On CNN's American Morning today, anchor Carol Costello advanced a theory on who's responsible for the Let's Make a Deal environment permeating the Senate as it stumbles to completion of a health care bill.  Here is part of her exchange with CNN political analyst and GOP strategist Ed Rollins:

COSTELLO: Might (the) Republicans blame in part themselves for this, because none of them were going to vote? Didn't they sort of force Senator Reid's hand in making some of these sweetheart deals?

ROLLINS: Senator Reid could have made a sweetheart deal with the Republicans months ago. They could have knocked down walls and let insurance companies deal across state lines. There are a lot of things that Republicans...

COSTELLO: But the public option is out --

Yes, if only those intransigent Senate Republicans has been more accommodating, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, expanded Medicare coverage to “individuals exposed to environmental health hazards recognized as a public health emergency in a declaration issued by the federal government on June 17," and other special considerations wouldn't have been necessary.

Costello ignores that the public option is far from the only objection Republicans have to the Senate bill.  There's the feature of mandating Americans buy insurance.  There are the projected expenditures and savings figures that are as patently bogus as the shovel ready jobs number "Sheriff" Joe Biden spouts.  There's the problem that, other than the sweetheart deals, details on the plan and its implementation are as thin as a certain former community organizer's résumé.

And that's just for starters.  Yet Costello wonders if Republican senators might be blaming themselves for the travesty.  If only they'd set aside their principles, Democrats might not have been reduced to such flagrant bribery.

Sure, Carol, we believe that.

Anchoring CNN Tonight, correspondent Erica Hill reported the findings of a new poll:

While Democrats and the president may be cheering the bill's passage, a majority of Americans still oppose the Senate plan. According to a CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll, 56 percent say they are against the measure. Now that's a slight shift actually in favor of the plan from a weeks ago. When as you can see opposition was as high as 61 percent, 42 percent support the plan, that number also up at six points.

And when asked for the effect the health care bill would have on their own family, 34 percent of respondents thought it would change things for the better, 37 percent thought it would make things worst. While 39 percent said it would have no effect. And when you figure the sampling error, almost works out to even across the board.

The responses to the second question total 110 percent, an unlikely result.  Unless, of course, the poll were taken in Chicago by federally funded ACORN operatives.  That doesn't appear to be the case.  The actual poll question (#23) and results:

Thinking about the health care and health insurance that is available to you and your immediate family, do you think the proposals in the Senate bill would change things for the better, change things for the worse, or not make any real changes at all?
Dec. 16-20, 2009
Change things for the better 22%
Change things for the worse 37%
No change 39%
No opinion 2%

So more than three out of four respondents think that the Senate plan will either have no effect or change things for the worse for their own families.  Only slightly more than one out of five persons polled believe the Senate bill will make it better.  Hill was completely wrong in concluding the result "almost works out to even across the board."

It's likely the erroneous number came from replies to another question in the survey, one that asked respondents about the impact on "most Americans" rather than their own families.  That larger number could be attributable to the barrage of mainstream media stories highlighting people seemingly hurt by the current system.  

No, I don't think Erica Hill intentionally misrepresented her network's findings.  It's interesting, however, that neither she nor her script writer nor anyone else at CNN caught the error, especially since the graphic (I believe) reflected the correct numbers.  Could it be because they'd expect more public support for the Senate's health care plan?  

Will CNN correct the record for its viewers?  It is, after all, the most trusted name in news.  

On its Web site, GQ Magazine asks the burning question, "Has the Capital Gotten Cooler Under Obama?"  The magazine says yes and no.  But when it comes to Barack Obama and Co., you'll be relieved to know that the answer is a resounding YES!!  In a slide show, we learn that Obama is "our best-dressed prez since JFK. When he goes tieless, Ahmadinejad should take notice."  On Obama in jeans, "the loose fit seems presidential."  

Also lookin' good to GQ is Joe Biden: "The veep has terrific style. He deftly mixes colors and patterns with his shirts and ties, and his superb Hickey Freeman suits fit impeccably."  Senator John Kerry (D-MA) "looks best when dressing like the patrician he is. Super 180s suits and Hermès ties—senators ought to look senatorial."  Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is "groovier than his usual banker attire would suggest. . .  He goes for cool detail, like green ties on Saint Paddy's. And he has a thing for Panama hats."  Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) has "a sharp eye for detail and a suave color sense."

Representative John Conyers (D-MI) is a "clotheshorse" who is "a lifetime sartorial achiever."  Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) "can match sartorial splendor with Sean Combs and purples with Prince. . . "  We're told of Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY): "The dapper former roommate of Jon Stewart could almost pass for European."  And who wouldn't want to pass for European?  When it comes to speechwriter Jon Favreau, "Obama's golden boy of letters epitomizes style's new wave in D.C."

Even Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, not ostensibly a slave to fashion, qualifies for some gushing:

The sec of the interior ought to wear forty-liter hats and string ties. As a Coloradan, he's got the right, and the cabinet should somewhat resemble the Village People, don't you think?

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, by contrast, just doesn't make the cut: "The Republican Party czar looks suitably stiff in that boxy high-cut jacket."  Representative John Boehner gets the full GQ treatment:

The minority leader just looks vain. His radioactive tan appears sprayed on, his bronze hair never strays, and his ties glow in W Hotel colors against his white button-downs. Oh, and it's pronounced bay-ner, not . . ..

Representative Aaron Schock (R-IL), characterized by GQ as the "GOP's only hope for youthful charisma" gets slapped: "Though, looking at him, we can't help but think of James Bond's quip that the Windsor knot is the sign of a cad."

Only last month, the magazine named Obama its "Leader of the Year."  His administration and approval ratings might be crumbling, but at least at GQ, the news for him is always good.     

The Obama Administration isn't the only government-funded entity campaigning against Fox News.  "NPR reporter pressured over Fox role" headlines an article by Josh Gerstein on Politico's Web site.  It begins:

Executives at National Public Radio recently asked the network’s top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias, two sources familiar with the effort said.

According to a source, Liasson was summoned in early October by NPR’s executive editor for news, Richard Meyer, and the network’s supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that she’d seen no significant change in Fox’s programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said.

NPR’s focus on Liasson’s work as a commentator on Fox’s “Special Report” and “Fox News Sunday” came at about the same time as a White House campaign launched in September to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party.

One source said the White House’s criticism of Fox was raised during the discussions with Liasson. However, an NPR spokeswoman told POLITICO that the Obama administration’s attempts to discourage other news outlets from treating Fox as a peer had no impact on any internal discussions at NPR.

Later in the article, an NPR spokeswoman is quoted:

"There’s no relationship between the White House’s criticism of Fox and any discussions about Fox that we’re having.”

Liasson has appeared on Fox News for a dozen years.  Has the concern over her relationship with  Fox News been building over all this time and did it take this long for NPR executives to take action?  And possibly a bigger question: When did NPR become so concerned about media bias?    

And they say a woman scorned can be merciless.  Eric Burns once served as the host of Fox News Watch.  It's reasonable to assume he won't be working there again any time soon.  In a December 2 Huffington Post article, "If I Still Worked at Fox News...," he describes it as "the right-wing partial-news-but-mostly-opinion network."

A great deal of his bile, however, is directed at Glenn Beck:

Actually, Beck is a problem of taste as well as ethics. He laughs and cries; he pouts and giggles; he makes funny faces and grins like a cartoon character; he makes earnest faces yet insists he is a clown; he cavorts like a victim of St. Vitus's Dance. His means of communicating are, in other words, so wide-ranging as to suggest derangement as much as versatility.

He is Huey Long without the political office.

He is Father Coughlin without the dour expression.

He is John Birch without the Society.

He is an embarrassment to all true conservatives, men and women who believe sincerely, thoughtfully and sensibly that the role of government in American life should be limited.

Of course, Beck does not call himself a conservative; he is, rather, a libertarian, which may be defined as a conservative-squared, a person who wants the feds to collect no money in taxes, spend no money on programs, but make available all services that the libertarian deems necessary for his own convenience and safety.

Along the way, Burns gets in a few jabs at Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and even MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.  He praises CNN's Campbell Brown, who "every night. . . stages an exhibition. . . of honorable pugnacity."  He admires Jane Hall, who left Fox "for other reasons as well, but Beck was a particular source of embarrassment to her."

Burns ponders if, were he still at Fox, he would have been as principled as Hall.  He concludes he'd have kept taking a check from the network, but would be "searching avidly for other employment."

Fortunately for Eric, he never faced that dilemma.  He was fired by Fox News almost two years ago, a fact overlooked in his piece.

Want some sour grapes with that whine, Eric?

On CNN Saturday Morning News today, anchors Betty Nguyen and T.J. Holmes reported on a U.S. senator who nominated his girlfriend to serve as a federal prosecutor earlier this year:

HOLMES: Well, it is something -a player, a name that a lot of people normally might not know a whole lot about, from a state that most people don't know a whole lot about. He's been important in the health care debate.

NGUYEN: That is true.

HOLMES: Senator Max Baucus, out of Montana, he is a key player on a Senate committee that has been putting together some health care legislation. News coming out that he actually nominated his current girlfriend for a U.S. attorney position, while the two were involved. They are both divorced here. So that is not an issue and not accused of breaking up each other marriages.

NGUYEN: Yes, there was no affair or anything like that at all.

HOLMES: Nothing like that.

NGUYEN: The question lies in the fact, should he have been able to screen the applicants, she being one of them, and go ahead and nominate her for the position?

HOLMES: Of course, she did not. They decided that once the process moved along and they gotten more involved in their relationship that she should withdrawal her name. So she didn't get the position. She now works at the Justice Department. But it is raising, just a few questions about what you should be able to do, a person in power, as far as trying to have influence, or nominate someone you are romantically involved with.

NGUYEN: And should it have gone even that far? Because she was down to like, what, three applicants?

HOLMES: The final three.

NGUYEN: Yes, the final three applicants. Let us know what you think about that. Go to our Facebook and Twitter sites. As well as our CNN blog, you can reach out to us several ways. We do want to hear from you. We will be reading your responses today. Let us know what you think.

Neither anchor told viewers  that Baucus is a Democrat.  If he were a Republican, would that fact have been deemed newsworthy?  We all know the answer to that.    

On August 28, CNN Newsroom anchor Rick Sanchez shared disturbing information with his viewers:

A CNN source with very close to the U.S. Secret Service confirmed to me today that threats on the life of the president of the United States have now risen by as much as 400 percent since his inauguration, 400 percent death threats against Barack Obama -- quote -- "in this environment" go far beyond anything the Secret Service has seen with any other president.

This "confirmed" information, of course, was eagerly picked up by sites like Daily Kos and Racism Review.

On September 16, Sanchez started backing off from his earlier statement in this exchange with the always objective CNN political analyst Roland Martin:

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think he (former President Jimmy Carter) is obviously painting a broad brush, but what he's realizing is that you do have elements of race when you talk about the level of criticism, when you talk about the viciousness, if you will, in some of the things that are being said, when you look at comments being made at rallies, when you look at posters, things along those lines, the stuff you're seeing online, all kind of different responses, when you see the kind of hateful language being targeted to the first lady.

You got Tammy Bruce calling her trash. You got people who say he hates white people and white culture. And, so, not only that -- reports show a 400 percent increase in terms of threats against this president. Now, explain to me what's the difference between him...

SANCHEZ: By the way, by the way, by the way, just let me -- just as a caveat, I checked on that, and the Secret Service has told me that that figure has been exaggerated. We did a reporting. But, nonetheless...

MARTIN: So, what's the number?

SANCHEZ: But it does appear to be up.

MARTIN: Absolutely.

OK, so according to Sanchez, threats against Obama are up.  Maybe not 400 percent, but up.  Until now.

On today's CNN Newsroom, Sanchez was forced to change his story once more, and tried to wash his hands of any role he played in disseminating bogus information.  He began with a video clip of Washington, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton today questioning the head of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan.

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D), WASHINGTON, D.C. DELEGATE: It is well known and in the press over and over again that this president has received far more death threats than any president in the history of the United States, an alarming number of death threats.

I'm not going to ask you for the details on that. But here we had the first state dinner, not of just any old president, but of the first African-American president. Was there any attempt to increase security given all you know, which is much more than we know, about threats to this president of the United States?

SULLIVAN: Ma'am, no matter who the president is...

NORTON: I'm asking about this president. And my question is very specific. Given death threats to this president, was there any attempt to increase the security at this event, yes or no?

SULLIVAN: Ma'am, I can't talk about that.

I would be more -- number one, I will address the threats. I have heard a number out there that the threat is up by 400 percent. I'm not sure where that number...

NORTON: Is it up at all? We're not asking for the threat number.

SULLIVAN: Well, I would -- I think it can answer you, ma'am. It isn't at 400 percent. And I'm not sure where that number came from, but I can...

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can't hear, gentlemen.

NORTON: Please don't assign to me a number in my question. I just asked you if the threats were up. Are the threats up or not, Mr. Sullivan?

SULLIVAN: They are not. The threats right now in the inappropriate interest that we're seeing is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point.

NORTON: This is very comforting news.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Comforting, indeed. Did you hear that? That was the head of the U.S. Secret Service answering a question that we have been asking for months on this newscast. Are assassination threats against the president of the United States up 400 percent?

We have heard that number tossed around again and again. We have seen it written, we have asked the Secret Service. And they would not give us a direct answer as well. Today, they did.

The answer is no. Threats against this president are about the same, you heard, as they were for two immediate predecessors of this president. And, as you heard Delegate Norton say, that is comforting news.

Sanchez has indeed "heard that number tossed around again and again."  And he's one who tossed it, although he doesn't even now admit it.  He's just patiently been waiting for a direct answer, don't you know?

The theme that Barack Obama is in greater danger than other presidents because of American racism is a popular one throughout the mainstream media. Don't people like Rick Sanchez just hate it when facts get in the way?

On yesterday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips shifted to "Bad Boys" mode:

Lenders, lenders -- what you gonna do when they come for you? Call it an early Christmas present for people on the edge of losing their homes. The Obama administration cracking down on mortgage companies.

We'll tell you about it.

After the break:

PHILLIPS: Well, from your health (ph) to your home, the foreclosure crisis shows no signs of letting up, so the Obama administration is trying to fight back.

Personal Finance Editor Gerri Willis joining us live from New York.

So, Gerri, new hope for struggling homeowners?

To her credit, Willis was considerably more restrained:

GERRI WILLIS, CNN PERSONAL FINANCE EDITOR: Well, we'll see, Kyra. You know, lots of changes announced today to the Making Home Affordable program. And as you know, this is the program the administration has put into place to change those mortgages that people had so much trouble with during the mortgage meltdown.

Unfortunately, it's really not helping a lot of people right now. It's scheduled to help four million. It's helping less than two percent of those people right now. So here are the changes they're putting in place.

And after reporting the details:

WILLIS: The administration here trying to make some changes to it, tweaks to it here and there, to make it more effective. But the devil's in the details.

We'll be watching these reports monthly to see how many people they're helping and if more Americans are really getting assistance. But some interesting changes, Kyra. More stick, less carrot.

Gerri's cautiousness is justified.  When Obama announced his plan in Mesa last February, the New York Times reported:

“This plan will not save every home, but it will give millions of families resigned to financial ruin a chance to rebuild,” Mr. Obama told a crowd here, in one of the communities hardest hit by the housing crisis.

Millions of families?  Not according to the the Congressional Oversight Panel's October report, "An Assessment of Foreclosure Mitigation Efforts after Six Months."  The liberal Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch.org summarized:

To no one's surprise, the Congressional Oversight Panel released a report in October showing that these programs are failing. Fewer than 2,000 of the 500,000 loan modifications then in progress had become permanent under the program, and only a handful lowered the principle. The pace of the Treasury Department programs is so slow that most people are being foreclosed upon before they are even able to apply.

Yet to Kyra Phillips, fiddling at the margins of yet another failed Obama experiment is "an early Christmas present" and "the Obama administration is trying to fight back."  Bah, humbug! 

"Unemployed, Underemployed Look to Jobs Summit for Help" is posted on ABC News's Web site today.  Authored by senior Washington correspondent John Cochran, the piece is notable in that nothing in it supports the headline.  Cochran notes:

Boosting confidence is at the top of President Obama's list at the Jobs Summit he is scheduled to host on Thursday. The invitation list includes business leaders, mayors, academics, and experts from the green jobs sector.

They will consider many proposals to boost the economy including:

More stimulus money for construction projects;

rewards for firms that hire more workers;

more steps to ease credit;

extending unemployment benefits through 2010.

But where are the unemployed and underemployed people who are looking to Obama's meeting for help?  Only two individuals are quoted in the article.  One is a man who's taken a temporary job after being laid off.  He's grateful for the chance, but understandably says "my focus remains to become a fulltime employee as soon as possible."

The other is the chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, who disagrees with those who "argue that enough has already been spent to try to jumpstart the economy."  He says, "We need to bring those deficits down, but that's not something we need to do in the near term."

Perhaps there are some naive unemployed folks who are looking to Obama's "jobs summit" for help.  If so, however, ABC News doesn't identify a single one of them.           

The day before Thanksgiving brought encouraging news on unemployment.  CBS News.com reported "New Jobless Claims Plunge to 466K."  Investors.com headlined "Jobless Claims Dive To 466,000."  CNN Money.com issued a special report titled "Jobless claims plummet to 14-month low."  And the Financial Times included a link to the Calculated Risk blog article "Weekly Initial Unemployment Claims Decline Sharply."  

Such good news, reported widely throughout the media, doubtless gave hope to many Americans.  If some of them wished to attribute this dramatic turnaround to Barack Obama's stimulus program, so much the better.  The truth, however, is that improvement in the number of jobless claims was less than electrifying.  The numbers touted in the media are, according to the Department of Labor, "seasonally adjusted" with a statistical technique designed to accommodate fluctuations in the job market.  Set that aside, and the numbers are not nearly as rosy.  As DOL's Employment and Training Administration reported:

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 543,926 in the week ending Nov. 21, an increase of 68,080 from the previous week.

Only CBS News.com, in its Associated Press article noted: "Excluding seasonal adjustments, claims rose."  And that was in the fifth paragraph.

Back when George Bush was president, CNN Money.com had no difficulty detailing the difference between the actual number of jobless claims and the massaged number in its article, "Jobless claims drop, but... Report shows sharp drop in those filing for benefits, but seasonal factors distort results."

In the Age of Obama, highlighting such information isn't necessary.  No use confusing the public with those dry old facts when such hope and change are breaking out all over.  At least in the mainstream media.  

In today's Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Mary Mitchell elevates talk show host Oprah Winfrey to a new level:

You might not think you're going to miss Oprah, but you are. There are stories that only Oprah can do, and there are things that only Oprah and God can make happen.

 

Mitchell's adulation for Oprah is shared by many in the mainstream media.  From early shows devoted to male-bashing through attacks on free enterprise and limited government to her campaigning for Barack Obama's election, Winfrey has burnished her liberal credentials.

In bracketing Oprah with God, however, I wonder why Mitchell didn't include Obama, as in "There are things that only Oprah and God and the Federal government under the unparalleled leadership of Barack Hussein Obama can make happen."

In January, Mitchell wrote:

Hopes for the Obama administration are high, not only when it comes to fixing the economy and stemming the job losses that have dampened the spirits of so many Americans.

 

Who knew it would take almost a year to fix the unemployment problem with the magic wand of a "jobs summit"?  Months of serial failures may finally have some of even The One's most ardent worshipers questioning his magnificence. 

Still, there are bright, shining rays of hope.  Oprah and God.  It's lonely at the top.  

On today's American Morning, anchor Kiran Chetry engaged Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele in a discussion of the Democrats' health care bill.  Citing a recent CNN poll, she claimed that a majority wants "some kind of public option":

CHETRY: I know one of the things that Republicans are very much against is the public option. And this is a huge hurdle that has to pass. This would mean that the government would have a government-sponsored insurance plan competing with private insurers. And that's a very controversial move.

But our latest CNN poll shows that 56 percent are now in favor of some sort of public option. What is that telling you, as Republicans go out there and talk to their constituents...

STEELE: Well, it doesn't...

CHETRY: ... about the need for some sort of affordable insurance?

STEELE: Well, it's a nice poll. I like to see how the question was asked to the people, because that number tells me that they don't know exactly what it is. When you say some kind of public option...

CHETRY: Well, let me -- this is...

(CROSSTALK)

CHETRY: Let me just read it to you so we're not confused here.

STEELE: That could be anything.

CHETRY: Just asked, would you be in favor or a public health insurance option administered by the federal government. In favor, 56 percent, opposed, 42 percent.

Interestingly, what Chetry claimed had been asked in the survey wasn't the actual question.  The CNN poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation, was worded this way:

Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?

That private health insurance companies would still be available to compete with a public option is a major consideration in how Americans answer such questions.  Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News, wrote in August:

While we found 62 percent in favor of a public option in June, that dived to 37 percent if it would put many private insurers out of business because they couldn’t compete, as critics charge.

Contrary to what Chetry intimated, her own network's poll doesn't show 56 percent simply favoring "some sort of public option," but rather one that specifically would be in competition with private insurers.  She's the one who's confused, not Michael Steele.

When outrage erupted this week over a government panel's recommendation that women have fewer mammograms, health and human services secretary Kathleen Sebelius was prepared with the Obama administration's favorite talking point: It's all Bush's fault.  Appearing Wednesday on CNN's The Situation Room, Sebelius told anchor Wolf Blitzer:

This panel was appointed by the prior administration, by former President George Bush, and given the charge to routinely look at a whole host of services to make sure that new preventive services which had benefit were being looked at by health care providers and that things that they felt did not have as much benefit as we move forward were also looked at by health care providers.

Senate majority whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) continued the theme on Friday as reported by Politico:

“The recommendation by this medical panel has been rejected by virtually everyone, including the current administration,” Durbin said. “They were appointed by President Bush.”

Not according to the New York Times's Gina Kolata.  Her piece, "Mammogram Debate Took Group by Surprise," includes background information on some members of the federal Preventive Services Task Force.  She writes:

They also said they never thought of themselves as being political appointees, much less being Bush appointees.

Medical experts become members of the task force by nominating themselves or, as usually happens, by being nominated by colleagues and professional organizations.

They are vetted by Health and Human Services to be sure they have no conflicts of interest, their names are published in the Federal Register, and they are appointed by the head of the Agency for Health Care Quality and Research, which is part of Health and Human Services.

“I grew up in the ’60s,” said one panel member, Dr. J. Sanford Schwartz, a professor of medicine, health care and economics at the University of Pennsylvania. “My kids grew up under a banner saying ‘Question authority.’ That’s where I am coming from.”

Dr. Russell Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, whose term on the task force recently ended, said, “I’m sure George Bush would never have appointed me to anything.”

In an article published on the Washington Post's Web site Saturday, Michael D. Shear and Dan Eggen note:

The task force is made up mostly of primary-care doctors and nurses who serve four-year terms and are appointed by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The current members were appointed during President George W. Bush's administration; no new members have been nominated since Obama took office.

OK, so members were appointed during George W. Bush's administration, but not by him. That was done by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.  The organization's Web site indicates that person, since 2003, has been Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D.

Judging by her political contributions listed on OpenSecrets.org, the doctor doesn't appear to be a Republican.  Contributions were made to Democrats Paul Wellstone, Bill Bradley, Paul Soglin, Miles Rapaport, and Paul Alexander.  She's also contributed to Emily's List, which states its "members are dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office."

Obviously, the members of the Preventive Services Task Force were not, as Sebelius and Durbin assert, appointed by Bush.  Yet I've seen no news organization call them on their blatant falsehood.  No reporter or interviewer has challenged them on this significant point. 

The Associated Press can assign 11 people to fact check former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's book.  CNN can fact check a Saturday Night Live sketch poking fun at Obama.    
As long as the target is George W. Bush, no fact checking is necessary.   

Yesterday, CBS News.com's Political Hotsheet blog reported on "Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and the Politics of the Health Care Vote."  It notes:

The focus is also on some Democrats with doubts, notably Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Nebraska's Ben Nelson, who aren't up but do represent very red states, and Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, who is, and could face a tough test in 2010.

The piece later states that Nelson:

has cast many a conservative vote in representing a state that, while historically willing to send Democrats to the Senate, is nonetheless firmly Republican overall.

Many a conservative vote?  According to interest group ratings compiled by Project Vote Smart, for 2008 the American Conservative Union assigned Nelson a rating of 16.  The National Taxpayers Union gave him a rating of F. Nelson received a 100 from the liberal AFL-CIO for 2008 and an A for 2007-2008 from the liberal National Education Association.  For 2007, Nelson racked up a 5 with Americans for Tax Reform.

Quite clearly, Nelson's voting record isn't conservative.  It appears that at CBS News, as in much of the mainstream media, a conservative is anyone to the right of Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm. Mmm. Mm!    

On today's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips went after the kids who supposedly bully a 10-year-old boy who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance because homosexual marriage isn't widely accepted.  Some of his classmates allegedly call him names.  Phillips's weapon of choice was name calling:

And a message to you boys who are bullying Will, shame on you. It's obvious you are jealous that Will is smarter and more well spoken than you are. Hopefully one day you will grow up and realize that you were being the wads, dork wads.

Phillips didn't say how she knows that Will is smarter and more well spoken than his purported tormentors.  On Monday, she reported that Will is "a terrific kid."  So what makes him so smart and terrific?

That was answered earlier Monday in an interview with anchor John Roberts on CNN's American Morning:

ROBERTS: A 10-year-old boy from Arkansas is taking a stand by sitting down. Will Philips is refusing to pledge allegiance to the flag in his fifth grade classroom until there really is, as the pledge says, liberty and justice for all. He says until gays and lesbians have equal rights.

Joining us now in an exclusive interview are Will Phillips and his father, Jay. They're in West Fork, Arkansas this morning. Will and Jay, good to see you this morning. Thanks very much for being with us. And Will, let me ask you first of all, when did you decide that you weren't going to stand up and recite the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS, WONT SAY PLEDGE UNTIL GAYS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS: I decided that I was going to do that the weekend before when I did it. I was analyzing the meanings of it because I want to be a lawyer.

ROBERTS: All right. So what did you decide in analyzing the meanings of it that caused you not to stand up and recite the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS: Well, I looked at the end and it said "with liberty and justice for all." And there really isn't liberty and justice for all. There's -- gays and lesbians can't marry. There's still a lot of racism and sexism in the world, yes.

ROBERTS: All right. So you think that the country isn't living up to the ideals of the pledge and you took it upon yourself to sit down and not recite the pledge of allegiance until the country comes in line to embody the ideals that are embodied in the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS: Yes.

ROBERTS: All right. So, your teacher, who is a substitute teacher at the time, was giving you grief about not standing up. This went on for a few days. What did you eventually say to that teacher?

WILL PHILLIPS: I eventually very solemnly with a little bit of malice in my voice said, "Ma'am, with all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge."

And later:

ROBERTS: Got you. All right. Let's bring in Will here again. Will, why is this issue so important to you that you would commit as your dad said this atypical act of juvenile delinquency?

WILL PHILLIPS: Because I have many -- I've grown up with a lot of people and good friends with a lot of people that are gay and I really -- I think they should have the rights all people should. And I'm not going to swear that they do.

ROBERTS: So what's the reaction been from your fellow students at school to you not standing up for the pledge and the views that you hold about this issue?

WILL PHILLIPS: Not very good. They've taken from what I said an assumption that I'm gay and the halls and the cafeteria, I've been repeatedly called a gay wad.

ROBERTS: A gay wad. What's a gay wad?

WILL PHILLIPS: I really don't know. It's a discriminatory name for homosexuals.

Roberts spoke again with the child's father briefly and then:

ROBERTS: He does seem to have very strong opinions we should say and obviously they are very reasoned out. We should say that he's an extraordinarily bright child. He skipped the fourth grade, went right from the third grade to the fifth grade.

But Will, as we prepare to leave you here, what will it take for you to stand up and say the Pledge of Allegiance? And I ask this question based on what we saw in the off year election just a couple of weeks ago. Same-sex marriage initiative was put to the test, put to the voters in the state of Maine. And every state across the nation where it has been put through the voters, it has gone down to defeat.

So, the Democratic process is taking place here, it seems to be something that voters at large do not support. So what will it take for you to return to saying the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS: For there could truly be liberty and justice for all.

ROBERTS: And what does that entail?

WILL PHILLIPS: That entails everyone being able to marry.

ROBERTS: All right. Will Phillips, Jay Phillips, great to see you this morning. Thanks so much for joining us. We'll keep watching the story. It's certainly an interesting one.

ROBERTS: Wow. He's got his arguments down.

Yes, he certainly has his arguments down.  But isn't a 10-year-old who asserts he's "grown up with a lot of people and good friends with a lot of people that are gay" worth a journalistic follow-up?

Not at CNN obviously.  There it's just a matter of him being smarter, and terrific, and having his arguments down.  And if other children disapprove, then they're nothing but wads, dork wads. Back in the day, Kyra Phillips must have been one tough cookie down by the schoolyard.