Today on CNN, Rick's List host Rick Sanchez was, as he likes to say, all over and drilling down on a story of major import.  No, nothing about the dismal unemployment numbers we're seeing this recovery summer.  Despite repeated teases on the topic, he didn't get around to it.

Sanchez was all over and drilling down on the latest Mel Gibson antics, despite pushback from his audience:

SANCHEZ: Some of you are tweeting me, in fact I'm reading these as I go telling me, why are you covering the Mel Gibson story? That's not really news. I'm thinking, it's not? Mel Gibson, one of the most renowned actors, who is very politically involved, caught on tape in the past saying things about Jews and about women?

When did Mel Gibson become very politically involved?  In a 2006 Entertainment Weekly interview Gibson said, "Everyone always presumes I'm a Republican. I'm not." A check of Federal Election Commission records shows no political contributions from Mel Gibson.  Years ago, he wrote a letter endorsing a candidate in the California GOP lieutenant gubernatorial race, but even then noted: "I don't often support political candidates."

Does Sanchez automatically presume that someone who says nasty things about women and minorities must be very politically involved?  Or does he assume that a Hollywood personality not routinely spouting liberal lunacies has to be a Republican?

Viewers might be interested in seeing the evidence Rick has that Gibson is very politically involved.  At any rate, his devoting so much time to the story kept Sanchez from reporting on the most recent Obama economic failures.

On today's Rick's List, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez brandished those reportorial skills for which he's so famous.  He and national political correspondent Jessica Yellin discussed Tuesday's primaries and the "Sarah Palin and the Tea Party influences."  Not surprisingly, they agreed they had little impact:

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yesterday's elections showed that there was very limited turnout. One of the things we have heard is that the Tea Party movement was going to energize the base, stoke up turnout, especially on the Republican side. And in the key Republican races -- there were two in Indiana especially -- the incumbents won. Now, their margin of victory was more narrow, but the Tea Party movement didn't throw the bums out, as you said.

SANCHEZ: Well...

YELLIN: So, it's still to be determined whether they will have a huge influence in November.

SANCHEZ: Well, I know, but we got one of the first runs where we get to -- where we get to take a look at something like this, the...

YELLIN: Right.

SANCHEZ: ... and the -- the -- the polls showed that the turnout was way, way underwhelming. Not only that. The three guys -- or five guys, whatever the number is, the number of guys who actually won last night...

The truth is the turnout was uncharacteristically low - for Democrats.  But it was much different on the Republican side.  As noted in today's National Journal's Hotline article "Dem Turnout Falls Off a Cliff" by Reid Wilson:

By contrast, GOP turnout was up almost across the board. 373K people voted in (Senator Richard) Burr's (R-NC) uncompetitive primary, nearly 9% higher than the 343K who voted in the equally non-competitive primary in '04. Turnout in House races in IN rose 14.6% from '06, fueled by the competitive Senate primary, which attracted 550K voters. And 728K voters cast ballots for a GOP Sec/State nominee in Ohio, the highest-ranking statewide election with a primary; in '06, just 444K voters cast ballots in that race.

Moreover, as reported by the Associated Press's Liz Sidoti and Deanna Martin, "By the end of the day, however, the Republican turnout in the (Indiana) Senate primary was the highest this decade, including presidential election years."

Very limited turnout, asserts Jessica Yellin.  Way, way underwhelming, declares Rick Sanchez.  Mainstream media types like them are scared to death of what may happen in November.  And it's already showing.

Unable to defend ObamaCare with reasoning or facts, many of the Democrats at Thursday's health care summit resorted to anecdotes or, as Rush Limbaugh appropriately characterized them, sob stories.  The recycling of a dead woman's dentures and a letter from a struggling farmer who just happens to be the brother of a staffer for the Democratic senator sent the letter were the order of the day.

CNN anchor Rick Sanchez must have found such stories compelling.  Yesterday, his producer sent out this tweet from Sanchez's Twitter account:

*FRP* (From Rick's Producer) Today Rick's looking 4 hardship stories: financial, med., trouble w/ (BROKEN?) govt., family, etc Keep short, maybe will read on air

Sadly, Rick didn't get any good denture yarns.  But he kicked off his Rick's List program yesterday with a few tales of woe:

As a matter of fact, let's go to the Twitter board. This is what you have been saying about this situation with health care, about these politics and these policies that are being discussed.

Look at this one right there in the middle. "Thousands of people are going broke and dying due to the American health care system. The summit was not a game to be won or lost."

That is an interesting perspective.

"All my insurance premiums went up, health, dental, vision, and the coverage is less than before. I cannot afford health insurance. Former government worker here. They wanted $500 to $600 a month for single coverage."

These are Americans talking about their American situation.

"Definitely, our family is in trouble." I had asked them earlier what their situation was. "Should a healthy family have to pay over $600 a month just in case they get sick?"

And, finally: "It is cheaper to die, $6,000, one-time funeral cost, and good luck to the collection agency."

Sanchez, like the Democrats whose water he routinely carries, can't champion ObamaCare with reasoning or facts, so he wants "hardship stories."  He and his mainstream media colleagues will ultimately realize that government isn't broken any more than usual.  What's broken are the dreams of their great trite hope, Obama, to socialize America with minimal resistance.  Now that'll be a real hardship story they can sob over.   

There's just something about Sarah.  A morsel, any morsel, about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin that can possibly be used to belittle her is rabidly devoured by many in the mainstream media.  On his CNN Newsroom segment today, anchor Rick Sanchez highlighted Palin's difficulty in keeping Joe Biden's name straight.  Four different times, he played the same video from last year's vice presidential debate in which she referred to him as "O'Biden."  Sanchez played part of an interview with McCain campaign staffer Steve Schmidt, who described Palin's error as "a verbal tic" that could prove "devastating beyond words." Then:

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: How did you get around it?

SCHMIDT: Multiple people, and I wasn't one of them, all said at the same time, just say, "Can I call you Joe?" Which she did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Despite that precaution, look at what happened interestingly enough, during the debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PALIN: Barack Obama and Senator O'Biden, you have said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Hmm. "O'Biden." She said it.

The interview was based on "Game Change," that new book about the 2008 presidential campaign. The authors of that book say that many McCain staffers were so worried about Palin's inexperience that they became terrified about what would happen if their guy won and Palin actually became vice president. . .

Sanchez's observation would have had more kick if not for the fact that the former Alaska governor already covered her use  of "O'Biden" in her book published months ago.  As quoted on National Review Online:

During rehearsals, I accidentally called Randy “Senator O’Biden” — a slip of the tongue combination of Obama and Biden. The blunder struck too often, even tripping up campaign staffers. (Jay Leno later made the same slip on his new talk show, so we were in good company.) We laughed about it but knew that if I said it even once during the debate, it would be disastrous. Then somebody said, “You ought to just call him Joe.” . . .  

Slips of the tongue are routine with politicians.  The late Senator Ted Kennedy famously called the current president "Osama Obama."  VP candidate Biden introduced Obama as "Barack America."  At the same event, Obama came dangerously close to hailing Biden as the next president of the United States.  And then there was the CNN interview during which Obama referred to one of his daughters by the wrong name.
   
But with Sanchez, it's Sarah's slip of the tongue that's still newsworthy and qualifies for four replays in a single program.  She's obviously viewed as a threat, one that must be denigrated at every opportunity.   

On this afternoon's CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez briefly updated his audience on Rush Limbaugh's medical condition.  He completed his comments with "We wish him well."  Sanchez's good wishes didn't square with the Twitter messages that crawled at the bottom of the screen for his entire program.

Here is a sampling of the tweets he aired:

rush is an excuse for people to be vicariously racist. I have nothing good to say about him except "gotta love karma"  

Rick can we get some answers on if rush's insur. will pay for his hospital stay if it is found out drugs were a part of this

I don't like to wish bad luck on people, but a 2010 without Rush's mouth going off would be fine with me

under yr new health plan Rush may pay higher premiums cuz of weight. Time to hit the treadmill and lose the weight Rush

May rush be worked on by a liberal democrat, feminist doctor who is pro gun control :)

Rush shld take this opportunity, being a New Year, 2 reflect on his treatment of ppl who disagree w/him. His ways R is wrong  

Rush: I hope it's nothing serious; just something that will keep him off the air for the next 40 or so years :)

re Rush, ummm. . .I have to go try that old saying, "if u can't say anything nice, dont say anything at all" lol (biting my tongue)

I'm not fond of Rush L. but I wish him the best. Maybe he will be a little kinder. . . nah

Can't you just feel the love?  Liberals like Sanchez often characterize conservatives as mean-spirited.  Mean-spirited is the ultimate epithet in the liberal lexicon. It's the adjective that they never tire of using, of ascribing to anyone who doesn't share their views. For decades we've been subjected to its wearisome reiteration.

If Sanchez truly wished Rush well, he could have provided some balance to those mean-spirited comments.  He didn't.  Then again, judging by their spiteful observations, many of his viewers wouldn't want him to.    
 

On CNN Newsroom today, anchor Rick Sanchez talked about terrorism with Octavia Nasr, CNN senior editor for Arab Affairs:

SANCHEZ: And good, good, good, good, good, good. You see, this is a point that I'm trying to make, Octavia.

The terrorists weren't in Iraq. We know that now. There was really a small band of them along with the mujahedeen which became al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as we know. But we have known for 10 years now that these really bad terrorists, the guys we really should have been going after a long time ago, are in Yemen. We knew that a long time ago.

The assertion that Iraq was terrorist-free prior to our intervention has become an article of faith for liberals like alleged journalist Sanchez.  Yet it conflicts with evidence, including evidence many liberals once found compelling.  The Clinton State Department, for example, reported on Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999.  Among its findings:

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused
primarily on the anti-regime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide
safehaven and support to various terrorist groups. . .

Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the
Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the nowdefunct
15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft.
Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that
opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted
to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali
Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran’s Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.

As quoted in the Congressional Record, in 1992 Senator Al Gore (D-TN) said Saddam Hussein "had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and (President George) Bush looked the other way."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) claimed Hussein "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . ."

Sanchez ignores liberals he usually sides with.  He says there weren't terrorists in Iraq.  Or maybe there were, but it was merely a small band.  I have to wonder: Is he auditioning for MSNBC?

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?

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 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.    

Today on CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez attacked Senator James Inhofe's (R-OK) assertion that Barack Obama is disarming America.  Joining Sanchez was Jim Arkedis of the Progressive Policy Institute.  Sanchez wanted viewers to believe the PPI is a nonpartisan think tank.  He ran a video of Inhofe denouncing Obama's proposals followed with:

SANCHEZ: Cutting and gutting the military budget.

Joining us now is Jim Arkedis.

He's the director of the National Security Project of the Progressive Policy Institute.

You guys check on these things...

JIM ARKEDIS, PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE: We do.

SANCHEZ: ...to make sure the figures are right. So because you're down now in the middle, I'm going to ask you the question -- is Senator James Inhofe correct to say that President Obama is "gutting the U.S. military budget?"

In fact, he goes on to say disarming America.

ARKEDIS: Obviously, the senator's words are pretty ridiculous. President Obama has proposed an increase, as the numbers you just rattled off suggested. And there's absolutely no hint any time in the future that America's military budget is going to be gutted or we're going to be incapable of fighting the wars that -- that we are in now and we will look to in the future -- or have to in the future.

SANCHEZ: And just to be clear, you're -- you're not a lefty, right?

You're not coming at this from oh, I'm a defender of Barack Obama or the Democrats' proposals here, right?

ARKEDIS: Well...

SANCHEZ: Your organization is?

ARKEDIS: We are the Progressive Policy Institute. So I'll let the -- the title speak for itself. But we are a centrist progressive organization.

The Progressive Policy Institute is clearly partisan and makes no effort to hide it.  The organization's Web site notes:

Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," PPI's policy analysis and proposals were the source for many of the "New Democrat" innovations that figured prominently in national politics over the past two decades. The Institute also has been integral to the spread of "Third Way" thinking to center-left parties in Europe and elsewhere.

It also discloses:

PPI's mission is to define and promote a new progressive politics for America in the 21st century.

For those not paying any more attention to political discussion than Rick Sanchez, "progressive" is the term preferred by liberals who for obvious reasons don't wish to be identified as liberals.

PPI states it is "a project of the Third Way Foundation Inc."  The foundation's chairman is Al From, founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council.

To his credit, Arkedis didn't deny defending Democratic proposals.  When asked about that, he began with "Well..." Sanchez cut in, not wishing to cloud his own claim that PPI is "in the middle."

It's down the middle about as much as you usually are, Rick.  In the middle of left field.

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 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.  

Within hours of CNN Newsroom anchor Rick Sanchez bemoaning a purported increase in the number of hate groups, CNN correspondent Kitty Pilgrim provided some much needed network balance by reporting - get ready here - facts.  On Thursday's CNN Newsroom, Rick Sanchez asked a question and then, as usual, provided his own answer:

SANCHEZ: Since the administration of Barack Obama began in this country, has there been a heightened sense of any kind of hate? We first started discovering this last night in one of the interviews we did.

But before we do that, I want to show you something now. I want you to just write down some numbers. These are hate groups in the United States, all right? Let's start with the first year. I think we're going to start with the year 2000 -- 602 hate groups at the time in the United States, as counted by the best resource on this, by the way, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Now let's go to 2007. Uh-oh. It's going up, 888. Now let's go to 2008. Uh-oh. Going up again, 926.

Minutes later, Sanchez interviewed Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center:

POTOK: Well, as you suggested in your intro, there have been quite a growth over the last eight years.

Until about a year ago, that growth was driven almost entirely by these groups pushing the immigration issue and especially the idea that people with brown skin are kind of coming to destroy our country. In the last year, though, we have seen several other factors come into play, you know, the assent, obviously, of Barack Obama, the announcement by the Census Bureau that whites will lose their majority in this country along about the year 2042, and the crashing economy and worsening unemployment.

All of those things are very much playing into the continued growth of these groups. Frankly, I think we're in a very worrying situation. I think it could get quite a bit worse.

SANCHEZ: Well, what I'm hearing you say is, remember the movie "The Perfect Storm," when everything kind of came together? And you just outlined the three things. You have got the economy. You have got the residue of the nativist rhetoric in this country, and you have Barack Obama, a liberal African-American president, as the leader of our country.

When you put all those three things together, what do you -- what do we have to do? We do we foresee down the line?

POTOK: Well, I think, just as you suggest, it is a kind of a perfect storm of factors that at the very least favors the growth of these groups.

Only a few hours later on Lou Dobbs Tonight, correspondent Kitty Pilgrim provided a different perspective:

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Southern Poverty Law Center says absolutely hate crime -- hate groups in America are growing. They say the debate over immigration, the recession and the election of Barack Obama, the first black president, is animating more hate groups. But the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center today admitted there are no data on the increased recruitment of hate groups.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK POTOK, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: It is a kind of perfect storm of factors that at the very least favors the growth of these groups. You know, whether they are actually able to translate all of these things into recruitment, you know, we have yet to see.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PILGRIM: Now, we talked to the FBI today about the report. The FBI does not recognize the term "hate group." They told us they do not monitor individuals or groups of individuals based on what they think or they say, or because a group or individual espouses a cause. It's only when a line is crossed and when an act of violence is committed.

Now, by that measure, hate crimes are going down. The FBI uses data collected by state and local law-enforcement agencies, and this is what we've found. In 1995, hate crimes totaled 7,974. In 2007, 12 years later, they totaled 7,624. That's a decline of 4 percent.

Meanwhile, the U.S. population rose 16 percent in that period of time. So, hate crimes are definitely declining, according to the FBI. And it's interesting, Lou, what the Southern Poverty Law Center defines as a hate group. They say it's based on ideology. It's not based on action. If you're included in this group, it's not based on criminality or violence or future...

DOBBS: Define a hate group, according to them.

PILGRIM: They say it's any group that thinks less of some other group, that thinks that they're inferior. That's their broadest definition, based on ideology, and that's how they define it.

DOBBS: Well, you know, that would not be an appropriate (ph) way to look at any group. But at the same time, one wonders how Mark Potok, the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center, could say that conditions favor the growth of hate groups, but they have no proof of recruitment. This is -- I mean, that's pretty pitiful, really. And I know a number of news organizations picking up and going with this, because they think it's a ratings-grabber.

PILGRIM: You really have to push this report to say, what are they really saying here. They're including nonviolent groups with violent groups. The definition is so utterly fuzzy on "hate group" that...

DOBBS: Which obviously the FBI, the Justice Department rejects.

PILGRIM: They absolutely do.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, cited by Sanchez as "the best resource on this," is itself an extremely liberal outfit.  Typical is an article on its Website that warns "an array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable."  This dangerous array, we're told, includes the American Enterprise Institute, the Free Congress Foundation, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the John M. Olin Foundation, and David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

Rick Sanchez is a dependable liberal.  He can find a reason to criticize America almost every day.  By selectively airing viewer opinions that coincide with his own and repeatedly interviewing other liberals, his program is often flagrantly slanted.

Kudos to Kitty Pilgrim for, unlike Sanchez, getting past the ideological bluster and looking for the truth.  Gee, I hope that doesn't hurt her career in journalism.