Posted today on the Chicago Tribune's Clout Street blog is the story"GOP attacks Obama bus, but Bush did same," written by Rick Pearson. It begins:

As President Barack Obama traveled to the first of two “town hall” stops in western Illinois today, top national and state Republicans criticized his campaign-style visit and criticized his use of a taxpayer-funded Canadian-manufactured bus as part of a jobs tour.
 
But no mention was made by Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus or Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady that a re-election seeking President George W. Bush used a bus from the same manufacturer, Quebec-based Prevost, for a spring 2004 “Yes, America Can” campaign tour through the Midwest.

The writer reports, as the Associated Press has, that the $1.1 million Obama bus was purchased with tax dollars.  But he ignores that the bus used by President Bush was leased by his 2004 campaign, using voluntary contributions.  There's a world of difference, but why let facts get in the way of yet another effort to cover for the most inept president in history?

A May 5, 2004 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article titled "A busload of election fodder: Bush campaign rides into heart of manufacturing on Canada-built vehicle" reported:

The guts of the 45-foot-long bus were made in the United States, including the sturdy Detroit Diesel engine. And much of the value of the imposing coach was added during its conversion by a Nashville firm that also has included as its clients Aerosmith, Toby Keith, Britney Spears and Christian performers Amy Grant and Third Day.

And later:

The Bush campaign is leasing the president's bus and seven others from the Hemphill brothers of Nashville, from whom the campaign leased in 2000.

$1.1 million in tax dollars for Obama to travel in luxury for a few days as he bashes Republicans.  We're the ones getting taken for a ride. But don't expect that to be worth a story in the mainstream media.    

Tonight in Iowa,  Republican presidential candidates will debate before a national audience.  But, at least on page 14 of today's Chicago Tribune, a much bigger story concerns a little known homosexual activist, not in this evening's debate, who also seeks the GOP nomination.  He admits to a childhood crush on Chuck Connors of TV's "The Rifleman," and stands about as much a chance of winning the GOP nod as the late Mr. Connors does.

The story, "Debate is gay candidate's primary aim," runs 25 paragraphs and approximately 1,200 words.  Excerpted from an even longer article on the Chicago Tribune's Web site, it centers on an understandably  less than optimistic candidate:

Fred Karger, Republican candidate for president, knows there is no chance he will be the GOP nominee, much less the next leader of the free world. "I'm not delusional," he says, though one might wonder what, exactly, he is thinking.

In contrast, the same page of today's Tribune carries a much smaller article, "Eyes on Iowa as GOP hopefuls set for debate," taken from an expanded piece appearing on the newspaper's Web site.  The print story is seven paragraphs in length and about 300 words.  Several candidates who will participate tonight aren't even mentioned.

Maybe if Newt Gingrich confessed to an infatuation with Pa Cartwright, he'd have qualified for coverage in the Tribune story on the debate.  

Today CNN's Politics Web site carries the story "Republicans name fiscal conservatives to debt committee," written by Deirdre Walsh and Tom Cohen.  The piece begins:

"Republican leaders on Wednesday named fiscal conservatives for their six picks for a new congressional "super" committee charged with crafting a plan to cut the country's deficit."

OK, the GOP's selections would be seen by most as fiscally conservative.  Senator Jon Kyle (R-AZ), for example, has received an A in the most recent rankings of the National Taxpayers Union and a 97 percent rating for 2009 from Citizens Against Government Waste, as reported by Project Vote Smart.

Yesterday, Walsh  wrote an article titled "Reid taps Sen. Murray to co-chair debt committee" on CNN's Politics Web site  It started:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Tuesday that he would appoint Sen. Patty Murray, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to the congressional "super committee," charged with crafting a plan to cut the country's deficit.

No mention was made of the fact that all the Democrats selected by Reid are fiscal liberals.  All received an F in the most recent rankings of the National Taxpayers Union.  From Citizens Against Government Waste, Baucus was rated at 5 percent, with Murray and Kerry each assigned 3 percent.

The self-described mainstream media are usually quite quick to identify politicians they deem conservative.  But does their lexicon not include the word liberal?   

On Wednesday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams reported on another development in the Great Obama Recovery:

"We saw some astounding new numbers that came out today. They showed the number of Americans relying on food stamps has hit another all-time record. These numbers would come as a huge disappointment to President Lyndon Johnson, who launched his War on Poverty back in 1964. Nearly 46 million of your fellow citizens are receiving food stamp assistance. That represents 21 million American households. Numbers went up in 49 out of 50 states."

Certainly discouraging numbers, but not astounding.  Unless, of course, you somehow expected the machinations of President Barack Obama & Associates to do anything other than kill any hope of economic recuperation.

President Lyndon Johnson may have been disappointed, but the chief warrior in the War on Poverty shouldn't be given total credit, if that's the correct word, for the food stamp program.  That distinction belongs to another liberal hero, John F. Kennedy.

According to the JFK Presidential Library and Museum's Web site, on February 2, 1961, Kennedy asked "Congress for program to help end recession, including food stamps, extended benefits for unemployed workers and welfare payments for their children."  This was followed by his first executive order, which announced a three-year food stamp "pilot" program.  We all know what happens to temporary government programs;  his successor and Congress made it permanent with the Food Stamp Act of 1964:

The Department (of Agriculture) estimated that participation in a national FSP would eventually reach 4 million, at a cost of $360 million annually.

Kennedy brother-in-law Sargent Shriver ran LBJ's Office of Economic Opportunity.  In 1967, when about $700 million a year was devoted to food assistance programs, Shriver estimated that another billion dollars would permanently solve the problem of hunger in America.  That was $66 billion ago.

If anything's astounding, it's that most in the mainstream media never question why, after trillions of tax dollars spent on fighting poverty, there's so little, if any, improvement.  And it's questionable that Kennedy and Johnson, both of whom thought Washington had the solutions, would be all that disappointed to see so many Americans dependent on government for help. 

Yesterday on "The Fix", a politics blog of the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake wrote "Five Members to watch in the House debt ceiling vote."  One of the five is Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT).  He's described as a potential "yes" vote for Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) debt ceiling bill:

Matheson, a Democrat, has managed to keep his Republican-leaning Utah seat by voting very conservatively since being elected in 2000.

So let's see what The Fix considers voting not just conservatively, but very conservatively.  Project Vote Smart collects ratings given by a wide variety of special-interest organizations.  Matheson's record shows that for 2010 the American Conservative Union gave him a grade of 17 percent.  The National Taxpayers Union assigned him a 39 percent and Citizens Against Government Waste awarded him an 11 percent.  He did substantially better with the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, which gave him an 80 percent rating.  The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People determined he voted in their interests 75 percent of the time for the period 2009-2010, and the American Civil Liberties Union rated him at 56 percent for the same period.

The National Education Association gave him an A for his votes in 2009 through 2010 while the Human Rights Campaign ranked the Democrat at 78 percent.  And for 2007-2008, the National Organization for Women evaluated Matheson at 94 percent.

That doesn't look to me like the record of of congressman who votes very conservatively.  It does, however, provide yet another glimpse into the liberal mindset at The Washington Post.       

A possible debt ceiling crisis?  Mass murder in Norway?  Important stories, but today on the 6:00 pm segment of CNN Newsroom, they took a backseat to another story.  Showing video of a homosexual wedding, the program began:

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Oh, boy, it's a historic day in New York. Same-sex marriages begin. And this hour live coverage as Mayor Michael Bloomberg officiates a wedding between two of his staff members.

Lemon devoted most of the hour-long program to stories of men marrying men and women marrying women.  Less than ten minutes were spent on a potential debt ceiling deal in Washington.  The Norwegian tragedy warranted about four minutes of air time.  There were approximately two minutes devoted to weather, and about two more to covering four other stories, including the death of singer Amy Winehouse.  The National Football League lockout and Tiger Woods firing his caddie each merited two minutes of air time.

The rest of the hour was all gay marriage.  In the interest of balance, Lemon reported on a demonstration protesting same-sex marriage.  That took less than a minute.          

He asked a homosexual couple how long they'd been together.  He asked a lesbian couple how long they'd been together.  He aired footage of several different ceremonies, and devoted much of the last 20 minutes to the Gracie Mansion event at which Bloomberg married two of his aides:

LEMON: It's a fine and fancy day in the city of New York and right here on CNN. I feel like I should be wearing my seersucker suit and drinking mint juleps.

You're watching a milestone in gay rights. Today, New York became the sixth and largest state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

And -- there we go. Come on. We're got to see the ceremony. Come on, guys, get it together.

So fascinating was this marriage that Lemon and CNN carried it several minutes into the next hour.  Finally, it was a wrap:

LEMON: We wish we could take all of you inside for a drink, inside the tent, wouldn't that be nice? But that's Michael Bloomberg. And now officially married in New York City, John Fineblatt and Jonathan Bradley Mintz, two long-time aides of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and guess what? It was a beautiful ceremony. You got to love a wedding if it's -- whether it's an opposite, couples of opposite -- opposite sex or same sex. Weddings are always beautiful and it's nice.

Maybe, but they're generally not so newsworthy as to crowd out stories of considerably more importance.  Unless, apparently, they so excite the anchor that he wishes he were wearing his seersucker suit and drinking mint juleps.  Oh, boy.

Today on the 2:00 pm segment of CNN Newsroom, anchor Randi Kaye spoke with CNN political producer Shannon Travis about criticism directed at President Barack Obama:

TRAVIS: Yes, really, really quickly, billionaire Steve Wynn, you've seen his resorts all over Las Vegas. He's blasting President Obama. I'm going to read this quote from a call, an earnings call yesterday. Quote, "I'm saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime". Those are from Steve Wynn.

We know there are a lot of businesses who have been on a hiring streak, Randi, but this is what Steve Wynn, billionaire real estate mogul in Las Vegas thinks about the Obama administration.

What hiring streak is Travis talking about?  CNN Money.com reported last week that initial unemployment claims remained above the 400,000 mark for the 14th straight week.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics noted in its June, 2011 report that there are now 14.1 million Americans out of work.  The same agency pegged that number at 11.6 for January, 2009, the month Barack Obama took office.  

According to a U.S. Chamber of Congress analysis last week, only 19 percent of small-business executives expect to add to their payrolls in the next year.  Twelve percent plan on cutting jobs while 62 percent said they're not planning on hiring.

Some in the mainstream media still want to protect Obama, even if it puts whatever little credibility they have left at stake.  The more than 14 million Americans who still can't find work after Obama's $800 billion stimulus would love for CNN to identify those many businesses that are on a hiring streak.

Friday night on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, the lead story was on a counseling clinic owned by presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and her husband.  Cooper spoke of "allegations that the clinic engages in so-called reparative therapy," described by Cooper as "based on the theory that gay people can be turned into heterosexuals through a combination of prayer and willpower."  The host's use of "so-called" set the stage for CNN political analyst Paul Begala to fulminate.

Using the work "crackpot" to characterize reparative therapy no fewer than nine times, Begala insisted Mrs. Bachmann should be interrogated:

BEGALA: She should be asked about this theory. She's a candidate for president. One out of 10 Americans is gay. She should be asked if she wants to lead a country where at least 10 percent of us are gay or lesbian, does she believe in this crackpot, bigoted theory that somehow there's something to be repaired in our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters who happen to be born gay?

Are "at least 10 percent" of Americans homosexual, to use a word that's not politically correct this season?  In a word: no.

That figure, long used by activists, has been debunked repeatedly over the years.  Obviously, no one can say with certainty what the actual numbers are, but one analysis that gathered data from four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys concluded that about 1.7 percent of the population are lesbian or gay.  Another 1.8 percent of the population identify as bisexual.

The research came last April from the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute, which defines itself as "a leading think tank dedicated to the field of sexual orientation and gender identity-related law and public policy."  

So Begala appears quite far afield, as is so often the case.  A Democratic consultant, he probably thinks it smart to make every special-interest group to which his party caters appear as large as possible.  Still, he should be able to exercise at least a modicum of self-control occasionally.

And Paul, you could use more restraint in tossing around "crackpot."  You know what they say about people living in glass houses.

When an adoring mainstream media suspend their fawning long enough to point out that he's lying, Barack Obama must realize his presidency is in trouble.  That's what happened Friday night on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees.

Naturally, Cooper began by claiming Republicans who argue Americans don't want higher taxes use polling data "that's just not true."  No mention was made of this week's Rasmussen Reports survey showing 55 percent of respondents oppose a tax hike in any debt ceiling deal.  But then Cooper turned to Gallup Poll findings used by Obama:

Well, President Obama mentioned that poll today, but keeping him honest, his numbers didn't quite add up. Here's what he said. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, in fact, a large majority does support a mix, but not 80 percent as the President said. Here's the poll again. It does show only 20 percent support for spending cuts only, but add up the number for some kinds of mix and cuts and taxes and you get 69 percent, not the 80 percent the President said, an 11-point difference.

Granted, Cooper declared GOP officials employed data "that's just not true" while soft peddling Obama's use of numbers that "didn't quite add up."  Yet the fact Cooper even called Obama out suggests that maybe, just maybe, the mainstream media won't be as worshipful of The One as they were in 2008.

Talk about grim tidings on the debt ceiling. According to the Washington Post:

"Yesterday a worried Treasury Secretary . . . sent a letter to (the) House Speaker . . . listing the consequences if the debt bill was not sent to the President immediately. Social Security checks totaling $8 billion already in the mail would not be cashed and other checks for civil service retirement, veterans payments and government operating costs would not be honored as of today, he said."

That ominous news isn't from today, but from April 3, 1979. The Treasury Secretary was Carter appointee Werner Michael Blumenthal and the House Speaker was Thomas "Tip" O'Neill. The struggle at the time was whether to raise the temporary debt ceiling to a then astounding $830 billion. The current contest is over raising it to $16.7 trillion, or more than 20 times what it was only 32 years ago.

Barack H. (as in hissy) Obama was using the old Democratic playbook on fear-mongering when he told CBS News he can't guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3. It was a strategy favored by Democrat Jimmy Carter, whose own failed presidency is looking better every day when compared to the ongoing disaster that is Obama.

Five months after Blumenthal's threat, Carter's next treasury secretary showed up asking Congress to work on that debt ceiling again. The Washington Post reported he told the House Ways & Means Committee:

"The Treasury was required to suspend the sale of United States savings bonds, and people who depend upon Social Security checks and other government payments suddenly realized that the Treasury simply cannot pay the government's bills unless it is authorized to borrow the funds needed to finance the spending programs previously enacted by Congress."

As long as "people who depend upon Social Security checks and other government payments" got the message, liberals could count on Congress — in the face of a potential voter backlash — to keep to its big spending, big taxing ways. Democrats knew a winning strategy when they saw one.

In May, 1980, it was time to remind folks of what would happen if Congress wouldn't raise the debt ceiling again. The Washington Post was there with a story on it:

"The debt ceiling expires Sunday. Although Congress has gone through similar exercises before without the government grinding to a halt, House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill. Jr. (D-Mass.) warned that banks could stop cashing Social Security checks next week if Congress does not extend the ceiling to continue the government's borrowing authority in the meantime."

Fifteen years later, another Democrat was in the White House. Bill Clinton was stupid enough to give phone sex a bad name, but he knew when it was time to start frightening seniors. An article in the July 25, 1995 Washington Post noted:

"Last week, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin wrote (House Speaker Newt) Gingrich that a debt ceiling crisis could interrupt government operations, delay payments to Social Security beneficiaries, disrupt Treasury's borrowing operations and 'generate uncertainty in the domestic and international securities markets.'"

We've been through all this before. Today's liberals just aren't much on originality. MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who's worked for both Jimmy Carter and Tip O'Neill, has described current GOP opposition to hiking the debt limit as "terrorism."

Nice try, Chrissy, but you're a little late. In 1995, Clinton's chief of staff Leon Panetta, now Obama's defense secretary, compared Republican resistance to Clinton's budget plans to putting "a gun to the head of the president." He went on to say, "that's a form of terrorism."

So don't worry, seniors, the check will be in the mail next month. Sooner or later, though, we're all going to realize that Social Security, the crown jewel of Roosevelt's welfare schemes, isn't sustainable. Decades ago, there were relatively few beneficiaries. Life expectancy was considerably less than it is today. You had more contributing workers in proportion to the number of recipients.

Social Security has long been, as advertised, the third rail of American politics. Barry Goldwater learned that almost 50 years ago. He pointed out that the system was actuarially unsound and contributions to it weren't set aside to pay benefits, but used to fund other government operations.

For his efforts, he was portrayed as a heartless wretch wanting to kick old people out into the snow and force them to eat dog food.

Having seen what happened to Barry, few politicians have had the courage to say what Social Security is and has been since its inception: An intergenerational pyramid scheme whose existence requires sucking progressively more taxes from workers.

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced a reasonable plan that could substantially improve the system. Changes wouldn't have impacted anyone who's not at least a decade from retirement. For his efforts, he was clobbered by liberals and their fawning accomplices in the mainstream media.

If voters don't have the courage to elect politicians who will revamp Social Security now, not later, future Americans will pay a terrible price. The real risk is in doing nothing.

This morning on CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips examined another aspect of the Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) story.  Noting that Weiner's wife is a very close friend of and former aide to Hillary Clinton, Phillips said:

Hillary Clinton went through a sex scandal of sorts and, you know, could she have advised Weiner's wife? I wonder if Weiner's wife called her for advice.

A sex scandal of sorts?  Phillips must not recall how Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton's chief of staff, Betsey Wright, labored to squelch what she termed "bimbo eruptions."  The Clintons used a private detective to get many women - 19 was the number cited by Wright to journalist Michael Isikoff - to sign affidavits denying a sexual relationship with Clinton.  If unable to get a signature, the detective gathered information challenging the women's credibility or mental stability.  

Apparently, Kyra Phillips doesn't recollect names like Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Sally Perdue, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Connie Hamzy and Dolly Kyle Browning.

Phillips very possibly used "a sex scandal of sorts" to reference Monica Lewinsky.  Liberals prefer to pretend that Bill Clinton was impeached for exploiting the young White House intern.  In truth, Clinton was impeached for perjuring himself before a grand jury, tampering with witnesses, and hiding evidence. 

Clinton ultimately was fined $90,000 for lying under oath and obstructing justice. He paid $850,000 in the Paula Jones suit, despite repeatedly denying that as governor he'd sexually harassed the low level state employee.  Clinton lost his law license in Arkansas, and was prohibited from practicing law before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Such penalties aren't typically exacted for a sexual impropriety.

No, Kyra, Hillary Clinton didn't endure a sex scandal of sorts.  She went through, and seemingly facilitated, a continual series of sex scandals of all sorts.  To say otherwise is to rewrite history.         

What a difference a day makes.  Yesterday, much of the media muttered about how unresponsive Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was to questions about how he's been multitasking on Twitter.  Today it appears the liberal Democrat has redeemed himself through an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.  Guest hosting on CNN's John King, USA this evening, Jessica Yellin began an interview with two political operatives:

Gentlemen thanks for being with us. You are both used to helping candidates, right and left basically extricate their feet from their mouths during tough times. I have to say, I thought that Congressman Weiner was refreshingly candid in this interview. He admitted that he didn't handle it so well yesterday and that's why he was talking to Wolf today.

An example of that refreshing candor:

BLITZER: Well we just want to resolve it, once and for all. You would know if this is your underpants --

WEINER: The question is this -- I appreciate you continuing to flash that at me. Look, I've said the best I can that we're going to try to get to the bottom of what happened here. But, you know, I just want to caution you, and you understand this, you're a pro, that photographs can be manipulated. Photographs can be taken out from one place and put in another place.

Photos can be doctored. And I want to make sure that we know for sure what happened here. It certainly doesn't look familiar to me. But I don't want to say with certitude to you something that I don't know to be the certain truth.

And:

BLITZER: You would like to get to the bottom of it. So the question is have you asked Capitol Hill police or New York police or FBI or any law enforcement authority --

WEINER: Have I called --

BLITZER: -- to investigate?

WEINER: Have I called the cops or the FBI because someone sent spam? No. However, I did get a firm, a law firm who specializes in these things, who specialized in white collar crime. I've got someone who is -- and they're going to get someone who is an Internet security expert to try to get to the bottom of how we secure my accounts.

So Weiner supposedly doesn't know whether that's a picture of him in his underwear.  Instead of reporting the security breach to the police or the FBI or even administrators at Twitter, he hired a law firm. 

This is all so refreshingly candid.  Looks like Jessica Yellin is ready to take a page from the Clinton apologists during the Lewinsky scandal, and move on.

The mainstream media are demonstrating that their fawning coverage isn't limited to President Barack Hussein Obama.  The establishment press loves Michelle LaVaughn every bit as much.  Today's Washington Post Politics Web site carries the story "Michelle Obama wows Britain with high style, rubs shoulders with new royal Kate Middleton."  The article substantiates its claim that Mrs. Obama dazzled the English with support from an impartial, disinterested observer.  I know she's impartial because she authored a book titled "“Everyday Icon: Michelle Obama and the Power of Style.”

On NPR's Web site, the headline is "Michelle Obama Wows Britain With Her Style."  The accompanying Associated Press article begins:

There weren't any hugs, like last time, but U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama shared a warm handshake with the British queen and gained more fans during her state visit to the U.K.

 How does the AP know that Mrs. Obama gained fans?  Did they take a survey pre- and post-warm handshake?

The Sky News Australia Web site also headlines "Michelle Obama wows UK with her style."  On its Web site, People reports: "Michelle Obama brought her signature colorful, feminine style to the British capital on Wednesday, dazzling in an array of elegant designs."  On NBC New York's blog called Thread/NY, "the inside line on New York fashion," we learn "First Lady Earns High Marks in Tom Ford at Buckingham Palace."  Who issues those marks?  Does he grade on a curve?

Over at Access Hollywood, the story is "Glam Slam: Michelle Obama’s Drop Dead Gorgeous Gown."  The piece starts:

Wow. Wow. Wow. What a dress.

Just have to take a moment today to admire (and pay tribute to!) First Lady Michelle Obama’s beautiful gown. She looked like a goddess at last night’s State Dinner at Buckingham Palace in London!

The ruched, ivory, georgette evening gown with ribbon details is by Tom Ford, one of several American designers she has worn during her visit to the UK. Stunning.

Insert whistle here.

The ultra flattering gown showed off Mrs. Obama’s toned arms and shoulders. The First Lady wore her hair in an up-do with long, dangly earrings.

Ooh.  I was hoping they'd get to those toned arms and shoulders.  Verily, a true goddess.

I think we're getting the message.  Much of the mainstream media love, love, love Michelle Obama.  Maybe she didn't wow Britain, but she certainly captivates the establishment press.

Featured on Time Magazine's Web site is "The Misconduct Matrix."  Subtitled "Not all affairs are created equal," the graphic presents 19 men guilty of - make that allegedly guilty of in some instances- serious sexual misbehavior.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn is listed, as are Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Tiger Woods, John Kennedy and, of course, the president who gave phone sex a bad name, the impeached Bill Clinton.  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is also included on the matrix.

Sharing the same quadrant (Doghouse, Massively Hypocritical) with Justice Thomas are Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's admitted to fathering a child with a staff member, Newt Gingrich, who's admitted to at least one affair, and Thomas Jefferson, who "reportedly fathered six children with his slave."  Even if Thomas were guilty of what Anita Hill charged, his conduct was not nearly as egregious as the others.  Talking about hair on a Coke can isn't close to adultery or fathering children out of wedlock.

Two decades after Hill's charges, there's still no proof.  It remains a he said, she said situation, even though why Hill followed the supposed sexual harasser from one agency to another, and maintained telephone contact with him for years afterward are reasons to question her story.

Clarence Thomas's alleged behavior doesn't qualify him for inclusion in Time's Misconduct Matrix.  Not when Senators Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) didn't qualify for their infamous waitress sandwich.  Or Bill Clinton's alleged assault of Juanita Broaddrick isn't even mentioned.  And what about the late Congressman Gerry Studds's (D-MA) censure for having a sexual relationship with a young male page?  Or former Congressman Mel Reynolds's (D-IL) 12-count conviction of sexual assault with a 16-year-old?  The list could go on.

I suspect that Justice Thomas is included mainly because he's a conservative jurist who actually looks to the Constitution for guidance.  At Time Magazine, which now "partners" with CNN, that's real misbehavior.

On April 15, The Chicago Sun-Times reported on its Web site, "Jesse Jackson denies gay worker’s harassment, discrimination claims."  The article began:

A spokesman for the Rev. Jesse Jackson on Thursday denied a claim from a man who says he was fired from the civil rights leader’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition because he is gay.

Tommy R. Bennett filed a complaint with the city of Chicago’s Commission on Human Relations last year, alleging Jackson fired him unjustly and that the civil rights leader forced him to perform “uncomfortable” tasks, including escorting various women to hotel rooms to meet Jackson for sex.

The piece ended noting that a gay publication, The Windy City Times, had reported Bennett's allegations earlier in the week.  The Windy City Times story included more salacious details, such as the complainant's charge that Jackson directed him to apply cream to a rash between Jackson's legs; the minister told Bennett about one of his high school instructors, a gay man, who served as Jackson's teacher with benefits; and Bennett's allegation that Jackson wanted to have sex with the Rainbow Coalition employee.

The Chicago Tribune on its Web site also covered Bennett's complaint on April 15, with fewer particulars than the Sun-Times had included.  Don Imus and Lou Dobbs mentioned the allegations on each of their Fox Business programs.  By and large, however, this story has been ignored by the mainstream media.  A review of the NewsBank database, covering media outlets nationwide, indicates fewer than a dozen reports on the Jackson story.

Why the silence?  Last September, megachurch leader Bishop Eddie Long was accused of sexual improprities.  Among many others, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, CBS Evening News, and MSNBC covered the story.  It even found its way into a Jay Leno monologue.

Yet allegations against Jesse Jackson, longtime liberal activist, former Democratic presidential candidate and spiritual advisor to President Clinton, aren't newsworthy.  As someone once pointed out, if not for their double standard, liberals would have no standards at all.