The liberal media took another stunning defeat Tuesday as Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace totally demolished the BBC's Katty Kay on Jeopardy!.

This followed Monday's abysmal performance by MSNBC's Chris Matthews (video follows with commentary).

At the closing bell, Wallace had amassed $22,400 to Kay's pitiful $8,000. Dr. Mehmet Oz came in third with $5,900.

And liberals claim they're the smartest.

Ha!

On Tuesday, May 16, CNN did something that hadn't happened to the network since 1997: The 9 p.m. edition of Piers Morgan Tonight drew an audience of only 39,000 viewers in the important 25-54 age demographic.

These numbers come as a huge blow to the host, liberal, former tabloid editor Piers Morgan.

According to a story by Alex Weprin for the TVNewser,com Website, that day was “a typical boring Tuesday, with little earth-shattering news to drive TV viewers to cable news.”

It was also May sweeps, with the season finale of NCIS: Los Angeles on CBS, America's Got Talent on NBC and Dancing With the Stars on ABC, drawing an astonishing 39 million viewers between them at 9 p.m.

Morgan's hour-long program, during which he interviewed lesbian actress Jane Lynch and Ted Williams, “the man with the golden voice,” drew a total of approximately 284,000 viewers, which was down from a typical weekday but not a record-breaking low overall.

The program's lead-in and lead-out, Anderson Cooper 360, drew about 90,000 demo viewers at both 8 and 10 p.m., also down from a typical weekday this year.

It has been an interesting year so far for Morgan. As NewsBusters previously reported, conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg called Morgan “a niggling pedant” after the interviewer belittled him during the April 30 edition of Piers Morgan Tonight.

Goldberg returned to the program on May 8 and accused Morgan of having a double standard when interviewing Republicans as opposed to Democrats.

Also, during an interview with Tony Perkins soon after the overwhelming passage of Amendment 1 in North Carolina, Morgan asked the president of the Family Research Center why he is “so implacably opposed to two loving people getting married.”

Morgan began his program on CNN on January 17, 2011, following the retirement of long-time interviewer Larry King who was shoved aside ostensibly in pursuit of higher ratings among younger viewers. It doesn't seem to be working out.

Just how in the tank for Barack Obama is CNN's Piers Morgan?

During an interview with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak Wednesday, Morgan actually said to his guest concerning Iran, "President Obama clearly would prefer not to see Israel take any action before the election" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

PIERS MORGAN, HOST: President Obama clearly would prefer not to see Israel take any action before the election. So there is a time sensitivity here. He would see that as politically dangerous for his presidency, and you would be aware of that. How much does that factor into your military planning on Israel’s behalf, that the President of the United States has an election coming in November?

So, in Morgan's view, Israel's national security calculus should involve America's election.

It seems quite doubtful he'd feel that way if the current White House resident were a Republican.

Maybe biased statements like this are responsible for Morgan getting only 39,000 viewers aged 25 to 54 Tuesday, a fifteen year low for CNN.

For the record, this was Barak's answer:

EHUD BARAK: You know, first of all, we are trying to avoid letting it slip into anything that carries a certain relationship to internal politics into here or in Israel. But we basically share the same rhetoric. We say loud and clear, the Americans say the same, the President says the same, a nuclear, military Iran is unacceptable. We are determined to prevent them from turning nuclear, and that no option, except for containment, no option should be removed off the table in order to achieve these objectives. Basically, we are on the same page.

A quick comparable: If George W. Bush had arranged to insert "Did You Know?" promos of his administration's accomplishments and positions into other presidents' biographies on the White House's web site, does anyone think that the press would have ignored it? Not only would they have not ignored it, they and every left-leaning entertainer would (quite justifiably) have ridiculed and criticized him for historical tampering bordering on vandalism.

Well, Dear Leader has done exactly what I described sometime in the past four days to 13 of his past 14 predecessors, sparing only Gerald Ford (I guess that will have to wait until Obama can compare his administration-ending pardons to Ford's pardon of Dick Nixon). After the jump, readers will find pictures of the conclusion of the bio of Franklin Delano Roosevelt from Google Cache as of May 12 and as of today, followed by a bit of commentary from Andrew Malcolm at Investor's Business Daily:

Here is Google's cache as of May 12:

Here is how FDR's White House page looks today (except, of course, that the red box around Team Obama's gratuitous inserted text is mine):

Isn't that something?

Here is most of what Malcolm had to say at IBD beyond quoting other "Did You Know?" items at other presidential bios:

Narcissism update: Obama now inserts himself into online bios of past presidents

It was probably to be expected from a monstrous political ego that considers himself among the top two presidents of the 21st century.

But faced with the apparently frightening possibility of losing his reelection bid, Barack Obama has inserted himself into the online White House bios of almost every president in the last nine decades. To somehow share and compare their achievements. At one point Obama even draws his wife into the biographical additions.

It would be funny if it wasn't so hilarious.

… Imagine the emotional insecurities of a grown man who would have henchman find and gratuitously insert even the faintest link between this 44th president and almost every president back to Calvin Coolidge –"On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people…..President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls."

Malcolm supplies the other bio additions at this column. Those readers of strong, er, constitution who want to see how the Obama administration sullied the other bios can go to the following direct links: Coolidge, Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and (yes) Bush 43.

This of course is not news at the Associated Press (search was on “White House biographies,” not in quotes). The ever-so-pompous New York Times falsely headlined the notion that all of the additions are policy-related (some are most definitely not), and was careful only to quote conservative pundits and others about the additions — as if independents and many Democrats are presumptively okey-dokey with all of this. What rubbish

Does anybody still want to seriously question the propriety of yours truly's decision to begin calling Obama the Punk President on Election Night in 2008?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Really, the only surprise is that consumers came before Obama in the headline — because Obama came before the economy in the underlying article.

A late-day dispatch from Jonathan Fahey and Paul Wiseman at the Associated Press even found someone to say that history will be on Obama's side if gas prices fall to below $3.50 a gallon or so by Labor Day. Excerpts follow (bolds are mine):

---

A threat that's been hanging over the economy is starting to look a lot less menacing.

Oil and gasoline prices are sinking, giving relief to businesses and consumers who a few weeks ago seemed about to face the highest fuel prices ever.

President Barack Obama's re-election prospects could also benefit, especially if prices keep falling as some analysts expect. A majority of Americans disapproved of Obama's handling of gas prices in an AP-GfK poll early this month. But that was before the full effect of the recent drop had reached drivers.

… The economy could gain, too. Consumers who spend less on fuel have more to spend on other purchases, from autos and furniture to appliances and vacations, that could help drive economic output and job growth.

The price drop will likely boost consumer confidence. It also comes at a timely moment: Ahead of the Memorial Day weekend, a busy one for travel and entertainment spending.

… The average national gasoline price is expected to fall as low as $3.50 a gallon this summer. It could even dip near $3 in some states.

… "People were prepared emotionally for $4.50 or $5 gasoline, so there's a sense of relief," (chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service Tom) Kloza says.

… And Obama can look forward to further help this fall. After Labor Day, refiners can begin using cheaper ingredients to make gasoline because wintertime clean air rules are less stringent. That should push gasoline prices lower between Labor Day and Election Day, barring hurricanes that can disrupt supplies or other global events, says Kloza.

"History will be working on behalf of the Democrats," he said.

It's as if the post-Labor Day situation with altered gasoline blends has never, ever come up before in any other presidential election year. Zheesh.

The only trouble with the AP's take on gas prices is the reason why it now appears they will come down a bit during the summer: "expectations of lower demand as the global economy slows." It's as if any impact from that critical factor which might cause overall U.S. economic growth and therefore job growth to stay at their current mediocre levels won't matter. Sure, guys.

All in all, the report comes off as the kind of piece ordered up by AP management or expected of AP writers any time a development which really is a mixed bag can be spun as good news presents itself. That seems to be the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, mission in life any more.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Tanzina Vega of The New York Times reported Spanish-language broadcaster Univision took the opportunity during its upfront presentation Tuesday to do some gloating about its ratings gains against struggling NBC. (NBC has owned the other major Latino network, Telemundo, for the last ten years.)

During the presentation – which included a dance number – the network’s top ad salesman David Lawenda took a few shots at NBC by pointing to how Univision had beaten NBC on 195 nights in prime time last year, including a slide that showed the network’s peacock symbol keeling over.

This is a sign of how the English-language networks can at times lose in the ratings to a popular Spanish-language show in America. To further drive home the point, Mr. Lawenda used a larger-than-life scale to urge advertisers to “balance your plan.”

On the side of the scale touching the ground were the major English-language networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) and on the other side was Univision. “Latinos don’t just consume Univision content,”  Mr. Lawenda said. “We’re part of their lives.”

He also brought on ABC "Modern Family" star Sofia Vergara to vouch for how she watches.

“I might work somewhere else but this is where I live,” Ms. Vergara said, echoing the network’s theme of the day, “Latinos Live Here.”

Ms. Vergara poked fun at Mr. Lawenda for not being Latino, to which he responded, “Me siento Latino en el corazón y en las caderas.” (“I feel Latino in my heart and in my hips.”)

NBC may have already counter-mocked Univision with its Manuel Ortiz Show skit (which has also featured Vergara).

Lawrence O'Donnell yesterday on The Last Word vehemently denounced Newsweek's "The First Gay President" cover because he thought it could mislead many people into believing that message. Ironically (and hilariously) "FIRST GAY PRESIDENT" in bold capital letters along with Obama's picture kept appearing on the MSNBC screen throughout O'Donnell's denunciation. His own screen graphics amusingly worked in contradiction to his arguments as if to mock O'Donnell.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Starting at the three minute mark, O'Donnell launches into his attack on the Newsweek cover…as "FIRST GAY PRESIDENT" appears on the screen with him:

Newsweek had two headlines they were thinking of going with. "Please Buy This Magazine" was one…and the other was "The First Gay President."

After turning to his panel, O'Donnell edged himself ever closer to bulging neck vein rage (accompanied by the onscreen "FIRST GAY PRESIDENT") over the possible misinformation being spread by the Newsweek cover:

We live in a wicked stupid country, okay. This is a country that believes, in a very substantial proportion, that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Huge number, millions and millions of people…like 30 percent, think he wasn't born American. They think he's Kenyan. Crazy, crazy beliefs. And Newsweek, it seems to me, has to consider the responsibility of sending out into such a collectively stupid country and stupid electorate this thing, which is the only sentence in Newsweek that most people are going to read this week – the sentence on the cover.

And the only sentence that most people will read IF they watch your show, Lawrence, is the "FIRST GAY PRESIDENT" graphic that kept appearing on the screen with you. Oh, and an oatmeal cookie to the first person who can accurately tabulate the total amount of time in this eleven and a half minute segment that MSNBC's "FIRST GAY PRESIDENT" appeared on the screen.

It's becoming obvious the Obama-loving media are in a full-scale panic over recent polling data showing the President trailing Republican contender Mitt Romney.

On MSNBC's Hardball Wednesday, host Chris Matthews actually compared Romney to the low budget restaurant chain Denny's (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, this is how Mitt won the primaries. He spent tens of millions of dollars destroying his rivals with negative TV ads hoping that people would vote for him out of desperation. They certainly weren’t going to vote for Santorum or Gingrich when Mitt and his moneyed friends were through keelhauling them in one nasty ad after the other.

So this is what we’re getting this November: a candidate we know, and one waiting in the shadows hoping things get so hopeless that we elect that guy with the nice wife and kids, that one who won’t answer questions. Well right now, he won’t even tell us how he got rich for the simple reason he doesn’t want us to know the answers. He just wants us, well he just wants himself to be the alternative, the guy we end up with when nothing else is around. You know, sort of like going to Denny’s.

To begin with, Matthews might have been channeling Mike Huckabee who said in January:

"I've told people that I think Mitt Romney is the 'Denny's' of the Republican field," Mr. Huckabee said in an interview with The Washington Times-affiliated "America's Morning News" radio program. The chain is "not the restaurant you jump in the car and say, 'Honey, it's our anniversary. Let's go to 'Denny's.' But 'Denny's' is the place that, when everything else is closed, or you just want to go someplace where you know what you're going to get and it's going to be priced in a way that you can afford it — 'OK, we'll go to Denny's.'"

Huckabee elaborated saying, "Mitt Romney is the guy that, even though he is not very many people's first choice, he is consistent."

As such, Huckabee's comparison was a compliment. Matthews' was an insult.

Romney's worth upwards of $250 million. You think he even knows what Denny's is?

More importantly, what's this nonsense about us not knowing who the former Massachusetts governor is?

We certainly know a heck of a lot more about him today than we did Barack Obama in 2008. That didn't prevent Matthews from getting a thrill up his leg for the then junior senator.

In reality, we know tons about Romney, and that's the problem for the Hardball host.

Romney's successful, rich, attractive, smart, has executive experience, business experience, a gorgeous family, and no blemishes on his record to disqualify him as a candidate.

And this is driving Obama-lovers like Matthews crazy, for they just can't pin anything on Romney to assure their pony in this race a victory.

So instead they sling mud.

Isn't that what the candidates are supposed to do, and the so-called journalists are supposed to ferret out the truth for the electorate?

Or is that a bygone era that people like Matthews have completely forgotten?

To his credit, the AP reporter wasn't particularly impressed with the fact that the government was able to run a single-month surplus of $59 billion in April. To his detriment, he didn't note that somehow, the national debt also went up by $110 billion:

The interactive model used to get the above information is here.

That's a $169 billion difference which requires an explanation; but a totally incurious press isn't supplying one. Even if one ignores intergovernmental holdings (which in my opinion one shouldn't), the $69 billion increase in "debt held by the public" (which is really "debt held by anyone who isn't part of the federal government") is a $128 billion swing from the reported surplus.

If the national debt is increasing for "off-budget" reasons, what are they, and will such differentials continue? Because if they do, the nation, which was about $700 billion away from its $16.394 trillion debt ceiling on April 30, is going to hit the limit before Election Day, no matter what kind of evasive maneuvers Tim Geithner might deploy in the meantime (if he even really wants to, of which we can't be sure; a pre-election "crisis" might come in handy for his boss's reelection chances). The additions the the national debt caused by monthly "budget" deficits alone (in quotes because the government hasn't had a real budget for three years and counting) will probably add at the very least another $300 billion. Today's statement by House Speaker John Boehner about his posture in future debt-ceiling negotiations, which otherwise seemed to come out of nowhere, may be rooted in the belief that the administration is evaluating hitting the limit before Election Day as a campaign strategy.

Crutsinger also didn't provide readers with the two key components of the Treasury Statement. Receipts were $319 billion, the highest in four years, but more than 20% below the $404 billion officially collected in April 2008 (you remember, during that absolutely awful Bush economy). Outlays were a ridiculously low $260 billion, about $110 billion less than March. If we're to believe that spending is coming down to the level consistently for the foreseeable future, it might be cause for celebration. Dream on.

Crutsinger was far from alone in ignoring the large April debt increase. So did Reuters, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal in their related reports.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Hours after New York blogger Christian Browne wrote on his blog, “The New York Conservative,” that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be quickly executed, Google shut down his blog, which was hosted on Google's free Blogger service.

While the blog – including the post that appears to have triggered its deletion – have since been restored, the circumstances of its deletion by Google remain murky – and raise a serious issue both for Google and for conservatives who use the web to spread conservative ideas and messages.

Writing on Breitbart.com, Browne explains what happened – and what Google isn't saying about it:

On Monday, the pro-U.S. security group Secure American Now posted a link to my KSM piece on its website. The link received numerous hits and generated multiple comments on the Secure America Now page. However, a few hours after Secure America Now linked to the New York Conservative, I received a form email, no reply possible, from Google Blogger informing me that the New York Conservative had been deleted. The email classified my blog as “spam” in violation of Google’s terms of service. There was no further explanation. My URL was dead; all of the content, everything I ever posted, was gone.

---

I made two telephone calls to Google to protest and demand a reason for the deletion of my blog. The Google representatives told me that Google does not provide “live support” for Google Blogger, meaning you cannot speak with anyone at all about the deletion. The representatives directed me to the Google Blogger website, where the company extols its commitment to free speech and its great reluctance to censor its bloggers.

Obviously, I do not know why Google deleted my blog, but it's awfully odd that The New York Conservative was summarily executed after a post in which I called for the summary execution of KSM. Could it be that Google found the post politically incorrect and therefore offensive? Could it be that Google thought the post was dangerous because it had potential to incite Islamists? Given the company’s self-proclaimed devotion to free speech, I think Google ought to explain why it deleted the blog. If calling for the legal execution of the confessed mastermind of the murders of 3,000 people on American soil is too controversial a topic for Google Blogger, perhaps the famously progressive company should re-think its proclamation of support for the free exchange of ideas on its platforms.

Browne raises good points about Google, but the episode also raises an important point for conservatives: Depending on Google, Facebook and Twitter as the primary method of disseminating information online puts your message at risk of being deleted by automated filters triggered by the abuse of “flag spam” tools, and technology companies that rely too heavily on automated systems to keep out spammers who try to create fake blogs or social media profiles to promote junk websites.

Unfortunately as I've documented here at NewsBusters repeatedly, there are groups of malicious internet users who have figured out how to target political content with which they disagree and get it removed (usually only temporarily) by "flagging" it as spam or obscenity enough times such that the profile gets automatically deleted by Google, Twitter, etc.

It's time that Google and other user-generated content websites wise up and realize the sad reality that liberals and radical Muslims have no problem abusing the companies' rightful desire not to subsidize speech that is obscene or pure unsolicited advertising. Considering how sophisticated their text analysis software already is, I'm sure a way can be found to protect legitimate websites from being targeted by the online speech police.