“It’s interesting that Mitt makes these kind of mistakes where Newt is deliberative,” Bashir said. “…Calling Mitt Romney the little food stamps president and the president the big food stamps president?! He’s going to get trounced in Nevada probably by over 20 points! What’s the point of this? Six months more of this?!”

“What’s the point of anything that Newt Gingrich does?” Taylor boomed. “I imagine that in the constellation that is Newt Gingrich’s world, he’s at the very center!”

During her later analysis, Taylor thought while things were still going well for Romney in terms of wrapping up the nomination, he couldn’t afford to keep making unforced errors during the campaign.

“I think this week has been a really good one for (Romney) in terms of winning Florida,” Taylor surmised. “Some of the missteps he’s made, he’s not going to be able to continue to make them as we head through February and into Super Tuesday, Newt is going to stay in this race. He’s going to fight hard. He’s going to catch Mitt at every misspeak that he ever puts out there. He’s got to tighten up his ship and head toward securing the nomination come Super Tuesday…he’s got to stop the misspeaking. Speaking about not caring about the very poor even though out of context, that sounds like a very, very damning statement for him.”

RELATED: Goldie Taylor On Gingrich’s Run: ‘The Question Is, Will Newt Implode Before Or After The Nomination?

Cupp agreed with Taylor’s analysis. “I don’t know why he’s allowing one group of people to bully him on this issue,” Cupp noted. “He’s got to get it together…The problem with this particularly gaffe is it fails on two counts, style and substance. We talked about this yesterday. There’s got to be a more artful way that he’s standing up for the middle class. That he isn’t just some elitist. There’s also substance-wise, (there’s) got to be a better way to defend conservative values.”

Watch below via MSNBC:

United Republic’s Jimmy Williams started off on Santorum, saying “I find it utterly fascinating when white people think they know how black people think…When men think they can tell women what to do with their bodies,” later declaring that “he’s a homophobe and bigot.”

S.E. responded, “This is taken completely out of context. Rick Santorum talks about social economics all the time,” and later seems to concede that Santorum was talking about black people (although I am 99% sure he wasn’t). When host Alex Wagner said “In that comment he’s singling out black folks in particular,” S.E. interjected, “In that two-second sound bite.”

She also claimed that Santorum “Talks about how two-person families are better economically for the country.”

I suppose she’s technically correct, in that Santorum only believes in “two-person” unions between people he considers to be full human beings. Santorum’s argument isn’t an economic one, and his virulent anti-gay rhetoric certainly qualifies him as a homophobe. As to whether he’s a “bigot,” I’m pretty sure I didn’t hear him reference black people during his remarks Sunday, but I’m damn sure I heard his revealing Freudian slip at a Republican debate, in which he referred to Latinos as “the illegal vote.”

Salon‘s Steve Kornacki then turned his attention to Newt Gingrich, who has largely been given a pass for the inherent racism embedded in his “no toilet left behind” education plan for poor urban 9 year-olds. “Think of Newt Gingrich two weeks ago talking about, ‘Let’s go into the inner city, where people don’t understand what work is.”

Kornacki actually lets Gingrich off rather easily. In addition to singling out kids from “schools in poor neighborhoods,” Gingrich also said that these urban poor kids had “no habit of showing up on Monday and staying all day or the concept of  ’I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal,” a dog-whistle so loud, even cats can hear it.

Matt Lewis ignored Gingrich’s urban-specific servitude initiative, and said, “Newt was — you may disagree with whether or not allowing kids to be janitors, it sounds absurd, but his point was, folks, let’s get people involved in the work force and maybe give them a leg up so that they can be successful. You may disagree with the tactic but I think it’s actually a compassionate thing to do.”

He’s right about one thing, it is absurd to think that scrubbing toilets somehow helps a nine year-old get a “leg up,” or that the answer to poverty is to fire adults and replace them with cheap child labor, but he doesn’t get around to explaining why these “advantages” only apply to urban poor kids. The answer is, of course, that none of those people‘s kids are ever going to vote for him anyway.

The thing is, Matt and S.E. are, to varying degrees, friends of mine for whom I have tremendous respect. They’re both smarter than the bill of goods they’ve apparently purchased from Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. In Matt’s case, I think it’s his tendency toward low-temperature debate that played a role in his defense of Gingrich.

In any case, it was good to see these things discussed, as the mainstream media has been seriously derelict in doing so in a meaningful way.

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC:

(h/t C&L)

In the clip below, Brian Sack dances around the offices getting the whole place to join in the fun; the crew, S.E. Cupp, even Beck himself sings a bit! Of course, Beck only sings one verse but in those few lines he manages to squeeze in references to both gold and assault rifles. That’s called economy in writing.

Watch the joyous holiday number from GBTV below:

RELATED: Congress Votes No On Payroll Tax Cuts…But Yes On Winston Churchill Bust!

“At the end of the day, it was Democrats who wanted a year long extension in the tax cut holiday, but they had to break this deal. The deal was for two months and then Republicans came back and said ‘oh no, we wanted it for a year.’ What they are trying to do is kill the extension for a year on working class Americans and blame it on the president. That’s what this game is about and they ought to cut it out right now!” Taylor fumed. “What $1,000 dollars would do for working class Americans is pay for rent, pay for groceries, keep the damn lights on! And I’m sick and damn tired of the talking points that get pushed out on this thing.”

“Sorry for the talking points but it’s not that complicated,” Cupp countered.

“Lies generally aren’t,” Taylor hit back.

“To compromise does not mean to just accept what’s on the table,” Cupp responded. “To compromise means both sides get something they want out of this. Republicans aren’t stupid!”

“They wanted it paid for with 3.2% surtax on billionaires and millionaires, and they refused on that basis,” Taylor exclaimed. “They refused to tax the 1% in favor of raising taxes on working class Americans.”

Taylor’s refreshingly pugnacious spirit ought to inspire lawmakers to stop sitting on their hands and come to an agreement.

Watch Taylor and Cupp duke it out over the payroll tax cut holiday below via MSNBC:

RELATED:Rick Perry: ‘Lazy’ Remark Reveals That Obama ‘Grew Up In A Privileged Way’

“Was it really an indictment though?” Wagner cut in.

“Sure it was,” Cupp relied. “He’s asked about the economy and he talks how they don’t have ambition, they’re lazy. Not a smart idea.”

“That’s not what he was doing,” Politico‘s Maggie Haberman interjected. “What he was saying was the US has gotten sort of soft about selling itself overseas as a place to do business here. The problem is, with that argument and Democrats have been saying that for the last 24 hours, that’s not what he was saying, he wasn’t calling Americans lazy. it doesn’t matter because the sound bite getting played over and over again.”

Wagner attempted to play Rick Perry’s ad using the quote but couldn’t due to technical difficulties. The Nation‘s Ari Melber then did a dead-on imitation of the Texas Governor that political impressionists would envy.

Watch the “lazy” discussion below via MSNBC:

The special was available for free while the network will cost a monthly subscription fee. For those of you interested or those of you who want to play along with me at home, you can watch it here.

Well, shall we begin?

0:23 – Well, there you have it. A cartoon of George Soros is Glenn Beck’s “Video Killed the Radio Star.” Not only that, the cartoon and the text that accompanies it appear to be done in Flash animation style, akin to what was filling up websites like Shockwave and Ebaum’s World in the early days of the Internet. The question of whether this was done to pay respects to his new medium or because it’s one of the cheapest, easiest animation style around is something I’ll leave for you all to ponder.

1:00 – Cartoon over. GBTV is now airing the same promo commercial that was released a few days ago in which a bunch of regular Americans (one of whom is even black!) talk about not having any source from which to get the Truth. The wait is over, friends!

2:09 – “The truth lives here” is a good slogan for a news and opinion network.

2:40 – Glenn Beck: “One of the most common questions asked of me for the past two years is, ‘Ok, I’ve got it, Glenn! I know the problems! Geez, you won’t shut up!”
In my early days of recapping Beck, I became fascinated with how good an entertainer he is. No matter what he was talking about, the dude knew how to host a TV show. While I feel like he’s lost his way a bit lately as he’s completed his strange metamorphosis into the cable news equivalent of an Evangelical preacher (thus rewarding everyone who made those Howard Beale comparisons when he first appeared), there’s one trick that he’s never lost; his mastery of the art of self-deprecation. It’s hard to be “just one of the folks,” when you’re in a TV studio (and now giant office with its own studios) festooned with your name and initials. However, Beck knows how to sprinkle in just enough references to how he’s a chubby blowhard in each episode (I’d guess an average of 3.5 fat jokes per week) to make it work. I’m serious. There’s an artistry to this.

5:00 – While Beck is talking, my eyes wandered to the side of the screen and noticed a link to an interview he did with David Mamet. David freaking Mamet! I feel like theater communities have been buzzing for a while about Mamet’s gradual conversion to conservatism but I feel like an appearance on Beck’s radio show will be more offensive to those people than 10 Oleanna‘s.
ps. A note for college students, don’t tell a co-ed you love Oleanna while on a first date.

>>>>NEXT PAGE: In which Glenn Beck humbly compares himself to Orson Welles and Walt Disney

Imus brought up the controversy twice on his show today. First was during an interview with S. E. Cupp. Imus only mentioned it briefly, saying Beck had been a “jerk and a creep” before changing the subject so as to not drag Cupp into her boss’ mini-scandal. Cupp laughed, thanking him for that. Later Imus discussed it again as he and his producer, Bernard McGuirk, both agreeing that this was a “lapse of judgement” and really just something Beck shouldn’t have done.

At this point, I think Beck would agree.

Watch the two clips from Fox Business below:

Today, Cupp tackled the subject head-on with a Special Comment segment directed at Olbermann, Planned Parenthood, and NOW. She apologized to her parents for Olbermann’s behavior, and made the point that her appearance on The Joy Behar Show, while contentious, was the very model of what an impassioned political discussion should be. She also accused Olbermann of “cheapening” the abortion debate, saying that abortion isn’t a punchline. (This is almost always true.)

S.E. also called on the National Organization for Women to denounce Olbermann. On his Twitter feed, Olbermann bristled at the suggestion that his attacks on Cupp had anything to do with her gender, and while his attack wasn’t explicitly sexist, Olbermann does have a questionable history on the subject, particularly with regard to Carrie Prejean. In NOW’s defense, they have previously inducted Olbermann into their Hall of Shame.

Still, without a smoking gun (or b*tch, or c**t), I wondered what S.E. really expected a group like NOW to say on this subject.

“I think that Olbermann’s cheapening of the abortion issue for his own gain should raise the eyebrows of any group that claims to protect the rights of women,” S.E. told me, “N.O.W. in particular, which regularly assails conservative women for their purported politicization of right-to-life issues.”

In any case, it’s hard to make the argument that Olbermann’s actions here reflect well on Planned Parenthood, and its supporters (myself included). This is the point that eludes those liberals who reflexively defend Olbermann.

Here’s S.E. Cupp’s Special Comment, from The S.E. Cupp Show: (Newsbusters has the transcript)

After several days of Twitter fighting, and online buttals and rebuttals, Olbermann has opted to make non-factual statements about his intent, rather than simply to apologize.

It all started with Olbermann retweeting a link to the transcript for this CNN clip, along with his Planned Parenthood quip:

Olbermann was immediately set upon by people accusing him of wishing that Cupp had been aborted. It’s pretty clear that this was not the case, given the careful wording of the tweet, and the fact that the premise of Olbermann’s central disagreement with Cupp is that Planned Parenthood is not mainly an abortion provider.

For good measure, though, Olbermann explained his meaning in a tweet later that day:

I never mentioned abortion. I said her parents could have used counseling by PP rather than get the results they did

There are many types of counseling, though, so what type was he specifically referring to?

no, I insinuated her parents would’ve helped the earth had they consulted PP for birth control

That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? Sure, there are those who feel that this crossed a line, but give Olbermann credit, he’s sticking by his hellfire quote, and giving a prominent conservative hell in the process. Except he isn’t.

I didn’t say she should have been aborted. I said her parents could’ve used PP to learn how not to raise a moron

See? He didn’t wish S.E. Cupp out of existence, he just wanted her parents to get some parenting lessons. Aside from being a lie, this is arguably worse, since he’s now crapping all over her parents, who never did anything to him. Keith Olbermann, of all people, ought to appreciate the sanctity of the parental bond.

As if picking on S.E. Cupp in the first place wasn’t a weak enough move, and refusing to apologize for it (even though his non-factuality demonstrates consciousness of guilt) even weaker, Olbermann got worked into this “Are you Sarah Connor?”/Back to S.E. Cupp’s Future lather over a complete falsehood. Olbermann writes all over his Twitter feed, and his blog, that S.E. Cupp “lied” about Planned Parenthood in that appearance on the Joy Behar Show. Except she didn’t.

I’ve read the transcript Olbermann tweeted, and watched the video, and Cupp does no such thing. In fact, when Behar points out that Planned Parenthood does cervical cancer screenings, Cupp replies “You`re right. They do.”

The worst thing she says about Planned Parenthood, throughout the entire clip, is “I don`t believe in what they believe in. I don`t want to have to pay for it.”

By and large, she concedes almost every point Behar makes, and simply stands by her beliefs. What a horrible person.

It’s one thing to be wrong, but to stick by your beliefs. It’s not necessarily admirable, but it isn’t an indictment of one’s character. But to know that you’re wrong, and refuse to admit it (mostly because nobody has the nerve to make you admit it), that’s just cowardly, and it undermines whatever else you’re trying to say.

Update: Keith Olbermann (sort of) responds via Twitter. Here’s the exchange:

From SE Cupp:

Keep digging! RT @mediaite@KeithOlbermann Dishonestly Explains His @SECupp Planned Parenthood Tweet http://bit.ly/elu3Mw

From Justin Millikan:

@secupp @mediaite @KeithOlbermann…dishonestly explains just about everything.

And from Keith Olbermann:

@jdmillikan dishonestly – that’s Cupp and Mediaite all right

Say what you will, you have to give the guy props for a well-placed Pee Wee Herman homage. From TommyXtopher:

Clever. “I know Mediaite is, but what am I?” RT @KeithOlbermann: @jdmillikan dishonestly – that’s Cupp and Mediaite all right

Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld said the logic behind Olbermann’s mean-spirited Tweet was pretty sound for “someone like Olbie” who would “rather see someone dead than debated.” But Gutfeld, for one, isn’t buying Olbermann’s “counseling” spin given the man seems to despise Cupp so vehemently. And, in any case, wishing that a couple took some means of birth control instead of giving birth to someone of whom you’re not overly fond is still, basically, wishing that someone had never been born.

And here, friends, is the money quote:

But, really, all this undermines Planned Parenthood, not Olbie. We already knew he’s a turd. When he brought up Planned Parenthood, everybody knew he meant abortion, so his ghoulish joke reminds everyone that the idea that Planned Parenthood means more than abortion is a fatuous joke. Like the man himself.

After a requisite “Fascist” joke or two, the Red Eye crew opined that Olbermann is “uncomfortable” with dissenting opinions and that he is “an embarrassment to the left.”

Andy Levy then weighed in during the halftime report, wanting some more details on how a proposed “Fascist Drinking Game” might work. (Spoiler: It works by making your liver explode.) Levy also took a moment to share that he doesn’t understand why it’s even news that Olbermann said something “classless and stupid” because it’s his job… “at least when he had one.” So Tweeting about people he doesn’t like and doing whatever he is going to do at Current TV don’t count as jobs? Shrug!

Watch the segment for yourselves, via Fox News:

Close. Olbermann did deny wishing an abortion on Cupp, and did reference Kyl, but said “I never mentioned abortion. I said her parents could have used counseling by PP rather than get the results they did”

Too mean, Keith. Too mean.

It pains me to have to write this, too, because on the substance, I agree 100% with Olbermann, Planned Parenthood is money well spent, especially if you’re anti-abortion. I’m also really pissed off at SE Cupp’s stablemate, Glenn Beck, for calling women who use Planned Parenthood “hookers.” That’s a group that includes many mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, and girlfriends. If SE reads this, I hope she gives Glenn hell over that remark.

Compared to Beck, SE Cupp’s stance, agree with it or not, isn’t all that unreasonable, at least in the Behar clip Olbermann referenced. She doesn’t believe in abortion, and doesn’t want her tax dollars used for it, but concedes in the end that people sometimes have to pay for things they don’t support. There’s no law that says she has to like it: (from CNN)

In fact, I prefer her framing to what Democrats have been accepting until now. The question shouldn’t be whether federal funds are being used for abortions, but why aren’t they. This is a legal medical procedure, so what difference should it make if federal funds are used for it?

The Blaze has a thorough rundown of the back-and-forth, including a response to Olbermann from SE’s mother.

Here’s the thing we all forget sometimes: these are human beings. Beck forgot that the women who use Planned Parenthood are regular women. Olbermann obviously forgot that SE Cupp is a human being, as well.

I had the privilege of sharing drinks with SE at this year’s CPAC, and as it happens, there’s only one part of our conversation that I’m sure I’m at liberty to share. I asked her what the SE stands for, the most obvious question in the world.

“Sarah Elizabeth,” she said.

The name struck me as immensely humanizing, as you can almost hear her folks calling her in for dinner in the twilight (or maybe not. Back in my day, kids went outside to play until dinnertime). SE sounds a  lot tougher, and is probably better suited to her line of work.

We have corresponded some via email, and I appeared on her show once, and I’ve never known her to be anything but kind and generous of spirit. I’m always impressed by anyone who can stand me, but especially those who disagree with everything I stand for.

For what it’s worth, then, I’m glad that Sarah Elizabeth Cupp was born.

Keith Olbermann is not likely to apologize, but he ought to recognize the degree to which he rests his appeal on his own humanity. Despite his status as a polarizing, lightning -rod of a media figure, I don’t think there was anyone on either side of the political spectrum who didn’t feel  for him during his father’s illness and eventual passing. Sharing that experience with his viewers took a lot of courage.

In a much lesser, and less serious, vein, Olbermann increasingly wore his heart on his sleeve when delivering his Special Comments, and seemed to forge strong personal relationships with fans via his Twitter account, especially since leaving MSNBC. Sure, a lot of his appeal probably also rests in his ability to be a prick to those his audience dislikes, but do they want him to be this kind of prick, to this kind of person?

I don’t watch SE every day, but I’ve never known her to be nasty, like some of her other conservative counterparts. Even if she was, wishing someone had never been born is almost comical in its hyperbole, the kind of thing you’d say about Hitler. Yeah, that just happened.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t be mean to each other. Sometimes, it’s fun, like Olbermann’s recent feud with SE Cupp’s producer, Nick Rizzuto. Hell, being called a “hatchet man” by Olbermann was a personal highlight for me, right up there with Andrew Breitbart telling me to…never mind.

What I’m saying is that we should keep it fun, and if we can’t keep it fun, then at least keep from wishing each other out of existence.

They were also correct to point out that this was not true, that later in the memo Maddow was quoting, a $137 million shortfall was projected.

Where they went wrong is in accusing Maddow of saying there was no shortfall. She never actually said that.

Here is where my head starts to hurt, because, as Rachel Maddow pointed out on her show, she not only said that Wisconsin was “on track to have a budget surplus this year,” she also said that in Wisconsin, “there is, in fact, a $137 million dollar budget shortfall.”

Now, I am prepared to stipulate that both Rachel Maddow and Politifact are smarter than me when it comes to this, but how the eff can both of those things be true? How can there be both a projected surplus, and a projected deficit? Correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t this like telling a woman at a bar that you have a Ferrari, then saying, on the way out of the club, “You’re gonna love my Tercel?”

Ferrari doesn’t make a Tercel, right? Right?

Maddow’s executive producer Bill Wolff also dings Politifact for claiming that she also said that Gov. Scott Walker‘s cuts were responsible for that $137 million shortfall, and Wolff is correct here. However, a reasonable person could conclude that Politifact made a fair inference in thinking that she did: (from Maddowblog)

The point of that whole introduction to the show is that the budget isn’t the real issue.  That’s why Maddow says, “What’s happening in Wisconsin right now is not about a budget.” The point of the segment is not to correct the governor’s math because it’s not about the budget. She’s not trying to find blame for the budget shortfall because –- again — it’s not about the budget.  Maddow’s argument is that one way we know it’s not about the budget is that the governor was willing to give away roughly the same amount as this year’s possible shortfall. So, regardless of what the Governor says, the shortfall must not be so dire:

MADDOW: Even though the state had started the year on track to have a budget surplus—now, there is, in fact, a $137 million budget shortfall.  Republican Governor Scott Walker, coincidentally, has given away $140 million worth of business tax breaks since he came into office. Hey, wait.  That‘s about exactly the size of the shortfall.

That passage can be read both ways, but in at least the semantic sense, Politifact is wrong. Their reading of this passage is a matter of interpretation.

Of course, that interpretation is supported by the only thing that mitigates Maddow’s earlier contradiction, that there’s a surplus and a shortfall. The only way both things are possible is through the implication in her statement that Wisconsin “started the year on track to have a budget surplus,” followed by, “now, there is, in fact, a $137 million shortfall.”

The implication is that Wisconsin started with a projected surplus, which turned, over time, into a shortfall, but Maddow never actually says this. Now, according to the man who wrote the memo, both the projected surplus and the projected shortfall existed at the same time, the net result being the $137 million shortfall. If that’s what Maddow meant, then there was never really a surplus.

In any case, I’m in the clear, because when I was interviewed by SE Cupp on Monday, I only disputed the portion of Maddow’s segment where she said there was a surplus, and later in the week, I pointed out that she had yet to “address” Politifact, so I technically didn’t take a side, overall.

I am, however, taking a stand here. By the laws of the English language, and the economic grasp of someone who can figure out a meal tip with reasonable speed, I declare, for good and all, that Politifact and Rachel Maddow each got something wrong. But by my count, Politifact got two things wrong, to Maddow’s one, so Maddow wins. I also hereby award her six extra bonus points for handling sexist, homophobic insults with grace and humor.

Here is the segment from MSNBC:

The protesters in Wisconsin received an earful from Fox icon Bill O’Reilly for shouting down Fox reporters with chants of “Fox Lies!” and, several days later, “Tell the Truth!”

But as the following clip demonstrates, reporting on poll results that are actually the reverse of the truth (particularly at time of such scrutiny) adds fuel to the bonfire of criticism of Fox News:

Much later in the broadcast, toward the end of the show, Kilmeade told viewers that he wanted to “correct a poll that we did about 22 minutes ago from Gallup. 61% oppose taking collective bargaining away from those people in Wisconsin, 33% in favor. I had it reversed. I apologize.”

So in this instance, did Fox News “lie,” simply fail to tell the truth, or was it a far more innocent mistake? Media Matters‘ Ben Dimiero makes an obvious, but important, point:

Now, it’s possible that Kilmeade’s butchering of the poll results can be chalked up to his inability to read a poll or misspeaking.

However, it wasn’t just Kilmeade who “had it reversed.” Fox News had a graphic ready to go that repeated Kilmeade’s distortion, suggesting that this misrepresentation was premeditated by the network…

The use of the graphic is damning, but it’s a bit of a reach to claim it suggests “premeditation.” Occam’s Razor (the notion that the simplest answer is often correct) would suggest that a lone producer got the results wrong, and is responsible for both the incorrect graphic, and the incorrect report. This incident does, at least, suggest the possibility that ideological blinders contributed to an otherwise honest mistake. Such a possibility (fairly or not) is sure to be exploited by Fox News detractors.

Demiero goes on to remind readers of the raft of internal documents that Media Matters has turned up, which show that, at best, Fox & Friends is susceptible to framing issues in a way that seems politically beneficial to the right. To purposely misreport the facts, though, is a very different beast than that what has been suggested in the leaked Sammon memos, which focused far more on language and word usage that framed controversial issues with what some saw as a clear ideological bent.

This wasn’t even the first statewide poll on the subject, and the earlier poll showed 74% opposed to ending collective bargaining. Despite transparent methodology, many chose to ignore the poll because it was commissioned by a union. Then, the Gallup poll came along and largely confirmed those results. Could Fox & Friends have missed both of those polls? Certainly, but at that point, it becomes difficult to decide which is worse, ignorance or dishonesty.

In any case, as James Watt once said (though he probably stole it from Oliver Willis), a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Kilmeade used the poll to stop Democratic strategist Robert Zimmerman‘s argument dead in its tracks, and the diminutive correction did nothing to unring that bell.

Of course, corrections are often, and famously, given short-shrift, confined to the middle pages of newspapers, or hurriedly rushed-through after a commercial break, but not always. As SE Cupp and I noted on her Monday show, Rachel Maddow has a reputation for issuing thorough, full-throated corrections on occasion, although she has yet to respond, on-air, to Politifact’s recent debunktion of her Wisconsin budget claim.

Finally, these poll results lead me to the same question I’ve been asking myself since these protests in Wisconsin began. If Cheeseheads are such staunch supporters of unions, and of worker’s rights, how the eff did all of these Republicans get elected in November? Where was all of this support on Election Day?

If there’s a lesson to be learned from all of this, it’s that elections have consequences, and when someone tells you that everything you care about is at stake, you better believe it.

Cupp invited Christopher to her new Mercury Radio Arts show (Glenn Beck Insiders can watch here) to evaluate the media’s coverage of the claims network by network, beginning with Rachel Maddow‘s ultimately erroneous claim that Wisconsin’s economy was so good that the state was actually heading for a budget surplus. Christopher expressed hope (and confidence) that Maddow would correct herself, saddened that “the one mistake that she made undercuts an excellent segment” and adding that the “memo she was quoting,” to her credit, “was confusingly put together.”

They also discussed the reported fraud committed by doctors on the scene in Madison, allegedly hanging out medical excuse notes to protesters to help them keep their wages through the protest period. Cupp noted that “if that’s true, that’s a huge problem,” and Fox News was right in pointing that out in similar words, though Christopher was skeptical: “the only person Fox shows getting a doctor’s note is one of the Tea Party protesters.” On the other side of the spectrum, however, Christopher ceded that CNN “should not be saying that the doctors are helping out the teachers” if the alleged fraud is true.

Christopher’s full segment with Cupp below:

In an adorable iMovie-looking photo and video slideshow, Greg Gutfeld, Bill Schulz, and Andy Levy shared their experiences last weekend meeting, greeting, and answering tough questions about how hot the ladies were (“I don’t see gender,” answered Levy) and why they didn’t do college campus rounds (Gutfeld is “not allowed” for mysterious reasons). While, as on the show, they did answer a good number of serious questions on their panel– particularly about youth involved in politics and what sort of hurdles conservatives face in recruitment, they also got to remind the crowd that there was a stereotype that “you guys are not fun,” and they were there to break it. They discussed Levy’s cats, Meghan McCain, and the aforementioned Bieber, who got significant discussion time as a result of Gutfeld’s constant Twitter heckling of the singer. Asked what he would say to Bieber if he were a guest on Red Eye, however, Gutfeld appeared to be looking for something a bit too friendly: “What are you doing later?”

Following the recap, they played the clip of Ann Coulter explaining that her voice had been sabotaged the night before her speech by the Red Eye boys taking her to a bar. This gave guest S.E. Cupp a chance to note that she, too, was a victim. Cupp had “Ann’s disease” the next morning despite having attempted to take care of herself, she explained. The bad influences themselves took no credit, and Levy argued that he didn’t even remember the event at all, except for a champagne bottle Cupp apparently “held on to” that night. Despite the alleged thievery, Levy concluded that “it looks like we had a good time.”

The segment via Fox News below:

Is this a shot across Palin’s bow for 2012? Either way, it’s an unfair, sexist premise that has no basis in fact.

Here’s a clip of the interview, from GlennBeck.com:

Let’s just break that down for a second. He’s essentially saying that Palin turned down the CPAC keynote slot because she’s too busy gettin’ paid (Palin does command hefty speaking fees), but that he wouldn’t have turned it down because he’s not “the mother to all these kids.” Palin has five children. Santorum has seven, so the implication is that there’s something about being a mom that necessitates whoring yourself out for speaking fees, while dude parents can freewheelingly stick to their principles.

Now, I’m certainly not afraid to criticize Sarah Palin when she deserves it, but Santorum’s remarks are not only unfair and offensive, they’re also completely unfounded.

First of all, despite her ability to collect hefty speaking fees, Sarah Palin actually does manage to do things for which she is not being paid. I’m not that familiar with her datebook, but even I noticed her December trip to Haiti. The only payment Palin received for that trip was a heap of inexplicably bad press. There’s no comparison between visiting Haitian cholera clinics and keynoting at CPAC, but it definitely shows that time and money are not the issue.

Some others have wondered if Palin skipped out as part of a wider boycott centered around the inclusion of gay conservative group GOProud. Palin put that notion to rest in a recent interview, defending the group’s inclusion (while also casting them as adversaries by comparing them to liberals).

The fact is, Palin has now turned down four CPAC invitations, and while she’s never given an explicit reason, there’s a pretty obvious one, at least for the last two. American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene, the organizer behind CPAC, had Palin booster John Ziegler ejected from Western CPAC in 2009 after Ziegler grilled Keene about comments he’d made that Sarah Palin “whined” about media coverage, and that she “bailed” on her post as Alaska Governor.

Ironically, Ziegler also confronted Keene about allegations that his organization would do anything for money, offering him $20 to write a pro-Palin op-ed.

Aside from Keene’s attacks on Palin, there’s also a lot of dissatisfaction with Keene and the ACU among conservatives, in general. Most won’t speak about it publicly, but the FedEx scandal, the perceived coddling of fringe elements at that Western CPAC, and other issues have dimmed some of the group’s luster among conservatives. While CPAC is still the best game in town for most conservatives to meet, greet, and share influence with others, Palin stands apart. CPAC needs her far more than she needs CPAC.

That actually points up the biggest fallacy in Santorum’s argument. Palin is a money-making machine, which i s all the more reason why she could afford to take a weekend off to keynote CPAC.

If there’s really no such thing as bad publicity, then Santorum will likely get a huge bang for the buck with this interview. Something tells me, though, that it won’t be a net gain for his already dim presidential hopes.

Host Greg Gutfeld was particularly certain of the fact that the excuse given for her speaking event to be canceled– that the $17,500 speaking fee was too high– was a ruse to cover up political disagreement. “They pretend it’s about money,” he argued, “but really, it’s about ideology.”He also identified it as a trend against “any woman that presents a view that isn’t liberalspeak or politically correct,” both views with which he found an ally in panelist Bill Whittle. To him, for conservatives, “the wedge is going to be you’re either evil or you’re stupid” unless you’re a Palin, in which case, both. Whittle was the lone panelist to feel comfortable with the asking price on Palin as a speaker, arguing that a speaker is only worth “what a speaker draws,” and the details don’t matter to the asking price.

While most of the panel seemed comfortable with the idea of Palin speaking about abstinence, the fact that she was getting so much money out of it to begin with seemed questionable to some, namely S.E. Cupp, who summarized Palin’s career as “the definition of falling ass-backwards into money” (the panel then reflected for a moment on how nice it would feel to literally fall ass-backwards into a pile of money). Despite admitting that she supported Palin’s efforts, Cupp found the price “a little steep” and, which Gutfeld jokingly accused her of mere professional jealousy, “I have avoided getting pregnant and I want to be rewarded!”

During the Half-Time Report, Andy Levy jumped into the mix to defend Palin as a speaker from Remy Spencer, the lone panelist who objected to Palin as a speaker given her past. “Isn’t that the same as recovering drug addicts?” Levy argued, noting that one can warn others not to behave badly after having engaged in bad behavior. Spencer replied that she was uncomfortable with comparing pregnancy to drug addiction, and looked around to find a better female role model worth a $17,500 speaking fee. She didn’t have to look too far, nominating Cupp for the job (and the money, to which Cupp had no objections whatsoever).

Speaking of drugs and illegitimate pregnancies, Red Eye‘s ever-eligible Bill Schulz rounded out the segment with a friendly solicitation to “single moms out there looking for a drug addict”– “Call me, ladies!”

The panel discussion and Half-Time Report via Fox News below:

Bin Laden was speaking about the recent tragic floods in Pakistan, noting that “industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.” Maher lauded this comment, albeit in a tongue-in-cheek way, and used it to condemn Republicans that express skepticism about the existence of global warming: “a guy in a cave gets it better than every Republican voting for the Senate!”

The conservatives on his panel, of course, were not amused. P.J. O’Rourke, who argues that there’s no point in worrying about global warming because there is nothing human beings can do about it anyway, mocked him saying, “I was a skeptic before, but now I’m convinced!” S.E. Cupp took a more substantive approach to the discussion, noting that the only reason Bin Laden supports global warming research is that it promotes his “meme” that the West and, specifically, America, are destroying the earth. Global warming “is a rich man’s problem,” she noted, “the United States caused it.”

The comments from Friday’s Real Time via HBO below:

Henican was discussing whether Wikileaks was a journalistic organization– a hot topic nowadays given their release of what they have dubbed the Afghan War Diaries– with fellow panelist S.E. Cupp, who was attacking Wikileaks for having as their sole purpose, according to her, “to discredit and dismantle our war efforts and at any cost.” She refused to call their efforts journalism, claiming that, should they also work for whistleblowers in the tobacco industry or DC lobbyists, she would be more comfortable with them. For now, “hey’re just a collection bin for, for you know, documents.” Henican responded: “Kind of like the Drudge Report, right?”

Wikileaks, naturally, was peeved by this insolence, though they didn’t seem to take too much issue with Henican’s comparison– in response to Cupp’s claim that she would be ok with the organization if they served tobacco company whistleblowers, they tweeted out the entirety of their (quite formidable, but nowhere near the size of their war reports) tobacco industry archives. And they don’t have too much of a reason to be angry. Aside from the obvious differences in ideology, methodology and ultimate goal, there are a good number of similarities between the two organizations:

• Elusive, soft-spoken mystery leader that manages to live in several places simultaneously? Check.
• Unknown number/names of staff? Check.
• Undisclosed method of choosing what goes up on the website? Check.
• Obvious hyper-partisanship? Check.
• High editorial-to-raw-info ratio in favor of the latter? Check. (I’d say Matt Drudge does about as much writing as Julian Assange does, perhaps a little less).

Given that they had both been involved in controversies with editing videos and releasing information that was detrimental to the American government (though obviously on different levels)– and that their styles on cable news are so vastly different– I have always thought it would be interesting to watch a discussion between Assange and Andrew Breitbart. But I think Henican is onto something bigger here with the comparison between Assange and Drudge, and given the way in which the Drudge Report surfaced and Drudge’s clear leanings in favor of open information online, there would be a lot to gain from putting these two on a talk show or panel somewhere. The existence of both sites make it increasingly clear that further dialogue on new media and its impact on the beast we call journalism is necessary, and, really, who better debate the issue than the people on either side that have caused old media the most frustration?

The clip from yesterday’s Fox News Watch below:

[h/t Newsbusters]

The center question of the conversation, with Maher defining it, was whether non-atheists were delusional– a topic that came up after Cupp admitted that she suspected President Barack Obama was an atheist, too. Maher argued that religion was the cause of “all wars,” in which he included communism, “a state religion.” Avlon offered that the term “religion” for what Maher was attacking was wrong– it was “absolutism, ideology, and extremism” that were behind the forces Maher was citing. Booker took it a step further, telling Maher “in your atheism, you are just as dogmatic and intolerant as any preacher.”

After an extensive back-and-forth in which Maher declared himself the only person on TV attacking religion and Cupp gave him several examples of liberal figures opposing religious practices, Maher kept it topical by asking everyone, “let’s move on to Stephen Baldwin.”

The full round table discussion below:

S.E. Cupp‘s Losing Our Religion came out last week, and we talked to the frequent FNC and CNN guest about how the media covers religion, how Pres. Barack Obama handles Christianity and why an atheist would pick this topic to cover.

Mediaite: You probably get this question a lot, but throughout the book you describe yourself as being an atheist. What makes an atheist pick this topic to write about?

Cupp: I’ve always been fascinated by religion. I’m getting my Masters in religious studies, I’ve always studied religion and written about religion. Being an atheist doesn’t do anything to quash that fascination. And I’ve been asked a lot, ‘What business does an atheist have writing a book that defends Christianity, how could an atheist do that?’ I always respond ‘Very objectively.’ Because I’m writing about this from the outside and don’t really have a dog in this fight, I would hope it gives a little more credibility to the project than having some fundamentalist Christian write about attacks on Christianity.

“Christian America just does not see this President as a convincing supporter of faith. And I don’t blame them.”

Mediaite: But to play Devil’s Advocate a little here, why would you want the media to talk more about God, if you don’t believe that concept exists?

Cupp: Well yeah, it’s not that I want them to talk about God more arbitrarily. I want them, when they do talk about God, to be a little more respectful of the fact that 90% of this country believes in God and 80% is Christian. To slap 80% of the country in the face on a regular basis and basically telegraph that their values don’t matter or their values are dangerous I think isn’t honest journalism. That’s not honest reportage. I think this country deserves a better more responsible press.

Mediaite: It’s not necessarily that you think they should cover it more, but there are concepts that some people believe but others don’t believe exists, like say birthers or 9/11 truthers. But you think they should cover God more in a positive way than they do now?

Cupp: But birthers and truthers are conspiracy theorists. And I’m sorry, even as an atheist I’ll tell you that Christianity is not a conspiracy theory. It’s a faith and a values system and again represents 80% of this country. That’s majority opinion, that’s not a conspiracy theory. So again, comparing Christianity to the birthers or truthers isn’t intellectually honest.

Mediaite: Recently in the news was is the National Day of Prayer, which the White House canceled the service of, and Franklin Graham was removed from event. But Pres. Obama also recently met with Billy Graham for the first time.

Cupp: They can’t cancel it. It’s legally mandated that the President sign the proclamation every year. Some presidents sign more than one a year. The president signed it last year and the liberal media made a big deal about it even though he was legally mandated to do so. No one made a big deal about the fact that he skipped the prayer services which most Presidents don’t do. But again that’s really indicative of the way the liberal media protects Obama, and he’s very uncomfortable with public worship. It’s almost like the media and the Obama administration are allies in this war right now.

Mediaite: Do you think Obama meeting with Billy Graham done anything to quell concerns that Christian Americans have?

Cupp: No. He’s met with rabbis, he apparently gets private sermons up at Camp David. All of that is fine. Much is private and not for public consumption which is odd in and of itself. The fact of the matter is the president is continually elevating atheism to the status of other faiths when they have nothing to do with one another. He’s constantly trying to preach superiority of science over faith. He’s made a number of gaffes that were interpreted by religious America as a slap in the face. Covering up religious insignia at Georgetown, just a terrible decision, but went virtually uncovered by the media. Skipping out on the National Day of Prayer, the guns and religion gaffe while he was campaigning. Christian America just does not see this President as a convincing supporter of faith. And I don’t blame them.

>>> NEXT PAGE: How cable news handles Christianity, pro-religion movies, looking to 2012.

While the fact that Hannity would prefer a 2012 Palin presidency to the alternative is nothing new, watching him have to address this fact in the context of a schoolboy crush, and not a bitterly serious fight to the death with progressive socialism, is something we don’t see often. Cupp later tried to soften the blow by calling Williams’ description of Palin as “a centerfold for conservative men” sexist (her initial comment was just a pithy “ew!”), and Hannity tried to defend Palin’s political expertise, but Williams warned Hannity his “libido is getting in the way of your thinking.”

This prompted Hannity to defend his point by reminding Williams that he would prefer Palin as president to Obama today, and that Obama is slated to become an even worse president than Jimmy Carter.”You would trust her with our national security over Barack Obama?!” Williams asked. “Oh my God, you are really out there tonight.”

Perhaps the best part of this clip is the befuddled country singer sitting quietly in the corner, watching the others talk, sheepishly admitting when addressed that he finds Palin “cute” and shilling his album.

Check out the clip below:

In fairness, they didn’t go the Fox News blonde fembot route; women made the calendar based on ideology and accomplishments, though it’s unclear what Prejean has done aside from oppose gay marriage and get hit by a Perez Hilton witchhunt for it.

Here’s the roundup:

Pat Buchanan’s sister Bay Buchanan; Carrie Prejean; Clare Boothe Luce herself; Representative Michele Bachmann; Why You’re Wrong About the Right coauthor S.E. Cupp; CURE president Star Parker; Phyllis Schlafly; pollster Kellyanne Conway; Ann Coulter; Virginia pol Kate Obenshain; right-wing publisher Marji Ross; and Hot Air founder/political commentator Michelle Malkin.

Foxnews.com has a slideshow of the calendar here.

Here’s a “behind-the-scenes video of the 2010 calendar shoot:”

Here’s what she said, in response to the whole manufactured Letterman-Palin kerfuffle:

This is the enduring legacy of the Obama campaign. I’m not saying this to be inflammatory, I blame Barack Obama because he allowed his surrogates in the media and Hollywood and everyone else on the left to do this dirty talking for him….he didn’t come out and say, ‘enough is enough, I don’t want to win this way. I have two daughters, and I don’t like the way that this woman, or Cindy McCain, is being talked about.

This caught me, because of course Barack Obama said pretty much exactly that as soon as Bristol Palin’s pregnancy came out. Here’s the transcript, from Sept. 1, 2008:

I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people’s families are off limits, and people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics, it has no relevance to governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18. And how family deals with issues and teenage children that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that is off limits.

FACTS! I know they’re awkward and sometimes keep you from spouting off incendiary blather, but, you know, they do exist. Sheesh.

Related:

Conservative Columnist Blames Obama For Letterman’s Palin Joke [HuffPo Media]
Obama Responds To Palin’s Family Issues And Other Rumors [Political Base]