Obama's latest watchword, "investments," is not, as I originally assumed, simply a euphemism for government spending. It captures his entire economic philosophy — a philosophy that is permanently engrained in the core of his being and disastrous for America's "future."

President Bill Clinton shrewdly used the word as a more palatable substitute for income tax rate increases, saying taxpayers needed to "invest" more of their hard-earned dollars in America. But Obama's use of the term was different in two important ways. First, for him, "investments" would apply to the spending side of the fiscal equation. He would ask our support in his plan to "invest" more government money in infrastructure and education.

Secondly, and more significantly, Obama used the term to candy-coat his fundamental lack of confidence in the private sector and free market, as well as his commitment to faith in government as the primary engine for economic growth.

For all the analysis of Obama's speech, I don't think nearly enough has been made of this theme, which was interwoven throughout it. For it is the key to understanding that regardless of any promises he might make to move to the center, he will not do so willingly. It is also critical to comprehending why, despite the marked failure of his economic policies, he is virtually incapable of voluntarily changing course.

Obama's critics often say that it's important to pay more attention to his actions than his words. Though there is much validity in that, it's also true that we must not overlook his words, for he is not always careful to disguise his heartfelt views.

In his pre-speech teasers, Obama telegraphed that he would be emphasizing job creation. Indeed, he said that he saved the nation from economic collapse through his (atrociously wasteful and wholly ineffective trillion-dollar) "stimulus" bill. He insisted that he has succeeded in reigniting the economy but that the matter of job creation is an entirely separate process that will follow through his next round of magic.

He didn't bother acknowledging that he's played this same tune many times before (saying he wasn't focused enough on jobs but now he is) or that he specifically promised from the outset that job growth would result from his stimulus. But he did tell us multiple times in this speech how he envisions job growth finally coming about.

Yes, he rolled out the blame-Bush card again, but he also underscored the limitations of the free market to produce economic growth and employment. His entire "Sputnik" meme was based on this wrongheaded notion.

When the Soviet Union lurched ahead of us in the space race, America's leaders launched a national effort to surpass the Soviets. For Obama, by analogy, the federal government has to be the prime mover in leading and catalyzing America's comeback in education and in economic growth. We cannot understand Obama without recognizing that he believes the private sector can't create or innovate without paternalistic direction and googobs of money from the wiser beings in Washington.

"We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time," he said. "The first step … is encouraging American innovation." Note that he didn't mean "encourage" in the sense of getting government off businesses' and people's backs. He means the federal government should proactively prod, direct and lead us into the promised land of economic growth.

He credited government for providing money for "basic research" and "cutting-edge scientists and inventors" throughout history, without which the hand of the free market would have been not only invisible but also impotent. As a result, he pledged from his command-control perch to "invest in biomedical research, information technology and especially clean energy technology" (that PC token can never be omitted) — "an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet and create countless new jobs for our people." So far, they've been "countless" indeed. This is just one example. Read the transcript and you'll see that throughout he betrays his blind faith in the indispensability of government action to job growth.

It would be bad enough if Obama's ideas merely retarded their stated goal of restoring job growth. But they necessarily involve Keynesian prescriptions of throwing obscene and budget-busting amounts of federal money at this ephemeral solution. Even if Obama wanted to reduce the deficit and debt, his economic philosophy would compel him always to spend more and would prevent fiscal responsibility.

If you listened to the speech and came away believing Obama is receptive to moving to the center, then you didn't hear or understand him. For the GOP to make headway on restoring fiscal sanity to this nation, it must first understand him. Then it must oppose and reverse him.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His new book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website at www.DavidLimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Howard Kurtz on Sunday pointed out a delicious irony involving MSNBC and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).

After complaining about CNN's decision to air the Congresswoman's response to President Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday, MSNBC spent the next several days giving far more attention to her than to the official GOP respondent (video follows with transcript and commentary):

HOWARD KURTZ, CNN: When it comes to cable news, all members of Congress aren't created equal. On the left, Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson, who just lost his seat, got plenty of exposure on MSNBC for saying such things as the Republican health plan for sick people is "die quickly." On the right, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann became a Fox News star — she occasionally pops up on other channels as well — for saying such things as Barack Obama may have anti-American views.

But more incendiary is why the bookers go after them. So when a brainy, budget-cutting hawk, Paul Ryan, delivered the official GOP response to the president's State of the Union, it was Bachmann who made news by making a video appearance for the Tea Party Express thanks, in part, to this network.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I just want to remind our viewers, the only place they'll see on television that speech live, Michele Bachmann's Tea Party speech, will be right here on CNN.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: After the $700 billion bailout, the trillion-dollar stimulus, and the massive budget bill with over 9,000 earmarks, many of you implored Washington to please stop spending money that we don't have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: But tonight, inexplicably, a national news network decided that they would give Michele Bachmann a job that her own party never did. CNN ran it live on their network. They aired it on national TV. A remarkable act of journalistic intervention to elevate, in effect, at group with which they are cosponsoring a presidential debate, to elevate that group to the level of the major parties in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: So what did the good folks at MSNBC spend the next day talking about? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't Paul Ryan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody in this room has probably looked at the wrong camera.

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC: You know, I've got a room full of cameras here, and I feel like this could happen to me at any moment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michele Bachmann is out there, she's a wildcard.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: Did she skip the entire financial crisis of 2008 and 2009?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: So did CNN make a mistake in airing Bachmann's speech?

Joining us now to talk about that, and the way most pundits handled the president's State of the Union, Margaret Carlson, columnist for Bloomberg News and Washington editor of "The Week" magazine; Michael Shear of "The New York Times," the lead writer for "The Caucus" blog; and Jim Geraghty, contributing editor at "National Review."

So, Margaret, did CNN elevate Bachmann unfairly, as Rachel Maddow says?

MARGARET CARLSON, BLOOMBERG NEWS: Well, Bachmann makes herself news. I mean, she's — the Republicans create people like Michael Steele and Sarah Palin and Bachmann. She belongs to the Bachmann party. She is on her own.

She goes out. She always makes news. She's always colorful. She's always incendiary. And we cover news, and she's always willing to make it.

KURTZ: Jim Geraghty, if journalists are going to talk about Bachmann all the time, then what's the big deal for CNN to give her five minutes for that video so that people could see what it is they would then be debating?

Kurtz was spot on with this observation, for from Tuesday on, MSNBC gave far more attention to Bachmann than Ryan mentioning her name 191 times and his 134. 

If the good folks at MSNBC are worried about all the attention given to Bachmann, maybe they should stop doing so many reports on her.

Or is such simple logic beyond shills like Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, Ed Schultz, and Cenk Uygur?

Readers are advised that MSNBC only transcribes their weekday programs from 5PM through 11PM.

Chris Matthews on Friday asked the panelists on the syndicated program bearing his name two questions about the crisis in Egypt that must have made his liberal viewers gasp.

Moments after surprisingly asking NBC's Andrea Mitchell if "neo-conservatives who believe in really trying to push democracy" were right all along, Matthews asked David Sanger of the New York Times if George W. Bush was "better equipped than this President to deal with this crisis" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let me get to the philosophical. You and I have talked about this so many times over the years. There's been an ideological struggle between the realists in American foreign policy and the more aggressive neo-conservatives who believe in really trying to push democracy, really trying to change the face. Who can say I told you so here the loudest? Were the neo-cons right in all fairness in saying this was going to come, we should have gotten out ahead of this before?

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC: You could argue that, because some of the so-called realists would, are still today, and I just spoke to a prominent one, arguing that we should be supporting Mubarak…

MATTHEWS: All the way.

MITCHELL: …come hell or high water, all the way. This is our military, we built it, we paid for it. A billion and a half this year.

MATTHEWS: Are these the same that would have said support the Shah, support anybody, support Marcos? Support anybody.

MITCHELL: Yes, and while the analogy to Iran is incorrect because this is a secular movement and Iran was not, the analogy between a U.S. government, a White House that seems trying to straddle all sides and not knowing how much to move in which direction, that actually does remind me of 1979.

Well, that seems to be a bit of historical revisionism.

It was Carter and the so-called "realists" that wrongly chose to not support the Shah in 1979, and the conservatives in our nation who at the time thought we should do everything to keep him in to prevent a radical Islamic takeover of Iran.

To this day most of the Right believes much of the problems we're having with radical Islam stem from Carter's strategic blunder. Claiming that today's "realists" were the same folks calling for America to support the Shah in 1979 is therefore historically inaccurate. 

But I digress:

MATTHEWS: Again on that point, did the government that we had before, the administration of Bush, which was so loaded with ideologues, if you will, and with some realists. Mostly ideologues. Were they better equipped than this President to deal with this crisis because they're more attuned to what is going on over there? Is [National Security Advisor] Tom Donilon ready for this?

Strange question coming from a man who earlier on Friday blamed the crisis in Egypt on Bush and the Iraq war.

Fortunately for Matthews' liberal viewers that were likely having a hard time breathing over the thought of Bush being better equipped than Obama to deal with anything, David Sanger of the New York Times was there to predictably offer the more acceptable left-wing view:

DAVID SANGER, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, I think that the Bush administration was certainly not ready for this in its first term.

On what would Sanger base this argument? Given the speed in which Bush mobilized the nation to head into Afghanistan after 9/11 and into Iraq fifteen months later, this certainly wasn't a White House that was slow in the uptake to respond to an international crisis.

In Sanger's view, exactly what did they lack the first four years to deal with what is currently going on in Egypt?

This seems especially quizzical given the peculiar and uncoordinated statements coming from Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton this week.

Regardless of your political leaning, you would have to think that Dick Cheney and Colin Powell would have performed far better than what we've seen from Obama's support team as it pertains to this crisis thus far, unless of course you wrote for the New York Times:

SANGER: By its second term, you got to that speech that you were discussing before that Condoleezza Rice gave. Even then, we don't know how they would have felt if they really thought Mubarak was not ready. Mr. Donilon and others in the administration were handling this. They are realists of a different kind, and their realism I think is a recognition that Mubarak was not going to last and they might as well move on to the next generation.

MATTHEWS: Right, that’s why I think.

So, Obama and Company are being reactive as opposed to proactive thereby making the answer to Matthews' question about which administration is better equipped for this crisis to clearly be Bush.

Not surprisingly, none of Matthews' guests was willing to go that far.

ABC News prominently featured the anti-American television network Al Jazeera on "This Week" Sunday.

Not only was the network's Washington bureau chief afforded a good amount of time during the Roundtable segment to sing Al Jazeera's praises, but as the show neared its conclusion, Sam Donaldson actually thanked the organization (video follows with transcript and commentary):

JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Abed, before we begin, there's been a lot of talk about the Egyptian government stopping the satellite feed of Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera English in Cairo. What is the status of that? And what do you think that says about the way that the government there is trying to monitor the freedom of information?

AL JAZEERA WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF ABDERRAHIM FOUKARA: Obviously, the offices of Al Jazeera in Cairo have been shut down. The — as you mentioned, satellite, Nilesat, owned by the Egyptians on which — on whose frequencies Al Jazeera has traditionally broadcast, has been switched off. So Al Jazeera has switched now to an Arab site.

Look, this is a classic example of a government in the region going in one way and its people going in another way, as far as coverage is concerned. We've heard this story about Al Jazeera from previous governments before.

I don't want to make too much propaganda for Al Jazeera, but let me just say this: Al Jazeera is an imperfect medium in an imperfect world. But the importance of what's going on in the Middle East right now, this is the story of a generation. Al Jazeera, despite its imperfections, has brought this story to 300 million people in the Arab world and beyond. This is a story of huge importance and consequence of the United States. And Al Jazeera is, in its own way, bringing this story to the United States, to the Arab world.

A few years ago, several years ago, Bill Clinton talked of Al Jazeera as a beacon of democracy. Should that be true, and to the extent that the United States is invested in the future of democracy in the Middle East, Al Jazeera will be an asset. It has provided a platform on which people in the Arab world, from one corner of it to the other, have expressed their grievances and aspirations.

For a guy who didn't "want to make too much propaganda for Al Jazeera," he sure did a fine job.

But the best was still to come as shortly before the show concluded, Donaldson put in his two cents:

SAM DONALDSON: May I say just a word — talks about propaganda for Al Jazeera — thank you for what you're doing. People say Al Jazeera fanned the flames here by bringing the fact that democracy is in existence and that people are being suppressed. That's what we need; we need more communication in the world. It's not Al Jazeera's fault…

MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS: They watched Tunisia…

DONALDSON: … that Mubarak is under a siege now.

GEORGE WILL: On the other hand, we in the media tend to think the media drives the world. And I have a feeling this would be going on across this region regardless of the media.

DONALDSON: But the world drives the world to the extent the world knows about what's happening everywhere else. That's what media does.

Maybe, but that's not what Al Jazeera does.

Did Donaldson and the producers of "This Week" forget that one of its own former reporters, David Marash, quit Al Jazeera English in 2008 specifically because of its anti-America bias?

Apparently so.

And as it pertains to this crisis in Egypt, contrary to Donaldson's assertions, there are some that believe Al Jazeera has indeed been fanning the flames in this region to oust pro-American governments. NewsMax reported Friday:

One big winner has emerged from the tear-gas-laced chaos erupting in Egypt and several other Middle East nations: Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite channel that many U.S. leaders view as anti-American. [...]

Al Jazeera “has helped galvanize insurgents across the Arab world this week even before Egypt’s planned ‘Day of Unrest,’ or ‘Day of Rage’ depending on how you translate it,” according to New York magazine.

Observers say Al Jazeera’s reports, which are followed closely throughout the freedom-starved Middle East, contributed to the fall of former Tunisian President Ben Ali’s government.

That revolution in turn inspired the uprising in Egypt. Indeed, Al Jazeera media coverage has been the common theme as the contagion of civil unrest has spread from nation to nation.

One major factor propelling the rise of the satellite channel, according to New York magazine: It helped “shape a narrative of popular rage against oppressive American-backed Arab governments (and against Israel) ever since its founding 15 years ago.”

Is this why you think Al Jazeera deserves thanks, Sam? Is that what you think media should do?

Predictably joining the media attacks on Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), NBC's "Saturday Night Live" began its most recent installment mocking her response to the President's State of the Union address last Tuesday.

Actress Kristen Wiig playing the Congresswoman explained that as a result of technical difficulties in her first attempt, CNN gave her a second try at it. What followed was gaffe after gaffe in another segment by SNL designed to totally trash a conservative woman (video follows with transcript and commentary):

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN. Tonight, a CNN special event. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s response to the President's State of the Union address – the second attempt.

[Laughter]

[Cheers and applause]

KRISTEN WIIG AS REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, (R-MINN.): Good evening. I'm Congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota’s sixth district. Four nights ago on behalf of the Republican Party and the Tea Party, I delivered a response to President Obama’s State of the Union address. Unfortunately, that response was marred by some technical difficulties, and it seems that its core message was not properly conveyed. Accordingly I have asked for this time tonight in order to try again. Because, you see, the issues are simply too important and the stakes for our nation too high to do otherwise. So here goes.

[Turns stage right facing away from the camera]

[Laughter]

Two years ago when Barack Obama became president, our nation's unemployment rate was already 7.8%, and our national debt an astonishing $10.6 trillion. The economy was headed for disaster as you can see from this chart.

[Chart facing stage right, totally unreadable]

[Laughter]

Not a pretty picture, is it? Yet, instead of addressing our economic problems, this president's policies have made them worse, as this next chart clearly shows.

[Chart facing upstage left, totally unreadable]

[Laughter]

That's right. Under our current president we've gone from this [first unreadable chart] to this [second unreadable chart].

[Laughter]

But it doesn't have to be this way. By simply reducing spending and returning to the core governing principles of our Founding Fathers, we can have an economy that looks like this.

[Upside down chart]

[Laughter]

[She’s then directed to look into the camera. She does briefly, and then turns stage left away from camera again]

But let's be honest, before any of this can happen, we must first address the massive growth in entitlements, especially Social Security. I'm going to show you another chart of the projected growth of revenues into the Social Security trust fund.

[Chart with no figures on it]

[Laughter]

It’s a little hard to see because I drew the line in white. Now, here is the same graph adding projected Social Security expenditures, also in white.

[Chart with no figures on it]

[Laughter]

Sorry, that's not very clear. Should we show that last graph in black? Do we have that?

[Graph is totally black with no figures on it]

[Laughter]

Okay. That's a little better I think. Maybe not. The point is the current situation is unsustainable. Consider this chart which shows the amount of federal spending devoted just to interest on the national debt.

[Chart of completely smudged, illegible figures]

[Laughter]

This is the one I dropped in the snow. That's a shame. That was important. But the point is the American people don't need graphs or charts to tell us what we already know. Our country is headed in the wrong direction and we all remember what this president promised us just one year ago at his first State of the Union.

[Video of woman with horse]

Alright. Obviously, that's, that’s not President Obama. No, I know it's on this tape. I just don't know where. I don't have time to find it now. So let me just conclude by saying, I realize how much the American people are sacrificing during these troubled economic times. We Republicans get it. And we want you to know we're doing some belt-tightening of our own. For example, this presentation you just saw was done on a reduced budget. I'm not kidding. We didn't even hire a professional director. Seriously. Or a trained graphic designer. And here is something else, believe it or not, my makeup was done by a child.

[Laughter]

As God is my witness, she's 5 years old. So thank you for your attention.

[Something crashes off screen]

May God bless America, and live from New York, it's Saturday Night!

In reality, if the folks at SNL had done their homework, they would have known that the real gaffe Tuesday night was made by CNN. As Breitbart reported hours before this was aired:

Our sources tell us that CNN had originally agreed to use the live feed set up by Tea Party Express, which had a teleprompter running on the lens in which Rep. Bachmann was delivering her speech. But, when Rep. Bachmann left the camera set-up and sat in the House chamber to hear Pres. Obama's speech, CNN set up a camera of their own, just off to the side of the main, tele-prompter/camera. Thus, when CNN provided their network feed it ended up skewed and off-kilter.

Here's what the real broadcast looked like Tuesday night:

As such, SNL could have just as easily made this sketch about the hapless professionalism of CNN for not using the Tea Party Express feed instead opting to use its own camera in a fashion that would guarantee the speaker wasn't looking into it.

The writers could have then had a field day mocking other such gaffes by the self-described most trusted name in news. That would have been a hoot, and quite contrary to how the rest of the media reported this incident.

In fact, if SNL really wanted to be original, it could have trashed all the media outlets and members that blamed this on Bachmann instead of CNN. Now that really would have been something to behold.

Alas, instead, NBC predictably piled on the conservative Congresswoman the media love to defame.

Just how predictable was it?

Well, a Twitter follower of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann sent a message to his hero Tuesday evening saying, "@KeithOlbermann Tonight's big winner from the Bachmann response debacle? – SNL's Kristen Wiig."

When people enamored with the former "Countdown" host can predict SNL's take on an event, and NBC unknowingly goes along with it, that has to be classified as too sophomoric for America's premier television comedy show.

Unfortunately, having impacted the 2008 elections with Tina Fey's impersonations of Sarah Palin while similarly trashing Delaware's Christine O'Donnell during the last election cycle, SNL made it quite clear with this opening segment that it's going to do its darnedist to trash conservatives for the next two years regardless of how predictable the sketch is.

The heads of Comcast must be so proud of their purchase.

On Wednesday, the Associated Press's Andrew Taylor covered the latest deficit projections released by the Congressional Budget Office.

In his treatment of the predicted unemployment rate, Taylor betrayed no concern whatsoever about the plight of the millions of unemployed who are in that position largely because the Obama administration attempted to bring about an economic recovery through government "stimulus" and government intervention instead of cutting taxes, or even leaving what appeared to be an incipient recovery in late 2008 continue. Instead, as AP reporters Hope Yen and Liz Sidoti did last September in advance of last year's poverty report from the Census Bureau, when they fretted over the report's impact on the Congressional midterm elections, a terrified Taylor spent two paragraphs worrying about the high unemployment rate's impact on the President's reelection prospects:

Though the analysis predicts the economy will grow by 3.1 percent this year, it foresees unemployment remaining above 9 percent.

 

Dauntingly for Obama, the nonpartisan agency estimates a nationwide jobless rate of 8.2 percent on Election Day in 2012. That's higher that the rates that contributed to losses by Presidents Jimmy Carter (7.5 percent) and George H.W. Bush (7.4 percent). The nation isn't projected to be at full employment – considered to be a jobless rate of about 5 percent – until 2016.

Along the way, Taylor engaged in another obsession of the wire service and its establishment press counterparts: characterizing potential upward changes to a tax-rate structure that has essentially been in place with few modifications since 2003 as the end of "the Bush tax cuts," as exemplified in these excerpted paragraphs:

The latest deficit figures are up from previous estimates because of bipartisan legislation passed in December that extended George W. Bush-era tax cuts and unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and provided a 2 percentage point Social Security payroll tax cut this year.

 

… CBO predicts that the deficit will fall to $551 billion by 2015 – a sustainable 3 percent of the economy – but only if the Bush tax cuts are wiped off the books. Under its rules, CBO assumes the recently extended cuts in taxes on income, investment and people inheriting large estates will expire in two years. If those tax cuts, and numerous others, are extended, the deficit for that year would be almost three times as large.

Boy, Andrew Taylor sure seems to want tax increases. Maybe we should nickname him "Tax a Trillion Taylor."

Back on point: Taylor's and the AP's consistent indifference towards the individual unemployed stands in stark contrast to how the wire service and the establishment press doggedly pursued the topic during the first few and final years of the Bush administration, when the unemployment rate was far lower than its current 9.4%.

That's bad enough. But what's far more offensive is the press's obsession, most obvious at AP but also evident elsewhere, not with how long-term unemployment is affecting real people and real families, but instead over how it affects one party's or one president's electoral chances, especially given that the party they're worrying about is the one whose policies have extended the suffering. This is at the same time truly shameless, and truly shameful.

Anyone who doesn't believe that Obama's policies have piled on the pain needs to explain away this:

Good luck.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

To add an exclamation point to Brad Wilmouth's great post last night ("ABC Pushes for Tax Hike on Capital Gains, Ignores Likelihood of Tax Revenue Loss") — in ignoring the likelihood that raising the capital gains tax rate would reduce capital gains tax collections, the network also "somehow" forgot now-retired World News Tonight anchor Charles Gibson's aggressive questioning on the topic during an April 2008 Democratic Party presidential debate.

That night, ABC, represented by Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, who was then the host of ABC's Sunday morning news show, drove leftists crazy (noted at the time in NewsBusters posts here and here), because, as NB's Brent Bozell noted, "For once it veered from liberal orthodoxy."

One of Gibson's "veers" consisted of questions he asked presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton about capital gains taxation. The now-defunct New York Sun characterized it as "Gibson's Finest Hour" (I would suggest that it might really have been "Gibson's Only Fine Hour"), and wrote it up thusly (internal link added by me; bolds are mine):

… for a few moments in yesterday's presidential debate on ABC News, anchorman Charles Gibson sounded like a charter member of the Club for Growth or Americans for Tax Reform. It came when Mr. Gibson questioned Senator Obama about the capital gains tax. Mr. Gibson quoted Mr. Obama as talking about raising the tax to 28% from 15%. "But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent," Mr. Gibson said. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

 

Why, Robert Bartley couldn't have put it better himself. Mr. Obama was totally flummoxed, betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of the Laffer Curve. The Democrat of Illinois spoke of the need to "finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it," and of the need to "invest in our infrastructure" and in "our schools."

 

Mr. Gibson, to his credit, wouldn't let the point go. "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up," he replied to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama replied by changing the subject, to "a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to."

 

Mr. Gibson tried the same question, more or less, on Senator Clinton. She, at least, disavowed raising the capital gains rate above 20%, ruling out a return to the 28% rate contemplated by Mr. Obama. But when Mr. Gibson pressed her on why she would raise it at all, she went into lunk-headed, static analysis mode, displaying a lack of understanding as severe as that afflicting her rival. "You know, Charlie, I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is," she said.

The Tax Foundation has a transcript of the exchange. The following segment from it is worth excerpting, given the fiscal circumstances largely created as a result of Obama administration policies during its first two years (bolds are mine):

OBAMA: And you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren, and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about.

 

And that is irresponsible. I believe in the principle that you pay as you go. And, you know, you don't propose tax cuts, unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending, unless you're eliminating some spending or you're finding some new revenue. That's how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy. And it's going to change when I'm president of the United States.

 

GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

 

OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we got have a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

In addition to Gibson's grilling on cap gains, both he and Stephanopoulos did a creditable job of pushing Obama on the substance and relevance of his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah "God D**n America" Wright, and in giving Mrs. Clinton opportunities to pile on. This of course drove the left even further over the edge.

As Bozell further noted at the time, after one single night of decent journalism:

Like an abused spouse, ABC responded by repeating all the leftist complaints on its airwaves and supinely saluting the impressive dexterity of the Obama campaign.

That would appear to explain why Sawyer and ABC won't mention Gibson's April 2008 performance. They're apparently ashamed of it.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Following up on CBS worrying about Republicans satisfying the "conservative right wing" on abortion: At the Daily Kos, Saturday's Open Thread by Dante Atkins kissed up to Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, hyping his "American Taliban" attack line again, this time about H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Atkins can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want their tax dollars going to the exercise of the heroic right to abortion, especially after statutory rape:

It's the type of thing that really makes you wonder what's wrong with people. Is it any wonder that women tend to vote for Democrats? The GOP thinks that unless you were hogtied or had a knife brandished at you, you deserve whatever you get. Why not just put women in a burqa, assign them a male relative as an escort, and be done with it? Then the transition to American Taliban can be complete. 

Atkins thinks it's awful that an adult would have sex with a middle-schooler, and that the villain of this piece becomes the Republican politician who won't make that sickness  "whole" by funding the inevitable abortion with taxpayer dollars. As she publicizes the latest palaver from NARAL boss Nancy Keenan, Michelle Goldberg at the Daily Beast also finds this evidence of "a startling new extremism in the GOP."  

Earlier, the Kosmonaut with the byline "Meteor Blades" suggested pro-lifers could still get their own abortions (as if they were all hypocrites):

The sisters, wives and daughters of John Boehner, Chris Smith and other affluent Americans will always have access to safe, professional abortions even if Roe v. Wade is reversed tomorrow. They can afford to fly out of the country if need be. So, despite their "moral" camouflage, the Hyde Amendment and Smith's No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act are not only an attack on women's rights, but also a blatantly class-based attack on those rights. Pregnant women without money are coerced into giving birth.  

Wesley Smith has the pro-life side covered here.

 Catching up on an item from last Thursday’s CBS Evening News, after recounting for the second time the case of Philadelphia abortion Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s horrific practice, anchor Katie Couric introduced a piece devoted to upcoming political fights over abortion. During the report, opponents of abortion were twice labeled as "conservatives," while the word "liberals" was never used to refer to advocates of abortion rights. The report also finally mentioned – briefly – the March for Life pro-life rally from earlier in the week in the nation’s capital.

As the report reiterated the case of Dr. Gosnell, the argument on both sides of the debate was presented as to which side is bolstered by his callous activities. Couric: "Criminal abuse like this is extremely rare, but it's not stopping both sides in the abortion debate from using the case to re-energize supporters."

After correspondent Elaine Quijano made the case on both sides, ideological labels soon came. Correspondent Nancy Cordes: "Republicans are now back in power in the House at least, after a walk in the desert, and they have certain constituencies that they need to satisfy. One of those constituencies is the conservative right wing of the party for whom abortion is a very important issue all the time."

After a soundbite of Susan Muskett of the National Right to Life Committee, Couric added: "Conservatives first went on the offensive during debate over health care reform when they tried to keep any money from expanded insurance coverage from being used to pay for abortions. Opponents said existing law, in the form of the Hyde amendment, already prohibited that, but that's not keeping abortion foes from trying again."

 Notably, New Jersey Republican Congressman Chris Smith – a leading pro-life advocate in the House who was briefly seen and mentioned in the report – has a lifetime rating of only 60 percent from the American Conservative Union, which hardly makes him a solid conservative.

The piece, which included soundbites from several CBS News personalities, at one point included Capitol Hill producer Jill Jackson undermining the House vote designed to block ObamaCare from funding abortion as she related: "When Speaker John Boehner and Congressman Smith introduced HR 3 last week, the reaction from everyone on Capitol Hill was: But this was supposed to be a jobs agenda, right?"

Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Thursday, January 27, CBS Evening News :

KATIE COURIC: It’s been 38 years since Roe V. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made abortion in America legal. This week, hundreds of thousands of abortion rights opponents marked the anniversary with a protest on the steps of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, House Republicans are pushing for new limits on abortion. A similar movement has already gained support in a lot of state capitals. Tonight, we put the shifting battle over abortion "In Focus."

ELAINE QUIJANO: Dr. Kermit Gosnell is a west Philadelphia doctor who was never trained as an OB-GYN, but, in fact, prosecutors say he carried out illegal late-term abortions.

COURIC: And did so for the last 20 years. Gosnell has been charged with killing seven babies after they were born alive, and for the murder of one woman. Remains from the procedures were in trash bags around his clinic.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There were fetal remains in the same exact refrigerator that the employees had their lunch in that day.

COURIC: Criminal abuse like this is extremely rare, but it’s not stopping both sides in the abortion debate from using the case to re-energize supporters.

QUIJANO: On the one hand, you have abortion rights advocates who say if you clamp down on abortion rights even further you’re going to have more doctors preying upon women because they won’t have any other options out there. On the other side of the debate, you have anti-abortion advocates who say, look, this is precisely why we need to limit abortions, to prevent people like Dr. Gosnell from operating.

COURIC: The issue of abortion has taken a back seat in recent years, but aggressive state action to limit abortion and new leadership in Congress, like House Speaker John Boehner, have pushed abortion back into the public debate.

JOHN BOEHNER, HOUSE SPEAKER: A ban on taxpayer funding of abortions is the will of the people, and it ought to be the will of the land. It’s one of our highest legislative priorities, and, as such, I’ve directed that it receive the designation of HR 3.

NANCY CORDES: Republicans are now back in power in the House at least, after a walk in the desert, and they have certain constituencies that they need to satisfy. One of those constituencies is the conservative right wing of the party for whom abortion is a very important issue all the time.

SUSAN MUSKETT, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE: Now with the new Congress, we are no longer playing defense as you were in the last two years. We can now play offense.

COURIC: Conservatives first went on the offensive during debate over health care reform when they tried to keep any money from expanded insurance coverage from being used to pay for abortions. Opponents said existing law, in the form of the Hyde amendment, already prohibited that, but that’s not keeping abortion foes from trying again.

JILL JACKSON, CBS NEWS CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: When Speaker John Boehner and Congressman Smith introduced HR 3 last week, the reaction from everyone on Capitol Hill was: But this was supposed to be a jobs agenda, right?

COURIC: Although 40 percent of Americans favor limits on abortion, fewer than one percent consider the issue a priority. The abortion rate in the U.S. has dropped since 1980 from nearly 30 per 1,000 women of childbearing age, to less than 20. Anti-abortion activists view House Resolution 3 as a chance for victory on a national stage in a battle that’s clearly escalated beyond Washington since the November elections.

JEFF GREENFIELD: I think if you’re looking at abortion as a political issue, the real action is going to be at the state level. In state after state, Democratic governors were replaced by Republican governors – many, if not most of them, favoring far more restrictions on abortions.

COURIC: Twenty-nine states are now led by governors or legislatures solidly opposed to Roe V. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that protected the right to an abortion.

GREENFIELD: I think you’re going to see much more energy on the part of those who oppose abortions or favor more restrictions.

COURIC: Last year, 16 states enacted new restrictions on abortion. Nebraska is joining other states that ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. And Oklahoma wants to require doctors to show a woman the ultrasound of her fetus prior to an abortion.

NANCY KEENAN, NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA: As more and more of these states enact laws that basically prohibit women from accessing abortion care, you are seeing, in essence, that that care is not available to them, and so oftentimes they have to go to another state.

JAN CRAWFORD: The Supreme Court has made very clear that it is not going to overturn Roe versus Wade, so what that means is you’re seeing efforts in the states to kind of just push the envelope to see how far they can take it, short of restricting abortion outright.

COURIC: But in Congress, Republican leaders say they have no plans to go further than HR 3, at least for now.

JACKSON: A congressional aide told me that it doesn’t matter if the Senate passes what the House passes. The Republicans go on the record showing the American people what they stand for.

CORDES: Here’s how sensitive this issue is on Capitol Hill: Randy Neugebauer, a Republican from Texas, was so angry last year that another anti-abortion rights member had made a small compromise with the White House over abortion rights in the health care bill that he actually shouted the words "baby killer."

REP. RANDY NEUGEBAUER (R-TX): Baby killer!

CORDES: This was a huge breach of decorum.

REP. DAVID OBEY (D-WI): Those who are shouting out are out of order.

CORDES: And it just shows how tempers flare when it comes to abortion. It’s really one of those third rails of politics.

COURIC: The House will debate House Resolution 3 in the weeks ahead. If it passes, Democrats in the Senate are expected to try to table the legislation indefinitely.

Keith Olbermann must be starving for attention since his surprise exit from MSNBC.

On Sunday, he actually bashed a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe written about him by a Vietnam vet:

The object of Olbermann's disaffection was one Ed Driscoll who was quite pleased by the former "Countdown" host's departure from MSNBC:

I participated in more than 10 combat missions in Vietnam, so I know a mission is not a war. Someone should have told that to Olbermann, as he demonstrated his ignorance by equating the two for years on his show.

He would end by saying it has been so many days since President Bush declared “Mission Accomplished’’ in Iraq. Bush never said that. Olbermann was referring to a sign on an aircraft carrier that said “Mission Accomplished.’’ The president declared an end to major combat operations, and therefore the aircraft carrier was headed home.