It didn't take long for Republicans to get bashed during David Letterman's interview with Michelle Obama Monday night.

In the middle of an election year, the CBS Late Show host actually asked the First Lady, "Has your husband ever come home and said to you, 'Oh, that John Boehner, what an idiot?'” (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):

After Mrs. Obama laughed along with the audience, she responded, “It has never happened. Never, never. He is always upbeat, particularly about Congress.”

Now imagine for a moment Laura Bush on with Letterman late in her husband's second term.

Can you envision Letterman asking, "Has your husband ever come home and said to you, 'Oh, that Nancy Pelosi, what an idiot?'”

No. Neither can I.

Occupy Wall Street earned a shout-out Sunday night on a CBS drama, the kind of Hollywood affirmation the Tea Party could never dream of receiving. “Before we begin,” a judge announced in a Chicago courtroom on The Good Wife, “I want to take a few minutes to talk about something that is happening a mere one hundred yards from this courthouse: Occupy Wall Street!”

“Judge Charles Abernathy,” played by Denis O’Hare, continued to pay tribute to the leftist cause celebre: “Yes, these amazing young men and women are braving 36-degree weather, with the grit in their eyes of a shared cause, and all to challenge the system. And I, for one, I salute them.”

Audio: MP3 clip

The outburst came in a scene, but unconnected to it, of the judge overseeing a lawsuit against a software company which sold data-mining software to Syria which used it to identify and “disappear” American protesters.

Later in the February 19 episode, “Live from Damascus,” the judge loudly sniffles, leading him to explain: “Over lunch I went to offer moral support to Occupy Wall Street and it’s because of the pepper spray.”

Have the Chicago police ever pepper-sprayed the Occupy protesters?

Almost exactly a year ago (February 22, 2011), the show gave prime time legitimacy to the presumption the Tea Party is racist as a lawyer in a courtroom tried to discredit an expert witness (Gary Cole as Sarah Palin supporter “Kurt McVeigh”) who testified against a since-exonerated black defendant, by demanding he admit he’s “a member of the Tea Party.” The lawyer asserts “it is our contention that my client’s prosecution was racist,” citing McVeigh’s “membership in a racist organization,” namely the Tea Party. Video:

To illustrate, the program created a photo taken at “a Tea Party rally in Milwaukee last January” showing a man near “McVeigh” holding up a “Go Back to the Jungle” sign which the lawyer asks McVeigh to confirm “refers to our current President.”

The Good Wife, set in Chicago but produced in New York City, stars Julianna Margulies as lawyer “Alicia Florrick,” a “wife and mother who boldly assumes full responsibility for her family and re-enters the workforce after her husband’s very public sex and political corruption scandal lands him in jail.”

On Saturday's Fox News Watch, FNC contributor and conservative talk radio host cited a letter released last Monday by NewsBusters publisher and  Media Research Center president Brent Bozell which called on the media to give more attention to President Obama's attempt to force religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees, even if these institutions object on religious grounds. (Video below)

Crowley cited numbers on how little attention had been given by the broadcast networks and CNN as of Monday, and credited the MRC with coaxing more attention to the issue from the media:

Brent Bozell at the Media Research Center did extraordinary investigative research into what the broadcast networks and the cable networks were doing on this issue. And what he found was that ABC and NBC did not cover this story for a full 16 days, CBS covered it only after 10 days, and CNN mentioned it briefly when the original decision came down, and then not again for 10 days.

She continued:

Once he publicized this, then the networks were forced to cover it. Fox was covering it relentlessly, and it became a huge issue, and it actually forced the White House to change their tack on this.

Below are both video and a transcript of the relevant portion of the Saturday, February 11, Fox News Watch on FNC:

JON SCOTT: So the White House backtracked from its original position. What about the way they did so, Monica? Is that going to solve the controversy?

MONICA CROWLEY: Well, I'm not sure that it solves the controversy, but I will say this is the power of the media. Brent Bozell at the Media Research Center did extraordinary investigative research into what the broadcast networks and the cable networks were doing on this issue.

And what he found was that ABC and NBC did not cover this story for a full 16 days, CBS covered it only after 10 days, and CNN mentioned it briefly when the original decision came down, and then not again for 10 days. Once he publicized this, then the networks were forced to cover it. Fox was covering it relentlessly, and it became a huge issue, and it actually forced the White House to change their tack on this.

SCOTT: And compare that with the Susan G. Komen controversy. That was a private organization, a fundraising organization that had decided  it didn't want to give some, I mean, a minuscule amount of its money to Planned Parenthood. And, according to the media, the earth was falling down.

KRISTEN POWERS: Well, that's because all their friends cared about it, you know, I mean, it gets into a situation where it's like everybody they know is talking about it, so it must be the most important thing that's happening in the world. And, yeah, the coverage of it was relentless, and then you have this issue, which is a major issue that affects so many people, and they really weren't interested in it.

But what I would say is I don't think it was just the Brent Bozell thing. I think it was that a lot of liberal Catholics came out, you know, and E.J. Dionne and Mark Shields and, you know, people who support Obama on pretty much everything saying this is not okay.
 

On Friday's CBS Evening News, anchor Scott Pelley tagged Rick Santorum as the "very conservative Pennsylvania Senator" as he introduced a full report on the GOP presidential candidate's views on gay rights, abortion, and contraception, with correspondent Dean Reynolds warning that the GOP candidate's views on social issues that helped him in Iowa "have energized his opponents here in New Hampshire."

After noting a recent poll shows Santorum "coming on strong" in the Granite State since his near win in the Iowa caucuses, Pelley, applied the "very conservative" label to the Pennsylvania Republican:

The very conservative former Pennsylvania Senator is getting a lot of attention, and Dean Reynolds is chasing his campaign in New Hampshire.

Reynolds forthrightly noted that it is not Santorum who usually brings up his views on gay rights, as critics often show up at events and ask questions on the subject to which he responds. Reynolds:

That's Senator Santorum behind me on the podium now, and he's been talking up economic solutions here in New Hampshire. But over the last couple of days, virtually everywhere he goes he's getting questions about his social agenda and opposition to gay marriage. (…) The Senator rarely volunteers his views on homosexuality at campaign stops, but the crowds he addresses here regularly raise the subject.

After clips of Santorum interacting with audience members interested in his views on gay rights, the CBS correspondent recounted the Pennsylvania Republicans's opposition to abortion and contraception without elaborating on what Santorum's views are on how the law should treat these areas.

Santorum also opposes abortion, including in cases of rape. And he's spoken of the dangers of contraception or birth control as, quote, "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

After asserting that "sometimes it gets heated" when he interacts with people who disgree with him, and after showing more clips of these interactions, Reynolds warned that Santorum's views on social issues could hurt him in New Hampshire:

Now, it may just be that he's in a different state. But it looks like the positions that helped Santorum win over evangelicals in Iowa have energized his opponents here in New Hampshire.

Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Friday, January 6, CBS Evening News:

SCOTT PELLEY: The GOP candidates face New Hampshire voters next Tuesday, and here's a look at today's new poll there. Mitt Romney way ahead, but Rick Santorum is coming on strong after his unexpected virtual tie with Romney this week in Iowa. Santorum is at 11 percent now, but look at this: He had just three percent this past Monday, January 2. The very conservative former Pennsylvania Senator is getting a lot of attention, and Dean Reynolds is chasing his campaign in New Hampshire. Dean?

DEAN REYNOLDS: Scott, that's Senator Santorum behind me on the podium now, and he's been talking up economic solutions here in New Hampshire. But over the last couple of days, virtually everywhere he goes he's getting questions about his social agenda and opposition to gay marriage.

FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA): Thank you so much.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: Thank you, nice meeting you.

REYNOLDS: The Senator rarely volunteers his views on homosexuality at campaign stops, but the crowds he addresses here regularly raise the subject.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: You say that gay men shouldn't be able to be married, have, adopt kids, and be allowed to serve in the military.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #3: I have a question, too, and it's about gay people.

REYNOLDS: Today, in Keene, New Hampshire, a question was asked on whether gay people should be allowed to marry.

SANTORUM: It's discrimination to deny rights. I don't want to deny any rights to anyone. Everyone has a right to live their life. That doesn't mean that they're entitled to certain privileges that society gives for certain benefits that society obtains from those, from those relationships.

REYNOLDS: For the record, Santorum believes marriage should be between a man and a woman only.

SANTORUM: Why? Because I believe we are made that way.

REYNOLDS: Santorum also opposes abortion, including in cases of rape. And he's spoken of the dangers of contraception or birth control as, quote, "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." Those who raise the issues are mostly the young, and sometimes it gets heated.

SANTORUM ON STAGE: So anyone can marry anybody else?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes.

SANTORUM: Okay, so anybody can marry anybody else? So anybody can marry several people?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No.

SANTORUM: Oh, wait a minute, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop being dicordant, or we're not going to do this.

REYNOLDS: Now, it may just be that he's in a different state. But it looks like the positions that helped Santorum win over evangelicals in Iowa have energized his opponents here in New Hampshire.

A few weeks ago, NewsBusters introduced readers to an amazing homeless girl in Florida with a truly inspiring view of life.

Her story, first told by CBS's 60 Minutes, touched so many Americans that Scott Pelley announced at the end of Sunday's program more than $1 million had been sent to various charities in Florida, and colleges have offered full scholarships to the main characters (video follows with transcript and commentary):

SCOTT PELLEY: An update now on the story that we aired two weeks ago called Hard Times Generation. About children living with their families in vehicles in Central Florida because homeless shelters were full. The children we met included Arielle and Austin Metzger who showed us how they get through the day after getting ready for school in gas stations. They didn`t ask for anything.

But since our broadcast, viewers have sent in or promised more than one million dollars to help homeless families in Central Florida. Beyond the cash came offers of housing and jobs. And for Arielle and Austin, three colleges have offered full scholarships. The Metzgers and other families we interviewed have been given free housing and all of the parents in our story have been offered jobs. Quite a holiday present.

Quite a holiday present indeed.

On a personal note, I received more email messages about this piece than anything I've written in quite a while. Most were asking how they could contribute to Arielle, Austin, and others in need in Florida.

My Christmas wishes have come true with Scott's announcement Sunday.

For those still interested in giving, I recommend either Seminole County Families in Transition or Orlando Union Rescue Mission.

G-d bless us all, everyone.

And to Arielle and Austin, make the blessings you've received from strangers this Christmas count.

For those interested, here's the 60 Minutes segment that touched so many people, including me (transcript here):

There was an astonishingly revealing moment on Sunday's 60 Minutes when President Obama said, "Some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal."

For what should be obvious reasons, CBS's Steve Kroft didn't bother asking his guest who created, voted for or signed the pieces of legislation that allowed this "damaging behavior on Wall Street" to be legal (video follows with transcript and commentary):

STEVE KROFT (SECOND PART INTRO): In a wide-ranging conversation Friday morning, President Obama discussed everything from the sins of Wall Street to his handling of the deficit negotiations with Congress.

At the heart of our conversation were questions about the effectiveness of his leadership that have been raised not just by Republicans, but by Democrats as well. We also talked about his chances in the upcoming election in the face of some grim public opinion polls, and his thoughts about the Republican challengers.

We start with Wall Street, where President Obama has laid the blame for the country's economic meltdown.

STEVE KROFT (TO PRESIDENT OBAMA): One of the things that surprised me the most about this poll is that when asked who your policies favor the most, 42 percent said Wall Street. Only 35 percent said average Americans. My suspicion is, some of that may have to do with the fact that there's not been any prosecutions, criminal prosecutions, of people on Wall Street. And that the civil charges that have been brought have often resulted in what many people think have been a slap on the wrist, fines. Are you disappointed by that?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: You know, I can't, as President of the United States, comment on the decisions about particular prosecutions. That's the job of the Justice Department. And we keep those things separate, so that there's no political influence on decisions made by professional prosecutors. I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal. That's exactly why we had to change the laws. And that's why we put in place the toughest financial reform package since F.D.R. and the Great Depression.

Imagine for a moment you were Kroft, and the President of the United States – who has been blaming all the country's problems on Wall Street for years – admitted "that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal." 

Wouldn't you ask him when such behaviors became legal and who was responsible for the legislation?

Not if you're Steve Kroft:

KROFT (OFF-CAMERA): The implementation of those reforms is still being fought over, with the banking industry and the Republican leadership trying to limit their scope. Just another symptom of the political standoff that has paralyzed Congress since the negotiations to raise the debt ceiling and reduce the deficit began last summer.

KROFT: There are people that think that you took a very hard line, that the Republicans weren't the only ones that were being intransient. That–

OBAMA: That's based off–

KROFT: Let's take the issue of tax reform.

And that was that. Startlingly un-inquisitive, wouldn't you say?

Is it possible that Kroft didn't want to explore this because it would be embarrassing to Democrats and former President Bill Clinton?

After all, the two pieces of legislation that made "some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street" legal were the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 – which removed the last vestiges of the Depression era Glass Steagall Act thereby completely deregulating banks, insurance companies, and securities firms – and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 – which completely deregulated financial derivatives at the heart of the crisis – were overwhelmingly supported by Democrats and signed into law by Clinton.

What makes this even more embarrassing for Kroft is that in October 2008, he did a rather extensive piece on 60 Minutes dealing specifically with CFMA.

As NewsBusters reported at the time:

With nine days left before Election Day, "60 Minutes" aired a segment Sunday evening addressing a complex investment tool at the heart of the current financial crisis without fully explaining the presidential campaign ramifications behind the laws that made the market meltdown almost inevitable. [...]

STEVE KROFT, CO-HOST: The world's financial system teetered on the edge again last week, and anyone with more than a passing interest in their shrinking 401(k) knows it's because of a global credit crisis. It began with the collapse of the US housing market and it's been magnified worldwide by what Warren Buffett once called "financial weapons of mass destruction." They're known as credit derivatives or credit default swaps, and we did a story on the multitrillion-dollar market three weeks ago. But there's a lot more to tell. Essentially they are side bets on the performance of the US mortgage markets and the solvency of some of the biggest financial institutions in the world, a form of legalized gambling that allows you to wager on financial outcomes without ever having to actually buy the stocks and the bonds and the mortgages. It would have been illegal during most of the 20th century, but eight years ago Congress gave Wall Street an exemption. And it's turned to have been a very bad idea. [...]

KROFT: (Voiceover) The vehicle for doing this was an obscure but critical piece of federal legislation called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. And the bill was a big favorite of the financial industry it would eventually help destroy. It not only removed derivatives and credit default swaps from the purview of federal oversight; on page 262 of the legislation, Congress pre-empted the states from enforcing existing gambling and bucket shop laws against Wall Street.

Yet, as NewsBusters reported, Kroft and 60 Minutes withheld some politically sensitive details:

Despite accurately calling credit default swaps "The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street," CBS didn't properly inform viewers that George W. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with the Clinton-signed legislation that deregulated them, and that frequent campaign statements by Barack Obama and Joe Biden blaming the current financial crisis on Bush economic policies are therefore completely false.

The producers also chose not to expose the key Democrats — most notably House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) — that voted in favor of this legislation back in 2000 but have in recent weeks dishonestly blamed President Bush for the current crisis.

So, nine days before Obama was elected president, Kroft and 60 Minutes intentionally withheld information from viewers about CFMA that might have been embarrassing to the Democrat presidential candidate and his Party while discrediting their campaign claims that Bush and Republicans were completely to blame for the financial and economic meltdown.

Now, a little over three years later, with the President in the middle of a reelection campaign and admitting on national television "that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal," Kroft, despite being totally familiar with CFMA, once again chose not to bring up anything that might interfere with Obama's ability to blame all the nation's economic problems on George W. Bush and Republicans.

How do these people continue to get away with such blatant bias?

Readers are encouraged to review other syrupy interviews Kroft has done in the past.

While morning and evening newscasts from all three broadcast networks in the last few days have focused on anti-Mormon sentiment within the Republican Party, FNC's Special Report with Bret Baier on Monday noted that self-identified Republican voters are substantially more willing to accept a Mormon President compared to Democrats.

FNC correspondent Carl Cameron observed that Democrats are "least tolerant" compared to Republicans and independents as he recounted the findings of a Quinnipiac poll:

But a Quinnipiac poll of voters taken this year says fully 68 percent of Republicans are comfortable with a Mormon President, as are 64 percent of independents. Democrats are the least tolerant, with 49 percent comfortable with a Mormon President.

By contrast, on Monday's Good Morning America, ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl cited an ABC News poll as he only recounted numbers for Republicans:

In an ABC News poll earlier this year, the overwhelming majority of Republicans said a candidate's faith should not be a factor, but 20 percent – that's one out of every five – said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he is Mormon.

On the previous night's World News Sunday, ABC's David Kerley had similarly resisted divulging the views of Democrats:

DAVID KERLEY: We crunched the numbers from four years ago. With nearly half of the Republican primary defining themselves as evangelicals, only 20 percent of them voted for Romney.

…

DAVID MUIR: David, you mentioned where evangelicals stand, but Americans as a whole, have they moved at all, in your opinion, on the Mormon faith?

KERLEY: They have. The Republicans have, as well, David. In fact, our latest poll showed about 20 percent of those leaning Republican say they are less likely to vote for a Mormon, but, back in 2008, that number was 36 percent, so it certainly has dropped significantly. But for Romney, it's those evangelicals he's got to deal with.

On Monday's The Early Show on CBS, correspondent Whit Johnson noted polling on Republican voters from four years ago after Mitt Romney gave a speech addressing his religious beliefs, and more recently:

Polls after that speech showed that 52 percent of Republican primary voters said that most people they knew would vote for a Mormon. [52 percent say yes, 33 percent no] Fast forward four years, and not much has changed, with about half saying the same. [45 percent say yes, 36 percent no]

On Sunday's Today show, after noting that in 2007 Romney had to reassure "conservative doubters," NBC's Mike Viqueira showed on screen the poll numbers on the views toward Mormons of several religious groups, as he highlightd the views of evangelical Christians:

A recent survey shows about a third of white evangelicals would be less likely to support a candidate if they were Mormon. Despite the efforts of Romney and others, those numbers have hardly changed since the last campaign.

Below are transcripts of relevant portions of several stories from ABC, CBS, NBC and FNC from Sunday and Monday:

#From the Monday, October 10, Good Morning America on ABC:

JONATHAN KARL: In an ABC News poll earlier this year, the overwhelming majority of Republicans said a candidate's faith should not be a factor, but  20 percent – that's one out of every five – said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he is Mormon. And, George, on Sunday, both Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain were directly asked if Mormons are Christians, and both of them declined to answer that question directly.

#From the October 9, World News Sunday on ABC:

DAVID KERLEY: We crunched the numbers from four years ago. With nearly half of the Republican primary defining themselves as evangelicals, only 20 percent of them voted for Romney.

…

DAVID MUIR: David, you mentioned where evangelicals stand, but Americans as a whole, have they moved at all, in your opinion, on the Mormon faith?

KERLEY: They have. The Republicans have, as well, David. In fact, our latest poll showed about 20 percent of those leaning Republican say they are less likely to vote for a Mormon, but, back in 2008, that number was 36 percent, so it certainly has dropped significantly. But for Romney, it's those evangelicals he's got to deal with.

#From the Monday, October 10, The Early Show on CBS:

WHIT JOHNSON: This issue has followed Romney since his first run for President in 2008. He attempted to quell the concerns then with a speech on faith in America.

MITT ROMNEY: Let me assure you that no authorities at my church or any other church for that matter will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.JOHNSON: Polls after that speech showed that 52 percent of Republican primary voters said that most people they knew would vote for a Mormon. [52 percent say yes, 33 percent no] Fast forward four years, and not much has changed, with about half saying the same. [45 percent say yes, 36 percent no]

#From the Monday, October 10, NBC Nightly News:

CHUCK TODD: Rommey, who addressed the issue of his faith in the last campaign, said such attacks damage the Republican Party.

MITT ROMNEY, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Poisonous language doesn't advance our cause. It's never softened a single heart, nor changed a single mind.

TODD: At issue for evangelical Christians is how Christ fits into Mormonism. While Mormons share a belief in salvation through Jesus, their own scriptures – the Book of Mormon – expands on the fundamental Christian teachings of the Bible.

RICHARD LAND, THE ETHICS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION: Anybody who reads the Book of Mormon or reads the teachings of the Mormon Church, if they're an orthodox Christian, they're going to come away saying this is not apostles creed, nicine (sp?) creed, standard, boiler plate Christianity.

#From the Sunday, October 9, Today show on NBC:

MIKE VIQUEIRA: It isn't the first time Romney has had to defend his faith. As a candidate in 2007, trying to assure many of the same conservative doubters.

MITT ROMNEY, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If I'm fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest.

VIQUEIRA: A recent survey shows about a third of white evangelicals would be less likely to support a candidate if they were Mormon. Despite the efforts of Romney and others, those numbers have hardly changed since the last campaign.

#From the Monday, October 10, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC:

CARL CAMERON: The pastor defends his views, citing a year old survey of 1,000 Protestant pastors taken by an evangelical group.

PASTOR ROBERT JEFFRESS, FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH DALLAS: Three out of four agreed with the position that Mormonism is not Christianity, Mormons are not Christians. This is no new news.

CAMERON: But a Quinnipiac poll of voters taken this year says fully 68 percent Republicans are comfortable with a Mormon President, as are 64 percent of independents. Democrats are the least tolerant, with 49 percent comfortable with a Mormon President.

During a prerecorded commentary on CBS Sunday Morning, left-wing CBS commentator Nancy Giles complained about the "bloodlust" of GOP audience members who applauded Texas's use of capital punishment at the recent MSNBC debate and a small number of audience members who applauded at Monday's CNN debate after moderator Wolf Blitzer asked if someone who chose not to purchase insurance should be allowed to die.

CBS played a clip of the exchanges but notably left out Rep. Ron Paul's answer to Blitzer's question as he argued that organizations like churches used to help provide health care before Medicaid existed, leaving Giles to give the impression that Rep. Paul had been unconcerned about the uninsured dying. Giles:

And between the let-the-uninsured-die crowd and presidential wannabe and physician Ron Paul. yeah, excuse me, Doctor, I'm not feeling a lot of that "first do no harm" jazz. Oh, I can picture their comforting bedside manner: Cancer? Tough luck. Get out of bed and come back when you can afford it.

During Giles's commentary, CBS showed the following exchange between Rep. Paul and Blitzer:

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), WHILE AUDIENCE APPLAUDS: This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody.

WOLF BLITZER, MODERATOR FOR CNN DEBATE: But, Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #1 IN AUDIENCE AS ONE OR TWO PEOPLE APPLAUD: Yeah!

PAUL: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #2 IN AUDIENCE: Yeah!

Giles then jumped in:

And how about these guys? Applauding before Ron Paul answered the question. Now, I haven't been to church in years, but I seem to remember the question of, "Am I my brother's keeper?" and something about "Thou shall not kill."  So how is it that not one single candidate – some who claim their spirtuality has been a guiding force in their politics – how could they not challenge the applause and maybe suggest that their invited audience take a step back from the bloodlust?

But the clip did not include Rep. Paul's answer, which began:

I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid in the early 1960s after I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away [AUDIENCE APPLAUSE BEGINS]  from the hospital, and we've given up on this whole concept of we might take care of ourselves or assume responsibility for ourselves. Our friends, our neighbors, our churches would do it.

Below is a complete transcript of Nancy Giles's commentary from the September 18 CBS Sunday Morning, following by a clip of the relevant portion of the Monday, September 12, GOP debate from CNN:

#From the September 18 CBS Sunday Morning:

NANCY GILES: I've watched the two Republican Party debates, and something weird is going on in this audience.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MODERATOR FOR MSNBC DEBATE: Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. [AUDIENCE BEGINS APPLAUSE]

GILES: Applause at the number of people executed in Texas?

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), WHILE AUDIENCE APPLAUDS: This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody.

WOLF BLITZER, MODERATOR FOR CNN DEBATE: But, Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #1 IN AUDIENCE AS ONE OR TWO PEOPLE APPLAUD: Yeah!

PAUL: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #2 IN AUDIENCE: Yeah!

GILES: And how about these guys? Applauding before Ron Paul answered the question. Now, I haven't been to church in years, but I seem to remember the question of, "Am I my brother's keeper?" and something about "Thou shall not kill."  So how is it that not one single candidate – some who claim their spirtuality has been a guiding force in their politics – how could they not challenge the applause and maybe suggest that their invited audience take a step back from the bloodlust?

I take it for granted that one of the founding principles of the United States is freedom to express an opinion. But, having said that, regardless of party affiliation, I can't imagine applauding at the idea of death, either mandated by lethal injection or from lack of medical insurance.

GILES: As we've all heard, there have been numerous instances of inmates that were on death row that have been ultimately proven innocent. In Governor Perry's home state, 12 death row inmates have been exonerated since 1973. Could they have missed more?

And you've probably heard that, just this past week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review the case of a Texas death row inmate because, during a sentencing hearing, a psychologist testified that blacks are more likely to commit violence.

And between the let-the-uninsured-die crowd and presidential wannabe and physician Ron Paul. yeah, excuse me, Doctor, I'm not feeling a lot of that "first do no harm" jazz. Oh, I can picture their comforting bedside manner: Cancer? Tough luck. Get out of bed and come back when you can afford it.

In any case, we're gearing up for another presidential campaign, and I guess the ideological lines have been drawn. Yes, there are red states and blue states, but there are a lot of other colors to this country. And, frankly, I'm still wondering what the clearance process was for the audience in these debates. I just can't believe they represent the entire Republican Party. I sure hope some of those other folks can get seats at the next debate and at the GOP's table and let their voices be heard.

#From the September 12 GOP debate on CNN:

WOLF BLITZER: You're a physician, Ron Paul. so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject, so let me ask you this hypothetical question: A healthy, young 30-year-old man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what, I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month in health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens. All of a sudden, he needs it. Who's going to pay for if he goes into a coma, for example. Who pays for that?

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX): In a society that you accept welfare-ism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of it.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself. But my advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not-

BLITZER: But he doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea [AUDIENCE APPLAUSE BEGINS] that you have to prepare and take care of everybody.

BLITZER: But, Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #1 IN AUDIENCE AS ONE OR TWO PEOPLE APPLAUD: Yeah!

PAUL: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #2 IN AUDIENCE: Yeah!

PAUL: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid in the early 1960s after I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away [AUDIENCE APPLAUSE BEGINS]  from the hospital, and we've given up on this whole concept of we might take care of ourselves or assume responsibility for ourselves. Our friends, our neighbors, our churches would do it.

This whole idea – that's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because we dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy, it becomes special interest. It cowtows to the insurance companies, then the drug companies. Then, on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflatoin devalues the dollar. We have lack of competition. There's no competition in medicine. Everybody's protected by licensing. We should actually legalize alternative health care and allow people to practice what they want.

Two out of three CBS local affiliate political reporters featured on Thursday's Early Show bluntly stated that President Obama faces "major uphill battle" in recapturing key states for the 2012 election. Anchor Chris Wragge noted the "all-time low" approval rating for the President, while an Ohio journalist highlighted how a Democratic strategist thought Obama was "feeling more Carter than Clinton."

Wragge turned to David Crabtree of WRAL-TV in Raleigh, North Carolina; Jim Heath of CBS affiliate WBNS in Columbus, Ohio; and Sam Brock from WTVR in Richmond, Virginia for their takes on the President's recent stops in their states following his jobs bill speech to Congress earlier in September. Crabtree reported on the positive reaction from those who attended Mr. Obama's speech in North Carolina, but then outlined that the Democrat faces several challenges in the months ahead:

DAVID CRABTREE, POLITICAL REPORTER, WRAL-TV: …[T]he President has a major uphill battle in this state, trying to convince voters to convince their Republican members of Congress to vote for this jobs bill. Right now, the lines appear to be drawn, with the Republicans saying they are not going to do that. So, while it was received well in this campaign here stop in North Carolina, there's still a lot more work to be done for the President to recapture this state. He did win four years ago by 14,000 votes. But his disapproval rating in North Carolina today is at least at 53%. He's got a lot more work to be done.

The CBS anchor then turned to Heath and asked, "What are the independent voters telling you about the President's visit there?" Heath detailed a more stark picture of the situation on the ground for the chief executive in the Buckeye State, even making a slight reference to the "hope and change" slogan from the 2008 campaign:

HEATH: Chris, the first thing I noticed: the last time the President was in Ohio- he was at the Ohio State University- 30,000 people were there- this week, 3,000. So, the mood, everything seems to be a little bit different, as we head into 2012.

I spoke to some unemployed folks right after his speech, and one young lady, in particular…said that she had strongly supported the President in 2008, still liked him as a person, but she made the comment, after three years, you can't promise people jobs and not deliver. So, she's about to give up hope.

The economy, as always in the swing state of Ohio, is going to be key, Chris. And I had one Democratic strategist tell me a few weeks ago that the third year of the Obama administration is feeling more Carter than Clinton. If that holds throughout 2012, it'd be very difficult for any incumbent, regardless of party, to win swing state Ohio.

Brock gave a slightly positive take on Obama's overall prospects in Virginia, stating that "for Mr. Obama, this has been his third trip to central Virginia in just the last year, the second time he's been to Richmond….he went to the University of Richmond- and this is interesting- because the University of Richmond is…an elite private institution. Mr. Obama could have gone the route of the main big city school in downtown Richmond. He bypassed that, and he still had a very positive reception at the University of Richmond."

The full transcript of the segment from Thursday's Early Show, which began four minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour:

CHRIS WRAGGE: In the past week, President Obama has given five speeches in three states, pushing Congress to pass his jobs bill. At a dinner last night in Washington, the President once again sang the praises of his $447 billion package.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (from speech to the National Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute): A jobs bill that puts Americans back to work, a balanced approach to pay for it that will lower our deficit in the long run- these are the steps Congress needs to take right now, to put our country on a stronger footing.

WRAGGE: But getting it through Congress looks to be uphill battle. And meanwhile, according to a new Bloomberg News national poll, the President's job approval rating is at 45%, an all-time low.

So, this morning, we're asking political reporters from the three states he's visited, what do the voters think of the President's jobs plan. We'll begin with veteran political reporter David Crabtree from our Raleigh, North Carolina affiliate, WRAL-TV. David, good morning. What's the reaction to yesterday's speech there?

DAVID CRABTREE, POLITICAL REPORTER, WRAL-TV: Chris, good morning to you. The reaction to the speech was positive by those who were there. These are people who had waited in line for two and a half hours, just to get tickets to the event; waited in line another two hours to get inside; and then, two more hours to hear the President's speech. It was his crowd.

However, beyond that, the President has a major uphill battle in this state, trying to convince voters to convince their Republican members of Congress to vote for this jobs bill. Right now, the lines appear to be drawn, with the Republicans saying they are not going to do that. So, while it was received well in this campaign here stop in North Carolina, there's still a lot more work to be done for the President to recapture this state. He did win four years ago by 14,000 votes. But his disapproval rating in North Carolina today is at least at 53%. He's got a lot more work to be done. Chris?

WRAGGE: All right. David Crabtree in Raleigh for us- David, thank you very much. Now, let's go to Jim Heath of our Columbus, Ohio affiliate, WBNS and ONN-TV. Jim, what are the independent voters telling you about the President's visit there?

JIM HEATH, POLITICAL REPORTER, WBNS-TV/ONN-TV: Chris, the first thing I noticed: the last time the President was in Ohio- he was at the Ohio State University- 30,000 people were there- this week, 3,000. So, the mood, everything seems to be a little bit different, as we head into 2012.

I spoke to some unemployed folks right after his speech, and one young lady, in particular- very interesting. She said that she had strongly supported the President in 2008, still liked him as a person, but she made the comment, after three years, you can't promise people jobs and not deliver. So, she's about to give up hope.

The economy, as always in the swing state of Ohio, is going to be key, Chris. And I had one Democratic strategist tell me a few weeks ago that the third year of the Obama administration is feeling more Carter than Clinton. If that holds throughout 2012, it'd be very difficult for any incumbent, regardless of party, to win swing state Ohio.

WRAGGE: All right. Jim Heath in Columbus, Ohio- Jim, thank you. Two down, one more to go- let's go to Sam Brock at CBS affiliate WTVR in Richmond, Virginia, where President Obama made his first trip after his jobs speech to Congress a week ago. Sam, good morning. Now, why is Virginia so important to the President right now?

SAM BROCK, POLITICAL REPORTER, WTVR: Chris, good morning. This is a state that has voted for the Republican candidate for 40 years- that is, until 2008. So if there is any question, any shred of doubt, as to how important Virginia is, look no further than the last few days. President Obama came to the University of Richmond, spoke about his jobs speech on Friday. And, not to be outdone, Texas Governor Rick Perry, the GOP front-runner, came out yesterday and he campaigned with his buddy, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

Now, for Mr. Obama, this has been his third trip to central Virginia in just the last year, the second time he's been to Richmond. This past visit, he targeted the district of Congressman Eric Cantor, the majority leader. So possibly, a counter-punch there for Mr. Obama. Now, as far as where he spoke, he went to the University of Richmond- and this is interesting- because the University of Richmond is located in an affluent community. It is an elite private institution. Mr. Obama could have gone the route of the main big city school in downtown Richmond. He bypassed that, and he still had a very positive reception at the University of Richmond.

WRAGGE: All right. Sam Brock in Richmond for us this morning- Sam, thank you very much.

He also complained that the Tea Partiers "insisted on the basically impossible, an immediate cut in federal spending, large enough to balance the budget without tax increases. In this age of Medicare and Medicaid, two wars, massive federal debt, interest payments, staggering Social Security obligations, that was simply impossible."

Invoking the Jordan Baker character from the Great Gatsby, he characterized all parties that he blamed as being "careless" people.

And, even though the balanced budgets of the late 1990s were largely the result of increased tax revenues that came with a booming economy – which notably also happened in the years after a capital gains tax cut was passed by a GOP-controlled Congress – Stein praised former President Bill Clinton for the balanced budget that existed when he left office.

Stein vaguely acknowledged the "Internet bubble" that helped fuel the 1990s economy, but still seemed to give Clinton credit for the balanced budget:

There's no doubt that Bill Clinton for all of his issues left the federal budget on a sound financial footing. It was undone by the bursting of the Internet bubble, the two wars following 9/11, but mostly because of the folly of supply side economics, which falsely assured Americans that they could have their cake and it a eat it, too. That large tax cuts would yield higher government revenue. There never was any convincing data to back it up…

Last April, Stein did a similar commentary attacking tax cuts on the same show, but, in September of last year, his commentary featured him complaining about the drive to raise taxes on the wealthy, leading Sy-Fy producer Linda McGibney to attack him personally on the next week’s show.

Below is a complete transcript of Stein’s commentary from the July 31 CBS Sunday Morning:

CHARLES OSGOOD: Feeling the urge to sound off about the national debt debate? So is our contributor Ben Stein.

BEN STEIN: There is a telling scene in the Great Gatsby where Jordan Baker, the shady golf pro, says, "I hate careless people. It takes two to make an accident."

BOB SCHIEFFER, CBS ANCHOR: The days are now dwindling down to a precious few.

LESTER HOLT, NBC ANCHOR: In President Obama's words, "We are almost out of time."

DIANE SAWYER, ABC ANCHOR: The debt stalemate in Washington-

STEIN: This comes to mind because of the budget, taxes, debt ceiling crisis the nation is going through. What we are seeing is a stupendous pile-up of immensely careless people who have been heading for trouble for more than a decade now. There's no doubt that Bill Clinton for all of his issues left the federal budget on a sound financial footing. It was undone by the bursting of the Internet bubble, the two wars following 9/11, but mostly because of the folly of supply side economics, which falsely assured Americans that they could have their cake and it a eat it, too. That large tax cuts would yield higher government revenue. There never was any convincing data to back it up, and there’s also supply side tax cuts were immense government deficits under Bush 43.

There was also another problem, an inflexible belief by some on the GOP side that low taxes were an American birthright. They're not.  We're not immune to arithmetic. If we spend a lot, we have to tax a lot. Then came Mr. Obama's carelessness. His wild raise in the federal expenditure so that what had seemed like huge deficits under Bush 43 suddenly seemed modest. And then came the Tea Partiers who insisted on the basically impossible, an immediate cut in federal spending, large enough to balance the budget without tax increases. In this age of Medicare and Medicaid, two wars, massive federal debt, interest payments, staggering Social Security obligations, that was simply impossible.

So we have now got many careless persons making an accident. It now appears disaster has been averted in that the can has been kicked down the road at least for a while. That's not great, but it’s better than an immediate train wreck. If something cannot go on forever it will stop, said my famous father, but it can end horribly if people are careless enough. It's time for the grown-ups of the right and the left to stand up. Both parties got us into this mess and both parties have to get us out.