Reuters issued a dispatch this afternoon centering on a global effort to underscore the threat of global warming.  "World switches off to save planet in 'Earth Hour'" reports the news service.  The piece notes:

Lights went out at tourism landmarks and homes across the globe on Saturday for Earth Hour 2009, a global event designed to highlight the threat from climate change.

From the Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge to the Eiffel Tower in Paris and London's Houses of Parliament, lights were dimmed as part of a campaign to encourage people to cut energy use and curb greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

Organizers said the action showed millions of people wanted governments to work out a strong new U.N. deal to fight global warming by the end of 2009, even though the global economic crisis has raised worries about the costs.

Four paragraphs later appears "BILLION PEOPLE TAKE PART."  That isn't supported by what follows, which reports that the founding organization "is hoping one billion people from nearly 90 countries will take part."

So how does Reuters report that a billion people took part?  According to the International Energy Agency, "Some 1.6 billion people, about one quarter of the world’s population, have no access to electricity today." The CIA estimates the world's population at 6.7 billion, so that would mean about 5 billion people in the world could shut off their lights in the global feel-good exercise.  For Reuters to be correct in its one billion people claim, one out of five people would have had to participate.  Since Earth Hour hadn't even arrived for much of the world at the time Reuters released its report, how can the agency already state as fact that there were a billion participants?  

The obvious answer is it couldn't.  Reuters made up a nice, round number to buttress its contention of massive worldwide support for Earth Hour.  And no doubt it'll be picked up by mainstream media outlets across the country.       

The Washington Post's 44 blog today carries the item "Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Backers."  Authored by Garance Franke-Ruta, the article notes:

But while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008.

After that come details of the connections between the questioners and His Messiahship.  

The Post being the Post, of course, the item had to begin with a slap at the previous president (Obama "is taking a page from the Bush playbook"), but it's still refreshing to see part of the mainstream media acknowledge some of Obama's shadier tactics.

The question, then, is whether many other news outlets will pick up on the story.  I'm not holding my breath.

When a former Alabama judge is indicted on 57 felony counts, including sodomy, kidnapping and paddling jail inmates, that's news.  If the judge is a Democrat once under consideration for the Federal bench by Bill Clinton, that part isn't news.

MSNBC's Web site reports "Former Judge Herman Thomas Indicted on Sex, Ethics Charges."  The piece begins:

Former Mobile County Circuit Judge Herman Thomas has bonded out of the Mobile County Metro Jail after he was arrested Friday afternoon. Before his arrest, Thomas was indicted by a grand jury on 57 felony counts, accusing him of, among other things, sexually abusing Mobile County inmates in exchange for favors in his courtroom. Thomas is charged with ethics violations, kidnapping, extortion, sexual abuse and sodomy. The indictment against him includes graphic details of alleged paddling and other sexual favors. Eight victims are named in the indictment. All of the alleged victims are men.

Other news outlets covering the story included the Montgomery Advertiser, the Press-Register, SunHerald.com, and WKRG TV 5 in Mobile.

None identified the judge as a Democrat.  The January 4, 2000 Mobile Register did.  In a story titled "Too late? Clinton may not get to fill judgeship," the newspaper reported in a subtitle:

Senate may not allow Clinton pick: Herman Thomas  has been a leading candidate for federal berth, but his chances may be dimmed by a GOP freeze

From the article:

It is "probably too late" for a Clinton nominee to clear the Senate before his term ends early next year, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, said in an interview last week. Sessions is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which screens the judicial nominees.

The delay could be bad news for Circuit Judge Herman Thomas of Mobile, a Democrat who emerged as the leading candidate for the position in 1997 after a state patronage committee recommended him for the opening.

Thomas' chances seemed to fade in 1997 amid reports that the American Bar Association had questioned his fitness for the job.

But interest in Thomas appeared to surge again last summer, when federal investigators and bar association officials resumed the interviewing of his legal, political and social associates.

Herman Thomas: Yet another Democrat whose party affiliation isn't worth mentioning.  At least not by the mainstream media. 

Today's Chicago Tribune, taking a cue from its hero Barack Obama, gave bracketeering a try.  The contenders, all former Illinois and Louisiana public officials, were selected for a smackdown to determine the most disgraceful.

The rivals from Louisiana were former Governors Huey Long and Edwin Edwards, former Congressman William "Refrigerator" Jefferson, and former New Orleans City Council president Oliver Thomas (identified as Thomas Oliver by the newspaper.).  Weighing in from Illinois were former Governors George Ryan and Milorad "Call Me Rod" Blagojevich, former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, and former Chicago alderman Arenda Troutman.

The Trib gave the nod to Edwin Edwards, although I think the competition was marred by not having an Illinois Daley in the competition.  Setting that aside, what was interesting is the Tribune didn't mention party affiliation in its bracketeering.  Seven of the eight contenders, or 87.5 percent, were Democrats.  Gee, what a surprise.

Yet the Tribune didn't see fit to note that relevant fact.  Just another day at what used to bill itself as the "World's Greatest Newspaper."   

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.   

Today's Parade Magazine names "The World's 10 Worst Dictators."  Topping the list is Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe:

Inflation in Zimbabwe is so bad that in January the government released a $50 billion note — enough to buy two loaves of bread. The unemployment rate has risen to more than 85%. In 2008, Mugabe agreed to hold an election, but it became clear that he would accept the result only if he won. His supporters launched attacks on the opposition, killing 163 and torturing or beating 5000. He ultimately signed a power-sharing agreement with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, but since then Mugabe has broken its terms and installed his own people at the head of every ministry. Meanwhile, health conditions have reached crisis levels. More than 3800 Zimbabweans have died from cholera since August.

U.S. link: Although U.S. leaders have called for Mugabe’s resignation, imports from Zimbabwe (primarily nickel and ferrochromium, both used in stainless steel) rose in 2008.

There's actually much more of a U.S. link than that.  Unmentioned is the role played by former president Jimmy Carter and other liberals.  The Boston Globe reported in December, 1979 that "Carter Administration officials feel they have scored a major foreign policy success in Rhodesia."  (Zimbabwe was formerly known as Rhodesia). The purported success was a settlement that set the stage for Mugabe's rise to power.  This was months after the Washington Post described him as a "scholarly, avowed Marxist."

In August, 1980, Carter's former UN ambassador Andrew Young wrote in the Washington Post of "Mugabe's Endorsement:"

The president's best investment of the past four years has just begun to pay off.  The visit of Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Robert Mugabe sparked an enthusiasm in black America that may well rekindle the fires that Jimmy Carter so desperately needs for reelection.

Here is a president, being questioned by the liberal wing of his own party for supposedly abandoning his commitment to human rights at home and abroad, suddenly receiving accolades from Robert Mugabe -- Africa's "black diamond" -- for making a truly non-racial democracy possible in southern Africa.

Young went on to relate how enthusiastically the "black diamond" was received in Harlem, at Howard University, and by New York's Foreign Policy Association.  He continued:

Zimbabwe may have given the American people the vote of confidence needed to get out of the present paralyzing cynicism and to begin building at home and abroad the dream of free men and women, of a world of peace and prosperity.

Support for Mugabe was echoed by the mainstream media.  The New York Times claimed that ""Mr. Mugabe has quickly established himself as an African statesman of the first rank."  An April, 1981 piece in the Washington Post noted:

Many whites admit that before last year's election they expected to flee in the event of a Mugabe victory.  Most were stunned by his landslide win after listening to years of propaganda proclaiming he was "a godless Marxist." Now, many are pleasantly surprised at how well things have gone in the first year of rule by the country's black majority of 7 million.

Weeks later the Boston Globe editorialized:

There is a temptation to be over optimistic about the future of Zimbabwe, the year-old black-ruled nation that was once Rhodesia, because so much of the future of southern Africa pivots on its success. Two recent events made some optimism seem justified.

Mugabe's Marxist, dictatorial tendencies were apparent from the beginning.  Jimmy Carter, who visited the White House just last week, and other liberals chose to ignore them then.  Parade would have performed its readers a service by briefly recapping the details of how Mugabe was given the chance to assume the title of world's worst dictator.    

This week CNN's Political Ticker reported "Congresswoman takes post in State Department."  The article begins:

California congresswoman Ellen Tauscher is vacating her Bay Area seat to serve under Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

Tauscher, a moderate Democrat and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a message to her constituents that Clinton had asked her to serve as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Let's briefly examine the congressional voting record of the "moderate Democrat" Ellen Tauscher.  According to interest group evaluations compiled by Project Vote Smart, for 2007 the congresswoman received a zero from the American Conservative Union and the National Right to Life Committee, an F from the National Taxpayers Union, an F- from Gun Owners of America, and a 4 from Citizens Against Government Waste.  

In contrast, she was awarded 100 percent ratings by NARAL Pro-Choice America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association, and the National Organization for Women.  Americans for Democratic Action assigned her a 95 and the AFL-CIO accorded her a 96.

CNN considers such a voting record to be one of a moderate Democrat.  Apparently, over at the most trusted name in news, liberals are as rare as a Barack Obama misstep.  

"PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama rhetoric, reality clash" is today's offering from Liz Sidoti, the Associated Press White House correspondent.  The piece begins with a harsh assessment:

Barack Obama's optimistic campaign rhetoric has crashed headlong into the stark reality of governing.

 

In office two months, he has backpedaled on an array of issues, gingerly shifting positions as circumstances dictate while ducking for political cover to avoid undercutting his credibility and authority. That's happened on the Iraq troop withdrawal timeline, on lobbyists in his administration and on money for lawmakers' pet projects.

 

But just wait.  Although it's true that Obama is breaking promises faster than he made them, we can't hold that against him.  Sidoti explains:

It's the same delicate dance each of his predecessors faced in moving from candidate to president, only to find he couldn't stick exactly by his word. Each was hamstrung by his responsibility to the entire nation and to individual constituencies, changes in the foreign and domestic landscapes, and the trappings of the federal government and Washington itself.

Once in the White House, presidents quickly learn they are only one part of the political system, not in charge of it. They discover the trade-offs they must make and the parties they must please to get things done. Inevitably, they find out that it's impossible to follow through completely on their campaign proposals.

 

Take, for example, the fact Obama signed Porkulus, a massive spending measure that included more than 8,000 earmarks.  According to Sidoti:

He had little choice. The measure, a holdover from last year, was needed to keep government from shutting down. But to blunt the fallout, Obama outlined guidelines to ensure tighter restraints on the spending and made a new promise: Future earmarks won't become law so easily.

 

See how that works?  Obama broke his promise on earmarks, but made up for it by making a new promise.  It's a tough job, but one the messiah has selflessly accepted.

No doubt most presidents have had difficulty keeping their campaign promises.  Then again, unlike Obama, most presidents have not enjoyed solid majorities in Congress, a never-ending campaign orchestrated by presidential loyalists, and a fawning mainstream media constantly cheering them on.

The One has all of that going for him.  It's still not enough and the mainstream media are already getting their excuses for him in order.    

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.

In The New York Times today appears "The President Is on the Line to Follow Up on Socialism," by Jeff Zeleny.  The article's first three paragraphs:

Less than 90 minutes after Air Force One landed, the telephone rang. President Obama was on the line, wanting to add one more point to a response he gave during an interview with The New York Times.

On a flight from Ohio to Washington on Friday, Mr. Obama was asked whether his domestic policies suggested that he was a socialist, as some conservatives have implied.

“The answer would be no,” he said, laughing for a moment before defending his administration for “making some very tough choices” on the budget.

Obama's protestation aside, the article should have been balanced with an acknowledgment that implications the new president is a socialist are hardly limited to some conservatives.

Less than a decade ago, for example, the Chicago affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed Obama for the state senate.  They admiringly quoted him: "Few are thinking of harnessing the internal productive capacities, both in terms of money and people, that already exist in communities."

At the beginning of last year's primary season, the Communist People's Weekly World printed a letter celebrating an early Obama win:

Happy New Year and congratulations on a job well done. These have been trying times when the hyenas of war have again been turned loose on humanity by a greedy ruling class.

Now, beyond all the optimism I was capable of mustering, Mr. Obama won Iowa!. . .

Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. .

In August, the same publication carried an editorial written by Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA.  Webb used the opportunity to give his comrades their marching orders:

In order to advance one iota of a pro-people’s agenda, the people’s movement has to elect Obama and to enlarge the Democratic Party majorities in Congress. Without that everything else is wishful thinking.

Days after the inauguration, Webb addressed a People's Weekly World event held in Cleveland and began:

I was standing on the Washington Mall on Inauguration Day, alongside nearly two million other people on Inauguration Day, and proudly watched the first African American take the oath of office in our nation’s history. That alone made the day deeply memorable, joyful, and historic. But I couldn’t help but think – and I’m sure that millions of others had the same thought – that the transfer of power from Bush to President Obama not only tore down a barrier that once was thought near impenetrable, but also signified the fading away of one era and the beginning of another.

It was hard not to think on that cold day in our nation’s capital that the worst of the past 30 years of right wing extremist rule is behind us and that an era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream.

Later in his address, Webb observed:

We now have not simply a friend, but a people's advocate in the White House.

Joelle Fishman is the chair of the political action committee of the Communist Party USA.  On the party's Web site she analyzed the election results.  The article started:

Congratulations on an extraordinary history making election!

We can think back with pride to decades of hard work toward our strategic goal of a big enough, broad enough and united enough labor and all-people’s movement that could overcome the ultra-right blockage to all progress. That all people’s movement has come to life, it is dynamic and it has the potential to keep growing.

The election of Barack Obama and a strengthened Congress creates new conditions in our country. There is now the possibility to shift gears and move forward. This new day requires us to further develop our tactics in order to continue to deepen and broaden labor and people’s unity. . .

The tears of joy we all shared as crowds gathered to watch the election results here and throughout the world dramatize the new moment we are in.

Socialists and Communists may argue that Obama isn't radical enough, that he's much too conservative to be deemed a socialist.  Yet their enthusiastic support and words belie that contention.  Not just "some conservatives" have implied Obama is a socialist.  People on the far left have given some might big hints.

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.