Perhaps tuning in to NBC’s "The Chris Matthews Show" isn’t high on your list of priorities, outside of wanting the chance to catch Dan Rather suggest something bizarre like President Barack Obama couldn’t sell watermelons. However, if you had watched the March 28 broadcast of the program, you would have found the show’s roster of panelists think the Tea Party movement is a black mark on the Republican Party, as far as it pertains to unseating the Democratic majority in Congress.

Matthews’ show featured NBC Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O’Donnell, Newsweek’s senior Washington correspondent Howard Fineman, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger and Atlantic senior editor Andrew Sullivan. In the aftermath of the passage of ObamaCare into law, some have suggested this was a defeat for the Tea Party movement. Matthews asked if the mere existence of this movement was a plus or minus for the Republican Party.

"OK, all things considered, if there were no Tea Party crowd, we never saw them demonstrate – would that be better for the Republican Party, or is the Tea Party a plus for them in November, winning elections?" Matthews asked.

Although not a total, the answers from Matthews’ panel showed the deck was stacked in one direction, the lone of exception being Kelly O’Donnell, who only conceded the Tea Party association would be a bad thing, but the energy it created was a positive:

O’DONNELL: Well I think they need the energy. They don’t want the brand name "tea party."
MATTHEWS: Is it a plus?
O’DONNELL: Overall on the energy side
FINEMAN: No, overall it’s a negative and that negative – and that negative, if the tea partiers continue to project the image they’ve been projecting over the last few days, it’s a net negative. In the general election, for the Republicans, it’s a net negative.
BORGER: I think it looks positive now, but I’m going to agree with Howard. I think in the end, it’s going to backfire on Republicans because it could energize Democrats.
SULLIVAN: After ‘97, when the Tories lost in Britain, they got tagged as the nasty party and they are still trying to get out from under that 13 years later.

For many years, David Yepsen was the go-to media expert on the Iowa caucuses from his post at the Des Moines Register. Yepsen isn’t a reporter any more, just a pundit, but the media still follow his liberal conventional wisdom.

On NPR.org, reporter Liz Halloran tried to paint the Tea Party movement into the usual crazy corner, and Yepsen insists this weekend was critical for the Tea Party movement’s image — as if every NPR and CNN isn’t working to paint the crazy on it: 

"This weekend will be critical for the Tea Party and conservatives," says David Yepsen of Southern Illinois University’s Paul Simon Public Policy Institute.

"If the television images that come out of this gathering are of a bunch of nuts, the American people are going to say that these people aren’t fit to lead the government," Yepsen says. "Republicans have to be mindful of what they’re walking into."

Halloran did talk to former Hastert aide John Feehery to insist that the Tea Party movement was important, but they also found a Republican consultant named Cameron Lynch to sound a note more on the wavelength of the media narrative:

"We welcome the enthusiasm, but I personally, and hopefully the Republican Party, don’t condone the racist and ethnic epithets," says Lynch, who previously worked for Republican senators Bob Dole, John Ashcroft and McCain.

Lynch says the GOP should court the Tea Party with a "side hug," not a full embrace. And he advises that Republican leaders issue a blanket statement affirming First Amendment rights to free speech but repudiating spitting on opponents, or yelling racist or misogynistic slurs.

"This is tough stuff, politics, but it doesn’t mean we need to forego dignity," Lynch says.

Cautions Yepsen: "You can’t go into a roomful of gas, light a match and say you’re not responsible."

What irresponsible mudslinging this is. The roomful of gas here is the flatulent media bias. 

Did you know that the Obama administration owns stock in beleaguered financial giant Citigroup NOT the taxpayers?

You might have gotten that impression from a Washington Post article published Saturday.

Take a look at the second paragraph of David Cho’s piece on speculation that there’s an imminent stock transaction about to transpire involving Citigroup and the federal government (h/t NBer armyfool1):

The Obama administration is making final preparations to sell its stake in the New York bank, according to industry and federal sources. At today’s prices, the sale would net more than $8 billion, by far the largest profit returned from any firm that accepted bailout funds, and the transaction would be the second-largest stock sale in history. 

"Its stake?"

Weren’t these shares purchased with taxpayer dollars in a bailout of Citigroup?

As the Wall Street Journal reported in November 2008:

The federal government agreed Sunday night to rescue Citigroup Inc. by helping to absorb potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in losses on toxic assets on its balance sheet and injecting fresh capital into the troubled financial giant. [...]

Under the plan, Citigroup and the government have identified a pool of about $306 billion in troubled assets. Citigroup will absorb the first $29 billion in losses in that portfolio. After that, three government agencies — the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — will take on any additional losses, though Citigroup could have to share a small portion of additional losses.

The plan would essentially put the government in the position of insuring a slice of Citigroup’s balance sheet. That means taxpayers will be on the hook if Citigroup’s massive portfolios of mortgage, credit cards, commercial real-estate and big corporate loans continue to sour.

In exchange for that protection, Citigroup will give the government warrants to buy shares in the company.

In addition, the Treasury Department also will inject $20 billion of fresh capital into Citigroup. That comes on top of the $25 billion infusion that Citigroup recently received as part of the the broader U.S. banking-industry bailout.

As such, this purchase was made with TAXPAYER funds, and done while George W. Bush was still in the White House.

A few months later, CNNMoney.com reported:

The U.S. government waded deeper into the bailout of one of the nation’s largest banks Friday when it announced a deal that will give it control over as much as 36% of Citigroup’s common stock. [...]

The deal will convert preferred shares that the Treasury Department already holds in Citigroup for common shares, a shift that is designed to improve the embattled bank’s capital base, which in turn will hopefully allow it to increase its lending.

The U.S. government has already given Citigroup $45 billion in capital, for which it received preferred shares and warrants in the company.

The new deal Friday did not give the bank any additional taxpayer dollars.

So, it is actually the Treasury Department that owns this stake purchased with taxpayer dollars while Bush was President.

But that’s not the impression one would get from Cho. In fact, Bush’s name was nowhere to be found.

I guess any good that comes out of bailout decisions made by the former President will be credited to the current one by the Obama-loving media.

Funny how that works.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour on Sunday said that since healthcare reform legislation passed a week ago, the liberal media have given the Obama administration the longest wet kiss in political history.

After ABC’s Jake Tapper hosting "This Week" asked the Governor about a new Washington Post poll finding Democrats have become a little more popular since the bill passed, Barbour replied, "I am surprised that the, the numbers in the Washington Post poll weren’t better."

He marvelously continued, "I mean since this thing passed last weekend, we’ve been seeing the longest wet kiss in political history given to the Obama administration by the liberal media league, and every day it goes by it gets sloppier" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, relevant section at 8:13):

JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Governor Barbour, there was good news for Democrats in the Washington Post poll that I wanted to ask you about. And, it does suggest that maybe the Party, according to some critics, miscalculated, both in terms of policy, by walking away, there aren’t as many Republican ideas in the bill, and politics. Just listen to these numbers. In February, on the generic ballot, Republicans led Democrats 48% to 45%. But now, after the bill has passed, the Democrat leads 48% to 44%. Doesn’t that suggest that maybe your Party miscalculated, both in terms of the fact that the law is now the law of the land and probably let’s not kid ourselves it will be for a long, long time and in terms of the politics, in terms of the fact this is not hurting Democrats as much as you thought it would?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR (R-MISSISSIPPI): Well, in fact, I think Ed has got it just backwards. You mentioned ot Valerie Jarrett we’ve now learned that big corporations are going to have to take $14 billion worth of write-offs according to the Towers Watson estimate. $14 Billion worth of write-offs that nobody knew about, and that’s — how many jobs are those $14 billion of losses, on corporate balance sheets? How many jobs are they going to cost? We’re going to learn a lot more about this deal. We’re learning already where they said small businesses who didn’t cover their employees would have to pay $750 per employee. Now it turns out, when you read the bill, if you have the average employee in Mississippi who makes $32,000 a year, if the cost of health insurance is more than $3,000 for that employee, the small business has to pay $3,000, not $750. Four times as much. As people find out these sorts of things, this bill is going to become even more unpopular. And candidly, I am surprised that the, the numbers in the Washington Post poll weren’t better. I mean since this thing passed last weekend, we’ve been seeing the longest wet kiss in political history given to the Obama administration by the liberal media league, and every day it goes by it gets sloppier.

Nicely put, Governor. I’m not sure we could have said it better.

UPDATE AT END OF POST: CBS’s Bob Schieffer asked DNC Chairman Tim Kaine about this issue.

On Saturday, NewsBusters asked if journalists should find it interesting that President Obama’s campaign arm is using alleged death threats against Democrats as a vehicle to raise funds to defend newly enacted healthcare legislation.

On Sunday, ABC’s Jake Tapper was up to the challenge not only addressing this issue on "This Week," but doing so with his guest White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.

After reading the text of the solicitation that was posted at the Organizing for America website earlier in the week, Tapper asked, "[I]s it appropriate for Democrats to try to raise money off of those threats?" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, relevant section at 5:50):

JAKE TAPPER, HOST: In the wake of the healthcare reform legislation, there have been threats of violence and some acts of violence against members of Congress. And in this fundraising solicitation I want to ask you about, this is from the President’s political arm Organizing for America, used to be Obama for America, Mitch Stewart the director writes in this fundraising solicitation: "A conservative blogger posted the home address of Congressman Tom Perriello urging tea partiers to ‘drop by’. Other members have had death threats. Democratic offices have been vandalized. Please chip in $5 or more to defend health reform and those in Congress who fought to make it possible." Obviously those threats and the acts of violence should be condemned. They’re not appropriate. But is it appropriate for Democrats to try to raise money off of those threats?

VALERIE JARRETT, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: Look, let’s go back to the threats for a second. I think what’s great about our country is we’re able to have an open and free debate about issues and ideas, and then once a decision is made, we always come together and move forward. And what the President is interested in doing is moving forward. This is a major accomplishment.

TAPPER: Right, but what about the trying to raise money off of the threats? Is that appropriate?

JARRETT: I can’t comment on what the political arms are doing.

For those wondering if Tapper got the idea from NewsBusters, he informed me by Twitter that he had gotten it in his inbox earlier in the week, and that ABC’s Sunlen Miller had blogged about it.

Although this didn’t come from us, we’re still quite pleased to see someone in the media not only find this fundraising tactic unseemly, but also question the Administration about it.

Bravo, Jake!

*****Update: CBS’s Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" Sunday asked DNC chairman Tim Kaine about the use of these threats in a Democratic fundraising letter:

BOB SCHIEFFER: –let me– let me just ask you about this because you all put out a fundraising–

TIM KAINE: Mm-Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: –letter at the DNC. After all of this it raised a few eyebrows–

TIM KAINE: Yeah.

BOB SCHIEFFER: –because it talked about this– these runaway things, these demonstrations-

TIM KAINE (overlapping): The bricks through the window–

BOB SCHIEFFER: –and bricks through the windows–

TIM KAINE: Mm-Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: –and stuff and then used it as part of a fund-raising letter.

TIM KAINE: Yeah.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Was that appropriate?

As so-called journalists across the fruited plain hyperventilate about alleged death threats and future acts of violence they claim are being stoked by "hate speech" from the Right, they are conveniently ignoring how the Left behaved in this country when George W. Bush was in the White House.

Case in point: the violent protests that occurred at the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

John Hinderaker’s marvelous piece on this subject published at Power Line Saturday should be must-reading for conveniently amnesiac media members who suddenly think civil disobedience is racist:

I attended the convention and remember the terrorist acts that were carried out by anti-Republican protesters very well. They threw bricks through the windows of buses, sending elderly convention delegates to the hospital. They dropped bags of sand off highway overpasses onto vehicles below. Fortunately, no one was killed.

These were anti-Bush and anti-Republican protesters. Is it a stretch to think that some of them, at least, may have been inspired by over-the-top, hateful attacks on the Bush administration by Democratic Congressmen, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Michael Moore, who was a guest of honor at the Democrats’ own convention, various show business personalities, and many other leading liberal figures? I don’t think so. We haven’t seen that sort of hate campaign since the Democrats went after Abraham Lincoln. It seems unlikely that none of the "protesters" who tried to commit murder were inspired by those liberal voices.

Yet, hardly anyone seems to be aware of the violence that took place in 2008. At most, the story was treated with a ho-hum attitude in the press. For some reason, political violence was not a concern less than two years ago. Yet today, we can hardly imagine what would happen if a group of tea partiers were to drop sandbags off a highway overpass, trying to kill motorists below. Liberal reporters’ heads would explode. But this is exactly what anti-Republican Party protesters did in 2008, and no one cared. To my knowledge, not a single Democratic politician condemned this anti-Republican violence or attempted in any way to distance the Democratic Party from it.

For the record, I was also there, and remember full-well walking by protesters shouting truly disgusting epithets at delegates and attendees.

But this was okay then. Bush was in the White House, and the targets of all this hatred were conservatives.

Now, only 18 months later, the press view far more peaceful demonstrations as racist and inciting violence.

How can their position have changed so quickly? 

Possible discussion point: with the administration potentially moving on to immigration reform, it’s important to understand the constitutional issues involved. George will argues that the 14th Amendment, which makes the children of illegal immigrants citizens, derives from flawed constitutional arguments.

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."…

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration — and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration — is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.

Is Will correct on the constitutional question? Will constitutionality make a difference? 

Monday’s Washington Post continues the "ugly" health-care protest theme by somehow making a national story out of a protest "which never included more than three people at a time" outside the home of freshman Rep. Steve Driehaus in west Cincinnati. That’s on A-3.

The Post said the poor Democrat found "angry protesters wouldn’t allow him a full escape from the raw and vitriolic discussions that have embroiled the health-care debate for more than a year."

In the Metro section, the Post took days to acknowledge that the GOP headquarters in Charlottesville, Virginia discovered two bricks thrown through its "very thick" double-pane glass windows on Friday morning. That’s in the bottom left-hand corner of B-6.

It looks as if the Post waited for police statements before publishing. "County police confirmed that windows were broken. They said Sunday night that no arrests had been made."

Martin Weil’s story ended with the nothing-here note that police in Richmond concluded that the bullet that hit Rep. Eric Cantor’s office had been fired randomly into the air and landed in his office on its way down.

The Post can’t seem to send a reporter to Charlottesville, a couple of hours away. But they can send a reporter to Cincinnati — if the political message is right.

Black Post reporter Krissah Thompson emphasized the pale-old-male protesters in Ohio:

The west Cincinnati neighborhood is predominantly Republican, and Driehaus did not win his precinct when elected two years ago, said his brother-in-law Zeek Childers, who lives a half-mile down the road. Strong support from the more urban part of the congressional district gave him the edge. "It’s bad down here," Childers said. "This area of Steve’s district is much more conservative. The black community loves him. Labor loves him. The old white guys hate him. You got that out here."

The protesters were mostly conservative white men, and the idea to head to Driehaus’s residence was pushed by James Schifrin, 71, the publisher of the Whistleblower, a gossipy conservative newsletter. Schifrin declined to give interviews, but for several days he prodded his readers to rally — printing the congressman’s home address (complete with a map, photo and suggestions for parking and takeout dining).

When a Democratic Party headquarters gets bricks through the windows, it’s much more outrageous:

The only documented violence in Cincinnati last week came Monday morning, when Caleb Faux, executive director of the Hamilton County Democratic Party, found that a rock had broken the double-paned front window of the party’s office after the health-care vote the night before. "This is bullying, and the best way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them," said Faux, who posted a picture of the cracked window on the party’s Web site.

The local GOP leader in Charlottesville was quoted in the Post as just saying "Wow….somebody was very angry."

Thompson’s story focused heavily on the rudeness of the freshman Democrat’s critics, on how Driehaus and his family can’t enjoy his children’s spring break, and the children have been told not to answer the home phone because of abusive callers. The protesters were described this way:

Sunday’s gathering, which never included more than three people at a time, was anchored by Jim Berns, a libertarian who has run for Driehaus’s seat three times and for the state legislature 10 times.

Protesting outside a residence is usually a political loser, presented as "threatening" and "personal," as Thompson quoted Driehaus calling it. Even the local Tea Party leader told the Post it was "completely inappropriate." It’s clearly a strategy to attract negative attention, which the Post provided.

It’s easy to guess that this is not the way the Post would see it if a boomlet of press people posted themselves on the lawn of a political figure.

"The United States of America does not quit once it starts on something.  You don’t quit, the American armed services does not quit.  We keep at it.  We persevere." — Pres. Obama to US troops in Afghanistan, March 28, 2010

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year. ‘Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,’ Obama said." — Obama calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, AP, Sep. 12, 2007 [emphasis added]

There are lies, damned lies, and then the kind of brazen rewriting of what a man stands for that Barack Obama engaged in yesterday.

The swaggering Barack Obama, in his faux-military leather jacket, who boasted to American troops that "the United States of America does not quit once it starts on something," is the same man who in 2007 told the troops and the entire world that America and its military couldn’t win in Iraq, never could, and should immediately quit.

Will the MSM let PBO get away with this prevarication? The initial signs aren’t good . . .

Introducing the clip on Morning Joe today, Savannah Guthrie, rather than reporting the divergence between his words today and those he spoke when trying to woo a Dem presidential primary electorate, reverentially described the speech as "rousing."

Obama wasn’t finished misrepresenting the truth.  He went on to claim that, as between Republicans and Democrats, "there’s no daylight when it comes to support for all of you.  There’s no daylight when it comes to supporting our troops."

Surely PBO knows better.  But let’s remind him:

• John Kerry accused US troops of "terrorizing" women and children in Iraq.

• John Murtha accused US Marines of killing innocent Iraqi civilians "in cold blood."

• Dick Durbin accused US troops at Guantanamo of acting like "Nazis."

As medicine is advancing further into the 21st century, researchers and physicians are finding more efficient treatment for all types of ailments. Lasik surgery is now an option for those who don’t want to wear glasses anymore. Knee and hip replacements are available for those who suffer from sports injuries or arthritis. Unfortunately, hearing loss [...]