Strictly as a public service, the mainstream media have long pointed out that those pesky folks who question where Barack Obama was born are your typical knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Neanderthals.  You know, the type of know-nothings who attend Tea Parties and other such sinister gatherings.

So those deep thinkers must be stunned by the findings of the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, which finds "about a third of so-called 'birthers' nonetheless approve of Obama's work in office and express a favorable opinion of him personally."  Not only that, but as shown in the accompanying charts and questionnaire on ABC News's Web site, "15 percent of Democrats say they think Obama was born elsewhere, as do 12 percent of liberals."

Democrats and liberals are birthers?  Whenever life became just too frustrating for Chester A. Riley, he'd exasperatingly wail, "What a revoltin' development this is!"  The talking heads at MSNBC, CNN and other bastions of liberal thought must share that feeling today.

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

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

SANCHEZ: Well...

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

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

YELLIN: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

Monday evening, Tonight Show host Jay Leno joked about Wall Street reform.  As reported on The New York Times's Web site, he said:

Last week, President Obama gave a speech in New York City about his plan to reform these rules on Wall Street, you know? And one embarrassing moment. When the head of Goldman Sachs was going through security, he was asked to empty his pockets and five Republican senators fell out.

The truth, of course, is that Goldman Sachs has consistently given much more money to Democrats than to Republicans.  For the 2008 election cycle, as detailed at OpenSecrets.org, 75 percent of the almost $6 million in political contributions made by the investment bank's political action committee and employees went to Democrats.  Goldman Sachs's donations made it the second-biggest contributor to Obama’s presidential election campaign.

Leno's gag would have been funnier, I think, if it weren't so misleading.

Last week, CNN's Kyra Phillips wasn't all that GLAAD to hear from some of her viewers.  As NewsBuster Colleen Raezler reported on Thursday, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) had issued a "Call to Action" on April 7 urging members to "hold CNN accountable" for an April 6 Newsroom segment "featuring so-called 'ex-gay' activist Richard Cohen."  

GLAAD partisans apparently hopped right on their keyboards.  On April 8, Phillips expressed her wish "that those of you who sent me vicious e-mails watched my newscast more often:"

PHILLIPS: And before we go to break, I would like to take a moment to address many of you who e-mailed me about our Tuesday segment on this topic. Personally, I thought the absurd nature of the California law we discussed would speak for itself, but unfortunately, not everyone saw it that way. Richard Cohen was not the most appropriate guest to have on, but it is a decision that we made and the result of that is our continued discussion today.

That is what journalism is all about, and we will continue to do our best to discuss gay and lesbian issues in a fair way on this program. I wish that all of you knew my heart, and as a journalist with a long track record of covering gay and lesbian issues, I wish that those of you who sent me vicious e-mails watched my newscast more often, because if they did, my guess is, they would not have been so quick to send such hateful messages. They don't know my record and my unswerving support for all communities in the battle for human rights, including gays, lesbians, and transgendered individuals.

Kyra's "unswerving support" did not go unrecognized.  GLAAD responded on its Web site the same day, thanking "Kyra Phillips and CNN for listening to community concerns."  Moreover:

We also want to acknowledge Phillips’ past reporting on LGBT issues. Her coverage of Lt. Col Victor Fehrenbach , who was dismissed from military service under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” was nominated for a 2010 GLAAD Award for Outstanding TV Journalism Segment.

Our Call to Action regarding Phillips’ coverage of Richard Cohen, and CNN’s initial missteps in addressing the issue, does not take away from Phillips’ fair, accurate and inclusive reporting in the past. We appreciate what she said today during her broadcast and look forward to working with her as a resource on future segments.

All's well that ends well.  But let that be a lesson to Phillips: Deviate from the prevailing mainstream media orthodoxy - even once -  and you will hear about it.  Viciously. 

Forget those polls, like the current one conducted for CBS News, that show most Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama's health care scheme.  And ignore accounts like the one in today's Politico highlighting the grief some Democratic congressmen are getting for voting with Obama on health care.  No, focus instead on stories like the one in today's print and Web edition of the Chicago Tribune.  "Health insurance reform profiles" is a "look at how the new law will affect four people in different circumstances."  And guess what?  Every single one of them approves of ObamaCare.  Isn't it funny how it just works out that way?

A 56-year-old woman who lost Medicaid eligibility when her children left home says: "Health reform isn't perfect, it's only a first step, but by God it will make a difference to me."  A 62-year-old man covered under his wife's policy "is confident the greater changes are all for the good."  A 22-year-old male is relieved he'll continue to be carried on his parent's health insurance when he goes to art school.  If not for ObamaCare, "I would have either taken the risk and opted out or looked for work instead of going further in school."  A 40-year-old- freelance writer confides that he is "was "'thrilled' to see the health care overhaul signed into law."

Quoted several times in the article is Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California.  Remarkably, he likes ObamaCare, too.  Tribune newshounds make no mention of  his background, which just possibly could color his views:

A consumer advocate and community organizer. Wright has been widely quoted in local and national media on a range of issues. He has also worked for New Jersey Citizen Action, the Center for Media Education, The Nation magazine, and in Vice President Gore's office in the White House.

You'd think that if the Tribune looked really, really hard, it may have found someone - anyone - who's not enthused about what Obama and his Democratic minions have done to the health care system.  Instead, like many other mainstream media outlets, it's hopped aboard Obama's campaign to portray the disaster as a success.   

The mainstream media are having a field day with the Republican National Committee spending contributor dollars for "meals" at a risqué Hollywood night spot. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank joins in the fun with today's "RNC spends nearly $2,000 at sex-themed Voyeur nightclub."  He provides titillating details of what transpires in that joint, and then attempts a quick rewrite of history with, "And Al Gore got in trouble for going to a Buddhist temple?"

That's seriously misleading.  It wasn't going to a Buddhist temple in April of 1996 that got Gore into trouble.  It was lying about illegally raising money there that raised questions and generated skepticism about Gore's truthfulness.  And, in the end, he didn't really get into any serious trouble at all.  As reported by the New York Times in August, 2000:

For the third time, Attorney General Janet Reno brushed off the advice of senior advisers and declined to intensify an investigation into Vice President Al Gore's fundraising activities in 1996.

She said she would not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Mr. Gore's sworn statements that neither his appearance at a Buddhist temple in California in 1986 nor his attendance at several White House coffee sessions were fundraisers.

Sure, Gore was subjected to some ridicule.  According to Time Magazine in November, 1996:

Vice President Al Gore claims to have been entirely unaware that an April luncheon he attended at a Buddhist temple in California was an illegal fund raiser. With a face as straight as only his can be, Gore said in a radio interview last week that he thought the function, organized by Huang and the D.N.C., was a "community-outreach" event. More observant guests, however, have said it was plain to them that what was reaching out was an open palm. Attendees included deep-pocketed members of the local Asian-American community. The D.N.C. says it collected $140,000.

In 1998, Milbank's own Washington Post carried the executive summary of  the final report of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's "Investigation on Illegal or Improper Activities in Connection With The 1996 Federal Election Campaigns."  That included this:

Despite his repeated, albeit inconsistent, denials, it is reasonable to conclude that the Vice President was well aware that the Temple event was for the purpose of raising money. The event was organized by Huang and Hsia, who had longstanding relationships with Vice President Gore that revolved almost entirely around campaign fundraising. More specifically, in the weeks prior to his Temple visit, Vice President Gore was repeatedly reminded that the April 29 luncheon was a fundraiser and was even meticulously informed by Ickes of the DNC's "projected revenue" for the event. The Vice President received the last of these notifications of the April 29 lunch's "projected revenue" only 24 hours before he received his briefing notes for the Temple lunch

The Vice President's staff also knew that the Temple event was a fundraiser. In March 1996, Deputy Chief of Staff David Strauss had helped arrange a meeting in the White House with the head of the Temple, Master Hsing Yun – a meeting which Strauss believed would "lead to a lot of $." The White House staff repeatedly referred to the event as a "fundraiser" in internal correspondence, and assigned to it a "ticket price" of "1000-5000 [dollars per] head."

Despite the evidence, Gore escaped prosecution with a little help from his friends. Merely "going to a Buddhist temple" doesn't begin to cover what he actually did.      
 

In both its print and Web editions today, the Chicago Tribune headlines "Republicans walk the line over healthcare outrage."  It begins:

In the days surrounding passage of healthcare overhaul legislation, Republican lawmakers have been left to strike a fine balance between harnessing voter outrage and fueling it.

Examples of raw anger have piled up. A call to New York Democrat Louise M. Slaughter said snipers would "kill the children of the members who voted for healthcare reform." Later, a brick smashed her Niagara Falls district office window. Hate messages jammed the lines of Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, the anti-abortion Democrat whose last-minute support helped cinch passage. Law enforcement offered increased protection to at least 10 lawmakers, a security measure usually only afforded party leaders.

Other incidents targeting Democrats are also included in the 18-paragraph article of over 800 words. 

Yet it is not until the penultimate paragraph that a shooting incident at the office of minority whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) is noted:

At a news conference, Cantor said a bullet struck a window this week in a building where his Richmond campaign office is housed; the police said someone fired into the air.

No mention is made of the menacing message left for Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-OH), an unedited version of which appears at the Daily Caller ((Warning: Includes Explicit Language.)

It seems that in the Chicago Tribune - as in much of the mainstream media - the angry incidents erupting in the aftermath of the healthcare vote are only newsworthy if Democratic lawmakers are involved.   

On CNN's American Morning today, anchor John Roberts pressed one of President Barack Obama's talking points on the Democratic health care plan.  Roberts talked with former House Majority Leader Armey, who opposes ObamaCare.  Currently the chairman of FreedomWorks, Armey criticized "the audacity of the government mandating to the American people: you must all buy a product that I define for you."  Then Roberts went to work:

ROBERTS: But why is it mandate for having health insurance a bad thing? There's a mandate for having car insurance.

ARMEY: Well, first of all, you have to understand, America is a nation that was founded on the concept of personal liberty, that liberty is a gift given to mankind by the Lord God Almighty and it's the duty of governments to protect your liberty.

ROBERTS: Do you have car insurance?

ARMEY: Not to trespass against your liberty.

ROBERTS: Do you have car insurance?

ARMEY: Do I have car insurance? Of course, I have car insurance.

ROBERTS: You have to have car insurance.

Roberts exhibited bulldog tenacity in advancing Obama's contention that mandatory car and health insurance are comparable.  Car insurance is mandated by most states, not by Washington.  Car insurance is avoidable; health insurance will not be.  Car insurance is for the protection of other people, not the driver.  Car insurance is mandated in exchange for the privilege of driving.  ObamaCare will be required for the privilege of breathing.

Otherwise, they're exactly alike.

Discouraged by Obama's inability to force his health scheme on a nation that doesn't want it, many in the mainstream media are doing the heavy lifting for him.  Even at the risk of looking silly.      

Think that the fledgling Coffee Party movement wants bigger government, more social welfare programs and the higher taxes that inevitably accompany them?  Well, think again.  On CNN Sunday Morning yesterday, we learned that simply isn't accurate.  Anchors T.J. Holmes and Brooke Baldwin set up a report from one Coffee Party:

HOLMES: All right. TEA party might have some competition out there. This time yesterday we were telling you about the national kickoff of a new political movement calling themselves the Coffee party.

BALDWIN: Well, they were heading out to coffee shops across the country yesterday. And apparently the turnout was pretty strong, but still we are asking, what is this group really about? Who are these people? These coffee drinkers?

CNN's Pat St. Claire (ph) takes a look at why some activists prefer their politics with a jolt of java.

After a couple of participants at the event identified themselves:

PAT ST. CLAIRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The folks gathered at this Washington coffee house Saturday came for more than just a cup of Joe.

Enter the Coffee party. A new organization that also says it wants smaller government and lower taxes, but builds itself as a more civil alternative to the better known TEA party movement, a group known for it's boisterous rallies.

D.C. area documentary filmmaker, Annabel Park, started the group on Facebook.

The report continued with a comment by Park and mention of her working for Barack Obama's election.

This isn't the first time the media have asserted the Coffee Party favors smaller government and lower taxes.  That's belied in part by Annabel Park's own statement during a February 26, 2010 Washington Post online discussion:

Many of the people who have found refuge in the Coffee Party community are among the 53% of America who supported candidate Obama's vision for our nation's future. They are disconcerted by the vision that is being expressed through some of the Tea Party activities and some of their leaders' statements.

I don't know of many people who voted for Obama because he supported the concept of smaller government.  And people "disconcerted by the vision" of Tea Parties don't sound like folks eagerly embracing lower taxes.

In a Saturday Christian Science Monitor piece, staff writer Patrik Jonsson noted this difference between the activist groups:

Even if the messages sound the same, the two movements differ in substantive ways. Tea partyers tend to berate the federal government as a whole (or most of it). Coffee partyers seem to be more in favor of government involvement – as in envisioning a greater role for government in the future of healthcare – but denounce the "corporatocracy" that holds sway in Washington.         

And what of anchor Brooke Baldwin's statement that "apparently the turnout was pretty strong" at Saturday's coffee parties?  That's vague; all she needed do was toss in an "allegedly."  But what does "pretty strong" mean?  In Peoria, Illinois, six people showed up at the coffee party there.  The Pocatello, Idaho event "drew more than a dozen citizens."  In Naples, Florida, it was a "small group that met at Burkett’s vitamin store."  According to The Daily Caller, one meeting in Washington, D.C. drew five activists.  Coffee parties attracted "about 40" people in Charlottesville, Virginia, Decatur, Georgia, and Kansas City, Missouri.  A  New York City participant was disappointed to arrive and find only five people - one was a reporter - there.  Thankfully, others arrived although fashionably late and they ended up with about 25 in attendance.  A picture of an event in Stowe, Massachusetts features only three people, with the comment "Small gathering given rain, last minute call, and busy lives."

Looks like some of the folks at CNN have something new to drink.  In addition to the usual Kool-Aid, they're favoring some steaming hot coffee these days.        

It's incredible what you can learn from television these days.  On Saturday, Brent Frazier of Nashville's CBS affiliate reported on a local Coffee Party.  He made no mention of the attendance, but at about 2:06 of the video says:

The Coffee Party, though very much still in the organizing phase, is loosely based on smaller government and lower taxes.

I have to wonder how the newshound came to that conclusion.  Was it because the group's founder, as noted by NewsBuster Matthew Balan, worked as a volunteer for Barack Obama's presidential campaign?  Or maybe it was the Reuters acknowledgment that "America’s conservative Tea Party movement may be on the boil, but the left is brewing up its own version in The Coffee Party USA."  Or perhaps it was the Coffee Party participant Frazier interviewed who volunteered for Obama but is now disillusioned because "they (Democrats) speak an agenda, but as soon as it's challenged they back down."  Obama's just not pushing left hard enough.

With reporting skills like that, one thing is clear.  Brent has a very bright future in the mainstream media.  

Three years ago, Steve Skvara won the admiration of many in the mainstream media by basically calling for taxpayers to foot his wife’s health insurance. Now he's ba-a-ack!  No longer hailed by Chris Matthews or People's Weekly World, he still manages favorable, unquestioning coverage.  Today's nwi.com Web site, which bills itself as "the largest and most trusted media company in northern Indiana," carries the article "Health care spark gets a checkup."  Written by editorial page editor Doug Ross, the piece starts:

In December, Steve Skvara of Union Township was hospitalized at Northwestern Memorial Hospital for 28 hours in hopes of a clean bill of health. He emerged with a bill for $96,000.

It was pleasant, he said, to have a waiter in a tux deliver his meal, but was that really necessary?

His experience is relevant because it was Skvara who lighted the fuse on the health care debate in which the nation is now embroiled.

It was on Aug. 7, 2007, that Skvara asked the seven Democratic presidential candidates what they would do to get health care to "the woman I love." Skvara explained that he lost much of his pension when LTV collapsed, and he was forced to sit across from his wife at the kitchen table, knowing he couldn't afford her health care.

$96,000 for 28 hours worth of care? Other than having a waiter in a tux deliver his meal, what services did Skvara receive?  And how much will he actually pay in terms of out-of-pocket expenses?  Isn't that information relevant in a discussion of health care reform?

The article quotes Skvara: "We were all hoping for a public option. . . "  Not reported is who Skvara means by "we."  Skvara claims Republicans are "just so radical, it's pitiful," yet isn't challenged for evidence of that radicalism.  Is it because People's Weekly World doesn't like the GOP?

Writes Ross:

Health care is Skvara's biggest issue, but he's not alone. Insurance companies are spending hundreds of millions to defeat this legislation. Curiously, they're saying that regardless of what happens, rates will go up.

The brick wall Skvara is hitting with this issue is trying to get people who are haves to provide for the have-nots.

No distinction is made on the matter of how much insurance premiums would rise under ObamaCare.  And then there's the shift to that old reliable class struggle rhetoric.  

Later, Skvara's estimate of the cost of private insurance for a Senate aide is accepted by the author without question: "He guesses the taxpayers are subsidizing that couple's health insurance to the tune of maybe $12,000 a year."

The piece ends by noting that Skvara was invited to the White House in December, but didn't speak with Obama and had to content himself with some quality time with Bo the dog: "That's not much of a consolation prize for someone so eager for reform."

Eager for reform or eager for taxpayer subsidies?  Oh, that's right.  For many in the mainstream media, those are the same.   

Do you believe that extending unemployment compensation benefits encourages some people to remain out of work longer than necessary? Don't let CNN anchor Ali Velshi find out.  He'll characterize you as unsavory.

On a segment of CNN Newsroom today, Velshi spoke with an economics professor who's examined multiple studies reporting that many people find work shortly before their unemployment checks lapse:

VELSHI: Hey, complicated, complicated question that is at the root of our recovery as a nation; it is about jobs. The average person on unemployment is on it for about six months. You can get up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, with the certain extensions that we have passed these days. But the average person is on for about six months.

The question here is are long-term jobless benefits actually leading people to stay unemployed longer? I have somebody here who has actually crunched a few numbers for us. Robert Shimer is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, and inadvertently has gotten himself piled in with a bunch of unsavories who say -- who like to make the argument that people are choosing not to get jobs. And Robert, you have heard it said. This is the US Chamber -- not the US Chamber of Commerce. I'm sorry, the Club for Growth has said it on this show that it is causing people -- that it's a disincentive for people to go back to work because of unemployment benefits, which I think is a little bit insulting to the millions of people on unemployment. Your argument is it a little bit more nuanced than that.

SHIMER: Well, there is strong words involved in things like disincentive and lazy and so on. I don't know that we have evidence of why these facts are facts. But there are, as I said before, a lot of studies that have looked at actually what happens when you give workers longer unemployment benefits. They also look at what happens to workers when they reach the end of their unemployment benefits. A lot of people do find a job in the last week or the week after the last week that -- when their benefits lapse.

Now whether that says anything about laziness or not, it does say, as a positive statement, that if we didn't have extended unemployment benefits, we would expect to see fewer unemployed workers.

Earlier in the interview Velshi said "there are some people that make a remarkable nonsensical argument that does implies that -- lazy is my word -- but that people are choosing to take the minuscule benefits that are offered on unemployment, and not having health care -- because most people can't afford to buy Cobra on their unemployment benefits -- instead of working."

On Twitter last month, Velshi wrote: "Club for Growth guest's suggestion was outrageous & I told him so on air. Suggesting people choose unemployment is offensive"

Outrageous. Offensive. Nonsensical.  Insulting.  A theory advanced by a bunch of unsavories.  Perhaps Velshi should read "For the 'funemployed,' unemployment's welcomed," which appeared last year in the Los Angeles Times.  The article noted:

Buoyed by severance, savings, unemployment checks or their parents, the funemployed do not spend their days poring over job listings. They travel on the cheap for weeks. They head back to school or volunteer at the neighborhood soup kitchen. And at least till the bank account dries up, they're content living for today.

The Club for Growth is a perfectly respectable organization.  Founded by Stephen Moore and currently led by former Indiana Republican Congressman Chris Chocola, it helps elect candidates who agree with the group's stated philosophy that "the goal of tax policy should be to raise the amount of money needed to fund legitimate functions of government. . ."  It has endorsed Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) as well as Senate candidates Marco Rubio in Florida and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania.

Including such an organization with "a bunch of unsavories" tells a great deal about Velshi, if we needed to know any more.   Last month, he celebrated the anniversary of Obama's stimulus with a birthday cake on the air. "Happy birthday, dear stimulus," crooned Ali.  Talk about unsavory. . .    

The New York Times's City Room blog included a Friday piece on the orphaned Web site of Hiram Monserrate, a former state senator who is again running for office.  From "When Not to Accept Comments:"

Now, as many will remember, the former Queens legislator was tossed out of the State Senate in February after he was convicted of assaulting his female companion. His vacant seat will be filled in a special election on March 16 — an election in which, improbably, the disgraced Mr. Monserrate is also a candidate, on the newly formed and hopefully (or is it cynically?) named Yes We Can! line. (This proves, definitively, that you can usually find more than enough New Yorkers to take part in any crazy idea you have.)

Candidate Monserrate (Yes We Can, Queens) doesn’t have a Web site for this campaign. But a few disgruntled residents found his old site and left some less-than-friendly messages.

Conveniently left unmentioned is the party to which Monserrate claimed allegiance as recently as last month.  As reported in The New York Times on February 9, 2010:

The State Senate on Tuesday expelled a senator convicted of domestic assault, the first time in nearly a century that the Legislature has forced a member from office.

The Senate voted 53-to-8 to immediately oust the senator, Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat convicted last fall of a misdemeanor for dragging his companion down the hallway of his apartment building.

Amazing, isn't it, how quickly party affiliation is overlooked when the perp is a Democrat?  And yet, as documented repeatedly on NewsBusters, quite predictable.        
 

When a political editor declares that U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky) makes "even former Vice President Cheney seem warm and fuzzy," you know that the mainstream media are reaching for the long knives.  Associate editor of The Hill A.B. Stoddard wrote in yesterday's "Bunning’s gift to Dems:"

Bunning’s blowup was indeed a gift to bewildered Democrats on more than one level. It portrayed Republicans as obstructionists, showed Republicans dissing the unemployed, gave the GOP the face of a mean old white guy that made even former Vice President Cheney seem warm and fuzzy, illustrated how hamstrung Democrats are in trying to pass legislation within the confines of Senate rules, made fellow home-state senator and former friend Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) squirm and distracted from the plans Democrats have to pass healthcare reform with the reconciliation procedure, as well as from Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) stepping down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee amid ethical troubles. Let’s call that a six-fer.

Just in case readers missed the point, Stoddard described Bunning's effort to get the Senate to abide by its own rule as a "temper tantrum."  His "hot-pink face" and considerable "grumbling" reminded Stoddard that his "mental stability has been questioned as far back as 2004."

The mainstream media's shrieks and howls over Bunning's modest effort to bring a modicum of sanity to Washington spending places their own stability in question.  If they're not careful, Bunning Derangement Syndrome may be included in the next revision of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is an interesting perspective.

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

These are Americans talking about their American situation.

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

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

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