Studs Terkel, author and broadcaster, died on Halloween.  Barack Obama observed: "Studs was not just a Chicago institution, he was a national treasure. His writings, broadcasts, and interviews shed light on what it meant to be an American in the 20th century."  Obama highly praised Terkel when he was alive, declaring him " not just a national treasure - he's one of Chicago's treasures."  Terkel's appeal to liberals may at least partially be explained by his political activities.  The Associated Press today reports:

Terkel's politics were liberal, vintage FDR. He would never forget the many New Deal programs from the Great Depression and worried that the country suffered from "a national Alzheimer's disease" that made government the perceived enemy.

So what does the Associated Press view as liberal, vintage FDR politics?  An October, 1952 Chicago Tribune news article began:

"Louis (Studs) Terkel, disc jockey, TV entertainer, and one-time political broadcaster, declined yesterday to discuss charges by Owen Vinson that Vinson joined the Communist party in 1943 at the invitation of Terkel.

"Vinson, former Chicago radio writer, director, and actor, made the charge Thursday in Los Angeles before the house committee on un-American activities.  Vinson has left the party, he testified."  At least one other person also provided sworn testimony that he had joined the party at Terkel's invitation.

The news article goes on to report that Terkel refused to say whether he was or had been a Communist.  He also stated:

"I have an overwhelming pity and contempt for Mr. Vinson.  Here is a nightmarish example of what fear and hysteria can do to the human spirit.  It makes of a man the lowest of God' creatures - an informer.

"I've always believed in the principle that a man's thoughts, whether political or religious, are his private domain. . . . "

I'd contend thoughts are in a man's private domain until such time that he joins, and asks others to join, an organization dedicated to destroying basic freedoms.

Terkel as a victim, persecuted by Joe McCarthy and other Commie hunters, is a recurring theme in articles written about the late Chicagoan.  Today's Chicago Tribune used its editorial space to eulogize him and notes:

He was an actor and a jazz columnist and even had his own network TV show until his contract was canceled after he became one of the targets of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was not the kind of man to name names, and in the superheated Red panic of the early 1950s, that meant his TV career was over.

I can find no articles in the Tribune's own archives reporting that Terkel was ever investigated by Joe McCarthy.  As chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, McCarthy's primary focus was on security risks within the federal government rather than variety show hosts.  And Terkel wasn't asked to "name names."  He was asked if, as sworn to by at least two people, he was a Communist recruiting others into the party.

Furthermore, Terkel's cancellation occurred before the October, 1952 investigation.  The Tribune's "Tower Ticker" column of June 26, 1952 mentions "'Studs' Place' is off the TV air, but its cast still is united in an enterprise that begins to look discouraging."  The cast, including Terkel, was appearing in a play.

If Terkel were indeed blacklisted, as asserted in reports of his death, it must not have been for long.  The Tribune's "Television News and Views" dated August 6, 1953 relates: "Studs Terkel and Chet Roble the other evening introduced a watered down version (or perhaps we should say liquored down) version of the old Studs Place series because there was a bar on the set at WBKB."  The article goes on to describe the rest of the program.  And a December 12, 1954 Tribune piece on singer Mahalia Jackson included a picture of the great gospel singer "With Studs Terkel, who writes her radio show."

Terkel also hosted, beginning in 1952, a radio program on WFMT that ran until the 1990s.

Last week, Terkel made a small amount of news by telling a Huffington Post writer that Gov. Sarah Palin is "Joe McCarthy in drag!"  In the same interview he said:

Community organizers like Obama know what's going on. If they remember. The important thing is memory. You know in this country, we all have Alzheimer's.

In the case of the mainstream media, it appears they suffer from manufactured memories.  Terkel wasn't investigated by Joe McCarthy, he wasn't out of work for any sustained period because of a blacklist, and his politics weren't liberal, vintage FDR.

He was a guy who wouldn't say whether he was a Communist and, apparently, a guy who - charitably - exaggerated a great deal.  And the mainstream media bought it all. 

Like much of the mainstream media, CNN anchor Jack Cafferty has set aside any pretense of objectivity in this year's presidential election.  On today's Situation Room he used a "Cafferty File" segment, in which a question is posed to viewers for their response, to attack GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.  He prefaced the question:

But McCain chose Sarah Palin, who immediately became a national joke to everybody, except the conservative base of the Republican Party. Even some Republicans are convinced the Palin selection showed a total lack of judgment on McCain's part.

Oh, what about Florida Governor Charlie Crist? Would winning Florida help John McCain? You get the idea here.

Here's the question: Was it a mistake for John McCain to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate?

Last Thursday, his question for viewers was if they think John McCain has run an honorable campaign.  Some of his background "information":

In fact, in the last few weeks, John McCain has become downright nasty.

It began around the time -- you'll recall this -- the time that one of his advisers said that if McCain campaigned on the economy, he would lose. And the ugly personal attacks began: Barack Obama's past acquaintance with William Ayers; Barack Obama's economic plan is socialism; Barack Obama will say anything to get elected. His running mate, Sarah Palin, chimed in with such gutter-level rhetoric as Obama pals around with terrorists.

Wednesday found Cafferty asking "Should Sarah Palin reimburse Alaska taxpayers for her children's travel and entertainment expenses?"  He prefaced that with, "How do you present yourself as any kind of candidate of reform when the practices you employ puts you in the very same category of every other (emphasis added) two-bit, sleazy, opportunistic politician that has come before you.

On Tuesday, Cafferty asked "Why do citizens in 70 foreign countries prefer Barack Obama to John McCain by a margin of nearly 4 to 1? Simply stunning numbers."

Obviously, only a handful of viewers' responses can be read on the air.  Cafferty often exhibits the same balance in selecting them as he does in choosing his questions.  For example, he read six replies on why Obama is so popular overseas; five were anti-McCain.

Even when asking, as he also did on Tuesday, if a Democratic congressman calling some voters in his state racist will hurt Obama, Cafferty had to drag in the GOP:

Democratic Congressman John Murtha from Pennsylvania is challenging Republican Governor Sarah Palin for who can say the stupidest things on the campaign trail. Right now, it's pretty much a dead heat.

Jack could bring up many issues challenging Obama and Biden, but doesn't.  By including Cafferty's undisguised contempt for the McCain-Palin ticket, host Wolf Blitzer has made The Situation Room absurdly partisan.  He should urge his bosses at CNN to give Cafferty and his increasingly intemperate ravings their own venue.  It could be called The Rubber Room.      

In case you've been in a cave the last few news cycles, it's been widely reported that the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's largest newspaper, has endorsed Barack Obama.  Typical was this from NPR's Morning Edition:

Newspapers have been making presidential endorsements. Republican John McCain won the backing of his home state's largest paper, The Arizona Republic. The Chicago Tribune endorsed Chicago resident Barack Obama — the first time that paper has endorsed a Democratic candidate for president. And Obama received the backing from another paper you might not expect — the Anchorage Daily News. The state's largest newspaper was not swayed by the fact that McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, is the state's governor.

Over at the Christian Science Monitor's election blog, the headline is, "Anchorage Daily News supports… Obama?"

The newspaper's endorsement of the Democratic candidates can hardly be characterized as unexpected.  The Anchorage Daily News endorsed John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000.  It backed Bill Clinton in both 1996 and 1992, and Michael Dukakis in 1988.  Its 1992 endorsement of Clinton began with a familiar theme:

"Change" is about the first word from Bill Clinton's lips at every campaign stop. But Gov. Clinton offers more than just change for change's sake. He offers something this country no longer associates with politicians:

Hope.

As far back as 1976, Time magazine reported:

Unchanged, however, is the paper's willingness to assume unpopular editorial positions; it champions gun control (anathema in Alaska) and stricter environmental protection laws. The Daily News generally supports Democrats and endorsed George McGovern for President in 1972.

That such a newspaper still backs Democrats isn't earth shaking news, despite media efforts to make it appear that way. 

On Thursday's ABC World News, anchor Charles Gibson's lead-off story was on the presidential campaign:

"Two weeks, five days to go, home stretch. Barack Obama and John McCain began today laying out their closing strategies. And while Obama continues to hold a double-digit lead in most national polls, it is the results in individual states that are all important."

The emphasis on Obama's supposedly huge, possibly insurmountable lead is used by some in the mainstream media to suggest the inevitability of a Democratic win.  But you have to wonder, at least in this instance, what polls ABC News is examining.  Obama enjoys a lead in most opinion surveys, but it's not as large as Gibson claimed.

Thursday's Gallup Daily poll showed a 49% to 43% Obama lead over McCain.
Rasmussen had it at 50% to 46%.
At Zogby, it was 49% to 43%.
The IBD /TIPP tracking poll showed the race at 45% to 42%
The RealClearPolitics poll average, which incorporates findings of 13 national polls, showed a 49.5 to 42.7 Obama lead.

Prospects for the McCain-Palin are not quite as bleak as some in the mainstream media would like.  But that doesn't mean they'll stop trying. 

Today's dose of unintended humor from the Chicago Sun-Times is Mary Mitchell's "McCain slings mud up from the low road."  It's a standard anti-John McCain diatribe from the increasingly venomous Mitchell.  To buttress her contention, she falls into tailoring her facts:

Throughout his campaign, Obama has been loathe to talk about race. And frankly, that apparently was a winning strategy since most people can't talk about race without getting angry.

And while black people used to be accused of whining when they talk about race, we're now called racist for daring to believe anyone can be racist.

But white people can apparently talk about race and get away with it.

Sun-Times columnist Andrew Greeley called out Palin in a way only a white writer can.

OK, Mary, let's try this once more.  Obama has not "been loathe to talk about race."  He's the one - or do you prefer The One? - who injected race into the campaign.

He did it when he said: "So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me.  You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know."

He did it when he said: “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run.  They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?'"

Mitchell's citing of Andrew Greeley is particularly amusing.  The Sun-Times's Loon Brigade is reduced to quoting one another to lend authenticity to their arguments.  Priceless.

I don't know about Mitchell's assertion that "most people can't talk about race without getting angry."  One thing's for sure:  Mary Mitchell can't.

Today's Chicago Sun-Times treats us to Andrew Greeley's thoughtful analysis, "Palin, McCain stir up storm of ugly racism."  Greeley begins:

"South Pacific" is a morality play for our time. Sarah Palin is the Ensign Nellie Forbush -- an All-American girl as racist, this time a racist with her eye on the White House. She can stir up crowds to shout "Kill him!" at the mention of the presidential candidate of the other party a couple of weeks before the national election.

And later:

Playing the race card explicitly merely guarantees what I have thought from the beginning -- racism in this country precludes the possibility of a sepia-colored man becoming president. However, the last-ditch attack on him guarantees that McCain and Palin will be blamed as the candidates who were content to hear crowds calling for the death of Obama.

Then Greeley completes his trip around the bend:

McCain increasingly acts like an angry, befuddled cancer survivor and treats his rival like a field n----- who is just barely human. He does not talk to him, will not shake hands with him, will not even look at him, walks behind him when he is speaking to distract the audience. Obama's languid, legs-crossed security on the bar stool must infuriate McCain all the more. Who does he think he is? He has no right to run for president and McCain does. Has not he served his country all his life? Has not he traveled the whole world? Has not he been involved in every major event of the last four decades? Does he not know everyone who is worth knowing? And what does his rival have to offer besides intolerable arrogance? Black skin and glib language? Is not Obama the one who is playing the race card? Therefore he must be exposed as what he is -- a pushy fellow with a glib tongue who has no right to challenge a great American like John McCain.

Greeley writes a column of commentary.  He's entitled to his own opinion - as twisted as it may be - but he's not entitled to his own facts.

There's absolutely no evidence that John McCain and Sarah Palin are "content to hear crowds calling for the death of Obama."  Taking a handful of instances and claiming they're frequent occurrences, Greeley contends the GOP is "playing the race card explicitly."  But when did either McCain or Palin introduce race into the campaign?  Liberals hate to acknowledge it, but Obama brought the subject up.

It was Obama who said: “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run.  They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?'"

It was Obama who said: "So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me.  You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know."

In attacking McCain and Palin for alleged racism, Greeley himself employs the most hurtful term in the racist lexicon, the n-word.

It's becoming more apparent as Election Day draws closer, that for Obamatons any iota of opposition to The One can only be explained by virulent racism.  The derangement syndrome rages on.    

Today on CNN's American Morning, Cook County sheriff Tom Dart was interviewed by anchor John Roberts.  Dart has announced his office will quit carrying out evictions stemming from mortgage foreclosures until lenders start exercising "due diligence."  During the interview, Dart made the point that some evictions involve people who have not defaulted on their mortgages, but have simply been paying rent to landlords who did. Roberts's comments at the end of the interview are telling:

ROBERTS: So the Illinois Bankers Association is accusing you of "vigilantism" and, quote, "at the highest level of an elected official." What do you say to that?

DART: I think the outrage is on my part with them. That they would so cavalierly issue documents and have me throw people out of homes who have done absolutely nothing wrong. They played by all the rules. And because of their ignorance and their lack of diligence and going out to their own property and finding out who is out there, innocent people are being set out.

I told them, you send an agent out, you send somebody out that gives me any type of assurance that the appropriate person is in the house, I will fulfill the order. But when you're just blindly sending me out to houses where I'm coming across innocent tenant after innocent tenant, I can't keep doing this right now and have a good conscience about it.

ROBERTS: There were some suggestions that they may seek to hold you in contempt of court for ignoring court orders. Are you willing to go that far?

DART: I am. Because as I say, my oath of office was to try to do what is just for the people in this county. And there is no justice being done when you have people who play by the rules, who are innocent, having no notice of court hearings and having all of their possessions put out on the street, their family humiliated, their children's lives being traumatized. And that's exactly what I see when I go out on these evictions.

ROBERTS: You know, you've got to remain impartial in all of this, Sheriff. But I could say it's good to meet one of the good guys once in a while.

So Dart is deemed one of the good guys by Roberts.  Is that because he refuses to do his job?  Because he ignores court orders?  Because he's decided which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he doesn't?  Because he's setting an incredibly bad example by breaking the laws he's sworn to uphold?

Some of the people Dart is attempting to protect from eviction are no doubt innocent.  They are in distress through no fault of their own.  At the same time, however, it's necessary to keep in mind that remedies for such inequities need to come from those who enact laws, not from those charged with enforcement.  Sheriffs aren't elected to pick and choose which laws they want to carry out. 

Dart, naturally, is a member in good standing of the Cook County Democratic Party.  So it's not surprising that he thinks laws apply to others, not to him.  Roberts's expression of support for Dart and his dereliction of duty, which likely will lead to fewer mortgage loans in Chicago and surrounding areas, suggests that's the way he also views the world.

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.