On Saturday's Ballot Bowl 2008, CNN anchor Ed Henry interviewed actor Jon Voight. Henry must have been surprised when Voight very quickly made an important point, one that it's impossible to deny: Much of the mainstream media has become unabashedly partisan. Henry asked Voight how he thought Sarah Palin did in the recent vice presidential candidate debate:

JON VOIGHT, ACTOR: She was wonderful in the debate. My deepest concern, you know. Let me just say -- can I say something honestly about the debate? The thing that concerned me about the debate, all these people, 70 to 80 million people watching this debate, and I found so many things that I found Joe Biden said that were - that I recognized as out-right lies. So I'm saying, isn't anybody on this? And of course, we're talking to CNN and I know where you guys stand. And I'm saying, guys, we've got to not have a partisan press. We've got to have real journalism here. And it's a sad event for me to witness this.

HENRY: Let me ask you, you mentioned republicans are pointing out that there were a lot of things that Joe Biden said that were not true. One thing that Sarah Palin stressed was that Barack Obama has voted 94 times to raise taxes. When you peel that back that's not exactly true.

VOIGHT: Of course, you're going to give me that side of it.

HENRY: I want to give you --

VOIGHT: Absolutely the truth. But the larger things for me which struck me was this whole thing -- the thing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and talking about how the democrats -- he's saying that the democrats wanted regulations. The democrats did not want regulations. That was the whole thing about this big fight between Barney Franks and Bill O'Reilly yesterday.

HENRY: Let me ask you, you mentioned the economy, an important issue, without going back and forth. Let's just talk broadly. How do you think the economy, the financial crisis is affecting the campaign trail. (INAUDIBLE) Barack Obama.

VOIGHT: Let me just say this, look, if you checked Barack Obama -- I'm going to just say this and it'll get rid of it. Check Barack Obama's record, what he did in the -- with the William Ayers, with his alliance with Alinsky, Sol Alinsky, tactics and philosophy. With his work with ACORN, know all that stuff before you ask a question like that. Let's get off this for a second and let's just talk about something else because after all I'm an actor here, I have these -- we're going to have a nice little cheerleading section for Sarah, who I'm crazy about. And I'm not really the fellow that should be talking about this. But the real journalists should be getting into this thing.

HENRY: The issue number one for Americans right now is the economy. That's why I asked about it. Last thing, on Tuesday, what does John McCain need to say in the second presidential debate? What do you expect him to do?

VOIGHT: You see, you're asking me all these questions. You think that I'm the fellow that I should be answering these kinds of questions?

HENRY: What are you doing here with Sarah Palin then? I thought you were ready.

VOIGHT: I'm ready to talk to you. But let me just say this, John McCain will handle himself just fine, just as Sarah Palin handled herself just fine. And it's not for me to coach them. But I'll be tuning in and I'll be rooting for my fellow. But a lot of this stuff has to be on the board. What I would like to see done is that these things are handled in the press, that the press put partisanship aside. It's become a partisan press. And this is almost criminal because it doesn't allow people to make an informed vote.

HENRY: Thank you for your opinions. We appreciate it Jon Voight. You heard the take from Jon Voight, he clearly thinks that Sarah Palin did very well in that vice presidential debate, thank you sir.

It's not often that we hear from the mainstream media of Barack Obama's connections with Saul Alinsky and ACORN or of Joe Biden's huge disconnect with the truth. Voight's call for "real journalism" to Henry was met with a talking point straight from the Obama campaign.

Last month, Obama advised his backers to talk to Republicans and independents and "argue with them and get in their face." Jon Voight got in the mainstream media's face Saturday and did a mighty admirable job of it. His action might limit interview requests in the future, but he expressed a sentiment many Americans share.

CBS News' Dean Reynolds may get in hot water with his mainstream media associates for doing the unforgivable:  He's committed the truth.  On CBS's "From the Road" blog yesterday, Reynolds wrote,  "Reporter's Notebook: Seeing How The Other Half Lives." The reporter recently switched from covering Barack Obama's campaign to that of John McCain.  His rumination includes these interesting tidbits:

The (Obama) national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" is broadcast. I suspect there is a feeling within the Obama campaign that the broadcast networks are less influential in the age of the internet and thus needn't be accomodated as in the days of yore. Even if it's true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.

The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who've been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.

The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama's, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.

Obama's headquarters airily dismissing complaints isn't unexpected.  After all, he is "The One."  But in a period when linking Obama to unreconstructed terrorist Bill Ayers carries "a racially tinged subtext" according to the Associated Press and McCain's designation of Obama as "that one" caused "some in the African-American community to accuse McCain of racism," Reynolds has got to know that reporting Obama's campaign plane stinks is going to cause, well, a stink.

Reynolds' peers will not be pleased.  He may have to validate his membership in the MSM Club with some strident anti-McCain coverage.  I mean, even more than the standard strident anti-McCain coverage.  

Jane Pauley, one-time co-host of NBC's Today and Dateline NBC programs, is actively campaigning for Barack Obama.  A couple of weeks ago, I wrote of one such appearance in Portage, Indiana that attracted only eight people.  That event also featured Steve Skvara, the retired steelworker who in August of last year tearfully asked Democratic presidential candidates at a debate, "What's wrong with America? And what will you do to change it?"

It's only fair that I follow up by reporting that Pauley's current efforts are being met with much more enthusiasm.  Maybe it's because she's now campaigning at Democratic headquarters and that's a more welcoming venue than the previously utilized union hall, difficult as it is to distinguish between the two.  Perhaps the advance planning, blamed for her earlier poor turnout, was improved.  Possibly it's because she lost Skvara, even though his admirers include MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who last year asked Skvara, "Well, can I pay tribute—can I pay tribute to you, sir?"

Whatever the reason, Pauley is pulling in much larger crowds.  As reported Thursday by the Anderson, IN Herald Bulletin:

Appearing before a crowd of about 40 area Democrats, Indiana-born broadcast journalist Jane Pauley opened her speech at Democratic Headquarters in Anderson Thursday afternoon by alluding to her own hopes for the upcoming presidential election.

“I’m looking forward to a life into the blue, if you get my meaning,” she said with a smirk as the crowd clapped and hollered in agreement. The remark about political sides was also a reference to Pauley’s 2004 autobiography, titled “Skywriting: A Life Out of the Blue.”

Pauley made a brief appearance at the local Democratic headquarters to stump for presidential candidate Barack Obama and criticize presidential candidate John McCain’s claims that he is a maverick and a reformer.

“The original ‘Maverick’ was a gambler,” she said, referring to the TV series starring James Garner. “In these uncertain times, can we afford to gamble on a pair of mavericks?”

And later:

Focusing on foreign policy, Pauley said the United States had alienated allies and emboldened enemies during the past eight to 10 years. Recently though, she said, respect for America is rising.

She named three reasons for the change in opinion. “Barack. Hussein. Obama,” she shouted.

Pauley must not be aware that using Obama's middle name is, according to no less an authority than Michelle Obama, "the fear bomb." 

Regardless, Pauley's campaigning is obviously attracting increasing crowds.  Little wonder she's smirking.  Keep it up, Jane.  You might hit an audience of 100 by election day.    

The Associated Press reported today that Sarah and Todd Palin have released their 2006 and 2007 tax returns.  The release concluded:

The McCain-Palin campaign had said the tax returns would be released Monday, but it suddenly put them out Friday afternoon — a time long used by government to reveal embarrassing news because few people watch TV or read newspapers Friday evening and Saturday.

Interestingly, Joe and Jill Biden also released tax returns on a Friday. In their case it was September 12.  The AP began its report:

Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden and his wife on Friday released a decade of their personal financial records, showing a veteran U.S. senator who earned less than many of his congressional colleagues.

Oddly, no mention was made that Friday is "a time long used by government to reveal embarrassing news."

Nor did the AP note in today's report that the more than $8,000 donated to charity by the Palins in the last two years more than doubles the charitable contributions of the Bidens for the past ten years.

Perhaps there will be embarrassing information in the Palins' tax returns and that's why they were released on a Friday.  But why didn't AP advise its readers of that possibility with the Bidens' returns less than a month ago?

We all know the answer to that question.  But it might be embarrassing for the AP to admit it.  Maybe the news service should wait until a Friday to reveal the answer.

Just when you think mainstream media people can't stoop much lower in their final stages of Palin Derangement Syndrome, they plunge to new depths.  Suzy Shuster works as a sideline reporter for ABC Sports.  She also blogs at the Huffington Post.  Her most recent contribution is,"Say It Ain't So: Trig Palin's Post-Debate Photo Op."  She describes what irritated her most at last night's vice presidential debate:

It actually came after the debate, when for seemingly the millionth time, Sarah Palin trotted out her piece de resistance, her favorite prop of this campaign season: her five and a half month old son Trig.

Why is this child up so late every time there is a camera op? Why isn't this baby sleeping in a crib or bassinet somewhere with a sleep sheep or some other sound apparatus lulling him into night-night? Is it just me or does it seem like she carts this poor child around like a living breathing example of how wonderful a mom she is? After all, she's more than adopted the "I'm just a mom, just like you moms out there, America" attitude.

But the truth is, if she was just like all you other Moms out there, America, then she'd know the best thing she can do for this infant is to make sure he is tucked safely in his bed and out cold at eleven pm. And please don't say well, maybe she doesn't have anyone to watch him. Believe that, and I've got a Bridge to Nowhere that I want to sell you.

Shuster isn't the first to challenge Palin's parenting skills and motivation.  Last month the publisher of Harper's Magazine made the same accusation that the baby is used as a political prop.

Naturally, Shuster's post was received by HuffPo readers with a rash of comments critical of Palin, references to "white trash," and other statements that you'd expect from open-minded liberals. 

I can't claim particular expertise on the subject of when a baby should sleep.  In my experience as a father and grandfather, though, it seems to me babies keep their own schedule to a great extent.  I'd be most reluctant to judge other parents harshly because their baby isn't asleep at 8:00 PM or whatever hour has been designated as the requirement. 

Moreover, there's little doubt that some of the liberals so critical of the Palin baby's schedule would have preferred that a special needs child be aborted in the first place.  Their open-mindedness can only be extended so far. 

In last night's debate, Joe Biden made a point about not questioning an opponent's motives.  Shuster and other mainstream media figures have no problem doing exactly that much of the time.

Today on CNN's American Morning, network correspondent Alina Cho conducted yet another "truth squad" check of a claim made by a presidential candidate.  In this instance, it's the claim Barack Obama makes that he was a leader in ethics reform when he served in the Illinois state senate.  Anchor Kiran Chetry led off the segment:

CHETRY: Welcome back to the "Most News in the Morning." Time again to check in with the "Truth Squad." Alina Cho looking at some statements that Barack Obama is making about taking on lobbyists. "Lobbyist," the dirty word in presidential politics.

ALINA CHO, CNN GENERAL ASSIGNMENT CORRESPONDENT: Big, bad dirty word, Kiran. Good morning. Good morning, everybody. It's something that Barack Obama talks about often on the campaign trail. No surprise how he's taken on lobbyists and he says as president, he'll do it again to reform health care and take on Wall Street. Here he is on Tuesday in Reno, Nevada.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I will take power away from the corporate lobbyists who think they can stand in the way of these reforms. I've done it in Illinois. I've done it in Washington. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CHO: Take power away from lobbyists in both Illinois and Washington? Is that true? Does his record back it up? Well, we looked at it. Last year, Obama did support something called The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. That bill prohibits gifts and limits travel provided by lobbyists. It also increases the waiting periods before lawmakers can join lobbying firms. President Bush, by the way, signed that bill into law last September. Public Citizen, a non-profit consumer advocacy group gave Obama high marks for supporting it. They say he has pushed hard for other ethics reform legislation, as well.

But what about back in Illinois. Well, as a state senator, Obama was key in producing something called The Illinois Gift Ban. He actually helped draft the law back in 1988 and it also puts significant limits on gifts by lobbyists, and bans personal use of the campaign contributions.

So the question again, when Obama says he took on lobbyists in both Illinois and Washington, was he right? Pretty clear cut on this one for a change. The "Truth Squad" says -- and that means yes. This one is true. Obama has supported and even helped shape legislation that has cracked down on lobbyists.

As we get closer to the election, Kiran, this is not something we see very often. A clear cut true.

CHETRY: Right.

CHO: But we are happy to say that this one is true.

No doubt Cho was happy to pronounce Obama's claim true.  But let's fact check the fact checker.

The law to which Cho refers was passed in 1998, not 1988 as she stated.  The One was still in the trenches organizing the community in 1988.  And there's a big question as to whether Obama assumed a major role in the legislation's passage.

In August, National Review Online's David Freddoso wrote of Obama's involvement with the Illinois ethics legislation:

When the 1998 law passed the state senate on May 22, 1998, it set off a mad dash for incumbent legislators to fill their coffers as quickly as possible, so as to maximize the amount in their accounts on the grandfather date. According to the Chicago Tribune, State Rep. Monique Davis (D.) went so far as to lend her campaign $33,000 five days before the deadline. The campaign of state Sen. George Shadid (D.) borrowed $50,000.

Obama cannot be blamed for any of this because he did not write this 1998 ethics law. In fact, he had very little to do with it until the day it passed. He was not the one to propose the ethics bill in the Illinois senate. He was not even a cosponsor until the day it passed. Five months after the ethics bill was introduced, and more than one month after it reached the senate, Obama was invited by Emil Jones to become its chief Democratic cosponsor. As David Mendell writes in Obama: From Promise to Power, former Rep. Abner Mikva convinced Jones to let Obama handle the legislation. Sen. Dick Klemm (D.) was removed as chief cosponsor and replaced by Obama on May 22, 1998 — the very day the bill passed.

Other than the fact Klemm was a Republican rather than a Democrat, that account appears accurate.  The bill status record shows the legislation's chief co-sponsor was changed to Obama on May 22, more than a month after it arrived in the state senate on April 18.

This isn't the first time CNN's fact checking didn't check out.  "Fact checks" are popular with the mainstream media in this year's election.  Increasingly, though, they're being used as just another hammer in the toolbox to advance Obama and damage McCain.

In their quest to supply as many reasons as possible to vote for Barack Obama, the mainstream media have expressed a particular interest in John McCain's mortality.  Last May, McCain made available more than 1,000 pages of medical records for press scrutiny.  In contrast,  Obama released a one-page letter from a physician pronouncing the Democrat in excellent health.

Now comes the Associated Press today with an article titled, "One-in-four chance McCain may not survive 2nd term."  It starts:

If John McCain is elected and goes on to win a second term, there's as much as a one-in-four chance America could see its first woman president — Sarah Palin.

It's actuarial math.

The odds highly favor either McCain or Barack Obama completing a first term in good health. After that, McCain's odds are still fairly solid, but his chances of dying or being in poor health go up faster than Obama's, mainly because of his age.

An Atlanta actuarial company specializing in individualized estimates of life and health expectancy has run the numbers for McCain, 72, and Obama, 47. The firm, Bragg Associates, calculated the odds of the candidates dying in office, adjusted for their known health problems.

McCain would be the oldest president to begin a first term in office. By the end of a second term, Jan. 20, 2017, he would have a 24.44 percent chance of dying, compared with 5.76 percent for Obama, the firm estimates.

"Can either candidate expect to serve two terms in a healthy state? The answer is yes," says James C. Brooks, Jr., an actuary with the firm. "They're both in outstanding health for people of their age."

If readers makes it to the nineteenth paragraph, they'll learn that there may be cause for concern in terms of Obama's health:

But Obama has a family history of cancer. His mother died of ovarian cancer and his maternal grandfather died of prostate cancer. Obama's PSA screening test for prostate cancer showed no sign of abnormalities.

It seems to me that a piece focusing on the likelihood of McCain completing a second term in good health would be more appropriately timed for closer to the end of his first term in the White House. 

Additionally, the headline could have, as KAIT8 in Jonesboro, Arkansas did, more fairly titled an article with much of the same information "Odds favor McCain completing a first term in good health."

But then, that wouldn't have the desired effect, would it? 

Last week, the Detroit Free Press's Web site posted "Which books would Palin want to ban?," a column by syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.  Pitts begins with a series of possible questions for Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.  Then he makes his point:

My first question, though, would not be one of those. I'd simply ask which books she wants to ban -- and why.

Yes, there's a list of titles floating around the Internet right now, but it's a fake. It is, however, established fact that our would-be vice president has in the past tried to pull books off library shelves.

The New York Times reports that as a member of the City Council of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin complained to colleagues about a book called "Daddy's Roommate," described in promotional material as being "for and about the children of lesbian and gay parents."

Laura Chase, who ran Palin's campaign for mayor, explained that the book was harmless and suggested Palin read it.

Chase told the New York Times that Palin replied she "didn't need to read that stuff. It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn't even read it."

Later, as mayor, Palin reportedly asked the town's librarian three times whether she would agree to remove controversial books from the shelves. Three times, the librarian refused. Palin fired her, but eventually bowed to public pressure and gave the woman her job back.

Let's examine Pitt's "established fact" that Palin tried "to pull books off library shelves."

An ABC News piece titled "Did Sarah Palin Try to Ban Library Books?: Alaska Librarian Can't Recall Palin Asking to Ban Books," reported earlier this month:

The librarian at the center of a 1996 controversy with then-Wasilla mayor Sarah Palin says she can't recall any effort by Palin to ban specific books from the town library.

In her first public statement since Palin was named the GOP vice-presidential candidate, Mary Ellen Baker said today, "I simply do not recall a conversation with specific titles," Baker told ABCNews.com.

Palin has acknowledged she twice raised the issue in 1996 of how books could be removed from the shelves, but said it was only a "rhetorical question" and that she did not ask for any books to be banned.

Also earlier this month the Anchorage Daily News, a newspaper that's endorsed every Democratic candidate for president going back at least 20 years, stated:

Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed.

Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons (now Baker) about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.  Books may not have been pulled from library shelves, but there were other repercussions for Emmons.

Repercussions?  That sounds ominous, perhaps Palin singled out the librarian for punishment.  But then the story goes on:

Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.

Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.

Replacing an opponent's political appointees with one's own is pretty typical for elected officials.

Finally, on whether the governor tried to ban books,  FactCheck.org points out:

She (Palin) did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

Pitts doesn't identify the books Palin allegedly tried to pull off library shelves.  That's because he can't.  Complaining about a book isn't the same as banning it. 

Leonard Pitts won a 2004 Pulitzer Prize.  His use of left wing Internet chatter as "established fact" suggests he's aiming for another one. 

As one who's been critical of CNN's Lou Dobbs a time or two, I was glad to see him and correspondents Louise Schiavone and Kitty Pilgrim perform a valuable public service on Friday's edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight.  They detailed political contributions made by finance, insurance and real estate firms to four members of Congress taking lead roles in crafting the Wall Street bailout:

DOBBS: Just four members of Congress will lead the negotiations of what President Bush and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want to be the largest government bailout in history. Democrats, Senator Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Congressman Frank, Chairman, House Financial Services Committee. Republicans Senator Judd Gregg, ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, Congressman Roy Blunt, House Minority Whip.

That's your lineup, folks and over the past two decades, those four men have accepted almost $20 million in donations from finance, insurance and real estate firms. Yes, the very same firms that stand to benefit from that almost trillion dollar federal bailout.

We have two reports tonight. We begin with Louise Schiavone and the Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As the financial world awaits a lifeline from Washington, they're looking to friends in Congress whom they've helped over the years. Friends who have stood by in key committees as debts bloomed and regulation waned.

DANIEL CLIFTON, STRATEGAS RESEARCH PARTNERS: They had politicians on both sides of the aisle that were pushing for easier credit. Chairman Frank and Chairman Dodd have been the facilitators of that on the committees. And moving forward legislation that has created a lot of this systematic risk that we are facing.

SCHIAVONE: According to Opensecrets.org, the Web site for the Center for Responsive Politics, on the Democratic side from 1989 to present, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd has accepted a total of $13,205,556 in campaign contributions, both in PAC and individual money, from the finance, insurance of real estate sectors.

MASSIE RITSCH, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS: The last time that Congress took out the structure of the financial industry, Senator Dodd supported letting banks get even larger and get into new lines of riskier businesses.

SCHIAVONE: House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has accepted a total of $2,494,611 in campaign contributions from the same sectors. In Frank's case, top donors include employees from the American Bankers Association, the company that's just bought Washington Mutual, JPMorgan Chase, and the National Association of Realtors. In the case of Senator Dodd, top donors include Citigroup, Bear Stearns and JPMorgan Chase. Dodd and Frank now play key roles in bailout talks.

JD FOSTER, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Certainly Congress bears some responsibility for this coming to pass. There are a lot of federal policies that contributed to the current situation.

SCHIAVONE: House Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank told LOU DOBBS TONIGHT quote, "specifically, I have been a consistent supporter of strong consumer protection, support for adequately funded affordable housing, and support for efficient functioning of financial institutions in our economy, and I find no contradiction in working for all three objectives."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHIAVONE: Lou, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Dodd had no comment for us. But in this instance, the three objectives outlined by Frank appear to have been at cross-purposes, with homeowners threatened by institutions near collapse, the economy in shambles and consumers on the hook for a massive bailout -- Lou.

DOBBS: Louise, thank you very much. Louise Schiavone. Well let's turn our attention now to the Republicans, represented by Senator Greg and Congressman Blunt, the second ranking Republican in the House.

Kitty Pilgrim now with the Republicans.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Congressman Roy Blunt and Senator Judd Gregg are no strangers to the banking industry. According to OpenSecrets.org, the Web site for the Center for Responsive Politics, Congressman Roy Blunt's top political donors are in securities, investment, real estate and commercial banks, contributing an estimated $2 million over the course of his career.

And this year alone, employees and political action committees from financial and securities firms gave $144,000. Commercial banks contributed $83,000. And real estate contributed $107,000. Blunt, who is up for re-election this year, has a history of supporting business and has given a 93 percent approval rating by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for voting in their interest. Bill Allison is with the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group that advocates greater government transparency.

BILL ALLISON, SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION: He's also been somebody who's been very much, again, a creature of Kay Street (ph) and very much -- lobbyists have had his ear and he's been very much kind of an insider in terms of how he's run his or how he's you know functioned in Washington.

PILGRIM: Blunt also voted back in 1999 to roll back banking regulations and sided with the banking industry on overhauling the bankruptcy code in 2005 to make consumers repay more of their debt during bankruptcy. Senator Judd Gregg's top funding sources this election year are the securities and insurance industries which provide 21 percent of its funding.

RITSCH: Since Senator Gregg has been in Congress, he's collected about $1 million from the financial sector and the industries that are most interested in this bailout. The insurance industry is his number one contributor.

PILGRIM: Citigroup is listed as the number four top contributor in this election year. Senator Judd Gregg has a Chamber of Commerce ranking voting 88 percent of the time pro business.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Now, public advocacy and watchdog groups say because of the deep ties to business and banking, members of Congress involved in crafting the bailout should not be allowed to negotiate behind closed doors without the knowledge of the public -- Lou.

DOBBS: Well in point of fact, and Judd Gregg, how much has he taken from...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: $1 million.

(CROSSTALK)

PILGRIM: Yes.

DOBBS: Well he and -- I mean that's sort of shocking. He and Blunt are pikers (ph). I mean Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank have been making them look silly. I mean you're talking tremendous sums of money on the Democratic side. I'm a little embarrassed for the Republicans. They're supposed to be the party of business and they're not getting their fair share of the business.

Dobbs is right.  The Republicans received chump change compared to the bucks pulled down by their Democratic counterparts.  Then again, it seems to me that the Democrats bear considerably more culpability for the financial quagmire we find ourselves in.

More than a year ago, the $13 million man Dodd told CNN's Gerri Willis that predatory lenders were responsible for the impending mortgage crisis: "The fact that any reputable banker or lender would make these kinds of loans so widely available to wage-earners, to elderly families on fixed incomes, or to lower-income, unsophisticated borrowers, strikes me as unconscionable and deceptive." This is the same Dodd who for years has demanded, along with Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Jesse Jackson, that lenders make loans to "lower-income, unsophisticated borrowers."  Unsophisticated folks have been a core Democratic constituency for decades.

Then there's $2.5 million Barney Frank, who was quoted by the New York Times in 2003:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Lou Dobbs deserves commendation for detailing the money trail.   Politicians immersed in developing the bailout need to be watched carefully.  Their past performances justify little optimism for the legislation they'll draft. We know who's going to pay. With these characters, the big question will be who benefits.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank appeared as a guest on the September 24 "Lou Dobbs Tonight". Just minutes before interviewing the Massachusetts Democrat, Dobbs featured a report from CNN correspondent Louise Schiavone on political contributions made by mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Schiavone stated Frank has received more than $42,000. His party's standard bearer, Barack Obama, has gotten over $126,000.

Yet Dobbs didn't even question Frank about taking those contributions from two of the major institutions involved in the present financial crisis. Or perhaps he could have asked Frank about what he told the New York Times in 2003:

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Moreover, he could have asked Frank if his relationship with the former director of housing initiatives for Fannie Mae, a man Barney considered his lover, had anything to do with the congressman's view that everything was hunky-dory over there.

Dobbs could have inquired what specific oversight Frank, who has been either the ranking Democrat or the chairman of the financial services committee for several years, and his committee had exercised over financial institutions. According to its Web site, Frank's committee "oversees all components of the nation's housing and financial services sectors including banking, insurance, real estate, public and assisted housing, and securities." How's that working out for you, Barney?

Rather than getting some substantive responses from Frank, Dobbs was satisfied with asking process questions about how the bailout package is developing. He also gave Frank a platform to parrot a few Democratic talking points:

DOBBS: What you're basically talking about, the Republicans are going to get this administration is going to get a bailout of Wall Street. The Democrats are going to get a new deal. And the result is going to be what? A nationalized --

FRANK: No. Nothing nationalized. The ownership we're going to take is going to have no voting rights. I don't think it's Wall Street -- here is the problem, a lack of regulation going back to Ronald Reagan allowed the private sector to make the mistakes that put us in this situation.

DOBBS: May I point out that the President Jimmy Carter is the one who started deregulation in 1978. The partisan thing doesn't work for me.

FRANK: I'm not being partisan. If you'd stop interrupting me -- he never said it was the problem. He never said government is dumb and markets are smart. I'm sorry, Lou. We're not going to have a serious conversation. Jimmy Carter is very different from Ronald Reagan. He moved for regulations in two specific industries, but we're talking about not about whether or not you lack regulation or if you have no regulation. And Carter never regulated the financial markets.

All in all, a pretty disappointing performance from Dobbs. Is he worried Barney and friends won't appear on his program if he questions why they've ignored, or in some instances aggravated, the problems leading to the current financial mess?

There's a heartwarming story in today's Times of Northwest Indiana.  Jane Pauley, one-time co-host of NBC's Today and Dateline NBC programs, made an appearance yesterday for Barack Obama.  Joining her was Steve Skvara, the retired steelworker who in August of last year tearfully asked Democratic presidential candidates at a debate, "What's wrong with America? And what will you do to change it?" The Times reported:

PORTAGE  Former television news anchor and Hoosier native Jane Pauley returned to her professional roots Monday during a local appearance on behalf of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

Pauley, who said she worked for the state Democratic Party before launching her successful news career, took part in a panel discussion aimed at touting the benefits of Obama's economic plans for Hoosiers over that of his Republican challenger John McCain.

While the subject matter was complex at times, Pauley occasionally took the opportunity to inject partisan humor into the discussion.

"Why would you want a maverick when you've had a cowboy in the White House for two terms already?" she asked, referring to McCain's description of himself.

Alas, Jane's witty comment didn't enjoy as much currency as it deserved.  That's because only eight people showed up for the rally.  Late notice was cited for the pathetic turnout.

The small gathering didn't discourage Skvara, a favorite with the Communist People's Weekly World.  He gave the obligatory McCain "scares me to death" statement and continued:

He said McCain opposes federal rules and regulations and yet that has repeatedly led to catastrophes, whether it was the savings and loan crisis during the 1990s or the current mortgage crisis.

Playing off President Bush's claims of wanting to put more control into people's hands as part of an "ownership society," Skvara said the country is headed in the opposite direction.

"It's going to be the homeless society," he said.

Last year Steve tugged on liberal heartstrings with his plaintive, "What's wrong with America?"  That only eight people showed up to see the Pauley-Skvara duo supporting Obama is evidence of what's right with America.  

Not long ago, many in the mainstream media were bemoaning the deterioration of public discourse in this year's presidential campaign.  Stories of lipsticks and pigs and other nongermane matters were irrelevant and time-wasters, they tut-tutted.  Let's get back to the real issues.

So the September 29, 2008 Newsweek strikes a blow for substantive journalism and giving voters information they really need to know.  "All the Candidates’ Cars" begins:

When you have seven homes, that's a lot of garages to fill. After the fuss over the number of residences owned by the two presidential nominees, NEWSWEEK looked into the candidates' cars. And based on public vehicle-registration records, here's the score. John and Cindy McCain: 13. Barack and Michelle Obama: one.

The article goes on to detail the vehicles, pointing out that some McCain cars were not - get out the smelling salts - made in America.  If readers make it through this piece they'll learn in the last paragraph that of all the McCain rides, "Only the Cadillac is registered in the candidate's name."

They could have investigated more thoroughly.  Somehow, I can't imagine Michell Obama standing on a Chicago corner waiting for the bus.  Then again, reporting that would have ruined an otherwise perfect story.

Stirring up a little class envy must be an example of the intrepid, hard-hitting journalism the mainstream media were demanding only days ago.  Fortunately, they're going to "educate" voters on the critical issues that genuinely matter.

I'd rather read about Sarah's lipstick.

Friday on CNN's American Morning, network correspondent Alina Cho conducted a "reality check" of a John McCain ad that labels Barack Obama the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.  These "fact checks" are increasingly popular in the mainstream media this presidential year.  Cho started:

ALINA CHO, CNN, CORRESPONDENT: Good morning. And a whole team of researchers, John, the truth squad as you're calling it, and we're starting today with a charge that the McCain campaign has been making against Barack Obama's voting record. Out on the campaign trail, John McCain has been calling Obama's record the most liberal in the Senate. Many people have heard that. The charge was also leveled early this month at an ad comparing Sarah Palin to Obama. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The "Journal" says Governor Palin's credentials as an agent of reform exceed Barack Obama's. They are right.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He has a record of bipartisan reform.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's the Senate's most liberal.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She took on oil producers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He gave big oil billions in subsidies in giveaways.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's earned a reputation as a reformer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His reputation, empty words.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHO: Well there's the ad. Here's the reality check. The "National Journal Magazine" which bills itself as a non-partisan publication did report recently that Obama moved so far to the left last year that he did rank the most liberal senator after ranking 16th and 10th most liberal in his first two years in the Senate.

But the Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal activist group disagrees.  No surprise there.  The group says when you look at Obama's entire Senate voting record, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy actually have higher liberal ratings.  So is Obama the most liberal senator? The verdict, true, according to the "National Journal." But this is the only source we could find. Other groups say liberal but not the most liberal.

So, John as you can see, not always black and white and this is where the campaigns seize on it and use to it their advantage as you well know after covering politics for a very long time.

Using the words "not always black and white" may steer viewers to conclude that the McCain ad is less than accurate.  Cho's declaration on the ad's veracity: "The verdict, true, according to the 'National Journal.'  But this is the only source we could find" is misleading.  The only source cited in the McCain ad was the National Journal, with a shot of the Web page designating Obama the most liberal senator in 2007 and the words "most liberal" captioned below it.

Cho states that that Americans for Democratic Action says other senators have higher career liberal ratings.  That may be true, but the McCain ad didn't speak in terms of lifetime voting records.  Moreover, the reason for Obama's receiving a relatively low 75 percent rating from the ADA for 2007 is because he missed votes, probably because of campaigning.  On every single measure on which he did vote, Obama embraced the liberal ADA position.

So where does "not always black and white" fit in?  Clearly it doesn't apply to the McCain ad Cho did a "reality check" on.

And noting that the National Journal "bills itself as a non-partisan publication," is a nice touch from CNN, which, as has been reported multiple times on NewsBusters, identifies some obviously partisan organizations as non-partisan merely because they "bill" themselves that way.

This isn't the first media report - nor will it be the last - that suggests a McCain ad is less than correct.  That may well be right in some instances, but it's worth our time to fact check the fact checkers before buying into their findings.