Have we not reached a place free of this yet? For some reason, George Stephanopoulos decided to talk about the notoriously Christian NFL player Tim Tebow on This Week today. He asked George Will how Tebow has become such a polarizing figure in not just sports, but somehow in politics as well. Will called Tebow “an exemplary gentleman” and said he was undeserving of the attacks against him.

On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman gave his two cents about why Republican support is beginning to coalesce around Newt Gingrich, but not with a snarky barb thrown in for good measure. “It was his time, the Republican base doesn’t want Romney and they keep looking for an alternative, and Newt — although somebody said ‘he’s a stupid man’s idea of what a smart person sounds like,’ but he is more plausible than the other candidates they’ve been pushing up.”

What should be troubling for the Obama administration is that in most states the unemployment rate has actually increased between January 2009, when President Obama entered office, through August 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of course, there has never been a silver bullet for unemployment. But the administration’s focus on shovel-ready jobs, in both the stimulus and now the American Jobs Act , should give us pause. Let’s break down why shovel-ready jobs were a focus in the first place, why more weren’t produced, and what it takes to make them a reality.

During his “worst Persons” segment Tuesday night, Countdown host Keith Olbermann addressed Paul Krugman‘s brief, controversial 9/11 column with the kind of full-throated agreement that would make Dizzy Gillespie envious. Olbermann concluded the segment by saying that, “between 2002 and 2009, the leading terrorist groups in this country were the Republican Party, and the presidential administration of George W. Bush.”

There has been quite a reaction to Paul Krugman’s instantly infamous 9/11 blog post entitled “The Year’s of Shame.” On The Five yesterday though, Greg Gutfeld took it upon himself to sum up what he believed was the nation’s collective response: “Go to hell, Paul Krugman, you bearded bitter buffoon.”

This past weekend the nation paid respectful homage to the memory of those killed 10 years ago during the events of 9/11, and as such, anyone watching television, listening to the radio or picking up a magazine or newspaper were likely overwhelmed with by turns mawkish and moving tributes to that fateful day. Last night Jon Stewart took aim at both the cynical and maudlin remembrances via a new Daily Show special focused on 9/13, or the day we forgot lessons we’d sworn never to forget.

Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times conscience-disseminating liberal Paul Krugman has caused an uproar with a 3-paragraph (and change) blog post in which he, among other things, calls the anniversary of 9/11 “an occasion for shame.”

Krugman writes several stupid, wrong things in that small space, but upon reflection, I think critics left, right, and center ought to cut Krugman some slack. The 9/11 anniversary is a tough day for everyone, and people handle grief in different ways.

NY Times columnist Paul Krugman observed 9/11 this weekend with a provocative blog post entitled “Years of Shame.” In it he calls out “Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror,” of that day and suggests that the memory of 9/11 has been primarily used as a “wedge issue” for political gain. Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly hosted a heated debate on this column between former Bush administration official Brad Blakeman and Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin.

In introducing her “powerhouse roundtable of economic experts” Sunday morning, This Week host Christiane Amanpour omitted a notable portion of Douglas Holtz-Eakin‘s résumé. Holtz-Eakin’s intro included “former director of the Congressional Budget Office,” but it might have been helpful to mention that Holtz-Eakin was chief economic adviser to Sen. John McCain‘s presidential campaign.

The world of media reporting is, often enough, something of a clusterf… fiasco, with media people reporting on the personal views or slip-ups or extracurricular activities of their colleagues. Those who report or present the news become newsworthy themselves, and, as such, hold a certain level of celebrity: not enough so that E! is guaranteed to cover their weddings (we can’t all be Kardashians, after all), but enough that they are ripe for satire and parody. To wit: Yesterday, Tim Carney, the Washington Examiner‘s senior political columnist, noticed that a Google+ account ostensibly belonging to economist and New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman, posted a rather controversial reaction to the earthquake that resulted in literally dozens of pencils rolling onto the floor.

“People on twitter might be joking,” Kurgman appeared to have written, “but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage.”

Throughout the debt debate, economists and politicians were quick to warn that a failure to reach a deal soon would lead to a credit downgrade from Standard and Poor’s, something they all agreed would be terrible. Well, we made a deal but the downgrade happened anyway and, swiftly, the economists and politicians have agreed once again. This time, they’ve all agreed that Standard and Poor’s is a bunch of jerks and we never really liked them anyway.

The rhetoric against the Tea Party movement has escalated in extremism during the debt ceiling debate, partially because many on the left and in the center considered the Tea Party members of Congress the only thing standing between America maintaining its credit rating and defaulting on the debt. On tonight’s O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg differed on the level of outrage about that, but both took the time to chuckle about their aversion to labeling “real terrorists” but quickness to drop the word on domestic opponents.

Paul Krugman was very disappointed with President Obama and the Democrats for allowing the Republicans to frame the debt debate. Krugman insisted on the This Week roundtable, “from the perspective of a rational person, in other words, a progressive on this stuff, we shouldn’t be talking about spending cuts at all now.” Yet, according to Krugman, the “rational people” have now lost big time.

This morning, MSNBC Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough mocked New York Times writer Paul Krugman and, because why not, took aim at bloggers as well.

The article that had Scarborough all riled up — “The Centrist Cop-Out” — was published yesterday and attempts to deconstruct what Krugman views as misleading rhetoric promoting balance and avoiding to lay blame on Republicans involved in ongoing debt discussions.

At this point, it’s pretty difficult to find ink drying on any nice words in regards to Rupert Murdoch. As News International’s phone hacking scandal gets bigger and bigger, the man has become an absolute pariah in England and the story is slowly making its way across the pond. However, this morning, an op-ed has appeared in one of this nation’s largest papers, titled “In Defense of Murdoch” the column attempts to show another side of the media monarch. Some might find it a bit surprising that this defense comes from none other than the New York Times. And it’s written by Roger Cohen, a Brit no less!

Liberal columnist for The New York Times and persistent critic of President Obama, Paul Krugman, liked the passion he saw in Obama last week on the deficit battle and wants the rhetoric flame turned up even higher. In a column titled “Let’s Not Be Civil,” Krugman unapologetically lays out the case why Obama should not seek consensus with Republicans and should instead vigorously defend his vision for America while attacking the Republican proposal without restraint.

Fans of New York Times economic luminary Paul Krugman waiting on bated breath for an extensive financial analysis of the Egyptian uprising are in for a major disappointment: Krugman isn’t taking the bait. In a three-sentence confession on his blog, Krugman has admitted that he has no idea what to make of the Egyptian situation and knows better than to say anything at all.

Michelle Bachmann joined Bill O’Reilly last night to discuss tonight’s State of the Union speech and her response on behalf of the Tea Party Express organization. The subject of Gabrielle Giffords inevitably came up, and Bachmann revealed her personal reaction to learning the tragic news that a friend of hers had been shot. The conversation quickly turned to the post-shooting exploitation war that quickly played out in the media, which Mr. O’Reilly claimed his side to have won.

Many are applauding President Obama’s recent efforts to work with business leaders (having just appointed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt as the chair of the White House’s new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness) and to bring in fresh blood to his staff who are willing to compromise with Republicans. Even conservative commentator George Will was mildly impressed with Obama’s ability to win back support in recent weeks.

After a weekend of horror and subsequent political confusion (and more than a bit of opportunism), Bill O’Reilly came out swinging in his opening segment tonight, condemning those on the left, particularly Paul Krugman and MSNBC, for what he called the exploitation of a national tragedy.

In the horrifying shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords that already left six others dead, one would hope that in times of such tragedy, those who disagree politically could come together and realize how trivial their disagreements are in the grand scheme of life. Instead, there is an uncomfortable eagerness amongst many to find someone to blame for the actions of a senseless lunatic.

With the midterms almost (finally) upon us the possibility of a GOP dominated Congress highly influenced by a possible influx of Tea Party candidates is becoming a reality. Should the country be worried? Should the GOP? Moreover, does the Tea Party even matter when there is so much anonymous big money sloshing around this election cycle. On the This Week roundtable today George Will argued that the Tea Party is, in fact both important and authentic.

Someone apparently designated this the weekend for liberal media types to come out against President Obama. And did they ever. And then there was Chris Matthews on Sunday questioning whether the President had been fiddling while Rome burned. Says Matthews: “He should have been focusing on the economy, instead he was focused on making history with health care.”

Is this going to result in further calls for drug tests from Robert Gibbs? I think it’s safe to say when one speaks of the “professional left” Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman are at the top of many people’s list. And if this morning’s This Week panel was anything to go by they are very, very angry.

Christiane Amanpour made her much-anticipated debut as host of This Week this morning. Other than her presence it was difficult to find anything else about the show that was different. While it goes without saying that Amanpour is one of the most recognizable and well-respected names in television reporting, much of the anticipation in regards to her takeover of ABC’s long-running Sunday show was a direct result of the impressive mark Jake Tapper managed to leave during his temporary takeover of hosting duties.