RELATED: Joe Scarborough: The Press Favored Obama By A Longshot Over Hillary

The New York Times‘ Bill Keller was on hand to defend candidate Rick Perry‘s suit-wearing abilities (I actually think he tends to wear his collar too high. Thoughts?), later opining that the White House must be getting a chuckle with the way the GOP candidates have, as he sees it, gone from accusing Obama of being a socialist to accusing Mitt Romney of being a capitalist.

Keller also thought Obama would be well-advised to bring Clinton on as his running mate this year, despite obstacles like, oh, Obama and Clinton and Biden (oh my). “But other than those little speed bumps…” he joked. “Look, it’s the one thing, I think, that the Democrats could do to nearly guarantee Obama re-election. It would generate enough excitement that they might actually have some coattails and help out a little bit with the Senate and House. And it would position Clinton as their heir apparent for 2016, assuming she wants to run.”

Have a look, courtesy of MSNBC:

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

RELATED: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: The Rap On Iowa? ‘Too White, Too Evangelical, Too Rural’

The comment prompted a fair bit of discussion and criticism. Last night, for instance, Bernard Goldberg expressed something like distaste for the observation, telling Fox News host Bill O’Reilly that the mainstream media would never say, for example, that “South Carolina is too black.”

RELATED: Bernie Goldberg On Iowa: Mainstream Media Would Never Say ‘South Carolina Is Too Black’

Now, as The Atlantic Wire reported this morning, the network is clarifying Mitchell’s statement and addressing the criticism (which came, primarily, in the form of accusations of editorializing) that stemmed from it. Here’s what NBC spokeswoman Erika Masonhall had to say:

That line was part of her report from last night’s “NBC Nightly News” on why Iowa does matter. As Andrea mentioned, when she said “The rap on Iowa…” she was referencing critics who argue that the state shouldn’t carry so much weight because it doesn’t proportionally represent the rest of the country. She then interviews analysts and Iowa voters who explain why the state is so important in the election cycle.

The discussion surrounding Mitchell’s comment points to an interesting time in the news industry, when reporters are almost expected, by the more jaded among us at any rate, to inject their own points of view into their coverage, even while we stand at the ready to call them them out and admonish them for it. (Which, admittedly, can comprise about 93.2% of the fun of watching certain news programs.)

In its write-up, The Atlantic Wire contrasted my reaction to those of others weighing in on Mitchell by describing me as a “less partisan observer.” (For the record, I’m pretty partisan. I just tend to save it for columns and the Thanksgiving table.) But that’s what happens when we observe, isn’t it? We view through a lens. Indeed, so much of the information we consume is filtered through the (sometimes clearly and openly, sometimes less so) biased and even agenda-laden viewpoints of bloggers, reporters, editors and talking heads. It’s not so much, perhaps, that we expect the news media to tell us what to think, but we do anticipate it to have a bias. (Unless we agree with that bias, of course. Then it’s truth.)

Was Mitchell editorializing in what was expected to be a straightforward news report? I don’t think so, personally. While what a reporter chooses to say or leave out of a report may certainly reflect a bias, I read Mitchell’s comment as merely providing a framework on which to hang her findings. She was providing context, background and maybe even a little bit of seasoning to demonstrate how some view Iowa versus the reality of the state. And while I didn’t take away that Iowa is, necessarily, “so important in the election cycle,” the report did reflect that it played a role that is unique and noteworthy exactly because of the discussion and disagreements surrounding its role in the election process.

—

Update: Exciting! Bernie Goldberg, whom I referred to and quoted earlier in this post, took to our comments section to offer his reaction to my analysis of his statements regarding Mitchell. (And, yes, Mediaite verified that it was indeed Mr. Goldberg himself, and not someone in Golbergian costume.)

Mr. Goldberg took issue with my having described his comments as expressing “something like distaste” for what Mitchell had said during her report, specifically when she characterized “the rap on Iowa” on the state being “too white” to accurately represent American voters.

Here, for your reference, is what Goldberg had to say:

Alex Alvarez writes that I “expressed something like distaste” for Andrea Mitchell’s comment on NBC that “the rap on Iowa” is that the state is “too white, too evangelical, too rural.”

Where Alvarez finds my distaste is way beyond me.

I was on Bill O’Reilly’s program on FOX when he asked what I thought of Ms. Mitchell’s comment. I said I thought she was “absolutely, 100 percent correct.” I further said that “everything” she said in a sound bite Bill played on the air was correct. I even said that some conservatives think this is an example of media bias, “but it isn’t.”
From this Alvarez concludes that “I expressed something like distaste” for Ms. Mitchell’s observation. Really?

As an afterthought, I said that despite the fact that she was completely right, you won’t find any mainstream journalists saying South Carolina is “too black.” Alvarez quoted me correctly on that one. But that’s about the only thing he [Ed. note: Mr. Goldberg later wrote back to us noting he'd found that I am, indeed, a "she" and not a "he."] got right pertaining to me.

How can a commentator be so sloppy? Here’s how: It’s a safe bet he didn’t watch me on The Factor, that he didn’t hear a word I said on that program and that he didn’t even take the time to watch a video of the show. It’s also a safe bet that he read something somewhere on the Internet that characterized my comments as unfavorable to Ms. Mitchell, so he ran with it. Nice going, Alex! This gives sloppy a bad name.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t simply my “version” of events. This is precisely what happened. Mediaite owes me and its readers a formal “clarification.” I understand that commentators are entitled to give their opinion, but even commentators have to be fair. Alex Alvarez wasn’t. He got it wrong and now he and his editors — if he has any — need to make it right.

Bernard Goldberg

Mr. Goldberg, I did watch you on The Factor prior to writing my commentary. In fact, I linked to a video of your appearance in this very post, immediately after quoting you, so that our readers could listen to your exact statements for themselves and, thus, have all the context and information they’d need to come with their own conclusions.

While I welcome and thank you for your comments and take these into consideration, I stand by my original analysis of your response as I read it when I was putting together this column. If, as we agree, Mitchell was not expressing a bias but, rather, providing context when stating that the “rap” on Iowa was that it was “too white, too evangelical, too rural,” why then bring up the idea that one “won’t find” a journalist characterizing, say, South Carolina as being “too black” to provide an accurate depiction of our country’s voters? If this was an issue of context and a multi-layered look at a voting population’s culture and background, why then focus on the racial aspect of Mitchell’s comment? It wouldn’t have been any more or less incorrect or inappropriate had she described, say, Miami as being “too Latino” to offer accurate representation, or perhaps Chicago as being “too Catholic,” or New York City’s Manhattan as being “too urban.” She’s discussing statistics, not making a value judgment. Why would a journalist not also refer to statistics when it comes to black voters? That you mentioned race (even as an afterthought) showed, to me as a viewer and a commentator, that you found something, yes, “like distaste” for her having specifically included race in her characterization of Iowa.

If you believe I misrepresented you in my analysis of your comment, well, then, I do apologize. That was never and would never be my intent. What you meant to say was evidently distinct, as you’ve noted, from how I interpreted your comment.

And, once again, I thank you sincerely for taking the time to weigh in.

h/t The Atlantic Wire

“The rap on Iowa,” she said. “It doesn’t represent the rest of the country… too white, too evangelical, too rural. Still here, politics are personal.”

RELATED: Chris Christie Threatens To Go ‘Jersey Style’ On Iowa If They Don’t Vote For Mitt Romney

After noting that Iowa Republican caucus-goers don’t really have a “very good track record for picking presidents,” Mitchell spoke with network political analyst Mike Murphy, who described the Iowa caucus as being part of a sort of “winnowing out” process when it comes to candidates.

RELATED: Rachel Maddow On Ron Paul: ‘Iowa Republicans Don’t Pick Presidents; They Pick Huckabees’

Would the media, then, do well to ignore any headway a candidate makes place in any state housing a Pizza Ranch?

Have a look at Mitchell’s take on the “rap on Iowa” below, via NBC:

h/t Real Clear Politics

RELATED: Report: Donald Trump Officially Switches Party From Republican To ‘Unaffiliated’

Trump shared that he likes the idea of making America “great again,” adding later than the current GOP field reflects a certain “madness:”

I think when somebody like Ron Paul gets such a large percentage of the vote potentially, I look at the polls, and I think it’s absolutely madness to even think about it. I just see the candidates go up and down. It’s like yo-yos, they go up and down, they’re gone, they’re forever forgotten, then they re-emerge. Now what’s going on is very strange. I don’t think I’ve seen anything like it and I’ve been following politics for a long time.

That said, he “likes Rick Santorum,” who is a “nice guy.”

He made it clear that, when it comes to running himself, “I do have my ducks in line if I want to do it, but I’d love to see the Republicans pick somebody that was going to win and take over this country and frankly, to use the expression, make America great again.” For those who don’t speak Trumpese, allow me to offer a quick translation: “I’m gonna string any voters still potentially interested in me along as much as I can for as long as I can continue to garner attention and publicity.”

Yay!

Watch below via Fox News:

Have a look at the interview, from Fox News:

As always, Times Square was replete with tourists packed into the streets in the comparatively mild winter weather (compared to other years) to sing, dance, provide cable news entertainment fodder and watch the ball drop. As for that ball, here is everything you need to know, via Scientific American:

BIG: The Geodesic sphere is 12 feet in diameter and weighs in at 11, 875 pounds. That is about “the length of an average SUV” and “the weight of four compact cars,” according Lighting Science Group Design Works who did the ball’s most recent makeover in 2008.

BRIGHT: 2,688 Waterford crystal triangles of various sizes, some with intricately carved facets, shapes and motifs with different themes like joy, love and friendship.

MORE COLORFUL THAN EVER: This year’s ball has 32,256 Philips Luxeon LEDs (three times more than last year). Philips Lighting says that its red, green, white and blue LED modules help to create a color palette of over 16 million colors and billions of color patterns.

MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT than last year: According to the Times Square Alliance’s website this year’s ball is “10-20% more energy efficient than last year’s already energy-efficient Ball, consuming only the same amount of energy per hour as it would take to operate two traditional home ovens.”

Watch the ball drop via CNN below:

Watch one of the Times Square performances: Pitbull – Give Me Everything:

Look, 2012, I know you think you’re so important because the Mayans said everything ends with you. But short of sharks rising from the seas, the sun mysteriously vanishing, or some other supernatural event taking place, you’re really not going to come close to just how insanely screwed up this year was. You know what the first big story of 2011 was? Thousands of birds dropping dead from for no apparent reason. In more than one place! Chicken Little may have been right after all. Of course, all the dead birds were immediately followed by over two million fish dying in the Chesapeake and thousands of dead crabs washing up on the shores of England. How much more “end of the world” can you get than that?

And isn’t 2012 just a little insulted that Harold Camping tried to steal its thunder twice this year by predicting the end of the world would commence in May, then recalculating his prediction to October? Many Christians who believe the apocalypse is coming can’t say with absolute certainty that it would happen this or next year. Though as Glenn Beck, the arbiter of all things apocalyptic and conspiratorial, pointed out, it’s never too early to prepare for the end of the world.

Oh, and let’s not forget all those natural disasters that happened this year. Japan was hit by an earthquake that triggered both a tsunami and a full-fledged nuclear crisis. The United States was hit by an earthquake and a hurricane around the same time. And on top of all that, it snowed before Halloween! Now that’s a nightmare before Christmas.

It’s no coincidence that Time marked “The Protestor” as the Person of the Year. From the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street, 2011 has been a strong year for people-powered protests. But don’t make the mistake of thinking everything has turned out for the better. The ousting of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was a mere prelude to the equally repressive (if not more so) tactics of the military leadership now in charge of the country. Protestors in nations like Syria are being targeted for death by their leaders. Kim Jong-Un has been the Supreme Leader of North Korea for less than a week, and he has already issued a threat of war against South Korea. The Libyan rebels who united against the regime of Moammar Gaddafi have now split into different factions competing for power. In fact, this week al-Qaeda sent forces to Libya to establish a “fighting force” there.

There’s something poetic about all of this; the crumbling of the forces of evil only to find another evil taking its place. And sure, there is no “scientific basis” or “actual evidence” that the world is ending. In fact, NASA has insisted the only big event to occur in December 2012 will be the winter solstice. But doesn’t it feel like the world is collapsing around us?

I mean, in a year marked with international protests and the like, the most Googled name of 2011 was Rebecca Black. Also on the list (in order) are Google+, the late Ryan Dunn, Casey Anthony, Battlefield 3, the as-of-yet unannounced iPhone 5, etc. The Fukushima nuclear plant ranked eighth on the list, however, which was beaten by the next-highest search: Adele. Meanwhile, the most searched name on Bing was “Justin Bieber.” And if we live in a world where people are on the tip of their toes listening to the insane ramblings of Charlie Sheen or taking Donald Trump seriously as a presidential candidate, it’s possible the end may already be upon us.

And sure, talking about the end of the world in the media is just a way for people to give airtime to a story that the vast majority of human beings thinks is beyond absurd and the only reason they might do it is for publicity and maybe some ratings, but what if the apocalypse actually does happen next year? Every single newscaster who reported on the end of the world should be up for a posthumous Pulitzer if it happens. And propping up the end of the world isn’t just good for ratings, it’s also good for the tourism industry. Mexico is launching a year-long campaign to attract tourists to Mayan territory so they can marvel at how such primitive people could predict an event so far in the future.

Now let us hypothesize that the world does not, in fact, come to an end next year. The question remains: when will it end? Isaac Newton predicted the world would not end any time before 2060, so if we’re all still alive in 2013, congratulations! We have anywhere between 47 and several million years left to go!

Personally, if the world does end in my lifetime, I’m hoping it’s less like that awful 2012 movie and more like The Walking Dead. Now that would be an end of the world to remember. (If anyone were around afterwards that to remember it.)

RELATED: George Will: Obama Needs Supercommittee To Fail If He Wants To Run Against Do-Nothing Congress

Well, lo and behold, reports now say the president will be adopting that political tactic as part of his reelection strategy, following his legislative victory in pressuring Republicans to pass a payroll tax cut extension last week. According to The New York Times, the president is going to spend less time in 2012 battling with Congressional Republicans and more time delivering “the theme of economic justice for ordinary Americans.”

[Deputy Press Secretary Joshua] Earnest said the strategy had successfully planted “the image of a gridlocked, dysfunctional Congress, and a president who is leaving no stone unturned to try to find solutions to the difficult financial challenges and economic challenges facing the country.”

Mr. Obama began laying the groundwork for his new strategy in early December with a speech in the hardscrabble town of Osawatomie, Kan., where he said that “breathtaking greed” had contributed to country’s economic troubles and that this is a “make-or-break moment for the middle class.”

In his weekly address on Saturday, Mr. Obama praised Congress for passing the two-month tax cut extension, but made it clear that the lawmakers acted only under intense public pressure.

However, while some might see the president’s strategy as a smart political move, there is a risk to a president making another branch of government a political foe. As The Washington Post notes, Obama could be seen as “giving up on the legislative process in favor of politics,” not to mention the president will still need to work with Congress over the coming year to work on important pieces of legislation.

RELATED: Fox News Sunday Panel Questions Whether Obama Can Successfully Run With Bad Economy In His Purview

The president has already taken to filling in the gaps where he believes Congress has dropped the ball with the administration’s “We Can’t Wait” campaign launched several months ago. He has already used the power of the executive order to implement pieces of his proposed jobs bill until Congress officially makes it into a law, a move that has given Republicans more to go after him for.

However, while the president’s reelection strategy may seem strange to some, it is not without precedent. Harry Truman launched a similar campaign strategy against a “do-nothing Congress” in 1948, and successfully won reelection against Thomas Dewey. And given the unpredictability of the GOP primary contest at this point, Obama’s strategy stands a chance of working.

RELATED: Sarah Palin Was Disappointed In GOP Debate Bickering, Crowns Gingrich Winner

Gingrich stated that he was a “great admirer” of Palin’s, and argued that her record of political reform in Alaska was impressive enough that he would expect her to bring the same spirit to Washington. But the candidate also brought up the possibility that Palin’s record on energy independence would make her an ideal candidate for Energy Secretary in his administration.

“I can’t imagine anybody who would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Governor Palin.”

You can hear the audio of Gingrich’s modest proposal below:

h/t Huffington Post

Paul Gigot saw this as a sign that the president understands he cannot run on the economy this time around, and so Obama’s strategy in 2012 may be to go after Congressional Republicans and the rich, among other groups. With roughly 41 percent of voters saying Obama deserves to be reelected, Mara Liasson predicted Obama’s best hope is to convince those who are currently against him that he needs another term to continue fixing the economy and deal with other major issues, pointing to low consumer confidence as one explanation for the president’s low poll numbers.

RELATED: President Obama: Not Sure Why The GOP Is Suddenly Opposed To A Middle Class Tax Break

Liz Cheney argued that increased regulation of the financial sector, health care reform, and the stimulus plan have all had a negative impact on the economy and didn’t address the issue of entitlement reform. She criticized his foreign policy for being weak, and when Wallace brought up Obama’s “ask Osama bin Laden” quote, Cheney agreed that taking out the al-Qaeda leader was important but now the focus is on Iraq and Afghanistan. Or rather, the peripheral focus. Cheney claimed that Obama’s foreign policy doesn’t get enough coverage because of how much negative press he gets on the economy.

Wallace couldn’t help but note the president’s various political strategies over the past year, from his phrase “winning the future” in the 2011 State of the Union to his mission to “be the adult in the room” during the debt ceiling debate, and now as a “champion of the middle class.” Juan Williams took issue with Cheney’s earlier assertion and argued that most Americans give the president high marks on national security issues. But shifting back to the economy, Williams agreed with the president’s strategy to go after Republicans for opposing some of the policies he has proposed that many economists have argued would be beneficial to the economy.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox:

The Republican race for the nomination is down to two: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. That was the clear message from a group of political reporters who gathered to discuss the so-far bizarre race for the GOP nod. Moderator Franklin Foer didn’t hold anything back, though, in calling Gingrich a “circus incarnate,” and expressed surprise that the former House Speaker has risen in the polls in recent weeks. The panel explained that Gingrich’s ascent is really the result of others falling by the wayside and thus clearing the way. But Ryan Lizza hasn’t counted out the yet-to-be-named candidate who could emerge in the spring during a gap period. Everyone senses weakness in this field, and there’s oppotunity to be had.

Jodi Kantor tried to make sense of Gingrich’s popularity. She said that Republicans have rallied around Gingrich in the past, and that really on both sides this election season people are stuck talking about the 1990s and how things were then. And, she added, the conservative base likes his ability to stand up and challenge the Democrats. On the other side of the equation sits Romney who has not appealed as much to conservatives, and who Lizza called “mechanical” in seemingly both speech and strategy. Kantor warned that Romney could also face a real test down the line once someone pushes him to explain and defend his lone issue, the economy, and what exactly he plans to do to turn things around.

And now that it’s shaping up finally to be a two-man race – the panel left candidates like Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and others for dead – we’ll see more attacks from Romney and Gingrich. With Barack Obama‘s people also looking to attack Romney’s record as we move closer to November, the former governor may be in store for some mudslinging from both sides. As the debates have proven, though, Obama will remain on the defensive as well all the way through about the key issues. One issue that hasn’t been addressed this season, the panel noted, is the global economic crisis, which Lizza pointed out is something that can’t be blamed on Obama, so it hasn’t been a part of the GOP talking points.

This event was sold on the weird and wacky characters and events from the past few months, yet the debate centered more on the question of where we go from here. Herman Cain’s name barely showed up, for one. It seems that it’s time to get serious.

What They Said

“The thing to fixate on is not the weirdness of the weird candidates, it’s the weirdness of the normal candidate.”
- Richard Just believes the Republicans are scraping at the bottom of the barrel this time around

“Competency isn’t going to be what they go after, lack of a core is what they’ll go after.”
- Ryan Lizza says that Romney’s inconsistency could be devastating for him

“Presidency isn’t just about rationality and making the right decision. It’s about politics.”
- Franklin Foer questions whether Romney has what it takes

“He’s like a conductor of anxiety.”
- Jodi Kantor’s description of Donald Trump’s role in politics

“The strategy for Republicans should be about Obama’s record, not about your own candidate.”
- Ryan Lizza anticipates this election will come down to feelings about the current POTUS

What We Thought

• Foer did a great job keeping the conversation moving, but we were most impressed by how the entire panel was so inquisitive of each other. Not only had they done the research to read what the others had written on the subject of the election, but they also came prepared with followup questions for each other. We’d never seen this kind of preparation and genuine curiosity from panelists.
• It’s rare to see such a great combination of expertise and charisma from a group on stage together. They talked politics for an hour without getting too wonky for the onlookers, and they kept a serious discussion lighthearted thanks to one-liners, mostly supplied for Foer. This wasn’t your same-old conversation about the election 11 months away, and we appreciated that.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Another rare clean performance from the audience at this event. Five questions asked, many more answered during the Q&A. The audience kept the panel on its toes, and also sparked further discussion about candidates, issues, and possibilities that went unmentioned. A job well done.

I’m not saying that it’s never acceptable to use footage of a deceased politician in a political ad. In Ronald Reagan’s case, it has become fashionable to point out that, in many ways, he was far too moderate for today’s Republican Party, and even that President Reagan lines up more with President Obama than any of today’s GOP leaders. Indeed, President Obama himself frequently quotes the late President in order to underscore that point.

What I am saying is that serious people ought to exercise great caution in how they treat deceased politicians, especially those with whom they disagree. The DNC’s ad notes an apparent flip-flop by Romney on the subject of the much-revered, if not outright deified, late President Reagan, then employs a clip of President Reagan saying, “There you go again,” which is from this exchange with Walter Mondale at a 1984 presidential debate:

Even though I wasn’t old enough to vote then, I insisted that my dad let me throw the switch for Mondale, since his 1980 vote for John Anderson showed he obviously couldn’t be trusted. The point is, I’m far from a Ronald Reagan fan. That’s not the point.

The DNC ad poses President Reagan’s “There you go again” as a response to Mitt Romney, which it obviously was not. It was cheap and disrespectful for the ad’s producers to have Ronald Reagan deliver their punchline from beyond the grave. He wasn’t articulating a policy position, or saying something that was substantively related to Romney’s character. It was just a cheap punchline, the delivery of which Reagan obviously has no chance to decline. Would the political media be this silent if Mitt Romney’s campaign used a clip of late Sen. Ted Kennedy in a similar manner?

Maybe they would, and maybe I’ve just progressed into the next phase of old-guy-dom, because I keep thinking things like, “Back in my day, we had respect for the dead.”

This isn’t the worst thing anyone could ever do, but the fact that it was done so casually, and that nobody seems to care at all, bothers me. I don’t want to see a flurry of ads featuring revered political figures duking it out like a proxy army of the living dead. Hopefully, we’re better than that. Or maybe, I’m just getting old. Now get off my lawn.

The Democratic National Committee announced the new campaign via releasing the following statement:

As Mitt Romney continues to say or do anything to become President -including deceive Americans – the Democratic National Committee today is taking its effort to hold Romney accountable for his words to an all new level with a new television ad running in six markets: Albuquerque, NM; Raleigh-Durham, NC; Columbus, OH;
Pittsburgh, PA; Washington, DC; and, Milwaukee, WI on a mix of broadcast and cable.

The TV ad is a trailer for a longer video treatment available on the DNC’S new website, MittvMitt.com – an effort to highlight Mitt Romney’s fight against himself on a range of issues from the economy and immigration to a woman’s right to choose and workers’ rights.

To further amplify the effort, the DNC, along with state Democratic parties and elected officials across the country will hold events to watch the video and put Mitt Romney’s fight against himself on full display for voters in key states. We are holding press events everywhere the ad is running and in several other key states: NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, WI, IA, NH, FL, and MA.

The 30 second version:

The longer version:

(H/T Business Insider)

RELATED: NBC Apologizes To Michele Bachmann For ‘Disrespectful’ Jimmy Fallon Song

“This shouldn’t be tolerated, it’s demeaning,” Rep. Bachmann argued, adding that “it’s an outrage if it happens to a liberal” but apparently it was acceptable for conservatives to be treated in such a way. “Of course I accept the apology but my guess is that it would have been the president of the NBC that would have been apologizing not a senior vice president,” she noted. While she did not say that bandleader Questlove should be fired for the intransigence (“Unemployment is bad enough, I don’t want to see anybody else thrown out on the street”), but she did call the claim that it was spontaneous “disingenuous… he had tweeted twice before the show what his intentions were.”

RELATED: Michele Bachmann’s Entrance On Jimmy Fallon? The Fishbone Song ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch’

While she does say she expected liberals to have been apologized to more profusely, Rep. Bachmann did not demand another apology and explicit called for no one to be fired. That said, it is clear this incident is not quite water under the bridge just yet.

The interview via KLIF Dallas (h/t MRCTV) below:

The debate, the 19th so far, will begin at 8pm EST and be moderated by Wolf Blitzer. It is being hosted by CNN, the Republican Party of Florida and the Hispanic Leadership Network.

***THIS LIVE EVENT HAS ENDED***

RELATED: Newt Gingrich Is Officially The Frontrunner According To Recent GOP Public Policy Poll

Goldberg told O’Reilly that it had been a challenging topic for him because “there are a whole bunch of people who I respect tremendously” who were happy that Gingrich turned on Pelley for asking the question, but “I’m just on the other side of this one. What did Scott Pelley do that was wrong?” Goldberg noted that, while he was not a legal scholar, he had called Judge Andrew Napolitano for his opinion on the matter, and that he had said that, “at absolute best, it’s unsettled law.” If that was it’s status, Goldberg concluded, it was worth discussing at a debate.

O’Reilly noted that Pelley had challenged Gingrich on whether the people being killed were guilty in any legal sense. “A moderator is supposed to ask questions,” Goldberg replied. “Gingrich brought up the term guilty… and Scott Pelley said– and I think you woud’ve said– not guilty in any court of law.” O’Reilly declined to confirm whether he would have said the same, but noted the point anyway.

RELATED: Brit Hume: Gingrich’s Debate Performances & ‘Uncle Newt’ Persona Helping Him In Polls

The segment via Fox News below:

“Ask any military lawyer, ask any person who knows about the Geneva Conventions that we are signatories to,” Sen. McCain told King in response to the clips of, among others, Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann answering that the endorse the use of waterboarding on Guantánamo Bay detainees for interrogation. “We actually prosecuted Japanese war criminals specifically for the act of waterboarding against America.”

RELATED: Watch: The Full CBS News-National Journal GOP Foreign Policy Debate

Sen. McCain made two points against the use of waterboarding, the first being that “it doesn’t work.” “If you put enough physical pain on someone, they will tell you anything they think you want to hear.” The second point was about America’s moral standing around the world. Sen. McCain lamented the impact of the Abu Ghraib scandal and added that “waterboarding is an affront to all of the standards that we believe in and adhere to of humane treatment of people who are human beings.” He repeated that it didn’t work, and that he still supported closing Guantánamo, though “the Obama administration has mishandled it so badly” that that is now not currently possible.

RELATED: Sen. John McCain: ‘I Don’t Think American Public Opinion Would Stand For’ Another War In Middle East

King also asked Sen. McCain whether he considered himself to the left of his party, to which he answered that, “judging from the applause,” waterboarding does seem to be popular among Americans. He put the onus on the President to change their opinion by “telling the American people about the Geneva conventions” and explain why it was prohibited when American soldiers were the victims.

The segment via CNN below:

Chris Wallace asked Paul to respond to speculation that if he does not win the Republican presidential nomination, he will end up running as a third-party candidate for the presidency in 2012. Paul almost certainly ruled out the possibility, but also admitted that it would be hard for him to support any of his rivals should they get the nomination.

“If they believe in expanding the wars, if they don’t believe in looking at the Federal Reserve, if they don’t believe in real cuts, if they don’t believe in deregulations, and a better tax system, it would defy everything I believe in.”

Paul explained he would also take into consideration his own supporters and who they would want him to throw his weight behind in the general election.

RELATED: Rep. Ron Paul To Republican Candidates: ‘Will You Condemn Ronald Reagan?’ (Seriously)

Wallace took the opportunity to ask the congressman again if this meant he was even remotely considering a third-party independent bid. Paul did not give a flat-out “no” to the question, but stated for the time being he has “no intention” of pursuing that particular course of action.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

Christiane Amanpour showed a new ABC/Washington Post poll that shows that President Obama and the Republican Congress are roughly given the same amount of trust, 40 percent, when it comes to the issue of job creation. This marks a blow for the president, whose numbers on this particular issue were more impressive only one month ago. Matthew Dowd predicted Obama’s numbers would only get worse in the coming months “unless the economy really changes and the public really feels it,” and even suggested the United States is in an economic “funk” right now.

On the subject of the Congressional supercommittee that people are expecting to draw the economy out of a funk, Will argued that rather than hoping a deal is agreed upon, the president should hope that no decision is made in the near future because it may help his reelection chances.

“The president needs this committee to fail because he’s already decided to run against what he calls the Republican Congress. While he was lecturing in Constitutional law, he missed that part of Article I that says there’s a Senate also, and the Democrats control that, and as Boehner said, they’re holding up a lot of legislation. If he’s going to run against a do-nothing Congress, it has to do nothing.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of ABC:

Perry admitted that he prefers meeting and talking to people on the campaign trail to debating, because he gets to speak in more than just soundbites. To stave off any more criticism of his previous debate performances, Perry pointed out the president was a good debater, but not necessarily a decisive leader.

You want to know how somebody is gonna perform in the future? Take a look at their past.

Wallace continued to push the debate question, pointing out that the eventual Republican nominee will have to engage in three televised debates watched by a much larger audience. Perry brushed it aside and said he’s not worried about a potential showdown with the president, because he sees it as a good opportunity to provide a striking contrast of political philosophies for the American people.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

On Thursday night, Johnson tweeted excitedly, “Headed to New Hampshire to file for the primary!,” which may have come as a surprise to those following the 2012 election who knew the other candidates had already filed. As it turns out, somehow the actual paperwork to file for the presidential ballot fell through the cracks, and the candidate himself had to traverse the country to make it before the Friday deadline.

RELATED: Should Gary Johnson Be Allowed Into Tuesday Night’s Debate?

Johnson, according to CNN, was more than happy to admit that this was a logistical campaign mistake, and refused to blame his staff:

“Bottom line, we just screwed up,” Johnson told members of the press who repeatedly pressed him on the near-oversight Friday.

The campaign had planned to file by proxy but realized Thursday they had left it too late. A candidate filing on the last day of the filing period must do so in person, according to the secretary of state’s office.

Candidates who wish to appear on the New Hampshire ballot must file with the secretary of state by Friday. The campaign had planned to file by proxy but realized Thursday they had left it too late – a candidate can only file in person on the last day, according to Johnson.

Politico has a handy list of every name on the ballot– which includes a healthy number of unknowns– here.

RELATED: GQ Declares Shirtless Gary Johnson The ‘Sanest’ 2012 Republican Candidate

The interesting bit of this story is not really that Johnson’s campaign is so far removed from the workings of politics that they could completely forget the New Hampshire ballot (New Hampshire, incidentally, is the state Johnson has the best chance in, as it leans more libertarian than Iowa, South Carolina, and several other primary states), but just how this sort of monumental gaffe could have impacted any other candidate polling higher. Any time Rick Perry sounds like he had a few cups of chamomile during a debate or Herman Cain‘s campaign manager starts mumbling to himself outside a warehouse on camera, the media pronounces their candidacies finished. What would the news cycle look like if anyone who can get themselves a podium at a debate had simply forgotten to file? What sort of organizational skill does that demonstrate for a top tier candidate and, more importantly, what challenges does a “fringe” candidate like Johnson face that can justify this sort of oversight more than it would for Cain or Perry? As no one seems to be pushing Johnson for any answers, it is highly unlikely we’ll ever get to know.

I know doing another column on this may seem redundant, but the Christie media coverage itself is one big redundancy. On Face the Nation today, Bob Schieffer asked all three of his guests, a senator and two governors, about a possible Christie candidacy. Earlier today on Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol continued to push for Christie to get into the race, to which fellow panelist Brit Hume responded by comparing Christie supporters to “a pack of dogs chasing a car” (below). Almost every single Sunday morning news show brought him up. Why? What is so endlessly fascinating about a Christie candidacy that no one seems to be able to shut up about it?

There have been conflicting reports recently over whether Christie is actually reconsidering a run or not. According to the New York Times, Christie’s political advisors are figuring out how quickly it would take them to set up operations in key primary states if their boss decides to get in the race. But according to NorthJersey.com, two anonymous Republican sources admitted that while Christie and his team were considering their options, the governor will end up not running.

Did no one learn ANYTHING from his speech at the Reagan Library? He referred the media and the public to a video compilation by Politico featuring every single one of his “NO” answers. (Which means if Christie does change his mind and run, boy is that going to look pretty bad in hindsight.) Every time I read yet another post about how Christie isn’t definitively out of the race yet, my immediate reaction is to say “Cool story, bro” and move on. It’s honestly hard to care anymore.

RELATED: Leave Chris Christie Alone: Neverending 2012 Presidential Rumors Hurt Republicans

Speaking as a New Jersey native, I like Christie’s personality and would certainly welcome his voice into the GOP field. But even his mock threat of suicide didn’t stop the speculation. Is he the one fueling it? No. He’s definitively ruled it out multiple times. All the speculation comes from anonymous sources and insider tips, nothing from the man himself. And you would think if he was in the process of thinking about considering maybe the possibility of one day hopefully getting the opportunity to decide to run for the presidency, he wouldn’t have so adamantly said “NO.” If the media is talking about Christie, obviously, this being a media website, we’re going to bring it up. But narratives typically don’t last this long. Even Sarah Palin, a notable exception to the rule, hasn’t been covered recently nearly as much as Christie has. And with conservatives concluding that her entire drawn-out candidacy is a joke anyway, she probably won’t get that kind of coverage ever again.

And at this point, it’s not even news anymore that Christie isn’t as conservative as many would like to think he is. Chris Christie is like the Duke Nukem Forever of presidential campaigns: everyone is bating their breath in anticipation for the announcement, but when it eventually happens, it’s going to be a huge disappointment.

I mean, at least people stopped caring about Donald Trump when he said he wasn’t running. He hit the limit on his yearly 15 minutes of fame, he ended it, and it was over. But aside from a few national media appearances here and there, Christie’s main priority has been governing the state of New Jersey. Which, by the way, is his job.

At this point in our nation’s history, it would be utterly futile to wish for a time when presidential candidates were not speculated about with such eagerness and excitement. But could we all agree to just stop covering the ones who have said repeatedly they’re not interested? Herman Cain, a real live presidential candidate, was on This Week today, and among all the questions about policy and Rick Perry‘s “N*ggerhead” hunting camp controversy, he was asked to weigh in on the possibility of Christie joining the race. Yes, we’ve hit that point in the race where presidential candidates are asked to weigh in on other possible presidential candidates. It’s as if you’re saying to their face, “No one cares about you, they like this other guy better, what do you think?”

I guess what I’m saying is this: shut up about Chris Christie and get back to covering the people who are actually running.

Watch Fox’s Brit Hume’s comments on Gov. Christie below:

Bob Schieffer asked Barbour why Republicans are so dissatisfied with the current Republican field of candidates. Barbour explained that the party wants to make sure they nominate someone who is going to be able to definitively win the presidency over Obama next year.

O’Malley retorted by suggesting that Barbour hadn’t personally endorsed anyone yet because none of them have “inspired confidence” in the voters yet, and argued the race is now over who is going to be the nominee of the Tea Party instead of the Republican party. He cited steady job growth in the past few months as a sign of a slow but certain economic improvement.

Barbour encouraged the Democrats to make the election a referendum on the president’s economic record, because it would ensure a Republican victory. O’Malley insisted the Republican economic plan was a “failed” one, and the voters would have to choose between it and the president’s economic plan, which he argues has been much more successful. The Republican governor wondered if O’Malley had amnesia and didn’t remember that the president had big Democratic majorities right out of the 2008 election and could have pushed forward an ambitious legislative agenda if he wanted to.

Watch the video below, courtesy of CBS:

Maher’s impetus to question the varying tastes of the GOP crowd was the latest speculation over Chris Christie and whether the New Jersey governor would enter the Republican race. Maher compared the calls for Christie to run to previous “hot” candidates like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, until voters discovered their character flaws and moved on.

And Maher immediately characterized the Christie speculation the same way. Pointing out his support of civil unions and the “Ground Zero mosque,” Maher showed the most damning piece of evidence yet: Christie holding hands with President Barack Obama and not recoiling in fear and horror. In fact, Maher was so convinced that Republicans would never be satisfied with any candidate, even Jesus himself would not be a nominee the Republicans would be able to support.

He walked us through a hypothetical day in the life of a Jesus Christ 2012 campaign, imagining all the attacks that would be thrown his way by other candidates.

“A Gingrich spokesperson reports that he read Jesus’ book, and finds some aspects of it troubling. Mitt Romney says Jesus’ previous statements make him appear anti-business. And Rick Perry asks if America is ready for a Jewish president.”

Maher also pointed out that Jesus’ foreign birth and lack of a birth certificate would be instant turnoffs, and at some point the son of God might be so desperate for a surge in the polls, he may seek out a meeting with the wise man of New York: Donald Trump.

Watch the video below, courtesy of HBO:

While his speech focused on the legacy of President Ronald Reagan– given it was at his library to which he was invited and his widow which he walked up to her aisle– he took a few moments to expound on his own ideas. His favorite Ronald Reagan story involved a number of air traffic controllers going on strike and summarily being fired– “not as a parable of labor relations but as a parable of principle.” He expounded extensively on American exceptionalism and how being tough at home was the only way to be tough abroad, because “principle would not stop at water’s edge.” To Christie, it was clear this was an idea President Obama had ignored:

All this should and does have meaning for us today. The image of the United States around the world is not what it was, it is not what it can be and it is not what it needs to be. This country pays a price whenever our economy fails to deliver rising living standards to our citizens–which is exactly what has been the case for years now.

We pay a price when our political system cannot come together and agree on the difficult but necessary steps to rein in entitlement spending or reform our tax system.

We pay a price when special interests win out over the collective national interest. We are seeing just this in the partisan divide that has so far made it impossible to reduce our staggering deficits and to create an environment in which there is more job creation than job destruction.

This is where the contrast between what has happened in New Jersey and what is happening in Washington, DC is the most clear.

Christie then went on to explain how New Jersey had, not without significant conflict, passed bills despite having a divided government. To that end, President Obama’s attempt to “cynically convince those who are suffering that the American economic pie is no longer a growing one that can provide more prosperity for all who work hard” was offensive to Christie, who looked back wistfully on the President as he was in 2004.

The full text of his remarks can be found here, and the first part of his speech via Fox News is below.

After his statements, Christie went off-script and took questions from the audience. It didn’t take long for the obvious to come up, and Christie seemed so frustrated at the thought of saying “no” again that he simply directed everyone to Politico, where a convenient video compilation of him dramatically saying he wasn’t running was on the front page. He then warned the reporters against smarty-pants questions, declaring them all New Jerseyans for the night, and warning them: “you give it, you’re getting it back.” He later gave a much more heartfelt explanation of why he is staying out of it, after being implored to run by a lady in the audience. Both answers are below (via C-SPAN):

David Gregory asked the mayor if he thought Christie should enter the race for president. Bloomberg indicated his interest in the prospect of Christie running.

“He’s been a good governor of New Jersey, he’s shaken things up in a state that’s had problems that have gone on and on and on. Some things he does I agree with, some things he does I don’t agree with, but if he wants to run, he certainly should just get in there and go do it.”

Gregory then asked Bloomberg about Rick Perry‘s chances after coming in a distant second in the Florida straw poll. Bloomberg said he wasn’t sure, but offered up a piece of media criticism, suggesting the media will always set their sights on taking down whoever the new frontrunner is. He also admitted he was uncomfortable with the positions some of the candidates have taken on science.

Finally, Bloomberg addressed the idea of a viable third party candidate entering the race, and immediately ruled out the possibility he would be the one to do it. And while he was encouraged by the idea of a third party candidate running, he admitted that most Americans will end up supporting one of the two major parties come November 2012. He also suggested President Obama could still be reelected despite high unemployment numbers because incumbents have an advantage in presidential races.

Watch the video below, courtesy of NBC News:

Graham said that for the Republicans, this is their race to lose, citing President Obama’s less-than-impressive record in office over the past two years.

President Obama has done everything he knows how to do to beat himself. The reason people have little confidence in President Obama’s policies: they’re just not working. Everything is worse. Two million people unemployed after he took office. Gas prices are a hundred percent higher, home values are down, debt’s up by 35 percent. There seems to be no relief on the horizon.

Candy Crowley asked Graham if there are any Republicans running who would be considered “unacceptable alternatives.” Graham did not give a direct answer, but predicted that any Republican with a chance against Obama would have to propose an ambitious business plan starting from day one. He also expressed his hope that the Congressional “super committee” will tackle entitlement reform in the months to come. However, Graham disagreed with Governor Rick Perry‘s characterization of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme,” instead advising all Republicans to call it “a vital program.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of CNN:

TIME‘s Michael Duffy admitted that he expected Perry to back away from on his more controversial remarks about Social Security being a “Ponzi scheme,” but instead he doubled down on his remarks. NBC Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O’Donnell described Perry as someone who “is fearless about making mistakes” and sticks to his guns whenever he can.

Matthews framed the Rick Perry-Mitt Romney two-man race as a political calculation Republicans would have to make between someone who would fit in perfectly in a tea party rally and someone with a good chance of winning the presidency. Major Garrett praised Perry’s “real-time political instincts” for recognizing the eventual political importance of the tea party before most other politicians did, and also thought he represented the kind of candidate Democrats use to comfort themselves with (which Garrett thought would be a faulty assumption to make).

Katty Kay, of the BBC, thought Perry was walking a delicate line between moderate Republicans and the tea party, and that the most important quality he can have right now is his confidence and steadfast decision-making. In fact, Perry is so confident in the campaign, O’Donnell thought, that he’s already acting as if he were the presumptive nominee.

Duffy suggested Romney supporters were more “rational” in their opposition to Obama than Perry’s “emotional” support. And, of course, the panelists also address the Reagan connection (or lack thereof). Katty Kay argued that Perry was more id-driven than Reagan, and actually even suggested his style more closely resembles Sarah Palin. Duffy also pointed out the political climate has soured over the past few years, and partisanship is much worse today that it was in Reagan’s time. Perry’s religious bona fides may come in handy, but as Duffy said, while voters want their candidates to be religiously affiliated, they don’t want them to talk about it too much.

Watch the video below, courtesy of NBC:

Host Bob Schieffer asked Clinton if he agreed with James Carville (a former Clinton advisor) in saying that now is the time for President Obama’s team to panic and shake up their entire reelection strategy. Clinton did not take this view, but rather gave Obama credit for his jobs speech last week, which the former president thought was a good first step in taking care of the debt problem.

Clinton looked at President Obama’s struggle right now as a powerful political one.

“Right now he’s just out there running against himself and people’s misery. It’s tough out there. You’ve got not only 9 percent unemployment, you’ve got who knows how many million people aren’t in the numbers ’cause they quit looking for work, and a lot of voters who have part-time jobs who want full-time jobs.”

He called for Republicans and Democrats to work together to speed up the recovery process, and pointed out that looking back at the last few decades at U.S. elections, “conflict makes good politics, but it doesn’t make very good policy.” Clinton understood where Carville was coming from, but disagreed on the particulars of Obama’s strategy heading into the next presidential election.

“When you’re out there running against yourself and people feel miserable, it’s hard to see your numbers go up; when he’s got a real opponent and people get to evaluate real alternatives and they get to see other Republicans respond to his speech and his plan, including a lot of ideas they have supported in the past. Then, I think, we’ll be in a different world politically.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of CBS:

Even with the rise of Rick Perry into the race, Gerson argued that Republicans are still unsatisfied with the current field of candidates, and dropped the tiniest of bombshells on This Week to Christiane Amanpour.

GERSON: Last week, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey was in Chicago, had two meetings with serious Republican groups from the Midwest…

AMANPOUR: Even though he said “no no no no no…”

GERSON: He’s actively, I think, considering getting in this race, which would throw things open once more. But the desire for that to happen, for people like Paul Ryan, who are pushing for this to happen, it shows people are not happy with the current field. They think that it needs to be filled out in important ways.

And speaking of possible candidates, Amanpour then shifted the conversation to Sarah Palin, and ABC’s John Karl said that Palin “has been teasing publicly” that she will run for president, but bucking conventional wisdom on the subject, he believes “she’s looking at what she’d have to do to actually establish a campaign organization, which she has done absolutely nothing until now.”

Watch the video here, courtesy of ABC News:

Chris Wallace highlighted Romney’s upcoming jobs speech, and asked Kristol what the former Massachusetts governor needs to do to reclaim his frontrunner status from Perry. Kristol offered some advice to the candidate, but then explained why Perry has a better chance of winning the race than he does.

“I think he has to lay out his vision for the country, which he hasn’t done yet. I don’t criticize him for that, it’s been early, but now is the moment.

“I think, in the normal course of things, Rick Perry will be the Republican nominee. He is the three-term governor of Texas, a conservative state. He’s been a successful governor. Texas has job growth, the rest of the country’s lost jobs. He’s a populist, which is very much in the spirit of the Republican party today. Mitt Romney is the one-term governor of Massachusetts, whose health care plan isn’t popular with Republicans. So if you just have a normal race, so to speak, if neither candidate does badly in the debates, if voters just get to know them, and it looks the way I just described, Perry is the more normal victor.”

Kristol compared this race to Ronald Reagan‘s successful 1980 campaign, where he went on the offensive not just against the Carter administration, but the Republican establishment. Wallace pointed out that in 2008, conventional wisdom dictated that Hillary Clinton would have won a normal race against Barack Obama, but the latter candidate painted his opponent as part of the establishment, which Kristol thinks Romney may do to Perry this time around.

However, Mara Liasson pointed out that Romney seems too much like a career politician to successfully convince people that he isn’t one. And as Wallace pointed out, Romney ran for Senate in 1994 in an unsuccessful run, so he may not exactly be a career politician, but a “failed career politician.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News: