Conservative author and talk radio host Mark Levin took to his Facebook page Sunday with concerns about the character of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney:

I am beginning to think that the nature and level of attacks being launched by Mitt Romney against Newt Gingrich, which he would surely use against any conservative threatening his nomination, are going to make it very difficult for Romney to unite the different factions of the GOP and the conservative movement behind his candidacy should he win the nomination. While I have said that I would vote for Rick Santorum, I am appalled at the "anything goes" assault on Gingrich.

Levin sent readers to a New York Times article published Sunday entitled "Facing Second Loss to Gingrich, Romney Went on Warpath":

Facing the unthinkable here just seven days ago — a second loss in a row to Newt Gingrich — Mitt Romney’s campaign team hatched a two-part plan to win in Florida: make Newt mad and Mitt meaner.

In a call last Sunday morning, just hours after Mr. Romney’s double-digit loss to Mr. Gingrich in the South Carolina primary, the Romney team outlined the new approach to the candidate. Put aside the more acute focus on President Obama and narrow in on Mr. Gingrich.

Find lines of attack that could goad Mr. Gingrich into angry responses and rally mainstream Republicans. Swarm Gingrich campaign events to rattle him. Have Mr. Romney drop his above-the-fray persona and carry the fight directly to his opponent, especially in two critical debates scheduled for the week.

With this in mind, Levin continued:

My great fear is, however, that he is the weakest candidate who can face Obama and will go into the general election with a fractured base, thanks to his own character flaws, which are now on display, and his tactics of personal destruction. Moreover, while Romney can swamp his Republican opponents by 3 to 1 or more in every state with his spending advantage, Barack Obama will be raising more and spending more to beat him in the general election, meaning Romney's financial advantage will be non-existent.

Levin's numbers are accurate, for the Miami Herald's Marc Caputo told CBS's Bob Schieffer Sunday that Romney is outspending Gingrich 3 to 1 in Florida.

This is certainly not an advantage he'll have in the general election if he gets that far.

Read Levin's entire piece for more details.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

Despite Democrats controlling the White House and the Senate, Obama-loving media members love to blame gridlock in Washington on Republicans.

Doing his part Sunday was Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer who asked guest Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), "Has the Tea Party made compromise a dirty word, and is that why Congress can't seem to get anything done?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

SCHIEFFER: But I am interested from all of you, and this thing that Sarah Palin said yesterday about it is the Tea Party versus the Republican establishment, and I am trying to figure out, what is the Republican establishment right now, Congresswoman Bachmann. This is not Mitt Romney's father's party. This is a different party, isn't it?

BACHMANN: The party has changed so much for the better, and I think that is what we are all thrilled about, because the Tea Party has infused the energy and the excitement and really is bringing the Republican Party back to its basic values, which is limited government, cutting spending, being smart and making the government more efficient.

That's what the Tea Party has done. The Tea Party is not about Washington. The Tea Party is a lot more about the Constitution, a limited government, growth and opportunities. And that is exciting, and again, this is a very small day-by-day process that we are looking at. And every day the media is looking for a new story.

But at the end of the day, what we absolutely know, it doesn't matter which wing of the party it is, we are united in purpose that we will make Barack Obama a one-termer.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I want to ask you, though, that is a very interesting take, but has the Tea Party made compromise a dirty word, and is that why Congress can't seem to get anything done?

BACHMANN: Not at all, no. The Tea Party is trying to make sure that we hold on to our core principles and values. The Tea Party has been only a force for good in Washington, D.C., because otherwise we continue to go farther and farther to the left, which is redistribution of wealth. That is why Obama will be a one-termer, because all he has been about is redistribution of wealth and the rise of socialist principles, and the Tea Party rejects that.

Something else to consider is that if the Tea Party is responsible for all the gridlock in Washington, why has it now been more than 1,000 days since the Democrats proposed a budget?

For some reason, this doesn't bother media members supposedly concerned about Congress doing its job.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

Those familiar with Kathleen Parker's work are well aware that this supposedly conservative columnist is a fine example of a Republican in Name Only.

On CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday, Parker proved it once again saying that the National Review "was created from an ideological point of view…As opposed to, for example, the Chicago Tribune or The Washington Post" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: It was a remarkable snap shot of the media elite. The conservative media elite, that is, rising up almost in unison against Newt Gingrich.

The banner headline on the "Drudge Report": "Insider: Gingrich repeatedly insulted Reagan," and there were links to a piece on which Bob Dole blasted his former congressional colleague.

A CNN story that Gingrich, as we noted, had admitted he was wrong in the way he ripped ABC News over that interview of his ex-wife.

Ann Coulter, one of most flamboyant commentators on the right, popped a piece headline, "Re-elect Obama, vote Newt." So, what's behind this seemingly orchestrated assault?

Joining us now here in Washington, Kathleen Parker columnist for "The Washington Post"; and Clarence Page, columnist for the "Chicago Tribune".

And, Kathleen, "The National Review", Ann Coulter, "Drudge", all unloading on Newt within a couple of days.

Was there some kind of a secret meeting here?

(LAUGHTER)

KATHLEEN PARKER, THE WASHINGTON POST: If there was, I was not invited, by the way. I didn't get the memo.

You know, it's interesting. I want to clarify something right out of the gate, which is that when we talk about the media or commentators, pundits, et cetera, coming after someone in an orchestrated way, these are conservative operatives, Republican Party operatives essentially. They're not journalists, and they're not representing any institutional entity, I don't think.

I think they're representing their own political views, but they have access to media. They are media creatures.

KURTZ: That include "National Review"?

PARKER: Well, "National Review" is obviously a magazine, but it was created from an ideological point of view. Right? As opposed to, for example, the "Chicago Tribune" or "The Washington Post" — it's more traditional what we call mainstream, but I call just old school journalism entities.

Readers are reminded that Parker in 2010 admitted that she won the Pulitzer Prize for being a conservative basher.

Any questions?

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

Conservatives must have thought they died and went to heaven when the Roundtable segment of ABC’s This Week began Sunday.

There were syndicated columnist George Will and talk radio’s Laura Ingraham facing off on the state of the Republican presidential race (video follows with transcript and commentary):

GEORGE WILL: Time is not Newt Gingrich's friend because the more time he has, the more he talks, and the more he talks, the more he says things as he just did here this morning. He said, “I’d love to be civil, but I'm running against a maniacal liar.” Now that's pretty strong language. I don't know if you have ever told Longfellow’s nursery rhyme to your 4-year-old daughter Alice.

JAKE TAPPER, HOST: No, not yet.

WILL: “There is a little girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead. When she was good, she was very good indeed. And when she was bad, she was horrid.” And we're at the horrid stage with Newt Gingrich. […]

LAURA INGRAHAM: Newt defined himself in South Carolina. He framed the debate as, “I'm the real conservative. Mitt Romney is the faux conservative. He’s late to this game of conservative politics.” What happened is he became the figure in “The Godfather” trapped in the revolving door, okay? The bullets were coming everywhere, and that revolving door was stuck. He couldn't get out of it. And, today on the show, he spent a lot of the time complaining about the tone of the campaign. Negative ads, they're lying, they’re not true. Some of it may be true, but there’s a rule of thumb in politics: if you’re at a point where you're complaining about the other guy being mean and unfair and uncivil, that's probably a sign that you're losing. And that’s what he’s facing right now. […]

WILL: I think Mitt Romney is still learning the great lesson which is it's very risky to be cautious in presidential politics. This is the man who had gone all the way back to last fall couldn't get ethanol right. I mean, life’s full of complicated questions – that's not one of them. I mean, Al Gore’s given up on it, and he’s still splitting the difference, and he’s going to have to stop that.

INGRAHAM: But George, I think we also have to remember, though, the pig pile on Newt, never seen anything like it. I mean he said it was carpet bombing. That's pretty much what it was. I can tell you there are a lot of us here in Washington today who wouldn’t be here probably if it weren’t for two people, or three people: Bill Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich. So, for all of these people who are, and George I know you're one of them, Newt Gingrich isn't a real conservative, and he has some ideas that truly are not conservative. But, he was the face of conservatism in the 1990s. He was vilified by the left, and he was hailed by the right. And right now, he is still connecting among independents.

Mitt Romney, in the last NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is shown to be plummeting among independent voters. Gingrich I think still has some strength there. We'll see what happens. I don't think he can withstand this fusillade that he's getting against Romney.

WILL: The most recent poll I have seen of his support among independents is 22 percent.

INGRAHAM: I'm talking about Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama. The metric of Romney versus Obama. The invincibility aura of Mitt Romney I don’t think is there.

And this is why there should always be two real conservative pundits on every political talk show panel so that viewers get all sides of the right-leaning argument.

Of course, we'd like there to always be at least one in such settings, but we can feel a little greedy after what we witnessed Sunday.

ABC and the other networks should take notice: two conservatives and two liberals make for a far more informative and entertaining discussion than what viewers are normally treated to.

Bravo and brava.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

Barack Obama and his reelection committee must be thrilled to know the media are going to assist them in invoking class warfare this campaign season.

NBC's Chris Matthews certainly did his part Sunday practically beginning the syndicated show bearing his name asking the truly revolting question is Mitt Romney "Just too damn rich?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Just too damn rich. Is Mitt Romney with his $250 million, his accounts Zurich and the Caymans too far removed to know what life in America is about? For that matter is Newt Gingrich who breakfasts at Tiffany’s and suppers off Freddie Mac.

After the 2006 midterm elections when it was becoming clear that Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) – whose net worth is estimated at $35 million – was going to be named Speaker of the House, do you recall media members wondering if she was "just too damn rich" or "too far removed to know what life in America is about?"

Or what about Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2008 whose fortune is estimated to be $193 million? Remember press members disqualifying him due to his wealth?

Or John F. Kennedy – who just so happens to be Matthews' hero! – in 1960? Or Franklin Delano Roosevelt any of the times he ran for president?

As the answer to all of these questions is an emphatic "No," why after eight decades of ignoring the wealth of Democrat candidates are the media going after Romney and Gingrich's?

Post script: According to the website Celebrity Net Worth, Matthews' fortune is $16 million with an annual salary of $5 million.

Who's he to call anyone "Just too damn rich?"

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

Jim Taranto at the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web caught the Washington Post either misrepresenting the motives of an anonymous informer in connection with Ron Paul's long-ago newsletters, getting duped by said informer, or trying to dupe its readers. Perhaps it was a bit of all of the above, all of which worked out to conveniently smear Paul without giving him — or readers — a chance to know who was going after him.

The 1700-word story by Jerry Markon and Alice Crites ("Paul pursued strategy of publishing controversial newsletters, associates say") concerned the degree of knowledge the presidential candidate had of allegedly racially charged material in his newsletters published during the 1990s. The contradiction follows the jump:

---

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’

The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

As Taranto wrote:

Wait a minute: He "spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer"? That is exactly the opposite of the reason he spoke under condition of anonymity.

Really. Imagine how harsh the critique would have been if the anonymous person had decided to really hurt Paul's reputation.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Well, let's see. During the early days of the Clinton administration, we had the sad spectacle of Treasury aide Josh Steiner telling Senators investigating the Whitewater real estate deals and the Resolution Trust Corporation that that he written untrue things in his diary, i.e., that "essentially …. he had lied to his diary." During the Paula Jones trial, the jury was entertained (members are said to have laughed) when Bill Clinton tried to answer a question by saying that "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Soon, another insufferable howler may eventually enter the lexicon, courtesy of Monty Wilkinson, former deputy chief of staff to Attorney General Eric Holder, namely, "I lied in an email when I wrote that 'I've alerted the AG.'" 

The subject deserving of an "alert" was the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010 at the hands of Mexican criminals using guns which had previously disappeared during the course of Operation Fast and Furious. As reported by Matthew Boyle at the Daily Caller, Wilkinson's supposed lie, which was emailed that day to now-former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, appears to be the only thing standing between Holder and definitive proof that the Attorney General did not tell the truth when he told the House Judiciary Committee in early May 2011 that he had only learned of Fast and Furious a “few weeks” earlier (later amended to "a couple of months").

Don't expect even a little recognition of how serious this matter is from Pete Yost at the Associated Press, otherwise known as the Administration's Press. 

On Friday evening, in a report which has already disappeared from the wire service's national site, Yost played stall-ball for six paragraphs with less important information and wrote the following in the final two (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Also among the documents are Justice Department emails involving a former top aide to Attorney General Eric Holder. The emails show that then-deputy chief of staff Monty Wilkinson was notified by then-U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke the day after Terry was slain that guns found at the murder scene were connected to an investigation that Burke and Wilkinson had planned to discuss. The emails did not identify the investigation, but it was Operation Fast and Furious.

In a letter to the committee, the Justice Department said that Wilkinson does not recall a follow-up call with Burke and that Wilkinson does not recall discussing this aspect of the matter with the attorney general. According to the letter, the department has been advised that Burke has no recollection of discussing this aspect of the matter with Wilkinson.

Note that Yost did not mention the existence of the (excuse the expression in the circumstances) smoking-gun email where Wilkinson specifically said that "I've alerted the AG." If this were a Republican or conservative scandal (or even an non-scandal like the Valerie Plame affair), the discrepancy between what Wilkinson claims now and what he wrote in an email on the date of Terry's death would have led the story and have been front-page and broadcast-leading news everywhere.

Today, Yost put up an absolutely pathetic report entitled "Changes in wake of troubled arms trafficking probe," which droned on and on about how "The Justice Department is tightening procedures," while repeating the same falsehood the AP reporter employed a week ago (noted at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), namely that the problem isn't with the operation itself, it's with the "investigation":

The Justice Department is tightening procedures for responding to information requests from Congress in the aftermath of a troubled arms trafficking investigation.

In Operation Fast and Furious, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed hundreds of weapons to flow across the border into Mexico.

The Justice Department told three congressional committees in a letter Friday night that it has improved coordination between agents and their managers in carrying out arms trafficking investigations.

Attorney General Eric Holder probably will face questions about the changes when he testifies Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. That committee has been investigating the department's mistakes in the probe since early last year.

DOJ's posturing is so risible it's hard to know where to start. Brian Terry and at least 300 Mexican citizens are dead, not because of a botched "investigation," but because of an operation whose only conceivable "logic" was to create enough mayhem on our southern border to foster a domestic political climate receptive to the idea of taking Americans' guns away.

So I guess the strategy now is for Holder to get in front of Congress and say, "We've improved how we investigate our screw-ups. Now leave us alone, and don't you dare ask me what I knew and when I knew it. Oh, and that email doesn't prove that Monty Wilkinson actually 'alerted' me to anything. And even if he really did, I just had a faulty memory when I previously testified and can't be held accountable for that. Oh, and you're all a bunch of racists for coming after me."

Pete Yost or some other hack from the AP will surely be there cheering Holder on.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

It was a routine Saturday morning at Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH forum, broadcast nationally on the Word Network.  He was all over the map.  Jackson trashed Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney.  He warned that enterprises such as black funeral homes and black insurance companies are “under attack.”  He condemned a proposed change in Grammy Award classifications.  Jackson also spoke out against Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who, he said, “did the ultimate insult.  She put her finger in his (President Barack Obama) face.”  Jackson wants people to call and complain (video here):

Also, while it’s on my mind, Gov. Janice K. Brewer, the finger person.  Gov. Janice K. Brewer, who gave President Obama the finger, governor of Arizona, call 1 800 253 0883.  Keep that line real busy.  1 800 253 0883.  We’ll give you the number later a little later today and this week on the email number of her press secretary.  We want to keep Arizona. . . until she can put her hands in her pocket and have some good. . . do you know how insulting it is to put your finger in somebody’s face?  Try it with the cameras rolling, she knew the cameras.

She knew what she was doing.  She was telling him off.  She was cutting him down to his size.  She must never get away with that.  Even George Wallace did not put his finger in Dr. King’s face.  Say, enough is enough.

Being the pious, innocent, saintly man he is, perhaps the Most Rev. Jackson deserves a pass.  Maybe he doesn’t actually know the difference between giving someone the finger and waving one’s finger in another person’s face.   But does he really consider the latter to be “the ultimate insult”?  For a man who’s referred to Jews as “Hymies,” said in the last campaign that “Barack’s been talking down to black people” and that he would like to cut Obama's testicles out, and admitted to, as a young waiter, having spit into the food of white customers he didn’t like, Jackson has a remarkable notion of what comprises the ultimate insult.

Naturally, Jackson’s blunder will be ignored by the mainstream media.  He’s always given a pass.  But the very next time “the black view” is needed on a story, he’ll be front and center and ready for his close-up.  

Yet more evidence of pathologies that roil the liberal, uh, mind.

MSNBC, America's closest approximation yet to Pravda (though not for lacking of trying, New York Times), did something curious but characteristic Wednesday night during the hour-long hyperventilation known as "The Ed Show." (video after page break)

The show's namesake, Ed Schultz, was talking with Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, who benefits from his appearances with Schultz by looking sane by comparison.

Earlier in the program, Schultz could barely contain his anger over a photo showing Republican Gov. Jan Brewer pointing a finger toward President Obama's face and appearing to exchange words with him after the president's arrival in Arizona that day.

By the time Dionne came on the show, the subject matter was Obama's phone-it-in State of the Union address, but MSNBC provided an outlet for its viewers' venom toward Brewer by showing their Twitter tweets at the bottom of the screen. Presumably this entailed someone at MSNBC, maybe even more than one adult, screening the tweets before they were aired.

Here's a tweet that appeared while Schultz was talking with Dionne –

Next time Jan Brewer sticks her finger in President's face, the Secret Service should break it & drop her. #edshow #p2

The tweet came from a Twitter user named "chaplinlives" who resides in Massachusetts — or as we happy few conservatives with domiciles here call it, the People's Republic of Taxachusetts. Consider yourself warned — "chaplinlives" uses a photo of a lion for a Twitter avatar (No, not the one in "The Wizard of Oz"), so he or she is not to be trifled with.

Stephanie Miller, apparently following "chaplinlives" on Twitter, echoed the sentiment on her radio show as described by NewsBuster Tim Graham. If Brewer pointed her finger at Lyndon Johnson, Miller gushed, Johnson "would have broken that off and shoved it up your bleep."

Yes, the same LBJ once condemned by the left for killing babies in Vietnam now hailed as a model for inflicting pain on political opponents. And what a shock to learn last fall that Jackie Kennedy suspected Johnson of involvement in her husband's murder. Bone crusher, indeed.

It was just a few years ago that left wingers were in full lather over the specter of captured terrorists subjected to physical discomfort, their beauty sleep interrupted, constitutional right to satellite TV denied, all to prevent the slaughter of thousands — more — Americans. Such abuse of unrepentant jihadists was tantamount to war crimes, leftists alleged, while stamping their feet for show trials of Bush-era hooligans.

Now when a Republican governor is guilty of insufficient reverence toward Obama, liberals spew the type of bile you'd expect from a crime boss's lackeys after a few too many stingers.

Not that we should be surprised by this. Much the same impulse animated an earlier version of national socialism.

The ignorance of HBO's Bill Maher was oozing from every nook and cranny of his being Friday night.

After telling his Real Time audience that the national debt has only gone up by $1.5 trillion under Obama, the host during the Overtime segment actually said, "Mitt Romney we found out made $27 million, only paid 11 percent in taxes” (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary, first relevant section at 4:00):

Readers are reminded that this is information just revealed Tuesday and Maher still can't get it right.

As NewsBusters reported, Romney in 2009 had Adjusted Gross Income of $21.6 million and paid federal taxes at a 13.9 percent rate.

Maher was wrong on both counts. I guess these numbers came out so long ago he couldn't attain the precise ones to put on his index card.

As an added bonus, a few minutes earlier at the 1:45 mark, Maher said to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.): “You were in Congress in the ’90s. You came in in ’89. Clinton came in in ’93. There was a tax, a small tax raise that he put forward that not one Republican voted for. The economy turned around. Turned out that that tax raise really did a lot of good things for the economy.”

First of all, that wasn't a small tax increase. At the time it was the largest tax hike in American history.

As for it turning around the economy, it had actually been growing since the second quarter of 1991 and was starting to explode by the time Clinton was inaugurated.

What Maher and the rest of his liberal colleagues refuse to acknowledge is that the Gross Domestic Product grew by 2.7 percent in the second quarter of 1991 followed by gains of 1.7 percent and 1.6 percent in the next two quarters.

Surely, this was not explosive growth by any means, but it signaled that the recession had ended in the first quarter of 1991, an immutable fact supported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the entity charged with deciding such things. 

But that's not the whole story, for in 1992, the GDP grew by a robust 3.4 percent. By contrast, in Clinton's first year in office, the GDP actually slowed in response to his tax hikes growing by only 2.9 percent.

Tell the Truth, Bill Maher!

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.