

Paul Kane at The Washington Post points out that the bill is "leftover from last year's congressional agenda."

And the Associated Press reported yesterday on Senator John McCain's attempts to defeat the spending bill:

McCain took aim at the $410 billion spending bill to keep the government running, specifically Obama's willingness to accept thousands of pet projects that it would fund. Orszag, McCain noted, called the so-called earmarks "last year's business."

"Last year's business? Does that mean last year's president will sign this pork barrel bill?" McCain railed from the Senate floor. "It is the president's business. It is the business of the president of the United States."    

No, Heidi, the omnibus bill working its way through Congress isn't a hold-over from the Bush administration.  Your saying so is evidence of what's become increasingly apparent: When it comes to covering up for Obama, the news readers at CNN are shovel ready.

On Tuesday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez, who's increasingly mimicking MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's off-the-chart liberalism, took a swipe at several Republican governors:

First, let me try and set this up. You have heard the conversation on this newscast and on many other newscasts just a couple of weeks ago. There were many red state Southern governors who were on the record saying we're so angry about this stimulus package, we are so angry about the spending, that we don't want the money. We don't want the money in our states.

You heard that from people like Haley Barbour and Governor Sanford of South Carolina, to a certain extent, from Governor Jindal in Louisiana. What six states, I ask, that resisted the stimulus money are getting for what they're putting into the system now?

In other words, let me rephrase that. How much from every dollar that they get from the government are they giving back or receiving? We have got a brand-new statistic. I want to break this down for you. And these are the six states that we were talking about, six red states.

Let's go to that graphic, if we have it. We are going to start with Mississippi. Look at this. Look at this, all right? Mississippi gets $2.02. That's more than twice what they send to the federal government. In other words, they get twice as much as they put in. The people of Mississippi get more than they are taxed.

Louisiana gets $1.85, Alaska, Sarah Palin, $1.83. Remember, Louisiana was Bobby Jindal. Haley Barbour was the governor of Mississippi who said he was mad because the people of his state were getting cheated. South Carolina's Mark Sanford, his state? They get $1.35, follow me here, $1.35 for every dollar they put into the federal system. So, they're getting more than they're putting in. Idaho, same thing, $1.19. Texas just about breaks even, just an interesting statistic that we thought we would share with you, given the news items that have been coming out for the last week or so.

Sanchez didn't indicate the source of his chart statistics.  I believe I know why.  The data he presented identically match those gathered by the Northeast-Midwest Institute, which describes itself as a "research organization dedicated to economic vitality, environmental quality, and regional equity for Northeast and Midwest states."  The figures compiled by the Institute, and presented by Sanchez as "a brand-new statistic," represent data for Fiscal Year 2005.

Another flaw in Sanchez's presentation was ignoring that Louisiana's governor in FY 2005 was not incumbent Republican Bobby Jindal, but Democrat Kathleen Blanco.  Nor did he mention that some Democratic governors, including John Lynch of New Hampshire and Tennessee's Phil Bredesen, have indicated they may not accept some of the stimulus funding.

In the interest of balance, Sanchez could have pointed out that, according to the same source he used, Democratically-governed states such as New Mexico, West Virginia, and Virginia also received considerably more tax dollars from Washington than they sent.

The similarities between CNN's Sanchez and MSNBC's Olbermann are noteworthy.  On Olbermann's Tuesday, March 3 Countdown program, his three top stories were the ongoing Rush Limbaugh saga, the Republicans-are-hypocrites-on-earmarks claim, and the creation of "an independent Truth Commission on Bush‘s counter-terrorism policies."  On the second story, Olbermann cited "the nonpartisan group, Taxpayers for Common Sense."

The very next day, Sanchez also devoted time to each of those stories.  Doing Olbermann one better, he interviewed the president of the Taxpayers for Common Sense.

I recognize that news is news and cable networks often cover much of the same ground.  Still, I find the pattern remarkable, particularly as Sanchez assumes a more aggressively anti-GOP stance, even going so far as to trot out "brand-new" four-year-old statistics.