“It’s not often I’m asked about some random person in America,” he said.

The context here is that Republicans are gridlocking the deficit Super Committee because they’ve pledged publicly never to raise taxes — a pledge Democrats say they’ll have to break to get bipartisan support for cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

If the Super Committee fails, and Congress can’t pass significant deficit reduction measures by the end of 2013, it’ll trigger an enforcement mechanism, cutting $1.2 billion across the board, mostly to Medicare provider payments and defense programs. In this context, 40 members of the House GOP caucus signaled that they’d be amenable to tax increases paired with cuts to entitlement programs.

Boehner’s deer-in-headlights moment may be a sign that the pressure to cut Norquist loose is getting to him. But, he’s not relenting — at least not publicly.

“Our conference is opposed to tax hikes, because we believe that tax hikes will hurt our economy and put Americans back to work,” Boehner said.

Note – this post was written by Brian Beutler for Talking Points Memo and appears here via a content sharing agreement with Mediaite.

In an email to TPM, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said her campaign pulled down the tough attack on Perry at the request of the news network.

“While the use of the CNN clips was fully within our rights under the law, we respect and appreciate the role CNN has played as host in debates over the last several months,” Saul said. “For this reason, we are honoring their request to remove the video.”

The video included a lot of clips of debate video — as well as a lot of clips from networks other than CNN. Take a look at the whole thing, as captured by the Democratic trackers at American Bridge:

The clip went out Wednesday afternoon. By Thursday morning, the video had been pulled down and the website that hosted it had been redesigned.

Note – this post was written by Evan McMorris-Santoro for Talking Points Memo and appears here via a content sharing agreement with Mediaite.

“We’re both expressions of dissatisfaction,” Stewart said. “[Roger Ailes'], I think, happens to be a slightly more powerful version. … Ailes was a strategist for Nixon. He comes from the seat of power, and he understands how important the narrative is. We come from comedy, so our natural instinct is not to understand that, and to be bratty. That goes a long way towards explaining the difference between the two organizations.”

Stewart’s show doesn’t only focus on Fox’s journalistic sensationalism: CNN and MSNBC are common targets, too. And the cable networks’ 24-hour news cycle does little to help inform Americans, Stewart said.

“[The 24-hour networks] are now the absolute most powerful force driving the political narrative,” he said. “And the picture that they create is one of conflict, because they’re on for 24 hours a day, so they have to create a compelling reason for you to watch them. Otherwise, they’re just Muzak – newzak.”

Read the interview teaser here. The interview appears in the latest issue of Rolling Stone and will be available on newsstands Friday.

Note – this post was written by David Taintor for Talking Points Memo and appears here via a content sharing agreement with Mediaite.

The influential New York Daily News savaged Weprin over the weekend after he belly flopped on a simple question from their editors: what is the national debt? With a reported “deer in headlights” look, he twice guessed $4 trillion, about $10 trillion off from the correct answer. As cringe-worthy a moment as it was on its own, its impact is much worse in Weprin’s case: he’s been selling himself as a fiscal Mr. Fix-it, touting his eight years as chair of the City Council’s finance committee as his top qualification.

The next day Weprin dropped out of a debate with Turner at the last minute, citing logistical problems caused by the hurricane. But the storm had already passed and the move prompted speculation — fanned by Turner’s camp — that Weprin had dropped out to avoid taking heat for his debt screw-up the day before.

And things were starting to look competitive already: a Siena poll earlier in the month gave Weprin only a modest 46-40 lead.

“It’s just a mess,” one Democratic consultant told TPM. “I still think he’s going to win, but it’s uncomfortably close right now. ”

Weprin’s campaign is counting on a combination of union support and negative attacks to even the score in the final weeks.

“The Weprin campaign is implementing an aggressive GOTV and voter information campaign to share our message and spread the truth about Bob Turner and the fact that the budget policies he supports would decimate Medicare and Social Security and make it impossible to fund health care benefits for 9/11 volunteers and FEMA disaster aid,” spokeswoman Elizabeth Kerr told TPM.
Talking Points Memo on Facebook

Weprin has aggresively sought to tie Turner to the Tea Party, but Turner has shown shades of Scott Brown and distanced himself from both groups. He opposes Paul Ryan’s Medicare privatization plan and a spokeswoman told TPM that he would likely have supported the $4 trillion “grand bargain” President Obama floated that included revenue increases.

“We need Democrats to consciously take a leap of faith vote for Turner,” spokesman Bill O’Reilly (not that one) told TPM. “If we don’t accomplish that, if we don’t ask that the right way, then we don’t win, plain and simple.”

Turner has thrown plenty of ugly punches at Weprin to do so, however, running a TV ad criticizing his support for a Muslim group’s right to build a community center near Ground Zero. Turner’s also aggressively courted Jewish voters by accusing the White House of selling out Israel, a particularly galling attack given that Weprin is a practicing Orthodox Jew and has condemned Obama’s approach to the Middle East on similar grounds. Turner scored an endorsement from former Democratic mayor Ed Koch, who cited Israel as the primary factor behind his support.

One x-factor is the unusual timing of the election, which will take place only two days after the tenth anniversary of September 11th. The local news will be dominated by 9/11 coverage for the final week, making it difficult for both sides to get their message out. Neither candidate will likely air ads that day and may have to tone their attacks down in the last few days. But the event also coincides with a new line of attack for Weprin, who has gone after Turner for criticizing the James Zadroga Act, which provides health care to 9/11 first responders and volunteers sickened by chemicals at Ground Zero.

Note – this post was written by Benjy Sarlin for Talking Points Memo, and appears here via a content sharing agreement.

In an interview to be broadcast on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, Jake Tapper asked Huntsman about his shots at Tex. Gov. Rick Perry’s contention that evolution is “a theory that’s out there,” but not a sure thing, nor is the idea of climate change. Last week Huntsman tweeted his take, “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

Tapper asked, “Were you just being cheeky or do you think there’s a serious problem with what Governor Perry said?” Huntsman’s response: “I think there’s a serious problem. The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party – the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012.”

Huntsman went on to describe what he sees as the long term political downside to questioning science:

When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science – Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position….I can’t remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a – a party that – that was antithetical to science. I’m not sure that’s good for our future and it’s not a winning formula.

On the subject of the GOP presidential field’s indifference toward the prospect of default and their ability to handle the economy, he painted all with a broad brush:

Well, I wouldn’t necessarily trust any of my opponents right now, who were on a recent debate stage with me, when every single one of them would have allowed this country to default. You can imagine, even given the uncertainty of the marketplace the last several days and even the last couple of weeks, if we had defaulted the first time in the history of the greatest country that ever was, being 25 percent of the world’s GDP and having the largest financial services sector in this world by a long shot, if we had defaulted, Jake, this marketplace would be in absolute turmoil. And people who are already losing enough as it is on their 401(k)s and retirement programs and home valuations, it would have been catastrophic.

Note – this article was written by Kyle Leighton for Talking Points Memo and appears here via a content sharing agreement.

Acknowledging to TPM that “there is no love lost between the W camp and the Perry camp,” one Bush veteran appealed for detente.

“I do not think it serves any purpose for any Bushy to fuel to fire or resentment,” the person said. “The goal for us should be to defeat Obama not defeat ourselves.

On Monday, Perry told Iowans that if Bernanke “prints more money between now and the election I don’t know what you’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas” and said such a move would be “almost treasonous.”

Almost immediately, ex-Bush aide Tony Fratto condemned the remarks as “inappropriate and unpresidential” on Twitter.

He was joined the next day by Karl Rove on Fox News, who lit into Perry over the Bernanke rant.

“You don’t accuse the chairman of the federal reserve of being a traitor to his country. Of being guilty of treason,” Rove said. “And, suggesting that we treat him pretty ugly in texas. You know, that is not, again a presidential statement.”

In a post for Commentary, former Bush aide Peter Wehner, called Perry’s comments a “serious unforced error,” writing that “people shouldn’t throw around the words ‘almost treasonous’ loosely; and certainly a person running for president shouldn’t do such a thing.”

Nicolle Wallace, who served as communications director for Bush, said on Morning Joe that Perry had blown it. “Not only is it going to maybe turn off some people in the middle, but these aren’t fights that are going to serve Perry well politically,” she said. Wallace added that his remark that soldiers would be proud to serve under him and its implied dig at President Obama was “inartful.”
Talking Points Memo on Facebook

Rove and Perry go way back in Texas politics — Bush’s top strategist convinced Perry, then a Democrat, to jump party lines in the first place to run for Texas Agricultural Commissioner. But Perry broke from Bush in the latter’s second Presidential term, ripping on the president’s fiscal record in the statehouse and White House alike and criticizing his signature education law, No Child Left Behind.

Whatever the nature of their split, Rove is one of the most influential players in the GOP as head of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, unlimited money groups that are already spending tens of million of dollars on 2012 election ads. Crossroads’ top staffers have gushed over Romney in recent weeks, but steadfastly asserted that their groups will remain neutral in the primaries. One Crossroads-connected consultant and former Romney strategist, Carl Forti, raised eyebrows by helping to run a Super PAC devoted to electing Mitt Romney, Restore Our Future, on the side.

The various connections between Rove and Romney drew the attention of RedState’s Erick Erickson on Tuesday, who published a post entitled “Is Karl Rove Afraid of Being Marginalized?”

“I’m wondering if Karl is worried about staying relevant should Perry gain too much momentum,” he wrote. “If so, Perry better watch out. The attacks will come fast and furious.”

Note – this article was written by Benjy Sarlin for Talking Points Memo and appears here via a content sharing agreement.

You remember Ted Haggard. He’s the former leader of the New Life Church who was forced from the pulpit amid charges he used drugs and paid a masseuse for gay sex. Haggard’s hardly running from the limelight, however, telling GQ earlier this year he’s bisexual and now, doing a cameo in a preview for a yet-to-be-filmed “Christian sex comedy” called “The Waiting Game.” Yes, really.

As TPM’s Jullian Rayfield explains the plot, ” the movie follows a schlub named Jack who’s super excited about finally losing his virginity on his wedding night, but is foiled when his fiancee leaves him at the altar. He then goes on a quest to meet a replacement wife, while contemplating whether or not to remain abstinent.” And in a cafe, while suggesting that anything he might do would never end up in the newspaper, Haggard, at the next table, leans back and interrupts. “Hey buddy, I wouldn’t do that if I were you.”

Watch it here, from YouTube:

(h/t TPM)

Hours later, other administration officials were clarifying Brennan’s account. Turns out the woman that was killed on the compound wasn’t bin Laden’s wife. Bin Laden may have not even been using a human shield. And he might not have even been holding a gun.

The narrative first unfolded in a televised briefing at the White House.

“Thinking about that from a visual perspective, here is bin Laden, who has been calling for these attacks, living in this million dollar-plus compound, living in an area that is far removed from the front, hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield,” Brennan said. “I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years.”

Pressed on the issue, Brennan said that it was his understanding that the woman killed was bin Laden’s wife and that “she was positioned in a way that indicated that she was being used as a shield.”

It’s possible it may have been a mix-up of two separate incidents during the assault on the compound. As a senior administration official said at a Pentagon briefing Monday: “One woman, who was used as a human shield by one of the four military-age males on the compound, was killed; he was firing behind her. Two women, including one with Osama bin Laden, were wounded. And the rest were not injured at all.”

But as Politico’s Josh Gerstein reports, there’s still debate over whether the woman who was killed was being used as a human shield at all.

Another official familiar with the operation said it did not appear that any woman was used as a human shield, but that the woman killed and the one injured were hurt in the crossfire. The official said he believed Brennan had mixed up the episode involving bin Laden’s wife with another encounter elsewhere in the compound.

“Two women were shot here. It sounds like their fates were mixed up,” said the U.S. official. “This is hours old and the full facts are still being ascertained as those involved are debriefed.”

More details emerged at an off-camera briefing for television reporters Monday night, where a senior White House official said bin Laden was not armed when he was killed.

This post was written by Ryan J. Reilly for Talking Points Memo and appears here via a content sharing partnership.

“Yes, the numbers were down, but I don’t see this as a trend at all,” Patricia Phalen, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, told TPM. “There could be any number of factors influencing a decline, if that is really what’s happening. For one thing, it’s April, and people are more likely to be out. For another, the content of any particular program could be less attractive for the viewer. I happen to be an Apprentice fan, and the latest episode was very, very predictable.”

Trump’s April 17 episode drew 7.6 million viewers, down from 8.2 million the previous week and 9.7 million viewers on April 3, right as his birther junket was getting into full swing. But the show’s ratings have always been inconsistent — its first season drew around 20 million viewers a night on average but by 2010, the 10th season of The Apprentice suffered dismal ratings, bringing in about 4 million viewers on average and prompting murmurs it might be canceled. Producers reportedly even filmed multiple endings with different winners for their last episode because their shrinking viewership wasn’t enough to merit a live finale.

The numbers have since picked up, but its volatile following makes it difficult to assess the impact of Trump’s presidential ambitions on the show’s success.

For his part, Trump has downplayed any connection between his latest explosion of publicity and his television series.

“I don’t need to do this for ratings on The Apprentice,” Trump told CBS. “This is too important, our country is in trouble, our country is not being properly led.”

Note – this post was written by Benjay Sarlin for Talking Points Memo and appears on Mediaite via a content sharing agreement.

In the poll, 48% of registered Republican voters said Obama was not born in the U.S., while 26% said he was. Additionally, 26% said they were unsure.

That percentage is actually slightly better than the national average for typical Republican primary voters, a majority of whom believe Obama was born outside the U.S. In February, a PPP poll found that 51% of registered Republican voters said Obama was not born in the U.S., compared to 28% who said he was, and 21% who were unsure.

However, the high birther base does not necessarily mean that the issue will be critical in determining which candidate wins Iowa. Donald Trump, who has vaulted to the front of several polls through a media blitz in which he’s repeatedly questioned Obama’s birth, placed a modest third in the poll’s hypothetical primary election. While 19% of voters who doubted Obama’s citizenship backed Trump, 25% broke for Huckabee.

The PPP poll was conducted April 15-17 among 419 registered Republican voters. It has a margin of error of 4.8%.

This post was written by Jon Terbush for Talking Points Memo and is repurposed here via a content sharing agreement.

As Wisconsin Watch, a project of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism reports, Carlos Lam initially denied that he had sent the e-mail, which was part of the tens of thousands of e-mails released in an open-records settlement the Walker administration reached with the local paper the Isthmus and the Associated Press.

When contacted by Wisconsin Watch, Lam had initially denied sending the e-mail, claiming that he had been the victim of identity theft, and said he did not support the criminal activities described in the e-mail: , “I think he’s trying to do what he has to do to get his budget balanced. But jeez, that’s taking it a little bit to the extreme.”

However, Lam admitted late in the afternoon that he did send the e-mail, and resigned his job.

From the report:

After praise for Walker, the email — sent Feb. 19, during union demonstrations against Walker’s budget repair bill — then took a darker turn. It suggested that the situation in Wisconsin presented “a good opportunity for what’s called a ‘false flag’ operation.”

“If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions’ cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions,” the email said.

“Currently, the media is painting the union protest as a democratic uprising and failing to mention the role of the DNC and umbrella union organizations in the protest. Employing a false flag operation would assist in undercutting any support that the media may be creating in favor of the unions. God bless, Carlos F. Lam.”

And also:

Cullen Werwie, Walker’s press secretary, said no one at the office had seen the email or contacted Lam. Werwie condemned the email’s suggestions Monday in a statement to the Center.

“Certainly we do not support the actions suggested in (the) email. Governor Walker has said time and again that the protesters have every right to have their voice heard, and for the most part the protests have been peaceful. We are hopeful that the tradition will continue,” Werwie wrote.

This does call to mind Walker’s infamous phone call in late February with blogger Ian Murphy, who posed as Republican financier David Koch. During that call, “Koch” asked Walker whether he had thought about “planting some troublemakers” among the protesters. Walker said “we thought about that,” but didn’t do it.

When asked about this at a press conference, Walker had said, “In my case we ruled it out,” and also added: “When he talked about inciting things and ‘crushing the bastards,’ we get ideas from people all across the state. And we want to have a civil discussion about this and a debate about this, and the fact that we discussed this, and we said it wasn’t a good idea.”

(Note: As the full transcript of the “Koch” call shows, Walker said that he was worried such a tactic could backfire and increase the pressure for compromise: “My only fear would be is if there was a ruckus caused is that that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has gotta settle to avoid all these problems.”)

Previously in Indiana, Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox lost his job after tweeting that the protesters should be dealt with using “live ammunition,” following that up with “against thugs physically threatening legally-elected state legislators & governor? You’re damn right I advocate deadly force.”

At the time, the Attorney General’s office said in a statement: “We respect individuals’ First Amendment right to express their personal views on private online forums, but as public servants we are held by the public to a higher standard, and we should strive for civility.”

Note – this article was written by Eric Kleefeld for Talking Points Memo and appears here via a content sharing deal.

Stossel was on Fox & Friends this morning to discuss some high-paying government jobs recently reported in The Daily Caller. The report found that the “Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs needs someone to run the Facebook page for the Dept. of the Interior and they’ll pay up to $115,000 a year.” Stossel took that as an opportunity to wonder about the entire concept of a Bureau of Indian Affairs.

“Why is there a Bureau of Indian Affairs?” he said. “There is no Bureau of Puerto Rican Affairs or Black Affairs or Irish Affairs. And no group in America has been more helped by the government than the American Indians, because we have the treaties, we stole their land. But 200 years later, no group does worse.”

Established in 1824, Indian Affairs is the oldest bureau of the United States Department of the Interior. Among other responsibilities, the Bureau is charged with “maintaining the federal government-to-government relationship with the federally recognized Indian tribes,” according to its website.

This post was written by Eric Lach for Talking Points Memo and is appears here under a content sharing agreement.

Watch:

“I feel like public radio should address this directly, because I think anybody who listens to our stations understands that what they’re hearing is mainstream media reporting,” Glass said. “We have nothing to fear from a discussion of what is the news coverage we’re doing. As somebody who works in public radio, it is killing me that people on the right are going around trying to basically rebrand us, saying that it’s biased news, it’s left wing news, when I feel like anybody who listens to the shows knows that it’s not. And we are not fighting back, we are not saying anything back. I find it completely annoying, and I don’t understand it.”

Glass acknowledged that journalists tend to be more liberal than the general public, but he said “that doesn’t change what is going out over the air.”

“Go through this morning’s ‘Morning Edition’ and find me even a sentence that smells like political bias to you,” he said. “Like find one.”

This post was written by Eric Lach for Talking Points Memo and is repurposed here via a content sharing agreement.

Listen:

In an exchange about U.S. credit policy with MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur on Wednesday, Paul was asked whether people should be able to borrow money to buy a house, or car. “Oh, in a free market, you can do that,” Paul said, but only so long as that credit is backed up by real money, and not something that “comes out of thin air.”

Uygur asked the Congressman if students who can’t afford tuition should be able to get government loans. “No one has a right to anyone’s wealth, I don’t have a right to come to you and say my poor kid needs 500 dollars for an education,” Paul replied, “an education is not a right, medical care is not a right.”

The potential 2012 presidential candidate said Uygur was asking the wrong question about student loans: “Kids today as soon as they work, we tax them. If they’re a waitress or waiter, we tax their tips. We encourage them to work, then they don’t have enough money. Prices go up on the tuition and then we give them grants and then they get out of the college and they owe $200,000. It makes no sense whatsoever. I don’t think how anybody can justify it.”

Note – this post was written by Meena Rupani for Talking Points Memo and is re-purposed her via a content sharing agreement.

In a presentation at CPAC on Thursday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) called on Republicans to hold the government hostage until President Obama abandons his dream of reforming the nation’s health care system.

Or to put it in King’s words: Republicans should do to “ObamaCare” what Democrats did to the Vietnam War.

Speaking to a small audience in CPAC’s auxiliary meeting room — where most of the social conservatives like King have been pushed this year — King outlined his plan to use Congress’ ability to shut down the government by refusing to fund it as means of pushing the health care reforms into an early grave.

The reform law signed by Obama last year includes what King called “self-enacting appropriations” — mandatory spending — which means they’ll kick in on their own unless Congress passes a law to stop them. King’s plan: tell Obama that unless he agrees to kill that spending, the GOP will refuse to pass new legislation to fund the government, which runs out of money on March 4.

Without that legislation, the government would shut down. And, voilà: a government held for ransom.

King said he got the idea from the 1974 law Congress passed to forbid President Ford from continuing the war in Vietnam. The law that Congress forced Ford to sign forbade him and the treasury from funding any military action in, around or in the skies above Vietnam.

King said the ’74 law was a “clear precedent” for Congress to rip out the automatic funding of the health care law.

“I disagreed with that decision Congress made in 1974,” he said. “But I believe we have the foundation to shut off the automatic funding to ObamaCare.”

King’s concept isn’t new. Tea Party leaders and their allies on the Hill — including King himself — have explicitly called on the GOP to use Congress’s power of the purse as leverage in its fight to kill the health care law. But two things are new here.

First, the appropriations fight is bearing down rapidly. Emboldened conservative Republicans, who are already unhappy with their leadership for not cutting more deeply into federal spending, aren’t going to be any happier if they miss an opportunity to hack away at the reforms. To that end, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has suggested that the House will pass spending legislation to explicitly forbid the administration from spending new federal dollars on implementing the law.

That doesn’t satisfy King, who returned to the Hill after rallying conservative troops and told reporters, “If we’re gonna cut a billion dollars out of it in the CR and say we shut off the funding when we’re letting $105.4 billion go forward, in a year or two we’re going to see the roots of Obama care grow deep and he’ll use it all to implement it.”

Second, King himself has ratcheted up his campaign in recent days, eager to talk to reporters about it in order to build support among members.

If enough conservative Republicans join King, it will put House GOP leaders in a tough spot. They’ve promised a fairly open debate process on spending, and King’s plan appeals to some conservatives. It will be hard for him to force his plan into the legislation. But if it’s not in the final spending package, conservatives could threaten to defect, and Republican leaders will be forced to rely on Democrats to keep the government funded. That would probably mean breaking their own “Pledge to America” with relatively shallow cuts, and the health care law left largely untouched.

On his way into a meeting with members of his caucus Thursday evening, King confessed the odds were stacked against him.

“I think if there’s an agreement on $100 billion [in spending cuts] in that room, it’s taken some of the air out of the balloon,” he said. “I’ll have to see.”

After that meeting, Republicans claimed they’d reached an understanding with their restless rank and filers, and that the chances of rebellion are slim.

“I would say that I do not see any group of people that are gathering together to do anything other than to pass this bill,” said Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX). At the same time, he admitted, Republicans have open lines of communication with several Democrats. “Every single member has been and will be kept in the loop as they choose, and there are a number of people who might be described as from the other party who are intensely interested.”

Pass the popcorn!

(This article was written by Brian Beutler and Evan McMorris-Santoro for Talking Points Memo where it was first published, and it appears on Mediaite

According to a new PPP poll, a majority of Republicans nationwide distrust every major news network except for Fox News, Rupert Murdoch‘s right-leaning cable powerhouse. Over six in ten Republicans say they don’t trust ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS, while a near majority of 48% find something suspicious about PBS as well.

Among self-identified Republicans in the poll, 67% said they trusted Fox News, while 22% said they did not trust Fox. Those numbers were inverted almost perfectly for the other networks, with Republicans distrusting CBS by a margin of 66% to 15%, ABC by 64% to 17%, NBC by 62% to 21%, and CNN by 61% to 22%. And perhaps fearing that PBS was funded by donations from viewers unlike them, a 48% plurality of Republicans said they didn’t trust that network, while just 29% said they did trust the publicly funded station.

While Republicans love Fox News, the network is distrusted by a majority of both Democrats (65%) and Independents (52%.)

Further, PPP found that Fox News’ credibility among all Americans has plummeted over the past year. Last January, Americans trusted Fox by a 49% to 37% margin. This year, only 42% of Americans trust Fox while 46% do not, a 16-point net swing.

PBS was the only network trusted by a majority of Americans in the poll. Fifty percent of respondents said they trusted PBS, while 30% said they did not. NBC broke even, with 41% of respondents trusting and another 41% distrusting the network.

A plurality of voters distrusted every other network, with CNN coming closest to a net positive at 40% trust to 43% distrust. ABC was the least trusted, with only 35% of respondents saying they trusted that channel, versus 43% who said they did not trust the network.

The PPP poll was conducted January 14-16 among 632 voters nationwide. It has a margin of error of 3.9%

(This post was written by Jon Terbush for Talking Points Memo and appears on Mediaite via a content sharing agreement)

As Barbour recalls it in a new profile in The Weekly Standard, things weren’t so bad in his hometown of Yazoo City, which took until 1970 to integrate its schools (though the final event itself is said to have gone on peacefully). For example, Barbour says that there was no problem of Ku Klux Klan activity in the town — thanks to the Citizens Council movement, an organization that was founded on the basis of resistance to integration and the promotion of white supremacy.

“You heard of the Citizens Councils? Up north they think it was like the KKK,” said Barbour. “Where I come from it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, you’d lose it. If you had a store, they’d see nobody shopped there. We didn’t have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City.”

The White Citizens Council movement was founded in Mississippi in 1954, shortly after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregated public schools, and was dedicated to political activities opposing civil rights — notably boycotts of pro-civil rights individuals, as opposed to Barbour’s recollection of actions against the Klan. It was distinguished from the Klan by the public self-identification of its members, and its image of suits and ties as opposed to white robes and nooses.

What’s more, Barbour says, he himself once went to see a speech by Martin Luther King in 1962 — though he and his friends were paying more attention to the girls.

In interviews Barbour doesn’t have much to say about growing up in the midst of the civil rights revolution. “I just don’t remember it as being that bad,” he said. “I remember Martin Luther King came to town, in ’62. He spoke out at the old fairground and it was full of people, black and white.”

Did you go? I asked.

“Sure, I was there with some of my friends.”

I asked him why he went out.

“We wanted to hear him speak.”

I asked what King had said that day.

“I don’t really remember. The truth is, we couldn’t hear very well. We were sort of out there on the periphery. We just sat on our cars, watching the girls, talking, doing what boys do. We paid more attention to the girls than to King.”

(This post was written by Eric Kleefeld for Talking Points Memo and is repurposed here via a content sharing agreement between TPM and Mediaite)

Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips says in his letter to Palin that without her at the helm of the RNC, the party will fall back into “establishment” hands.

“We need you as Chairman of the RNC. You have shown in the past no hesitation to take on the establishment. You did it in Alaska,” Phillips writes in the letter. “If we end up with establishment control of the GOP and their support for an establishment candidate in 2012, Obama and the socialists will have won…We need someone who will put conservatives in control of the party apparatus, not RINOs.”

The letter takes a shot at current RNC chair Michael Steele, who Phillips writes has “spent Republican money with the gusto of a liberal.” The letter references the numerous criticisms of Steele’s fiscal management of the RNC.

“Something is really wrong with the GOP when the RNC cannot fund a get out the vote campaign for mid-term elections,” Phillips writes.

Phillips writes that Palin has the collection of skills and national appeal to right the RNC ship in time to take on President Obama in 2012.

“You have an unbelievable ability to light up a crowd and to raise money. Both of which the Republican Party needs,” Phillips writes. “The GOP needs a conservative who can raise money and energize the troops. You are the only one out there with these unique talents.”

Palin has been seen as a natural ally of Steele’s heading into the January chair election, which Steele has not officially said he’ll be a part of yet. While many other prominent Republicans kept their distance from the gaffe-prone Steele over the past year, Palin joined Steele at several stops on his GOTV bus tour this fall and there’s been speculation that Palin might endorse Steele’s bid for a second term if he runs.

For his part, Phillips is prone to making big promises on behalf of the tea party movement other activists often distance themselves from. Phillips planned to play host to the second national tea party convention in Las Vegas before the event collapsed under open hostility from Nevada tea party and what appeared to be a lack of ticket sales.

Phillips has become a source of tea party headlines however, recently causing a national stir with his call to “retire” Muslim members of Congress.

Read the full Tea Party Nation letter, which the group says on its website will be “sent to Sarah Palin in the next few days,” here:

Dear Governor Palin,

John Kennedy once said, “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Right now, your country needs you as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

We are in a fight for the survival of our country. The Democrats have walked off the socialist cliff and are driving the country headlong into the abyss. Unfortunately, there are many on the Republican side who do not seem to get it. They are the embodiment of the old political joke that says, with the Democrats you get more of the same and with Republicans you get less of the same.

We need you as Chairman of the RNC. You have shown in the past no hesitation to take on the establishment. You did it in Alaska. If we end up with establishment control of the GOP and their support for an establishment candidate in 2012, Obama and the socialists will have won. An establishment candidate will not work to repeal Obamacare and the other programs Obama, Pelosi and Reid have put in place. We need someone who will put conservatives in control of the party apparatus, not RINOs.

Michael Steele has spent Republican money with the gusto of a liberal. You showed in Alaska, you know how to put the brakes on unnecessary spending.

Finally, you are a superstar. You have an unbelievable ability to light up a crowd and to raise money. Both of which the Republican Party needs. Something is really wrong with the GOP when the RNC cannot fund a get out the vote campaign for mid-term elections. The GOP needs a conservative who can raise money and energize the troops. You are the only one out there with these unique talents.

We, the undersigned, are asking you to ask yourself what you can do for your country and to step up and become a candidate for Chairman of the RNC.

Thank you for your consideration and for what you continue to do for this great country.

Judson Phillips, Founder – Tea Party Nation

Note – this post was written by Evan McMorris-Santoro. for Talking Points Memo and is re-purposed here via a content sharing agreement.

On Monday, Shultz launched ReplaceMichaelSteele.com, an online petition he hopes will centralize what he sees as general opposition to Steele among rank-and-file Republicans across the country. He, like a lot of establishment Republicans here in Washington, said Steele’s tenure has done more harm than good to the GOP as it gears up for the presidential election in 2012.

In an interview Monday, Shultz told TPM that former RNC political director Gentry Collins‘ scathing resignation letter of Nov. 16 finally pushed his concerns about Steele into action.

“After that letter came out, and then after some other articles came out talking about how Steele has a fair number of votes for the January election, I was concerned,” he told me. Over the weekend, he set up the page and got to work spreading the message that it’s time for Steele to go.

Shultz is not a voting member of the RNC, nor are young Republicans like him expected to play much of a role in the selection of the next RNC chair, whomever it may be. But for Steele, who has sold remaking the party as more accessible to groups who traditionally stay away from the GOP — like young voters for example — a cornerstone of his tenure, Shultz’ view that the RNC chair is bad for the party can only be seen as a setback, even if only a minor one.

Shultz wasn’t ready to say that young Republicans have turned on Steele entirely, but he said the ambivalence toward the RNC chair wasn’t reserved for higher age brackets.

“I think there’s definitely a consensus that’s building that he needs to go,” Shultz said. “He’s a solid individual. I just question his ability to lead us to victory in 2012.”

[TPM SLIDESHOW: Steele Trap: A Look At The RNC Chair's Year]

Shultz, who just came off his brother Matt’s successful campaign to become Iowa’s next Secretary of State, said Steele’s RNC was virtually nowhere to be seen on the campaign trail. He questioned Steele’s recent claims that by reaching out to the grassroots he boosted voter turnout.

“When he sits there and claims that he’s the reason why the tea party didn’t revolt from the RNC, I question that,” Shultz said. He said the RNC may be taking credit for tea party turnout that would have happened regardless of what Steele did.

Shultz says he’s waiting to make a final call on who to support as the next RNC chair, and said that his online petition was not driven by any of the dozen or so candidates rumored to be in the running for RNC chair. He does lean toward one of the options however — he told me Nick Ayers, the 28-year-old executive director of the RGA and a rumored candidate for RNC chair — would be a “great choice” to lead the party into 2012.

Note – this post was written by Evan McMorris-Santoro for Talking Points Memo and is re-purposed here via a content sharing agreement.

In an interview today with Nieman Journalism Lab‘s Laura McGann, he discusses TPM’s future, including plans for a paid subscription service (but not paywall) to launch in 2011:

LKM: A while back, you teased the idea of a membership model, where paid TPM members might get extra content or access. Do you imagine that model coming to fruition in the next year or two?

JMM: We’re hoping to do that in the first half of 2011. But to be clear, we’re never moving to a paywall model.

He also told Yahoo’s Michael Calderone about the changes TPM has experienced over the last ten years, and how it has shifted from “blog” to website:

TC: Nick Denton recently said that he’s bored with blogs and that Gawker Media sites will shift to a new format next year. Clearly, TPM has grown a lot from a one-man operation and strictly reverse-chronological posts to a more comprehensive site with staffers in New York City and Washington. And yet, it’s still described in the “about” section as a blog. Do you consider TPM a blog or an online news outlet or are these just arbitrary distinctions?

JM: I don’t think of it as a blog. And we’ve stopped referring to it as one in most of our materials. To me, a blog is something done by one person or maybe a small group of people. And the key is that it’s something that person does: They’re following their own instincts and interests; they’re not taking assignments from an editor. But if you look at how TPM operates, it’s not remotely like that. We have a squad of reporters who report to editors. And those editors report to a managing editor. … I think of it as a news organization, a news website. That’s what it is.

Claremont Graduate University has no student or education record for an individual named Christine O’Donnell.

The discrepancy was first reported by Gary Scott, a radio producer in Los Angeles and longtime political reporter and editor.

Turns out O’Donnell (R-DE) did receive a fellowship from a conservative think tank named the Claremont Institute, also in Claremont, Ca. but not affiliated with Claremont Graduate University. The think tank is listed properly on her campaign site, sort of.

O’Donnell’s bio reads:

Christine was awarded a 2002 Abraham Lincoln Graduate Fellowship in Constitutional Government from the Claremont Institute in Claremont, CA

But the phrase ‘graduate fellowship’ — which suggests graduate coursework — seems to be O’Donnell’s own creation. The Claremont Institute refers to the program as the “Lincoln Fellowship” here. That bio lists O’Donnell as:

Christine O’Donnell is President and founder of a national youth organization, The Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth. Ms. O’Donnell is a graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University, where she majored in English and communications. She has made numerous television appearances, been interviewed and profiled in national newspapers and magazines, and works as a media and public relations consultant.

As we’ve noted, O’Donnell only received her degree from Fairleigh on Sept. 1, this year.

The news about Claremont comes after Greg Sargent uncovered today that O’Donnell was being “misleading” by listing University of Oxford under education on her LinkedIn profile, which you can see below.

LinkedIn allows users to select their school name when filling in the profile. If a school isn’t listed, you can select “other” and enter in its name.

[TPM VIDEO: Christine O'Donnell's Greatest Hits]

Full coverage of the Delaware Senate race here.

This article was written by Christina Bellantoni for Talking Points Memo and is re-purposed here under a content sharing agreement between Mediaite and TPM.

“I’d vote for him all over again. … I think he’s got the same vision about America I do. … I think he has the same social goals, very much, that I do,” Politico reported.

But as lawmakers keep sparring over tax cuts on Capitol Hill, Buffett said that he thinks it’s “almost a cinch that they will be extended for the people – I don’t know if it’ll be exactly [making less than] $250,000, or whatever the number may be, in the end.”

Buffett added he doesn’t think that letting the tax cuts for more than $250,000 in income expire amounts to “a tax increase for people up and down the line.”

“I think there should be tax increases for people in the high income levels,” he said.

- Christina Bellantoni

Note – this article was written by Christina Bellantoni, first appeared on Talking Points Memo, and is re-purposed on Mediaite via a content sharing dealing between the two websites.

You already know about O’Donnell’s extreme views on sex and porn, and you’ve seen the video of her campaign against masturbation.

Now TPM has unearthed a 1997 C-SPAN video that shows O’Donnell voicing concerns that a drag queen ball “celebrates the type of lifestyle which leads to the disease,” objecting to terming those with AIDS “victims” and calling AIDS a consequence of a certain “lifestyle which brings about this disease.”

After complaining that “there is a gross disproportionate allocation of funds” going to AIDS treatment and prevention in comparison to resources designated to combat heart disease, O’Donnell compared living healthier to changing the “lifestyle” that she said lead to AIDS.

“When somebody finds out that they’re at high risk for heart disease, they cut out the fatty foods, they start exercising, they quit smoking. However, our approach to AIDS, when you’re in a high risk behavior, is to eliminate the consequences so that you can continue in your lifestyle which brings about this disease,” O’Donnell said.

Referring to people who get AIDS as victims, O’Donnell said, was “the kind of spinning with words and manipulating words that empowers the bias when it comes to AIDS.”

O’Donnell also took issue with government spending on preventative programs. “A lot of the money that we’re spending goes to things that we know will not prevent AIDS, but indeed will continue to spread the disease,” she said. “A lot of our money goes to distribute condoms in high schools, and a lot of our money goes to distribute material that is literally pornographic.”

She said that individuals could bring their chance of getting AIDS down to almost zero if they didn’t have sex outside of marriage, by having a monogamous marriage and by not using drugs that can spread HIV. O’Donnell also claimed that there was a “powerful political agenda” that was not allowing AIDS to be looked at fairly and objectively.

O’Donnell also noted on C-SPAN that while her organization, the Savior’s Alliance For Lifting The Truth (S.A.L.T.), was eligible for funding as an abstinence program under the welfare reform act, they made the decision not to accept federal funding “because we don’t want to be put under the bondage of the federal government.”

It’s not the first time O’Donnell has dipped her toe in the gay-baiting pool. During the primary, she called her opponent Rep. Mike Castle (R) ‘unmanly’ and distanced herself from a former campaign organization aide who put out a video that questioned Castle’s sexuality (even as she repeated the charges in order to distance herself).

Note – this post was written by Ryan J. Reilly and originally appeared on Talking Points Memo.

Watch the video below:

“I do not think well of the idea of burning anybody’s Koran, Bible, Book of Mormon or anything else,” Barbour told reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

“I don’t think there is any excuse for it,” Barbour said, adding that it’s a bad idea.

A reporter followed up to ask Barbour for his opinion as to why so many Americans (wrongly) think Obama is a Muslim.

“I don’t know why people think what they think,” Barbour said. He paused and then added, “This is a president that you know less about than any other president in history.”

Barbour said that Obama has said that he is a Christian “throughout his public life” and added, “I accept totally at face value that he’s a Christian.”

He was then asked if it is a vast right-wing conspiracy that polls show so many voters don’t agree. “No, ma’am,” he said.

Barbour repeatedly said the GOP should not take their “eye off the ball” with a focus on social issues instead of on the economy and jobs.

-Christina Bellantoni

Note – this article was written by Christina Bellantoni , and first appeared on Talking Points Memo and is re-purposed on Mediaite via a content sharing dealing between the two websites.

(H/T Talking Points Memo via Breitbart.TV)

The qualifications to apply for the running mate position are not as demanding as one would expect for such a job— as long as you’re a registered Independent who is over 30 and has lived in Colorado for at least two years, Clark would like to talk to you. Unlike most Craigslist gigs, this one may actually lead to a paid position and doesn’t even require a cover letter or resume!

Talking Points Memo caught up with Clark to see how the search was going, and Clark made sure to point out that, despite the loose qualifications, his team’s vetting is making the competition of the spot much more cutthroat than the ad seems to indicate:

Clark says that the ad has been “really, really successful” — but that out of the “well over 200 or 300 applications” that the listing had yielded so far, not everyone’s making the cut. “There’s 70 to 75 percent that I would say are not qualified for an office of that caliber,” he says.

Nevertheless, Clark vows to find a place in his campaign for all of them. “We’re going to bring them in and put them to work in another area,” he said. “Come on in. We’ll put you on the list. We’ll listen to you.”

The position is still open, so if you’re looking for work but not foolhardy courageous enough to jump into a major gubernatorial campaign with a candidate who doesn’t even have a party affiliation to hint at his political beliefs, Clark’s website has all the information you need to know. Clark has leadership experience from “WEST POINT” (emphasis his), “practical military knowledge,” and experience as a “professional money manager.” He is also fond of quoting Cicero, Eisenhower, and Washington. Sounds like your kind of boss? Sadly, Clark didn’t provide a real email address for his human resources department, but you can contact him at the anonymous address job-ysvee-1724308813@craigslist.org.

“Yesterday, we reported an unexpected political role for the American family dining chain that’s famous for its wings. That chain, of course, is Hooters. They’re famous for their … wings. Right?” …
… “I have heard that their wings are awesome.”

– Rachel Maddow, pontificating on Chamber of Commerce fraud and Hooters

On her show last night, Rachel Maddow reported on the too-weird-to-be-made-up link between Hooters, the Chamber of Commerce, and the health care debate. Yesterday morning, TPMMuckraker noted a tacky, wacky, and true campaign by what appeared to be the Chamber of Commerce, which baited and switched an offer of a $150 gift card to Hooters with a page that outlined an anti-government healthcare platform:

Online ads have popped up lately, telling readers that they can win a $150 Amex Gift Card for use at Hooters, if they complete a survey about other offers. One of those urges them to sign up for “free emails” from the Chamber of Commerce, which will explain “how to protect your family’s future and bring common sense solutions to the health-care debate.”

Maddow picked up on TPM’s reporting on both the controversy and the counterclaim of a Chamber of Commerce PR firm, which said that the campaign was actually orchestrated by someone else to make the Chamber look bad. But she also had a lot of fun making Hooters jokes.

Counterpoint: Chris Rock’s 1999 novelty single “No Sex in the Champagne Room:” “Nobody goes to Hooters for the wings.”

(via TPMMuckraker)

As far as TPM posts go, there didn’t seem to be anything wrong with the story, which began “Multiple sources tell TPMDC that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is very close to rounding up 60 members in support of a public option with an opt out clause …”

But Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab noticed that TPM was taking an unusual amount of criticism for the story’s use of anonymous sources. Aside from the headline and the lede, the post later attributes a quotation to “one source close to negotiations.”

Most of the commenters who took exception with this particular story complained that anonymously sourced stories rarely prove to be accurate. Others waxed cynical about the state of journalism and reporting. A few examples:

Experience has taught me to doubt anything that comes out of the mouths of these anonymous staffers because the overwhelming percentage of the time, what they say turns out to be complete bullshit.

That said, it looks to me that we have conflicting reports (again), hanging on anonymous sources (again), without much insight into the wider context of the negotiations and fundamentally at odds with other things that are in the president’s self interest. The pattern is familiar, as is the swift “clarifications” that come from the WH repudiating the reporting. Fortunately today, there are so many items in motion that the next rumor being floated will occupy our attention.

Okay… How many of these anonymously sourced stories are we going have to endure? First, the PO is off the table. Then it’s on. Then there are the votes for it. Then there aren’t.

It’s madness! We keep getting anonymous stories like this, only to have them knocked down by principals who are actually directly involved in pulling these bills together.

I not yet seen one of these “sources say” stories that is actually correct.

There seems to be too many moving parts right now — so many that the people who are directly involved are still trying to gauge exactly where the votes are.

And the end of the day, we have no idea what’s really going on, and the tales spread by anonymous sources are not going to give us any further clue. (Hey – “journalists”! Anonymous sources lie all the time!)

Media critic Jay Rosen, however, hit the nail on the head, writing “Why do we need you to be Politico?” And Politico, which has brought the rigor and integrity of hard-nosed political reporting from print to the web, might be the perfect counter-example. TPM, for its part, has brought the utility of Web reporting to politics. And to great success.

As frustrating as it may be to read this brand of speculative reporting on such a nuanced and sensitive issue as Executive and Legislative back-and-forth over health care reform, there’s something to be said for being quick to publish and seeing what sticks. This is actually an example of the TPM reporting model working at its best: wonky readers calling foul on anonymously reported stories that don’t seem to hold water.

Related: 25 Need-To-Know Bloggers You May Not Know Already — Josh Marshall

One reporter’s notes about the developing news of Roman Polanski‘s arrest were sent out on the wire instead of the text of his article and published online by the New York Times and Forbes, where the notes are still up for now:

Swiss arrest Polanski on US request in sex case
Associated Press, 09.27.09, 10:41 AM EDT

OK, can you do some more probing? New York will want to know
frank’s out today.
i checked already, and so did zurich. they say the question is irrelevant. he answered me with the quote i used, about we knew when he was coming this time. he’s been here many times in the past, we think.
thx brad. aptn is aware, but unfortunately won’t make it in time, but is hoping to catch tail end.
i’m pushing out another writethru with some more background details before press conference.
no surprise, new york is really hot on this.
they particularly want to know why now. (has he never set foot in switzerland before?) sheila, theorizes that’s because they’re under intense pressure over ubs and want to throw the U.S. a bone, but can yo ucheck with justice department sources there?
is frank around too, or are you alone?
u can tell aptn press conf 1700 (15 gmt) in bern at the parliament
i’ll watch it live on internet

All things considered — if the part about throwing “the U.S. a bone” is as bad as it gets — this could have been a lot more embarrassing for the AP.

(h/t Business Insider)

It’s an unusual move for the Times insofar as the paper still enjoys a certain voice of God position in the media landscape in its ability to determine the national tone of conversation via its reporting, though even that is diminishing. It’s not unusual in the sense that Talking Points Memo has been doing documents dumps for quite a while now, beginning in March 2007 when they combed through the DOJ documents during the whole U.S. Attorney firings debacle.

It’s a not only a smart, time-saving, idea — combing through hundreds of pages of documents in a timely fashion is no easy feat, marshaling the intelligence of Times readers would alleviate that significantly — but it’s a pretty significant nod on the Times‘ part to the power of citizen journalism, the Internet hive mind, and the increasing important role social media plays in how we get our news today. Also, something that would have been unheard of just a few years ago. It’s interesting that at the same time Wikipedia is taking measures to operate more like a newspaper, the NYT gets one step closer to Wikipedia.