On September 26, 1960, Senator John Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon appeared in the first of what came to be called the Great Debates. How great they truly were is subject to dispute. But there’s no doubt they altered American politics permanently.

Kennedy looked tanned and rested, while Nixon had been ill and appeared fatigued. The Republican turned down an offer of stage makeup. That may have determined the future of the Nation.

Out of about 180 million citizens, 70 million watched that debate. Many believed Kennedy won decisively. It didn’t matter that sometimes JFK’s words made little sense:

“Well, I would say in the latter that the - and that’s what I found uh - somewhat unsatisfactory about the figures uh - Mr. Nixon, that you used in your previous speech, when you talked about the Truman Administration. You - Mr. Truman came to office in nineteen uh - forty-four and at the end of the war, and uh - difficulties that were facing the United States during that period of transition - 1946 when price controls were lifted - so it’s rather difficult to use an overall figure taking those seven and a half years and comparing them to the last eight years. I prefer to take the overall percentage record of the last twenty years of the Democrats and the eight years of the Republicans to show an overall period of growth. . . I am chairman of the subcommittee on Africa and I think that one of the most unfortunate phases of our policy towards that country was the very minute number of exchanges that we had. I think it’s true of Latin America also. We did come forward with a program of students for the Congo of over three hundred which was more than the federal government had for all of Africa the previous year, so that I don’t think that uh - we have moved at least in those two areas with sufficient vigor.”

This meandering mess has at least two factual errors. Truman became president in 1945, not 1944, and Africa isn’t a country.

Yet it made little difference. John Kennedy looked like he knew what he was talking about, and that was adequate. Historian Daniel J. Boorstin likened the 1960 debates to the quiz shows that were popular at the time:

“These four programs, pompously and self-righteously advertised by the broadcast networks, were remarkably successful in reducing great national issues to trivial dimensions. With appropriate vulgarity, they might have been called the $400,000 Question (Prize: a $100,000-a-year job for four years).”

The next presidential debates happened when, far behind in the polls, President Ford challenged Jimmy Carter to them in 1976. At one meeting, Ford claimed: “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe . . .” That patently inaccurate statement would haunt him as he lost an extremely tight contest.

Carter avoided serious mistakes with 1980 opponent Ronald Reagan. Still, even the president’s partisans must have scratched their heads when he talked about nuclear weapons and ended with, “I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was . . .”

Four years later Democrats hoped for a major Reagan gaffe in his two encounters with Walter Mondale, but it didn’t happen. President Reagan edged out the Minnesotan 49 states to one. In 1988, a turning point in Democrat Michael Dukakis’s campaign came during a debate with George Bush. CNN’s Bernard Shaw asked, “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”

Showing no emotion, Dukakis answered: “No, I don’t, Bernard, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime.” Oops. Bye, bye, Mikey.

Candidates in 1992’s debates steered clear of major blunders. One memorable instance occurred when a thirty-something man in the audience inquired of the candidates: “And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you, to meet our needs . . .”

We have indeed been reduced to a people needing to be coddled, protected, taken care of, patronized and patted on the butt. In a country in which a third of us can’t identify even one of the three Federal branches, it’s no wonder presidential debates take on significance far beyond their genuine worth.

So now we sit there, watching presidential debates, waiting to see who can promise us the most as candidates regurgitate their best sound bites. Get out the popcorn for sixty or ninety minutes of scripted theatrics appealing to greed and stupidity, not necessarily in that order. Then the talking heads are trotted out to tell us what we just heard and if any of the candidates made a big mistake.

It’s superficial, shallow and foolish. It’s what we expect in presidential debates; the contenders don’t disappoint. And Kennedy and Nixon started it all, 50 years ago.

          It wasn’t so long ago that the Grand Old Party was rapidly
headed toward becoming the Grand Dead Party.  Democratic victories in
the House, the Senate, state capitols and, of course, the White House
made it disheartening for those who subscribe to archaic concepts like
limited government, a modicum of fiscal prudence and the Constitution.

          But those Democratic victories, ironically, also brought new
hope for Republicans.  From humble and shadowy beginnings came a
community organizer with the thinnest résumé this side of Paris
Hilton’s.  Yes, Barack Hussein Obama may well prove to be the GOP’s
savior.

          Look at all he’s accomplished thus far.  When a Democratic
congressman expressed his trepidation that 2010 could be a big
Republican year like 1994 was, in his customary, diffidently humble
way Obama said, “Well, the big difference here and in ‘94 was you’ve
got me.”

          That’s for sure.  President Obama campaigned
enthusiastically for Democratic gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey
and Virginia.  Both lost.

          In January, he campaigned for the Massachusetts Democratic
senatorial candidate.  So blue is Massachusetts, it was the only state
won by George McGovern.  Yet the home of Teddy Kennedy and Barney
Frank elected a Republican to the Senate for the first time since 1972
after being treated to the Obama magic.

          Today, many Democrats running for Congress are scampering
from The Anointed One like Dracula hoofing it away from a crucifix.
An endorsement from Rod Blagojevich would be as welcome.

          “This is what change looks like,” Obama declared moments
after Democrats passed his version of health care.  The problem for
him and his party is that wasn’t the change Americans wanted.  So
Democratic congressmen and senators started avoiding town hall
meetings or any other forum in which citizens could voice their
disapproval.  This isn’t the way to develop a reputation for political
courage and voters have a malevolent tendency to remember such
spinelessness.

          A handful of Democrats who voted against Obama’s plan are
bragging about it.  One is running an ad that states that when Obama
and Nancy Pelosi pressured him on health care and other issues, he
“stood up to them and voted no.”

          Most Democrats can’t make a similar claim.  So for them,
it’s “Health care?  We don’t know nuthin’ about no health care.”

          As unpopular as Barry is because of his socialized medicine
scheme, he’s in even hotter water on the economy.  A recent CBS/New
York Times poll pegs Obama’s approval rating on the economy at 41
percent.  Additionally, more Americans disapprove of his overall job
performance than approve.

          The thrill is clearly gone.  Look at all Obama’s done to
help the GOP.  Gallup has conducted generic ballot polling since 1942.
 People are asked who they would vote for:  An unnamed Republican or
an unnamed Democrat.  In August, Gallup reported that Republicans took
an unprecedented lead: “The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP’s
largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup’s history of
tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress.”

          That level of advantage probably can’t be maintained.  But
this week a Rasmussen poll found Republican candidates still hold a
nine-point lead over Democrats.

          Then there is this year’s turnout in the primaries.
According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at
American University, involvement in Republican contests far exceeded
that in Democratic ones.  Over four million more Republicans voted
than Democrats.

          What’s notable is that this isn’t usually what happens.
Indeed, this is the first time since 1930 that the GOP had a higher
turnout.

          Still Barry continues working on boosting the Republican
vote.  Most recently, he’s enthusiastically backing the DREAM Act, yet
another attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.  Obama said in a
speech week: “. . . I will do whatever it takes to support the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ efforts to pass this bill so that I can
sign it into law. . .”  That should really endear him to the folks who
don’t use politically-correct terms like “undocumented worker.”

          OK, so BO didn’t deliver on his promises about millions of
jobs, and the rise of the oceans beginning to slow, and healing the
planet and all that other stuff.  No one but the zombie-like Flavor
Aid drinkers believed it in the first place.

          What matters is that Obama has recruited more people into
the Republican Party than anyone since Ronald Reagan.  Sure, there are
RINOs still around, but by and large the Republican Party is the
conservative party.  This November we’ll actually get some hope and
change.

          Barry, they couldn’t have done it without you.  Thanks for
all your hard work.  Take another vacation.  You deserve it.

These days, Barack Obama would rather talk about his birth certificate than use the word “stimulus.”  At the press conference that wouldn’t end last week, Obama was asked if his latest and greatest spending proposal amounted to a second stimulus.  He answered, “There is no doubt that everything we’ve been trying to do is designed to stimulate growth and additional jobs in the economy,” but adamantly avoided the dreaded s-word.

    That’s understandable.  The roughly trillion-dollar stimulus enacted by Obama and his large Democratic majority in Congress has become nearly as big a national joke as Obama himself.

    It was an ACORN-sized scam from the beginning.  When success is to be substantially measured in “jobs saved,” a criterion that’s unprovable, you know that they know how preposterous their scheme is.

    And then there was the matter of oversight.  To make certain that bundle of bucks was spent prudently, Obama designated his very own Sheriff Joe:  Biden. “To you - he’s Mr. Vice President,” said Obama, “but around the White House we call him ‘the Sheriff’- because if you’re misusing taxpayer money, you’ll have to answer to him.”

    Left unexplained was precisely how anyone could answer to Biden.  The notoriously loquacious Biden pretty much makes it impossible to get a word in edgeways.

    It doesn’t seem as though the Sheriff’s been pulling out his plugs in frustration, despite no shortage of stimulus horror stories.  $6 million given to an ad agency created three whole jobs.  $100,000 to a left-leaning theater to support socially conscious puppet shows.  Another hundred thou for a martini bar and a Brazilian steakhouse.  $1 million to a dinner cruise company to supplement its anti-terrorism plan.  $2 million for a replica railroad to attract tourists.

    If Obama and his accomplices were sincere in wishing to evaluate their stimulus, they’d stop talking about a mythical jobs saved number and look to the unemployment rate.  The month Obama signed the stimulus into law, unemployment was 8.1%.  Now it’s 9.6% and Barry’s chief economic adviser predicts it’s not going down anytime soon.

    It’ll be interesting to see what word Obama will employ now that the s-word has fallen into disfavor.  He probably has his worker bees looking for a worthy successor.  In government, that’s what happens.  Terms that have a stench justifiably associated with them are merely replaced even though the program remains much the same.

    You remember the food stamp program.  Yes, that food stamp program.  After most of the public – even dull-witted Democrats – realized all the fraud and waste it involved, a makeover was necessary.  So now the food stamp program is gone.  It’s transitioned to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

    Then there was the infamous Aid to Families with Dependent Children, better known as AFDC.  That has become Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.

    The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service was criticized for its handling of the Gulf oil spill.  In 2008, the department’s inspector general reported that some employees “used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relations with oil and gas company representatives.”  Oh, and some of them “accepted gifts with prodigious frequency.”  On the bright side, sick leave abuse didn’t seem to be much of a problem.

    Interior secretary Ken Salazar understood prompt, firm action was required.  So in June, Mineral Management Service was no more.  It’s now known as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.  I don’t know about you, but that new and improved name makes me feel better all over. 

    The Federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) took the place of 1973’s Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) in 1982.  CETA had been widely discredited for its ineffectiveness and fraud.  Indicative is an early report prepared for Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA).  It was titled “Strong Internal Controls at Service Delivery Level Will Help Prevent CETA-Type Fraud and Abuse in Job Training Partnership Act Programs.”

    The new name didn’t change much.  CETA-type fraud continued.  JTPA brought just as many hoaxes and as much waste.  Moreover, it supplied welfare to some of the largest companies in America.  McDonalds, Radisson, McDonnell Douglas, Toyota and Subaru were only some of corporations that took advantage of the government’s generosity.

    JTPA trained people for jobs for which they were already qualified, paid to teach cab drivers to smile at their customers, and gave money to students to put on a puppet show.  That government money-puppet show link really needs further investigation.

    After years of such shenanigans JTPA, like its predecessor CETA, faded away.  Of course, it didn’t totally disappear; it was replaced with the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

    So Obama shouldn’t have much difficulty in swapping the s-word for something more palatable.  He fooled enough people to be elected and it’s evident their naiveté is boundless. 

     Spending more of someone else’s money has as much appeal to them as it does to him.  It’s the only utensil in the community organizer’s toolbox.  It’s always been the only utensil in the community organizer’s toolbox.  

Glancing at a newspaper in the Age of Obama can be hazardous to your mental – if not physical – health.

Unemployment is rising. For 18 straight months (not that it has anything to do with The Anointed One’s time in office) food stamp participation has set records. We’re up to 40.8 million recipients. More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid, a program intended for the poor. One in six of our fellow citizens are in government anti-poverty programs.

Then there’s that marvelous Obama stimulus. Tax dollars putting people back to work with important, meaningful projects like developing a computerized choreography program, analyzing exotic ants, and studying if a soda tax will improve health. Shovel ready is indeed an apt description.

Some recovery summer, huh? Although newspapers report the depressing statistics, there’s at least one thing missing: an apology for urging their readers to vote for Barack Obama for president in the first place.

Consider how the endorsements for Obama rolled in less than two years ago. According to the Chicago Tribune, Barry’s “economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a ‘University of Chicago Democrat’--a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets.”

Having the government take over health care isn’t a free-market solution, as you may have noticed. Vice President Biden candidly admitted, “You know we’re going to control the insurance companies.” And Obamatons showed their undiluted commitment to the free-market by opening up Government Motors.

The Tribune was so in the tank that it made a particularly laughable prediction: “We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.” Which people would that be, Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-il? Possibly, as Castro did hail the passage of ObamaCare as “a miracle.”

The Boston Globe in its endorsement was as mistaken as the Chicago Tribune:
“An early Obama campaign slogan declared, ‘We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.’’ His critics deemed such rhetoric too ethereal. Now it seems prescient, as the nation confronts a financial crisis of historic proportions, as well as all the other policy failures and debt-fueled excesses of the last eight years. The United States has to dig itself out. Barack Obama is the one to lead the way.”

The Denver Post editorialized that it “believes Barack Obama is better equipped to lead America back to a prosperous future.” According to the Albany Times Union, “Senators Obama and Biden have brought a positive, progressive and hopeful message to the American people. Senator Obama, an American success story himself, offers the best hope for a nation ready to turn the page and write a new chapter of prosperity, progress and peaceful security.” The Danbury News-Times stated that neither presidential candidate had all the answers, but “Obama has shown greater understanding of the problems and provided more specific solutions than has McCain, particularly on the economy.”

In its Obama endorsement the Washington Post assured readers that their man “would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation.” Moreover, “Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president.”

One of the reasons the New York Times preferred Obama was he’d do away with the malevolent Bush tax cuts for those “who have benefited disproportionately.” The newspaper confidently predicted that with Obama in the White House, “Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children’s options narrow, will benefit.”

Obama was going to be a pragmatic centrist. He was the one who would guide the United States to a prosperous future. He was the one with specific solutions on the economy. He was the one who had the potential to be a great president. He was the one to lead the way.

In truth, he has quickly and systematically devastated the economy to the point where it’ll take years to bring us back. If that’s even possible. So many newspapers report on the gloomy economy made so much gloomier by the empty suit occupying – when he isn’t on vacation – the presidency. But there’s not a word of their complicity in putting Baroke Hussein Obumbler into the White House.

If they had a shred of decency, they’d apologize to their readers for endorsing Obama. But they don’t so they won’t.

The print media, it’s widely acknowledged, are fading fast. Losing their credibility with election recommendations that match their often leftist slant may be one reason.

When former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) passed away this week, Fox Chicago News's political editor Mike Flannery described the late Ways and Means committee chairman as 'a giant of Chicago politics, remembered and beloved for negotiating legislation that helped create projects all over the state."  Rostenkowski did indeed bring home the pork.  But Flannery also writes that the congressman "was as responsible as anyone but Ronald Reagan for the 'Reagan tax cuts' of (the) early '80s."

In an accompanying video on Fox Chicago's Web site, Flannery recalls (at about 4:30) speaking to Rostenkowski and House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill (D-MA) in the first days of Reagan's presidency.  They said that Reagan had been elected and "we're going to give him what he wants.  He told us the number one thing is this tax deal and they said we're going to work with him."

Rostenkowski and O'Neill vigorously worked against President Reagan's plans.  Neither of them joined the 48 Democrats who voted in July, 1981 for tax reduction.  The day after the tax cuts passed in the House, David Rogers of the Boston Globe reported:

"Mr. President, you're tough," Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski told Reagan in a telephone call after the House vote, and for the Chicago Democrat and his friend Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr., the defeat was a bitter end to a raw partisan fight which the leadership had hoped would give it a much-needed victory over the President.

Roland Evans and Robert Novak wrote:

Nevertheless, in his gracious speech to the House Wednesday, Rostenkowski pledged to campaign against the right through steeper graduation of taxes "as long as I'm chairman."

In his considerably-less-than-gracious speech closing Wednesday's debate, Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill showed he had learned nothing.  Beginning by calling this "a great day for the aristocracy," he claimed the nation's big corporations had artificially stimulated that flow of telephone calls to congressional offices.  To the very end, Tip O'Neill could not believe that the people really prefer lower taxes to bigger government.

Dan Rostenkowski was as responsible as anyone but Ronald Reagan for the "Reagan tax cuts" of the early '80s?  Only in the rewritten history books of the mainstream media.

Recovery summer just keeps getting better and better.  News outlets such as MSNBC.com announce "New jobless claims drop sharply."  Although the unadjusted data reflect an actual increase, the media are reporting a seasonally adjusted drop of 21,000 in jobless claims.  

But that wasn't good enough for MSNBC. While broadcasting an Obama speech during Andrea Mitchell Reports, the screen crawl reported "NEW JOBLESS CLAIMS DECLINE BY OVER 200,000."

OK, mistakes happen.  But my guess is that if the error reflected poorly on the Obama administration, someone would have caught the error pronto.  An hour later, MSNBC Live anchored by Tamron Hall was still featuring the same mistake.  The following hour, anchor Chris Jansing took over and new jobless claims still had dropped by more than 200,000.           

This morning CNNMoney.com reports "Jobless claims slide in latest week."  The article starts:

The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment insurance fell last week, according to a government report released Thursday.

There were 454,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended July 3, down 21,000 from an upwardly revised 475,000 in the previous week, the Labor Department said.

A problem with the story is the numbers are, according to the Department of Labor, "seasonally adjusted" with a statistical technique designed to accommodate fluctuations in the job market.  DOL's release paints a more sobering picture:

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 463,560 in the week ending July 3, an increase of 22,560 from the previous week.

Before the Age of Obama, CNNMoney.com explained to its readers the difference between actual and seasonally adjusted numbers.  Six years ago today, in fact, the story was "Jobless claims drop, but... Report shows sharp drop in those filing for benefits, but seasonal factors distort results."

But now, apparently, there's no need to write about distorted results.  That might put a damper on recovery summer exuberance.  And the mainstream media wouldn't want to do that.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's the sheer joy of celebrating recovery summer along with The Anointed One and Plugs Biden.  Perhaps they're just Blagoed out. Whatever the reason, most of the mainstream media failed to report something intriguing said by the usually most quotable former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.  From an FBI tape recorded last November and appearing on Fox Chicago News's Web site, Blagojevich spoke of president-elect Barack Obama:

BLAGOJEVICH I thin-, you know, it's really, I get that I'm a big boy and I can handle that, but it's really f***ing galling, this guy is more Tony'd up than I am. And it's almost like they f***ing conspi-, made a concerted effort and they got the Chicago media to f***ing make me wear Rezko more. To f***ing dilute it from him.

Blago's disillusionment with Obama stemmed from a rebuff conveyed by a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) official used by the president-elect to let the Gov know of Obama's interest in Valerie Jarrett filling his Senate seat.

Blago makes for good copy and the mainstream media have rarely missed a chance to quote him.  Yet in this instance, they took a powder.  It's not as though they're unaware of the Obama-Rezko connection.

In 2006, Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times he'd known Tony Rezko for years, having lunch with him probably once or twice a year. When Obama decided to buy a $1.65 million mansion in Chicago, he approached Rezko who "developed an interest" and purchased adjoining land.

The closing on the properties took place the same day. The Obamas paid $300,000 less than the asking price; the Rezkos paid the full price. A few months later, Obama, wanting to increase the size of his backyard, bought a strip of Rezko's property for $104,500.

As the Sun-Times story noted: "The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and as other Illinois politicians befriended by Rezko distanced themselves from him."

Possibly Obama was indeed "more Tony'd up" than Blagojevich.  Yet almost no news outlets found Blagojevich's description, made when he was unaware of being recorded, newsworthy.  Just a coincidence no doubt.    

Today ABC News's The Blotter Web site carries the story "Blagojevich On Trial: 'Give Us The F***ing Money.'"  The article reports in part:

(Tony) Rezko is a central figure in the government's conspiracy case. His relationship with Obama was highlighted this week when Joseph Aramanda, the owner of a Chicago pizza business, took the stand to detail how Rezko arranged for him to receive a $250,000 "finder's fee" from a state teacher's pension system investment deal, and then instructed him to use the money to make a $10,000 contribution to Obama's presidential campaign. Prosecutors say that Aramanda never performed any work on the deal, and that most of the money was funneled to Rezko, who used it to pay off debts.

Aramanda may still be involved in pizza, but his primary gig now would appear to be the executive Federal position he currently holds.  As noted in a Chicago Tribune piece earlier this week:

These days Joseph Aramanda manages a U.S. Census Bureau Chicago-area office and its 1,000 employees. But it was in a different capacity that he showed up for the government Tuesday at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse — witness in the corruption trial of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Quite a coincidence, huh?  Aramanda, testifying with an immunity deal after his $10,000 funny-money gift to The Anointed One, just happens to land a more than decent Federal job.  How'd he get it?  According to the Associated Press:

Aramanda now manages a local U.S. Census Bureau office in Palatine, which was opened last year for the 2010 U.S. Census count. He passed an FBI security check and the office has been successful in getting a high response rate, said Stanley Moore, a spokesman for the Census Bureau in Chicago.

"He has a good resume, that's how he got hired," Moore said. He added that Census officials were unaware that Aramanda was connected to the trial until Wednesday and that officials would investigate further.

Stanley Moore is much more than just an agency spokesman; he is a regional director and "the U.S. Census Bureau's longest continuous employee."

It'll be interesting to see how the Census Bureau's investigation turns out.  In the meantime, ABC News - as well as many other media outlets - should accurately report on Aramanda's present job.  It's newsworthy, don't you think?

Today's Chicago Tribune reports "Ex-lawmaker waives tuition for supporter's family: Molaro OKs $94,000 despite children not meeting requirements."  It begins:

Year after year, state Rep. Robert Molaro doled out publicly funded scholarships to the family of a longtime political supporter, ultimately giving the four children more than $94,000 in tuition.

The valuable scholarships came with just one legal requirement: that the students lived in Molaro's Southwest Side district.

The siblings signed notarized documents stating they did, while other public records indicate they lived with their mother in Oak Lawn, outside Molaro's district. Their father didn't live in the district either.

The article, which runs about three-dozen paragraphs, doesn't mention that Molaro is - hang on to your hat here - a Democrat.

As documented repeatedly on NewsBusters, party affiliation is often overlooked in news stories reporting improprieties by Democrats.  Quite a coincidence, isn't it?   

The movie "Prince of Persia" hit theaters this week.  And although it's based on a decades-old video game and set in the sixth century, reviewers across the nation have identified a very contemporary link: The Tea Party.

McClatchy Newspapers's Connie Ogle writes that Alfred Molina, in the role of Amar, "plays a sort of cross between Han Solo with dental-hygiene issues and a Tea Party supporter."  According to the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips, the character "spews anti-government and tax rhetoric straight out of a tea party rally."  The Catholic News Services's John P. McCarthy notes: "Only the anti-government chatter of a mercenary sheik named Amar (Alfred Molina) elicits a few chuckles, since it echoes the contemporary Tea Party movement."

At gwinnettdailypost.com, Michael Clark views the Molina character as "an ancient conspiracy-theory fearmonger who would fit in quite well with today’s tea party mind-set."  Los Angeles Times film critic Betsy Sharkey observes: "between this (movie) and 'Robin Hood,' you would think Hollywood was run by the 'tea party.'"  Christopher Lloyd of Florida's HeraldTribune.com reports:

Alfred Molina turns up as a shady sheikh who runs an ostrich-racing operation, has a deadly African knife guy as his best friend, and delivers a lot of angry tirades about the government taking all his money through taxes to spend on stuff he doesn't like. I think the Tea Party just found its Adam.

Writing at Salon.com, Steven Boone finds "Molina is just this side of heaven flashing a gold tooth while dispensing Tea Party rhetoric and conspiracy theories."

We know that many in the media hold the Tea Party movement and its goals in contempt. Apparently, though, they just can't stop thinking - and writing - about it.      

On Fox Chicago News Friday evening, reporter Tera Williams did a piece on Chicago's gun buyback program scheduled for today.  The city gives prepaid credit cards for weapons turned in.  This year it's paying $100 for each assault weapon, $75 for guns and $10 for BB guns, air guns and replica guns.

Williams questioned several residents on the effectiveness of the program.  One man told her (at about 1:47 of the video), "It's a good way to start."  Williams replied: "Something's better than nothing, right?" while nodding her head affirmatively.

Chicago's been trying to do "something" about guns for years.  Since 1982, it's outlawed hand guns.  The gun buyback scheme has run since 2006.  Yet, as of two weeks ago, homicides for the year hit 113 and two Democratic lawmakers recommended National Guard deployment to quell the violence.

The gun turn-in program is no more successful than the many "stop the violence" marches that gun-grabbing Chicago mayor Richard Daley and his police chief participate in.  In asserting that something's better than nothing, reporter Williams revealed her own bias.