You might think a major metropolitan newspaper that boasts "The Midwest's largest reporting team" on its front page would report on a suburban demonstration attracting thousands of people.  In the case of the Chicago Tribune, you'd be wrong.

Today's Tribune print edition makes no mention of yesterday's Tea Party Express protest in New Lenox, Illinois, located only 36 miles from Chicago's Loop.  The Southtown Star did cover the event on its Web site, noting:

About 6,000 people packed the hillside venue at The Commons Performing Arts Pavilion for the protest, part of a nationwide Tea Party Express tour that includes speeches, musical performances and updates from a traveling Fox News correspondent.

Monday's audience was the largest yet, organizers said.

Today's Tribune devotes two stories, six pictures, and two maps to Oprah Winfrey's "takeover of downtown Chicago Monday."  And there are stories on disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's media blitz to hawk his new book, Chicago students getting free haircuts with which to start the new school year, and how more stores are now accepting food stamps.

Then there's the story titled, "After all the fuss, president to urge kids: stay in school," complete with a photo of Obama smiling.  A large picture of a woman holding a "Health Care Can't Wait" sign accompanies an Obama's Labor Day AFL-CIO speech story, subtitled "President decries 'lies' about health care plans, says debate time is over."

The Tribune even finds space to devote to an article to a suburban man who's installed a faux drawbridge for his Tudor-style home.

Yet the Chicago Tribune, with "The Midwest's largest reporting team," doesn't report on a true grassroots phenomenon.  As this is written, there's no mention of the story on the newspaper's Web site either.  Maybe the mainstream media are just hoping that if they ignore them long enough, Tea Parties, and the people who attend them, will just go away.  I don't think so.     

In yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Mary Mitchell lauds Fred Hampton, a Black Panther leader killed 40 years ago by police.  In "Hampton's forgotten legacy:  Today's youth can learn something from Black Panther leader's humanitarian deeds," Mitchell soft-pedals the Panthers' extensive history of violence and radical politics in favor of citing some of Hampton's alleged good works:

He stood up for disadvantaged
People in Chicago are still so divided over Hampton that, a couple of years ago, efforts to erect a street sign in his honor caused an uproar.
Hampton will always be remembered by some for advocating violence.
But for many others -- those who benefitted from his courage -- he will always be remembered for giving hungry children a hot breakfast.
Or for opening a free walk-in health clinic on the West Side.
Or for trying to open a swimming pool, so poor black children could get relief from the heat.
Or for being a bold advocate for justice.

The Panthers' breakfast program for children has long been applauded, even by some conservatives, as a worthwhile endeavor.  Ignored are the severe problems associated with that program across the country.  Chicago was hardly an exception.

In September, 1969, the Chicago Tribune reported that money donated to the Black Panthers

"by merchants and other businessmen to feed breakfast to needy children appears to have been channeled by Panther officials to their own personal use, investigators for local and federal law enforcement agencies indicated after a close scrutiny of Panther activities.  The Tribune reported yesterday that the Panthers' breakfast program, which they claim feeds 3,500 school children a day, is almost nonexistent in Chicago.  Yet, the Panthers continue to solicit money and food to run the program."

The piece went on to identify program money given to Fred Hampton for a suit and books, as well as disbursements to other members.  One I found of particular interest since it involves a current U.S. Congressman:

Bobby Rush, the deputy minister of defense, is listed as receiving $145 on April 9. On the same day, the records show "Che" as the recipient of $20 for tires.  Investigators say that Che is Rush's nickname.

So did media exposure spur the Panthers to make good on their pledge to feed needy children?  In a word, no.  In January, 1970, the Chicago Tribune featured the story "Panther Free Food Project Barely Alive."  The article began:

The Black Panther party's program of feeding hungry school children is barely operating in Chicago, a survey by The Tribune disclosed yesterday.
It was found that only 44 youngsters actually showed up for the breakfasts at four locations yesterday, despite claims by Panther leaders that 1,000 children are being fed each week.

The report also noted:

Since Dec. 4, when Illinois Panther leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were killed in a raid by state's attorney's police, investigators say the party has received many large cash donations for the program. . .
It was Hampton who last September claimed that the Panthers were feeding 3,000 to 4,000 children each week at three locations.  A Tribune survey found at that time showed that on most days the breakfast centers never opened and on others only a handful of children showed up.

Mary Mitchell writes that "Many of us did an (sic) poor job of passing on the spirit of men like Hampton."  Don't beat yourself up too much, Mary.  You liberals are still doing what you can, even 40 years later. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Post television critic Tom Shales conducts an online discussion on Tuesdays.  Today's session featured this exchange:

Dunn Loring, Va.: Re your column disparaging Liz Cheney's style, what was the last column you wrote so harshly criticizing a liberal pundit?

Tom Shales: Ah yes, it's our dear old Dunn Loringite. Dunn Loringer. Whatever. You have an ideological axe to grind and it's awfully predictable. Where do you get the idea that if someone criticizes a conservative they must also criticize a liberal? Is there some kind of "equal time" law or "fairness doctrine" that applies to everybody who says anything that is broadcast or cablecast? That's absurd. CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE THE BROADCAST AND CABLE MEDIA IN THIS COUNTRY. They have very little to complain about in terms of access to an audience. When was the last time you criticized a conservative? It's a meaningless question whichever way it is asked.

Shales disparages the questioner for having an ideological axe to grind, something he no doubt has never been accused of himself .  Later, there's a follow up question:

Reston, Va.: Tom, I'll give you that conservatives have got the radio all sewn up (mostly because nobody listens to liberal radio shows so they die), but how do conservatives dominate cable media? FOX is only one channel, up against CNN, MSNBC, and don't forget ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS. Sure FOX's ratings beat MSNBC and CNN and PBS put together, but that's about viewer choice. Clearly on TV, liberals have more voices, but like radio, less people watch them. . ..

Tom Shales: MSNBC as a "liberal" soap box is a somewhat recent development. Frankly I don't like ideology-based channels no matter what they're selling. They're mostly preach-to-the-choir things anyway, so I shouldn't let them bother me. Maybe there are more liberal voices on TV but that didn't stop America from electing Ronald Reagan and not by a Bush mini-margin either.

So in a matter of minutes, Shales goes from all caps certainty to "Maybe there are more liberal voices on TV. . ."  His certitude is challenged by another participant:

Atlanta, Ga.: Tom, I'm a big fan, but can you explain this sentence?
CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE THE BROADCAST AND CABLE MEDIA IN THIS COUNTRY
I think you meant to write that Liberals dominate the broadcast and cable media in the country. True, Fox News has the highest cable ratings, but other left-leaning outlets on cable and, certainly, network television are more numerous than right-leaning.
Do you have examples of the conservative dominance?

Tom Shales: Well now let me see. The networks are all owned by Big Business and Big Businessmen certainly tend to be conservatives. The Fox News Channel isn't a minor detail to be lumped in with other networks; it is a 24-hour-a-day conservative propaganda machine; MSNBC is liberal only during prime-time and late-night, don't you think? Phil Donahue is off the air and has been for years; he was too "liberal." Perhaps with a liberal in the White House, the pendulum WILL swing the other way for a while. . .

So then he's reverting to his first assertion, with a mild slap at those businessmen, like George Soros and Jeffrey Immelt probably, who tend to be conservative.

Shales appears to be confused.  That condition likely is a great credential in the mainstream media.  

AARP the Magazine boasts a circulation that's seven times greater than that of Time.  For the first half of this year, AARP the Magazine's circulation averaged more than 24 million copies.

AARP claims it's a "nonpartisan organization," an assertion increasingly challenged by senior citizens.  The magazine's September-October issue may give members more evidence for that conclusion.  It carries a cover story on rocker Bruce Springsteen, prominent in the presidential campaigns of both Barack Obama and John Kerry.  The piece is adulatory, noting that Springsteen at his upcoming concerts "will play several roles - hero, leader, preacher, rebel - the performances unfolding like a novel."

The magazine devotes several pages to observations from his friends.  One is liberal activist Bonnie Raitt:

It was an incredible boost when Bruce committed to joining the No Nukes concerts.  From the groundbreaking Amnesty International tour, to helping stop Contra aid in the '80s, to a steady stream of benefits, I don't know if any American artist has made as profound a difference.

Other Springsteen friends quoted are author Ron Kovic, Jersey Girl and "truth commission" advocate Kristen Breitweiser, and Senator John Kerry, who states of the singer: "In good times and bad, he had my back. . ."

In another article, "Jill Biden's 'Acts of Kindness,'" the vice president's wife is interviewed.  It starts:

Last spring President Barack Obama signed a $5.7 billion bill that, among other things, provides stipends and scholarships to citizens over 55 who contribute their skills and time to communities in need.

We're relieved to learn that Jill "Biden has emerged, along with First Lady Michelle Obama, as one of the more visible and enthusiastic foot soldiers for the White House in its campaign to encourage Americans to give back."

It's good the Biden's are giving something back.  In 2007 and with an adjusted gross income of more than $300,000, the Bidens gave a paltry $995 to charity.  

A third piece, "The New Patriotism," begins:

Presidents since Lincoln have urged us to follow our "better angels."  Now Barack Obama's call for national service is inspiring a new era of people helping people.
If the Stars and Stripes are the truest symbol of national pride, then patriotism seems to be flying high.  You can feel it as much as see it.  At coffee bars in Seattle, in midwestern farm communities, on college campuses, in New York City subways, Americans from all walks of life - old, young, white, black, Republican and Democratic - are fervently, happily, waving the flag, both literally and figuratively, and bursting with a renewed spirit that is helping redefine what it means to be a patriot.

After several more sentences of recounting the pure joy, "a welcome shift in mood," we're told it's "fueled in part by President Barack Obama's resonant and reiterated call to service. . . "

AARP the Magazine doesn't devote all its pages to promoting Obama, of course.  It also carries vital news, like informing its readers that "The Norman Lear Collection" is now available on DVD.

Two weeks ago, CBS News reported up to 60,000 people had canceled their AARP memberships since July 1; these were attributed to AARP's position on health care reform.  AARP the Magazine and its fawning coverage of Obama and other liberals aren't likely to draw these former members back.  

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.    

"It's like déjà vu all over again," noted philosopher Yogi Berra is credited with saying. And so it is.

A liberal Democratic president has his heart set on pushing through a proposal strongly unpopular with most Americans. Enjoying substantial Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate, he intends to win.

So it was in September, 1977 when Jimmy Carter signed the Panama Canal treaties to relinquish United States control. An Associated Press opinion poll conducted that month found that only 29 percent of Americans favored the pact. A solid 50 percent opposed it and 21 percent expressed no opinion.

Just as Barack Obama is determined to shove a government health care program down the throats of his protesting countrymen, Carter did what was necessary to get the Senate to ratify the Panama Canal treaties. He cajoled, he promised, he threatened. It worked.

Carter was understandably jubilant when in early 1978 he received one vote more than the 67 necessary to approve the first of the two treaties. He hailed it as "a victory for the American people." That may sound vaguely familiar. It's how Barack Obama described his own 2008 election.

In a 1991 interview, Jimmy Carter talked about his triumph:

"I never go through a week of my life now that I don't get letters from people condemning the Panama Canal Treaties. Still, and this is I don't know how many years later. 1978? Thirteen years later. But it was a good thing to do."

He went on to describe the aftermath:

"It is the most courageous thing that the U.S. Senate ever did in its existence. They knew that it was politically unpopular, but they knew that it was right and needed. Of the 20 senators who voted for the Canal Treaties in 1978, who were up for re-election the next year, only seven of them came back. Thirteen of them didn't come back. And the attrition rate in 1980 was almost as bad."

The Boston Globe reported in February, 1981 that "the new Senate that took office this year sees the absence, by retirement or defeat, of 28 senators who supported the treaties." In only three years, 28 of the 68 senators who did what Carter deemed "right and needed" and what the public opposed were gone.

As was Carter. He was such a dismal failure in so many ways, it's impossible to attribute his defeat to any one action or event. Jimmy had pummeled President Jerry Ford over the "misery index," a combination of the inflation and unemployment rates. Four years of Carter resulted in the index shooting up from 13% to more than 20%. By itself, inflation stood at 13.58% in Carter's last year in office.

Yet another factor had to have been Carter's successful effort to turn the Panama Canal over to a leftist dictator carrying the title of "Maximum Leader of the Panamanian Revolution." Americans didn't want that to happen, but a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress didn't care.

Which brings us to now. Another Democratic president and another Democratic Congress don't care that Americans oppose a government health care system disguised as reform.

With their elitist mentality, they genuinely believe they know better than we do what's best for us. If it takes hiding from constituents, fine. If it takes lying about what their plans entail, OK. If it takes cajoling, promising, threatening, it's just part of doing what they've decided is right and needed.

If the president succeeds in imposing ObamaCare, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. All those Americans held in such contempt by the liberal establishment will be at the polls next year and in 2012. They'll remember how they were disrespected and ignored. And Obama & Co. will have no one to blame but themselves for ignoring a lesson of the Carter years.

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.

In today's article titled "White House appears ready to drop 'public option,'" the Associated Press reports the Obama administration is signaling it's prepared to drop the option of government-run insurance as a component of ObamaCare.  The piece states in part:

Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.

Not a deal breaker?  It certainly seemed to be one as recently as last month.  On July 20, The Washington Post's Web site included Ezra Klein's report, "Obama Says Health-Care Reform 'Must' Include Public Option."  Cited is Obama's radio address of that week, in which the president declared:

(A)ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

Any plan must include a public option.  The language is unambiguous.  Except in ObamaWorld apparently.  Now we're told it was never really a deal breaker.

Conservatives have been frustrated by mainstream media efforts to at times rewrite history to Barack Obama's benefit.  Here they go again.   

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.       

Barack Obama's many failings are increasingly apparent.  Consequently, even the mainstream media are finding it difficult to keep up the facade.  So difficult, in fact, that USA Today now deems newsworthy the findings of a 12-person focus group conducted by a longtime Democratic operative.

USA Today's Susan Page reports the happy news in the piece "Obama gets thumbs up from focus group."  It begins:

TOWSON, Md. — President Obama has seen his approval ratings slide, but a dozen independent voters who gathered here for a roundtable discussion about politics were still inclined to give him a break.

The area residents expressed deep worry about the country's direction and a sobering view of the problems ahead. There was also a reservoir of good feeling for a president several referred to familiarly as "Barack."

Asked what he would like to say to Obama, Scott Wood, 35, who has been looking for a job since February, advised: "Don't give up yet; we haven't."

"We've found out he's not Superman," said Nora Seeley, 54, when asked what she had learned about the president during his first six months on the job. Still, she said, "things are starting to turn around."

The focus group, held Wednesday night, was sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

It isn't until the eighth paragraph that readers learn the session was moderated by "Democratic pollster Peter Hart."  The fifteenth paragraph also discloses a relevant fact:

Seven of the participants voted for Obama last year; four for his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain; and one for third-party candidate Ralph Nader.

And what would an Obama happy-talk article be without a little Rush Limbaugh bashing? 

"Asked whom among a dozen prominent people they would least like to be seated next to on a plane, six picked radio host Rush Limbaugh and four House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif."

Much of the mainstream media invested heavily in Obama.  They will continue promoting him and his leftist agenda, portraying him a success when the truth is very different.

A dozen people in one of the country's most reliably Democratic states realize Obama's not Superman but still hold out hope for their Barack, and it makes headlines.  Perhaps next week will bring the breaking news that Michelle Obama thinks her husband's doing a darn fine job. 

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.

Just as the media – with the exception of Larry King – were finally getting over the passing of Michael Jackson came the news that former CBS newsman Walter Cronkite died.  Cronkite was an iconic figure amongst his brethren and media encomia were suitably lavish.

Cronkite was recognized, we’ve been told over and over again, as the most trusted man in America.  According to USA Today:

“How did he become ‘the most trusted man in America?’ It was a Roper survey for U.S. News & World Report, Cronkite once said, and he won ‘because they didn’t poll my wife.’”

Ever the skeptic, I tried to find that poll.  The Roper Center’s Web site includes a link to data gathered for a 1974 “Virginia Slims American Women’s Opinion Poll.” Cronkite did indeed do better than any other male in that sampling.  But note how the question was worded:

“And now here is a list of prominent men.  (HAND RESPONDENT CARD) For each man on the list, tell me if you respect him a great deal, somewhat, or not at all.”

Cronkite’s name was on the list.  So were those of 16 other men, including Marlon Brando, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Joe Namath and Frank Sinatra.  Yet another contender was Richard Nixon, who that year became the only president to resign.

Respondents were limited to the names provided.  The question didn’t center on trust, but on respect.  A year earlier, a Sindlinger and Company survey asked a couple of thousand people to rate network newsmen for “trust and accuracy.” NBC’s John Chancellor narrowly edged out Cronkite in that poll.  What I find interesting is winner Chancellor scored only 55.8 percent for trust and accuracy, suggesting that even back then a good number of people questioned what they were being told by the media.

And with good reason.  USA Today’s article noted:

“Cronkite’s influence was such that after he ended a 1968 broadcast following a trip to South Vietnam during the Tet Offensive telling viewers that the war could not be won, President Lyndon Johnson reportedly told his aides, ‘If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.’”

Mona Charen set the record straight in her book “Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First:”

“Johnson misread the situation.  Cronkite did not speak for middle America, but instead for the liberal intelligentsia and for a growing segment of the Democratic Party.”

Charen also quotes Cronkite on what he saw as an overreaction to Soviet threats: “Fear of the Soviet Union taking over the world just seemed as likely to me as invaders from Mars.” That’s a remarkable statement from a newsman who had personally witnessed another form of totalitarianism attempt world domination.

The media Cronkite love fest is understandable to a degree.  They are honoring their own and, in so doing, honoring themselves.  But is it warranted?

In his 1984 “The Liberal Crack Up,” R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr. reflected on “the weird reverence” accorded Uncle Walter, as he’s now called on CNN:

“Here was a man who in all his public years never passed on more than a hint of intellectual substance.  He just sat there in front of that infernal microphone! Yet he was esteemed as an authority on world politics and a moral paragon.  He left no substantial books, no essays, no memorable epigrams. . . He dwelt in the land of bromides and wholesome attitudes.  He was amiable, but he was unexceptional too.”

Walter Cronkite’s death is sad in the same way most deaths are.  But let’s keep a little perspective here.  He simply read the news, usually as written by other people.  He came across as warm and friendly and didn’t blatantly parade his liberalism until after his retirement.

But was he “most trusted man in America”?  Not likely.

Monday's Chicago Tribune featured the article "Powell 'still a Republican': Rebutting critics, he criticizes party's far right voices."  The article starts:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Sunday that ideological conservatives, particularly radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, have gained a hold over the Republican Party that risks driving the GOP into an extended exile from power.

Powell cast his warnings in unusually personal terms as he answered recent charges from two champions of the Republican right -- Limbaugh and former Vice President Dick Cheney -- that he was no longer a Republican.

"Rush will not get his wish, and Mr. Cheney was misinformed," said Powell, whose resume includes work as military adviser to President Ronald Reagan, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush's Cabinet. "I am still a Republican."

Obviously, the "far right voices" referenced in the piece's headline are those of Limbaugh and Cheney.

If Rush Limbaugh is on the far right, surely MSNBC's Rachel Maddow qualifies to be characterized as far left.  Yet only last month, the Tribune carried an article from the Los Angeles Times (another Tribune newspaper) that asked this burning question about Maddow:

Politics, not to mention television, thrives on conflict, but how much of that will there be with a left-leaning host in a time of a left-leaning president?

So Maddow and Obama are merely left-leaning.  That was also used in a June, 2007 Chicago Tribune article titled "Carefully crafting the Barack Obama 'brand.'"  Describing how Obama went about writing "The Audacity of Hope," it notes:

In keeping with the original game plan, staff members spent nights and weekends scouring the chapters as they rolled in, looking for potential political pitfalls -- a vetting committee Obama didn't have when he published his earlier, more provocative memoir.

For instance, when Obama was seeking to name someone as the epitome of left-leaning politics, an aide urged him to use a House member instead of a Senate colleague. So the book names now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), though Obama's voting record is similar to hers.

Clearly, "left leaning" is the description of choice when it comes to liberal extremists.  In a short blurb that appeared last September 12, the Tribune reported:

MSNBC dumped high-maintenance and allegedly left-leaning yakkers Keith Olbermann  and Chris Matthews  from election anchor duties. Some of their critics cheer as they tune back to "Fair and Balanced" Fox News.

Allegedly left-leaning yakkers?  Who does it take, you may ask, to drop the allegedly, Fidel Castro?  As it turns out, not necessarily.  On November 2, the paper's television critic wrote:

In another skit, (actor Ben) Affleck played a scarily intense version of the left-leaning Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann."       

And all this time I've considered the real Olbermann to be the scarily intense version.

So now we've been instructed that Obama, Pelosi, Olbermann, Matthews and Maddow aren't liberal extremists as many of us have thought.  They aren't far left voices.  They're just left leaning.  Sort of like the Chicago Tribune.