PBS recently responded to accusations of a liberal slant to its July 23 Need to Know program which featured satirist Andy Borowitz making fun of Sarah Palin’s intelligence as Need to Know executive director Shelley Lewis claimed that, because the previous week’s episode had featured a segment that was critical of President Obama, the program in reality has been balanced in going after political figures. According to TVNewser, quoting from Michael Getler’s July 28 "The Ombudsman Column" on the PBS Web site, Lewis argued: "Is a little joking about Ms. Palin’s penchant for malaprops really such a big deal? Last week, editorial cartoonist Steve Brodner was pretty tough on President Obama, and we heard plenty from Obama fans about how unfair we were, how right-wing we were, etc. We do try to have some fun at both sides’ expense…"

But the July 16 segment that poked fun at Obama actually criticized him for not being liberal enough in keeping his campaign promises as cartoonist Steve Brodner was shown drawing sketches of Obama while a voiceover of the cartoonist lamented that "the presumed anti-war Obama became the 30,000 more troops Obama," and that "the previous stimulus advocate Obama who faced McConnell finally and a vocal conservative movement, he didn’t campaign consistently for the stimulus that he mentioned in the State of the Union, wound up advocating for that along with deficit reduction, making him at least partly like McConnell."

Brodner also drew a more unflattering sketch of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell than he did of President Obama, making the Kentucky Republican appear similar to a pig. Brodner then took a cut-out sketch of half of McConnell’s face and placed it over half of Obama’s face to signify that President Obama had compromised too much with conservatives.

After complaining about Obama not going far enough on financial reform, the cartoonist concluded: "Is it possible he was never the man we thought he was in the first place? Obama, where art thou?"

On the July 23 Need to Know, during the show’s semi-regular humor-based "Next Week’s News" portion of the show, Borowitz devoted the entire segment to mocking Sarah Palin’s intelligence as he faux-predicted that, after winning the 2012 presidential election, "Her first official act will be to cancel the agreement between nouns and verbs," and that she will then "replace the English language with ‘Palinese,’ a language known only to her."

Citing Palin’s coining of the word "refudiate" which she used in a Twitter posting as a premise, Borowitz made up other words to take shots at the former Alaska governor’s intelligence, as he alluded to her tendency to write notes on her hands, and used the made-up word "rignorant" to portray her as stupid for wanting to continue oil drilling in the ocean after the BP oil spill disaster. Borowitz: "’Rignorance’ means advocating deep water drilling in the aftermath of an ecological disaster that killed thousands of pelicans."

The satirist also cracked: "I figure if we learn three words a day, in two years we might have a shot at understanding her State of the Union Address."

The show’s "Next Week’s News" segment has a history of taking shots at the intelligence of conservatives as, on the second show of the series back in April, Palin and Supreme Court Justice Clarence were both targets of ridicule. Borowitz also once suggested that Palin and Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann are two of the Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Below are transcripts of the relevant segments from the Friday, July 23, and the Friday, July 16, Need to Know program on PBS:

#From the July 23 show:

ALISON STEWART: Here at Need to Know, we believe in real reporting.

JON MEACHAM: We don’t put much stock in crystal balls or reading tea leaves.

STEWART: But when we need to know what’s happening next week, we turn to our own Andy Borowitz to give us his trademark glance into the future. Hi, Andy.

ANDY BOROWITZ: Hi, Alison and Jon. Well, this week we’re going to look a little bit further into the future to 2012. If the presidential election were held today, Sarah Palin would defeat Barack Obama. Now, that’s according to a new poll published in Mayan Prophecy Weekly.

Here’s what you need to know about a Palin presidency. Her first official act will be to cancel the agreement between nouns and verbs. Next, she’ll replace the English language with "Palinese," a language known only to her. Even her husband Todd doesn’t speak it, although to be fair no one has ever heard him speak.

We got a little taste of this strange new language last week on her Twitter page when she used the word "refudiate." Now, when she uses a word like "refudiate," she may seem "incohecent," but in 2012 we’re all be talking like this, so we better start learning "Palinese" now. I figure if we learn three words a day, in two years we might have a shot at understanding her State of the Union Address.

Let’s begin our lesson in basic Palinese. Word number one, "mitteracy." "Mitteracy" means the ability to read off one’s hand. Word number two, "rignorance." "Rignorance" means advocating deep water drilling in the aftermath of an ecological disaster that killed thousands of pelicans. And, finally, "mooseacre." "Mooseacre" means a really fun day in the great outdoors. Well, that’s our lesson in "Palinese" for today.

Now, you may be wondering where does Sarah Palin find all these new words of hers? In a little book called the fictionary. Well, that’ll do it for "Next Week’s News." Back to you, Jon and Alison or as we say in Palinese, "Jalison."

STEWART: Thank you, Andy, Professor Borowitz.

#From the July 16 show:

ALISON STEWART: According to the latest ABC News/ Washington Post poll, confidence in President Obama has hit an all-time low with 57 percent of those surveyed responding they have only some or no faith in Mr. Obama’s ability to make the right decisions for the country. If it’s any comfort, he still rates higher than either Democrats or Republicans in Congress. Some are asking whether President Obama is the same person as candidate Obama. That’s a good question for editorial cartoonist Steve Brodner.

STEVE BRODNER: Recent studies show that Tibetans actually possess a gene that keeps their blood flowing at high altitudes so that they don’t have mountain sickness. They tracked this change in their genetic structure to as recent as 3,000 years ago. So this is a very recent example of evolution in people. Is this what happened to President Obama when he rose to the greatest height? Could his changing have evolved to the not-so-much changed? Are we seeing somebody who also has a recent evolution?

Well, on the war in Afghanistan, the presumed anti-war Obama became the 30,000 more troops Obama. Put a little camouflage in Obama’s face here.

On jobs, on the stimulus bill, the previous stimulus advocate Obama who faced McConnell finally and a vocal conservative movement, he didn’t campaign consistently for the stimulus that he mentioned in the State of the Union, wound up advocating for that along with deficit reduction, making him at least partly like McConnell.

On financial reform, lobbyists worked for months to water down the industry reforming legislation. The tough-on-Wall Street Obama becomes the man with liquid assets. It might not be a cloud that we see, but maybe smoke arising from some vast power machine, the mechanical Washington-Wall Street-K Street monster.

Is what happened at that great height a natural political evolution? Or is it possible he was never the man we thought he was in the first place? Obama, where art thou?

With Hillary so busy working her day job, SOMEBODY had to be "hands on."

You know the expression "Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight?"

Well that’s exactly what happened when Columbia University professor Marc Lamont Hill entered the ring against conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham on "Larry King Live" Thursday night.

The subjects up for debate included the Obamas, Arizona’s illegal immigration law, and racism.

To put it mildly, when the final bell had rung, there wasn’t much left of Hill (videos and transcripts follow with limited commentary for what will be very obvious reasons): 

LARRY KING, HOST: Back with old friend Laura Ingraham. She is in St. Louis. Joining us now from Philadelphia, Marc Lamont Hill, professor of Columbia University, and contributor to the Loop21.com.

All right, Marc, you’ve been listening to Laura’s remarks. What’s your overall response to "The Obama Diaries"?

MARC LAMONT HILL, PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: I wish I could say I was disappointed. But I didn’t expect anything different from Laura. I like Laura. But I think that the kind of energy and negativity that we see directed towards the Obama administration, and even the first lady, I think is ill-placed, it’s misplaced.

We can focus our energy on other things rather than mocking the president.

Do I think it’s fair — do I think the president is fair game? Of course. Do I think that some of it is funny? Absolutely.

But I think some one as talented and smart as Laura could be directing her energy towards things like the Tea Party which has a viciously racist wing, or talking about unemployment, or talking about all sorts of things that I’m sure Laura is going to agree with me about right now?

KING: Laura, you can respond. INGRAHAM: Larry, I love Marc Lamont Hill. He’s a great one to duke it out with. Look, the Obamas are people. We are all people. They’re not deities. They’re not monarchs. When Michelle Obama goes to Congress and basically demands billions for a child nutrition initiative, and acts as a health care and a fitness expert — She is a beautiful woman. But I didn’t elect her to anything.

So when you step into the role, you step into the arena. OK? It’s not all what sleeveless wants, sleeveless gets. That’s not how it works.

HILL: Laura, I don’t think that Michelle Obama is a nutritionist. but I don’t think Nancy Reagan was an expert on drugs or law enforcement when she became a critical ally in the Reagan administration’s war on drugs.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Totally different. That’s an inept analogy. She was not on the campaign trail campaigning. She didn’t have three cabinet secretaries trailing around with her.

KING: One at a time. One at a time. Marc, go ahead.

HILL: The point here, Laura, is that every First Lady, every presidential administration has someone who advocates for public issues. Whether or not Michelle Obama is a public health expert isn’t the point. The fact is we have nutrition problems. We have food — in places like Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York, where people have to go miles and miles for fresh fruit and vegetables. There are real issues here. Let’s deal with that instead of beating up on the president or his wife.

INGRAHAM: It’s not beating up on anybody. When you inject yourself into one of the most contentious debates of the last 15 years, which is frankly what this whole fitness/health initiative ends up doing for Michelle Obama, that’s fine if that’s what you want to do. But when you do that, you better be prepared, Marc, to have your ideas and your viewpoints tested in the public arena.

It’s no Teflon. There’s no Teflon in front of Michelle Obama. She has to answer the critics just like any other pundit or any other policy advocate. And she is a policy advocate. She is out there pushing policy.

Next up was a discussion concerning Arizona’s new illegal immigration law:

KING: Let’s get into specifics. Marc, the — the governor — Marc, the governor is trying to overturn the judge’s decision about portions of the Arizona immigration law. What do you think of that move?

HILL: Well, I think it is a necessary move. And I think ultimately we’ll find that many aspects of the law are unconstitutional. I think there are several things we have to think about. I think Laura is right and I think Many people on the right are correct in saying that this is a response to the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration policy. What we need is comprehensive, common-sense immigration reform, so that we don’t need grand gestures like the one that the governor of Arizona enforced. That said, I think the measure in Arizona is one of the most vicious, ugly and vile pieces of public policy we have seen in the last 15 years.

INGRAHAM: Vicious?

HILL: Absolutely. It’s vicious. It’s based on xenophobia.

INGRAHAM: You’ve got buy a vowel on that one, Marc. Vicious?

HILL: Absolutely. I think any time — it is a fundamentally mean-spirited public policy that is also likely unconstitutional. Any time you imbue with state authority the power that invested in the federal government, that’s another major problem. I think it is ugly. I think it’s vile. And I think it’s unconstitutional.

KING: Let Laura respond.

INGRAHAM: This is not an argument. Ugly, vile and vicious? You know what is really ugly, is when the federal government and our chief law enforcement officer, which is ultimately what the president is, refuses, really, Larry, to enforce federal laws that are on the books right now that have not been repealed, to — that you have to carry your ID if you are an alien living in this country, if you are a permanent resident, an alien, on a student visa. Federal law requires you to carry your documents. OK?

You are not supposed to be here in the country illegally. If you are, you need to leave. If you are here illegally — I understand some people are trying to work. I get that. But you are here illegally. You can sugarcoat it. You can say it is mean. You can say it’s vile. But then that means you think the laws are vile. Repeal the laws or enforce the laws. Arizona is doing what the federal government will not do.

HILL: Again, some of what you are arguing, Laura, is just a straw argument. I began from the premise that the federal government needs to enforce the law. What we need —

INGRAHAM: they’re not going to enforce them. They’re not enforcing them. That’s why we’re where we are.

HILL: Laura, that means we agree on the point. We don’t have to pretend to disagree on the point. My disagreement with you is on the response to that reality. The response to that reality —

INGRAHAM: States are supposed to do nothing, just sit there and hope.

KING: Laura, don’t interrupt. One at a time.

HILL: The point here is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. That means a humane guest worker policy. That means we need a path to citizenship. That means we need to repeal NAFTA, which create the push into the United States. All we talk about is what happens when immigrants get here. We need to talk about what pushes them there, what kind of economic policies have drawn Mexican farmers by stripping away their economic vitality in Mexico.

This is the type of stuff we need to be talking about, instead of engaging in reactionary policies, which is what the right has been doing. And the left has been sitting on its hands while this has happened.

KING: We are going to take a break.

(CROSS TALK)

INGRAHAM: When I get back, can I — one quick, Larry, what —

KING: Go ahead, Laura, quick response.

INGRAHAM: What we have, in effect, basically in — in land Obama with immigration, is a don’t ask/don’t tell policy. Don’t ask about your immigration status. And frankly, if you are here illegally, you don’t have to tell. They don’t want it for the military, but they want it for immigration policy.

HILL: That’s not true.

KING: We’re going to move to other things, talk about the Charlie Rangel situation when we come back. Don’t go away.

In reality, there wasn’t much to the Rangel discussion. So, let’s fast-forward to the segment concerning Obama’s appearance on "The View."

After playing a clip of the President explaining why he calls himself African-American and not biracial, King marvelously asked:

KING: Laura, I know this must puzzle — why is racism still a question in this country?

INGRAHAM: Well, Larry, I think what happened — remember a year ago — remember the Cambridge Police incident with Professor Gates. The president kind of weighed in on that and said that was a dumb thing the police officer did. That set off this conversation. I think, sadly, a lot of people are disappointed that — they thought they had a post-racial president in President Obama, and because of that, and maybe some of the things that have happened with the immigration debate, they think he might be the most racial president, whether or not he wanted to be.

And so on "The View," that was very interesting. And Barbara Walters was on her game in asking that question. Why don’t you call yourself biracial. Obviously, you are half white. It’s just a fact. You’re half white, half black. So it’s biracial. He didn’t — he really stumbled on that question, I thought. I’m not a body language expert. I’ll leave that to O’Reilly. But it really seemed to me that he was struggling. He was struggling with that.

He didn’t really answer the question. That is a fact. He is black and he is white. And celebrate it. He didn’t answer it.

HILL: He actually did answer the question. He made a point to say that the world sees me as African-American. He understands the unique racial legacy of the United States, which at one point had a one drop rule. I mean, literally, if you had one drop of African blood, you were considered black. The reality is President Obama is considered black because he is considered black to the police.

If he were in Cambridge with that police officer, he wouldn’t be seen as biracial. If I’m in New York and a cab passes me by, they don’t care what percentage of me is white. They see a black person. So the legacy of white supremacy is so permanent and lingering in the United —

INGRAHAM: White supremacy?

HILL: Yes, there is white supremacy in the United States. I know you don’t want to acknowledge that. INGRAHAM: We have a biracial or black, whatever we want to call him — we happen to have a man who is the first black president of the United States. And we had — we had millions of people who came to Washington, celebrating that. I mean that was amazing for our country. That was — was that not amazing? Was that not a hurdle we cleared?

HILL: That is a hurdle. That’s also a nonsequitur. The point here is that if Joe Lieberman had become president —

INGRAHAM: It’s not a nonsequitur. It is a fact.

HILL: If Joe Lieberman were to become president, we wouldn’t say that there is no longer anti-Semitism. If Hillary Clinton were president, we would not say that the world is no longer sexist.

INGRAHAM: I don’t think anyone is saying that, that there is no racism. Who is saying that?

(CROSS TALK)

KING: One at a time. Marc? One at a time.

HILL: Laura, you pointed — Laura pointed to the election of a black president as evidence that white supremacy no longer lingers.

INGRAHAM: I never said that.

HILL: Even if you want to focus just on public policy, any measure of social prosperity, black people are at the bottom of it. Any measure of social misery, black people are at the top of it.

INGRAHAM: Right.

HILL: Including the unemployment numbers that you just registered. So there are racial numbers.

INGRAHAM: Exactly.

HILL: President Obama is not the first president to link race to public policy. When President Bush ushered in that awful No Child Left Behind policy, part of what he talked about was the achievement gap between blacks and whites. Talking about race isn’t the issue here. Nobody wants to be post-racial. They want to be post-racist. That’s what we’re fighting for.

INGRAHAM: OK, well, one, you said a lot of things there. The number one thing, I think, as Americans is we really want to get beyond the hyphenated America. I do. I’m half Polish, and then Irish, English. We want to get beyond that. I think the country is yearning, Larry and Marc, for authenticity. And they want someone to come forward and offer real solutions for the black community, the Latino community, the white community, the American community. Forget the color of your skin. We need prosperity and jobs in this country.

Indeed.

Brava, Laura. Brava! 

Democratic New York Congressman Anthony Weiner’s theatrical temper tantrum rant on the House floor Thursday night, against supposed Republican obstructionism, animated cable news on Friday and Friday night ABC and NBC elevated it to legitimate news as they imputed great meaning to it as genuine frustration with congressional gridlock. ABC anchor Diane Sawyer announced:

Every now and then, someone seems to express the nation’s frustration with the endless wrangling and delay in Congress. And we thought you might like to hear New York Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner. He wanted a vote last night on a $7.4 billion bill, aid for the sick police and firemen who raced to ground zero to rescue people.

Viewers were then treated to more than a minute of Weiner screaming “the gentleman will observe regular order!” and “the gentleman is wrong! The gentleman is providing cover for his colleagues, rather than doing the right thing. It’s Republicans wrapping their arms around Republicans, rather than doing the right thing on behalf of the heroes! It is a shame! A shame!”

Afterward, Sawyer saw “one Congressman who seems to have had enough,” only then noting “Republican members accused Weiner of political theater” – political theater which ABC decided to exploit.

Over on the NBC Nightly News, fill-in anchor Ann Curry set up a story on how “the U.S. House of Representatives erupted in a display of anger and passion that we often don’t see.”

Unlike ABC, however, Kelly O’Donnell, who said Weiner “came unhinged,” pointed out “the real fight was over Democrats using their power to deny Republicans a chance to offer amendments,” citing how Republican Congressman Peter King “is all for helping first responders, but he and his fellow Republicans wanted to throw in a ban on health care for illegal immigrants. Democrats blocked that.”

O’Donnell concluded by explaining why the majority vote in favor left the bill un-passed: “If you’re wondering why Democrats couldn’t get this through with a simple majority, they have so many more members. Well, under the rules, because Democrats chose to block the other side from making any amendments they had to get more votes – two-thirds of the House – and Democrats fell short.”

From March: “NBC’s Williams Showcases ‘Gripping’ Kennedy Screaming Against Media from the Left”

On Friday’s The Ed Show on MSNBC, host Ed Schultz trashed conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, repeatedly mispronouncing her name as "Schafly," for linking being a single woman and having a greater likelihood of depending on government programs, as she noted at a recent GOP fundraiser that 70 percent of single women voted for Barack Obama. At the top of the show, Schultz teased: "I`ve got some choice words for the ‘Wicked Witch of the Midwest’ tonight – and that`s what she is." He later plugged before a commercial break: "Speaking of ‘Psycho Talkers,’ ‘Wicked Witch of the Midwest’ Phyllis Schafly [sic] got off her broomstick long enough to take a shot at unmarried women of America."

Later in the show, after conservative talk radio host Heidi Harris had appeared in a segment to defend Schlafly, Daily Show co-creator and regular guest Lizz Winstead appeared for the "Club Ed" segment and bashed Harris as "that teabagging Carol Brady," advising Schultz that "you have got to slam her down when she is absolutely wrong." After the Daily Show co-creator went on to charge that Schlafly "can empty her bowels through her mouth and just exhaust horrifying crap onto the universe," an impressed Schultz laughed and cheered her on as he seemed to refer to Winstead’s rant declaring, "That’s great stuff":

LIZZ WINSTEAD: Seriously, if you are going to book on that tea bagging Carol Brady, then you have got to slam her down when she is absolutely wrong. To defend Phyllis Schlafly, seriously, does Heidi Harris not realize that if Phyllis Schlafly had her way, Heidi Harris wouldn`t have her job because she would be chained to her stove and just lay there when her husband had sex with her and that would be her role in life? [Schlafly] … has made a career of her one party trick. Which is basically, she can empty her bowels through her mouth and just exhaust horrifying crap onto the universe. That is what Phyllis Schlafly has added to the American conversation. It is appalling that Heidi Harris would sit there and defend her. It`s appalling. And I wish that Heidi Harris was here so that I could just say, "Heidi, what are you thinking? What are you thinking? What are you thinking? Enough."

ED SCHULTZ: Now, well, not enough. I want to hear some more. That`s great stuff.

Earlier in the show, before cheering Winstead’s hate-filed rant, Schultz had notably accused Schlafly of spewing "old-fashioned anti-feminist hate."

Winstead also dismissed the conservative argument that single women are more likely to en dup on welfare: "You know what they get when they let their husbands go? A vibrator. That`s what they get. They don`t go on welfare. They go to ‘Babes in Toyland.’"

During the segment with Heidi Harris, the Sam Stein of the Huffington Post also appeared and was baffled that anyone would link single women, illegitimacy births, and welfare dependence, as he went to suggest undertones of racism and called the argument a "sick viewpoint." Stein:

I`m at a loss for words at this theory. I don`t quite get how illegitimacy and singledom for women is any way related. Obviously, it`s an antiquated viewpoint. There are obviously single women who aren`t dependent on the government who actually hold jobs and make income that way. I don`t understand why they`re all of a sudden being dismissed. And, you know, this whole notion goes back to the idea of welfare queens. There`s racial elements to this. It`s just a sick viewpoint. I don`t understand why we`re actually debating it as if it`s a serious thought regardless of how Heidi feels about Phyllis, sorry.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Friday, July 30, The Ed Show on MSNBC:

ED SCHULTZ, INTRODUCING THE SHOW: In one fell swoop, conservative "Psycho Talker" Phyllis Schafly [sic] has attacked welfare recipients and unmarried women with children. It doesn`t get any better than this when it comes to "Psycho Talk." I`ve got some choice words for the wicked witch of the Midwest tonight – and that`s what she is.

…

SCHULTZ, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK AT 6:28 P.M.: Coming up, speaking of "Psycho Talkers," "Wicked Witch of the Midwest," Phyllis Schafly [sic] got off her broomstick long enough to take a shot at unmarried women of America. We`ll get "Rapid Fire Response" on that.

…

SCHULTZ, INTRODUCING "RAPID FIRE" SEGMENT AT 6:36 P.M.: Now, let`s get some "Rapid Fire Response" from our panel on these stories tonight. Conservative icon, is she an icon? Phyllis Schafly [sic] takes us back into time. It`s almost like the time machine on the Ed Show with some old-fashioned anti-feminist hate. She says single women voted for President Obama because they need big government to take the place of a husband.

…

SCHULTZ: Let`s talk about Phyllis Schafly [sic] first. Heidi, where do, this is like a tornado coming through the conservative camp, isn`t it?

HEIDI HARRIS, TALK RADIO HOST: I love Phyllis Schlafly. Are you kidding? She`s exactly right. When women don`t have men in the homes, then of course they`re going to become dependent on government in most cases. And some of the, one of the biggest results of all these government programs that have been put into effect for generations now is to get the man out of the home. You get certain benefits if you don`t have a man in the house. So women have said, "Hey, I don`t need men," and then they’re going to need somebody else to pick up the slack. And you know what, Ed, nobody can argue with the fact that the number one cause of poverty is not a lack of education, it`s illegitimacy. That is a fact. It’s undisputable. So she`s right about that. That`s an issue. Someone`s got to take care of you if you have a kid when you can`t support it. So I love Phyllis Schlafly. I`m proud of her.

SCHULTZ: All right. You love her. Sam Stein, it looks liking this hard righty is saying that the President of the United States almost enjoys this because he had 70 percent of them vote for him in the last election. And he`s catering to them right now. That`s basically where she`s at. What do you think?

SAM STEIN, HUFFINGTON POST: I mean, I`m at a loss for words at this theory. I don`t quite get how illegitimacy and singledom for women is any way related. Obviously, it`s an antiquated viewpoint. There are obviously single women who aren`t dependent on the government who actually hold jobs and make income that way. I don`t understand why they`re all of a sudden being dismissed. And, you know, this whole notion goes back to the idea of welfare queens. There`s racial elements to this. It`s just a sick viewpoint. I don`t understand why we`re actually debating it as if it`s a serious thought regardless of how Heidi feels about Phyllis, sorry.

SCHULTZ: Well, there are 75 Republicans who are running for office that have taken money from her organization-

STEIN: Fine.

SCHULTZ: -and have been endorsed by her. It really is amazing. And, of course, the Democrats want them to disavow themselves or separate themselves from Phyllis Schafly [sic].

STEIN: I don`t understand that. The Democrats should say, should let them keep the endorsement and use it against them. I think that would be much more potent than having a disavowal. I mean, these viewpoints are a little bit extreme, don`t you think?

HARRIS: No.

SCHULTZ: Heidi, don`t you view this as an attack, as somewhat of an attack on unmarried women in this country like they`re not living the lifestyle that Phyllis Schafly [sic] thinks they ought to be?

STEIN: Can’t they be single and independent?

SCHULTZ: I mean, this is pretty rigid, isn’t it?

HARRIS: I think that people who think that women shouldn`t be mothers before they`re married, it`s not a question of morals as much as it is a question of economics. The reality is it`s very difficult. Many of the times, these women have to make it on their own. And it makes their life much, much more difficult. I would like to see every woman-

STEIN: What about single men?

HARRIS: Well, what about single, I know some guys who are great single parents. Certainly, that`s very tough on them, too. I would like to see women wait to have children-

STEIN: So are they dependent on Obama for government handouts? I don’t understand.

HARRIS: No, I want to see women be able to make it on their own, get as much education as possible and be incredibly successful in America, regardless of background. But if you have a kid when you`re 16, 17 years old, your life is going to be much tougher. Your ability to get an education and work – which is what I did, which is what you guys did – is much more difficult when you`re trying to raise a kid alone. That`s just reality. It`s not judgmental, it`s not bashing single mothers. I would just like to see them make other choices. It`s easier in your life if you don`t do what some of these women do.

STEIN: Of course, but it doesn`t mean you`re depending on the government.

SCHULTZ: Heidi, you don’t think Phyllis Schafly [sic] was judgmental, Heidi, you don`t think Phyllis Schafly [sic] is judgmental in her comments?

HARRIS: No, I don`t think so at all because she`s talking about the fact that the majority of women who voted for him were single women. I don`t know about the single mothers. I know that a huge majority were single women, young single women. And there are people who think that the government is supposed to take care of them. Remember that woman in Florida last year, in ‘08, who said, "Oh, I won`t have to pay my mortgage anymore, I won`t have to make my car payment anymore if Obama becomes President." This is the mentality that some people have.

STEIN: Yes, one woman`s quote is generalized for the entire-

HARRIS: No, Sam, I said some people have that attitude – not everybody – but that`s how some people feel.

STEIN: Sure, but, you know, Bristol Palin is a single mother. I don`t think she feels that way, you know.

…

SCHULTZ: Welcome back. If it`s Friday, it`s time for "Club Ed" with Lizz Winstead, co-creator of the Daily Show. Lizz is fantastic. I got to tell you, she knocked it out of the park in Las Vegas. Our team was absolutely in stitches at the Netroots Nation Convention. I got to tell everybody how great you are, and you got a performance coming up at Comics in New York City on August 5, 6 and 7, and I think people got to go see that. Lizz, great to have you with us tonight.

LIZZ WINSTEAD, CO-CREATOR OF THE DAILY SHOW: Thanks, Ed. Ed?

SCHULTZ: I’ll just say – yes?

WINSTEAD: What just happened with Heidi Harris? Seriously, if you are going to book on that tea bagging Carol Brady, then have you got to slam her down when she is absolutely wrong. To defend Phyllis Schlafly, seriously, does Heidi Harris not realize that if Phyllis Schlafly had her way, Heidi Harris wouldn`t have her job because she would be chained to her stove and just lay there when her husband had sex with her and that would be her role in life? I don`t think Heidi understands that. I mean, if Phyllis Schlafly is like 93 years old at this point, and she has made a career of her one party trick. Which is basically, she can empty her bowels through her mouth and just exhaust horrifying crap onto the universe. That is what Phyllis Schlafly has added to the American conversation. It is appalling that Heidi Harris would sit there and defend her. It`s appalling. And I wish that Heidi Harris was here so that I could just say, "Heidi, what are you thinking? What are you thinking? What are you thinking? Enough."

SCHULTZ: Now, well, not enough. I want to hear some more. That`s great stuff. The Democrats ought to be jumping all over this. I mean, this is a big part of their party, the hard conservative right in this country. That is a voting bloc that does show up for them. What do you think?

WINSTEAD: Well, and she is iconic to conservative women. And this is the kind of stuff she spewed all the time. I remember in college, she fought tirelessly to make sure the Equal Rights Amendment didn`t get passed and that she just believes in those weird covenant marriages and that women have their place and their place is standing behind their man, and, no matter what their man does, she is trapped in the home with him because he knows better. I mean, really? This is where we`re taking the party? They should be so proud.

SCHULTZ: I do remember back during that debate in the 1970s, the Equal Rights Amendment. It was Phyllis who said that women would be mandated to unisex bathrooms.

WINSTEAD: Yes. The mandate of unisex bathrooms and torture and that single women are somehow welfare queens? And that`s what they’d get when they let their husbands go. You know what they get when they let their husbands go? A vibrator. That`s what they get. They don`t go on welfare. They go to "Babes in Toyland."

On Friday, the Associated Press published a shockingly partisan article about the ethics investigation against House Democrat Charlie Rangel.

Instead of giving a neutral account of the proceedings, the AP sourly reported that the GOP is getting its "wish" after Republicans "wanted" an election year embarrassment to use against Democrats.

The article, written by Larry Margasak with assistance from three other AP reporters, began with the word Republican and ended with endearing sentiments from a Rangel supporter. The actual charges against Rangel? Stuffed inside paragraph 19 and then quickly glossed over.

"GOP Gets Wish: Rangel Case in Campaign Season." Seriously, that’s the headline chosen for charges made public against a Democrat. Behold the high standard of an "unbiased" news wire:

Republicans wanted an election-season ethics case against Democratic powerhouse Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. And now, it looks like they have one.

A House ethics panel of four Democrats and four Republicans, who will determine Rangel’s guilt or innocence on 13 ethics charges, held its organizational meeting Thursday. The message going forward, from the top Republican on the panel, was: Let the trial begin. [...]

Republicans have already been making Rangel a campaign issue, and a fall trial would give them expanded opportunities. It can’t start until September, because Congress takes off in August.

Soon after the charges were revealed, the National Republican Senatorial Committee warmed up its campaign message, issuing news releases in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Louisiana and Florida. The statements asked why Democratic Senate candidates in those states haven’t yet returned money Rangel raised for them.

The obvious implication here is that Republicans are pushing for a full-blown trial, not to hold Rangel completely accountable, but to give themselves more ammunition for November. Poor Democrats are now in a bind where they can’t refuse without looking corrupt:

In the frantic hours before the televised ethics proceeding, Rangel did take the advice of some Democratic colleagues and offered a new plea bargain in an effort to head off a trial.

At one point, people familiar with the talks said the committee’s nonpartisan lawyers accepted the offer. But since committee members have to sign off, the McCaul and Bonner statements indicate they would accept nothing less than a total or near-total capitulation by Rangel in which he accepts guilt on virtually all the charges. Rangel’s offer was not made public.

It would take at least one Republican vote to halt a trial. And ethics chairman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., has made it clear she wants the committee to be unanimous at this point to avoid partisanship.

So let’s get this right. Rangel approached the ethics committee at the last minute with a half-hearted deal that still didn’t amount to a full confession. The attorneys involved – nonpartisan!! – accepted the deal without approval from lawmakers. When committee members caught on, they refused the deal.

It can’t be that Democrats pressured Rangel to make a cynical plea bargain so the public wouldn’t hear the charges before November. And it can’t have anything to do with Democrats wanting to hit the campaign trail saying Rangel had already been dealt with. The developing Democrat meme is that Republicans are the ones playing political games, and the AP did a fine job of portraying that story.

Just in case readers have a stubborn idea that Rangel might be guilty, the AP interviewed two Harlem voters, one for him and one against him. But here’s the kicker: the one who said Rangel should step down still never said anything about his possible guilt:

"He’s seen his day. He’s either not in touch with the community or insulated himself so that he doesn’t have to be in touch with the community," Hendrickson said.

Michael Austin said it was unfortunate that Rangel’s career had been clouded by the allegations. "I think he’s been a wonderful congressman throughout the years," Austin said, adding that he would vote again for Rangel "based on his previous record."

Caught that? His illustrious career is being clouded by these pesky charges that Republicans are pushing, but a look at his professional record still makes him look good.

How helpful for the embattled Rangel. The last thing left to ring in a reader’s mind is that he’s a wonderful man who possibly deserves to be elected again.

Does the AP offer such moral support when Republicans are being investigated? On August 29, 2007, mere days after the airport restroom arrest of Larry Craig (R – Utah) was made public, here’s how the AP covered it:

Two Senate Republican colleagues, including John McCain, called Wednesday for Sen. Larry Craig to resign. The White House, too, expressed disappointment in the case of the Idaho Republican caught in a men’s room undercover police operation.

Arizona Sen. McCain and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, the state where Craig was arrested, became the first senators to join Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., urging Craig’s resignation.

McCain told CNN the decision was Craig’s to make, "but my opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn’t serve. That’s not a moral stand. That’s not a holier-than-thou. It’s just a factual situation."

"I think he should resign," McCain said.

As usual when reading the Associated Press, what a difference with a D.

If things don’t work out for Rachel Maddow at MSNBC, she could always fall back on unintentional comedy.

In last week’s back and forth between Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and Maddow over the Sherrod controversy, Maddow criticized O’Reilly for mocking MSNBC’s meager ratings while also accusing him of playing fast and loose with facts.

Here’s the kicker in Maddow’s remarks aimed at O’Reilly, stated on her show July 22 (first part of embedded video) –

MADDOW: You were trying to take the attention off me saying that your network, Fox News, continually crusades on flagrantly bogus stories designed to make white Americans fear black Americans, which Fox News most certainly does for a political purpose even if it upends the lives of individuals like Shirley Sherrod, even as it frays the fabric of the nation, and even as it makes the American dream more of a dream and less of a promise. You can insult us all you want about television ratings, Mr. O’Reilly, and you’ll be right, that yours are bigger, for now and maybe forever. You are the undisputed champion.

But even if no one watches us at all except for my mom and my girlfriend and people who forgot to turn off the TV after Keith, you are still wrong on what really matters, and that would be the facts, your highness.

… while she and MSNBC, Maddow implies, get it right where it really matters. If only Maddow hadn’t gotten it wrong every other day last week, a feat of Rick Sanchezesque proportion.

For example, Maddow began the week on Monday July 19 with this dubious claim about Ronald Reagan, national debt and deficits (second part of embedded video) –

MADDOW: When President Reagan entered office, the national debt was about $994 billion. When Ronald Reagan left office, the national debt had swelled to $2.8 trillion. Love Ronald Reagan or hate him, when Poppy Bush said that Reagan’s economic policies would exacerbate the deficit, boy howdy, he wasn’t kidding.

You caught the shellgame here too, didn’t you? Hoary liberal artifice, conflating the national debt and deficit. I’m all too familiar with the scam, having tried pulling it off back when I too was a welfare state apologist.

The problem for Maddow is that while it is true that national debt rose as she described during the Reagan years, the deficit during Reagan’s presidency peaked in 1983 as a percentage of gross domestic product — and thereafter plunged more than half by the time Reagan left office in 1989. 

As described by Edwin J. Feulner in a September 1994 column at The Chief Executive site —

By fiscal 1986, the deficit reached its highest level under Reagan: $221.2 billion. And what happened after that is something you’ll never read in The Washington Post: The Reagan economic program began wiping out the deficit.

When we look at the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product — the best measure, since it shows the deficit’s real size in relation to the size of the economy (which was expanding rapidly under Reagan) — we see an amazing thing. Under Reagan, the deficit reached a peak of 6.3 percent of GDP not in 1986, but in 1983, when the "stagflation" of the Carter era finally broke. Six years later, in 1989, Reagan had cut the deficit by more than half, to 2.9 percent of GDP.

This was enough to show up even in the straight dollar figures: From 1986’s $221.2 billion high, the deficit fell to $152.5 billion by Reagan’s final year in office, even as the economy grew at a brisk average rate of 3.5 percent. Had Reagan’s policies been left in place after he left office, my colleagues at The Heritage Foundation have calculated that the deficit would have been wiped out by the mid-1990s.

But it was not to be. In 1990, Reagan’s successor made a "budget deal" with Congress that sent the deficit soaring to a record $290.4 billion. It is worthwhile to note that one of the prime features of George Bush’s 1990 budget deal with Congress — besides doing away with the effective Gramm-Rudman spending limits — was a record tax hike, similar to Bill Clinton’s. This didn’t reduce the deficit. Rather, by shrinking the tax base, it raised the deficit. 

The following day, July 20, Maddow made the bizarre claim that Fox News Channel reporting on Shirley Sherrod’s comments before an NAACP audience in March had prompted the Obama administration to fire Sherrod. But as pointed out by NewsBuster Brad Wilmouth, "Sherrod had already been forced to resign before the O’Reilly Factor became the first FNC show to report the story of her comments on Monday night (July 19), although host Bill O’Reilly at the time did not realize she had already been fired."

Maddow also suggested on July 20 that "FNC would never show her (Sherrod’s) side of the story even though, by that time Tuesday night, several FNC shows had already informed viewers of some of the details in Sherrod’s favor," Wilmouth writes.

On July 21, Maddow trotted out one of her favorite memes, that of those unreconstructed KKKers at Fox News, saying this (third part of video) –

MADDOW: The other great Fox News’ crusade of the past year was more black people coming for you. That was the New Black Panther Party, basically two whackjob guys at a polling station during the election. The Bush Justice Department investigated whether those two intimidated voters that day and found that they didn’t.

…. except for the stubborn fact that the Bush Justice Department "found" no such thing. Deroy Murdock elaborated on this in a July 19 post at NRO’s The Corner —

Olbermann, recently fired Washington Post analyst Dave Weigel, and The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer have all crowed that Bush’s Justice Department dropped a criminal case against the NBPP. In fact, there never was a criminal case to drop. The NBPP faced a civil (emphasis in original) lawsuit prepared by Justice’s Voting Rights Unit. This is exactly what career prosecutors recommended in the first place.

With respect to all but one defendant, Justice abandoned its civil case under Obama, not Bush (emphasis added) — no matter what Olbermann and his comrades would like to believe.

Maddow ended the week on July 23 with the factually inaccurate assertion that Republican congressman Zach Wamp of Tennessee wants "civil war" (fourth part of video) –

MADDOW: Congressman Wamp has been driven so ’round the bend by health reform that in his campaign for Tennessee governor he is now calling for his home state of Tennessee to secede from the union. Where have I heard this before? (Maddow quotes from National Journal story) "I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government."

You’ve been warned, American people. It’s either vote for Zach Wamp or secession. Or maybe it’s vote for Zach Wamp because you’ll get secession. You can’t actually really tell in terms of what he’s promising. It’s either, vote Gov. Wamp if you want civil war or it’s vote Gov. Wamp if you don’t want civil war.

Arguably foolhardy words from Wamp — but notice how in Maddow’s retelling, they morph from "consider separation" to outright "secession," which she then suggests is tantamount to "civil war". This from a left-winger ever condemning conservatives as trigger happy.

On this weekend’s Fox News Watch, panelist Jim Pinkerton proposed a simple way to clear up much of the murk surrounding JournoList.  Let the Washington Post respond to the 20 questions about the matter that MRC head Brent Bozell has posed to the Post’s executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, in an open letter.

JournoList was created by lefty blogger Ezra Klein in 2007, who continued to run it after becoming a Post staffer in 2009.

Responding to Pinkerton’s proposal, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican, a liberal member of the News Watch panel, swung and missed at Bozell . . . 

JIM PINKERTON:  There’s a way to deal with this.  Marcus Brauchli, who’s the editor of the Washington Post, and the boss of Ezra Klein, who is the founder of JournoList, could answer Brent Bozell’s detailed letter, and answer the 20 questions that Brent Bozell posed to Brauchli, most of which are along the lines of "did you know what Ezra Klein was doing?  Is this in keeping with theWashington Post ethics code?" and so on.  He could answer all those questions and put this whole thing to bed.

ELLIS HENICAN:  I’m not buying Brent Bozell as a fair judge of it.

Henican’s swipe was beside the point.  It’s not about Bozell.  His questions, and the Post’s answers, would speak for themselves–and go a long way toward clearing up the issues of journalistic ethics for the Post, and the media in general, that the JournoList matter has raised.

Newsweek magazine is so shameless that its response to the Shirley Sherrod saga was to put Al Sharpton on the cover, touting that "in debate, no one has a quicker mind or tongue," and his "political instincts are unmatched" and "his personal charisma has been undimmed since high school." When you want to charge the conservative media with shameless fraud, is it really the ideal week to highlight the man who has never apologized for the Tawana Brawley rape hoax? But in their cover story, Allison Samuels and Jerry Adler pressed ahead with an unconvincing "reinvention" story line:

The election of Barack Obama has provoked an almost hysterical reaction from the far-right media, which last week claimed as its latest victim an obscure African-American official in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Relaxing with a thick Ashton Churchill in a plush midtown cigar lounge, the once-and-still Reverend Al scoffs at the idea that there is, or ever has been, a new Sharpton. “My mission, my message, and everything else about me is the same as always,” he says. “The country may have changed, but I haven’t.”

So, taking him at his word, Sharpton—at 55, a half-generation younger than Jesse Jackson and seven years older than Obama—can serve as a marker against which to gauge the shifting river of American race relations. Contacted in May by the family of a 7-year-old girl accidentally killed by Detroit police, Sharpton called no angry press conference and declined to get himself arrested. Instead, he preached an impassioned, but hardly inflammatory, sermon whose message—“we are all responsible for our children’s safety”—could have offended no one except Mike Cox, a Republican candidate for governor of Michigan, who pronounced himself “disgusted” that Sharpton would come to his state to preach at a child’s funeral.

As if the Republicans don’t have any reason to deplore Sharpton coming to a funeral to stir up racial tension. When someone thinks Al Sharpton isn’t inflammatory, look for the real speech. Of course, he attacked the police with the race card, insisting that they wouldn’t have searched for a murder suspect in a ritzy white neighborhood with flash grenades:

"Do they throw these flash grenades in everybody’s neighborhood? Would you have gone in Bloomfield Hills and did what you did?" Sharpton said, referring to a wealthy Detroit suburb. "Have you ever heard of putting on a light and calling people to come out?"

The case is troublesome in that the police had a reality-show crew from A&E tagging along, which suggests something other than racism might be implied. But Sharpton also (shamelessly) proclaimed "I’m disgusted when I look at a 7-year-old baby in a casket, and rather turn to each other, we name-call and ego-tripping and trying to jump in front of a camera rather than stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough.’"

Newsweek insisted "Sharpton has been right much more often than wrong in his choice of causes," even as they carefully noted the Brawley rape hoax and several other "grave missteps" where his anti-white rhetoric caused violence and mistrust. They pressed him for another non-apology for Brawley:  “I listened to the child, and I believed her,” he says. “When I hear that people are still mad at me about this case, I want to ask them, ‘Have you ever been asked to help a child that’s been hurt?’ I don’t apologize for anything I did to help her. Judge me the way you will.”

But Newsweek never had the gumption to ask: Is this what a man with the name "Reverend" before his name does? Bears false witness and refuses to admit he has sinned? (Bobby Ross at Get Religion also questions Newsweek’s utter lack of reporting or skepticism on Rev. Al’s preaching career, which started at….four?)

Instead, Newsweek found it tragic that certain white people still object to this: "It is his refusal to apologize over Brawley—or to pay the defamation judgment, which was eventually settled by donations from wealthy friends—that still haunts his reputation among white Americans of a certain age." Newsweek, however, seemed fine with it, placing themselves outside that grudge-bearing camp – which makes it a little hard to lead a Shirley Sherrod march.

Sharpton brought remarkable gifts to his career. Jackson in his prime undoubtedly could deliver a more effective set speech, but in debate no one has a quicker mind or tongue than Sharpton. His political instincts are unmatched, and his personal charisma has been undimmed since high school, when he had to pull off the trick of charming dates whose mothers had seen him preach in church. These have not, though, translated into success as a political candidate.

It’s maddening for readers that after Newsweek has written that in 1995 "his reference to ‘white interlopers’ at a protest against the eviction of a popular Harlem music store, was followed by a fatal arson attack on the white-owned business that held the lease," they concluded by claiming he has an overwhelming record of nonviolent protest. "White interlopers?" Newsweek found that was just a "tendency to get carried away" at times:

It is, of course, the fate of people like Sharpton to be misunderstood, and his own tendency to get carried away while addressing a crowd has contributed to it at times. He says, accurately, that the innumerable marches he has held over the years have been almost entirely free of violence, except for the time an enraged onlooker stabbed him in the chest. He is also, he believes, partly a victim of history: Jackson and, before him, Martin Luther King Jr. had much more radical black figures to their left, Louis Farrakhan and Malcolm X, who made them seem moderate by comparison. There has been no one in Sharpton’s time to play that role for him. He is out there all alone, still standing on the same principle he first enunciated in his housing project in Brooklyn: poor people have the same rights as rich ones, to justice in the streets and in the courts.

Poor Al Sharpton, it is his fate to be "misunderstood," but Newsweek is there to carry his water with little concern for their own reputation for caring about truth and civility. 

Liberal radio host and MSNBC bobblehead Ed Schultz doesn’t sugarcoat his contempt when it comes to Sarah Palin.

Here, for example, is what Schultz said about Palin on his radio show July 14 (click here for audio) –

 I think she is shamelessly stupid.

Unlike Schultz, who doesn’t know the difference between "circumspect" and "suspicious", as he showed on June 22 when talking about Gen. Stanley McChrystal (audio here) —  

A lot of Americans are circumspect about his involvement in the Tillman death.

Who still can’t pronounce "misconstrue", as shown in a June 3 rebroadcast of a "town hall meeting" and book signing at a Chicago union hall (audio) –

But I write in the book that one of the reasons why America is great is because every time we have been faced with a crisis as a country, we’ve come out of it better. Don’t misconstrude what I’m saying …

Back on April 6, Schultz came out with "misconstruting." Be patient, he’ll get it right eventually.

Another word that throws Schultz for a loop is "cahoots," which he invariably confuses with "cohorts", as he did July 6 when talking about police in Colorado Springs asking local cab drivers for help in reporting crimes (audio) –

But we’ve now gotten to the point where cab drivers are in cohorts with the cops.

Did you catch the pauses right before "cohorts"? Sounded like Schultz knew he was venturing into terra incognita.

Then there’s the ever-dicey "excerpts", which Schultz insists on pronouncing without the "p", as on July 7 in describing a web video critical of Obama that was released by House Minority Leader John Boehner (audio) —

… And he took some, some (another pause) excerts from his stump work, I guess you could say …

"Stump work" indeed.

On July 20, Schultz took a stab at "subsequently" in a way seldom uttered by anyone older than 14 (audio) –

The international corporation decided to go the cheap route and a crucial piece of the Deepwater Horizon’s safety equipment was overhauled in China, to save a few bucks. It subsequently failed to activate and is suspected of having caused the disaster.

In fairness to Schultz, he does provide fodder for the occasional belly laugh, as he did July 8 in response to a query from a caller (audio) –

CALLER: Hey, I was wondering why I haven’t seen any satellite photographs of the oil spill in the Gulf. Just haven’t seen ‘em, anywhere.

SCHULTZ: Uh, you mean like, from outer space?

Lastly, Schultz had this to say July 26 about Glenn Beck after Beck revealed he could lose his vision to macular dystrophy (audio) –

Beck’s a phony! Always been a phony, always gonna be a phony.  And an uneducated phony at that, I might add.

Project much, Ed?