It seemed like someone had been inhaling something at CNN on Friday morning. They kept touting an upcoming interview: “Barack Obama could win the presidential election by a landslide. Op-ed contributor Charlie Garcia tells us how next.”

Garcia, a consultant to corporations on how to market to Hispanics, broke out rainbows and unicorns for Obama: “He’s doing all the right things. He’s basically saying, look, guys, comprehensive immigration reform. I’m all for it. It’s those Republicans that just keep getting in
the way.”

Neither Garcia nor his CNN anchor/enabler, Kyra Phillips, could recall that Democrats couldn’t get amnesty for illegal aliens (“comprehensive immigration reform”) passed when they controlled both the House and the Senate. So much for the canard that it’s the GOP’s fault. How
could he promise he can do it in a supposed second term, especially if Republicans make further
gains in Congress?

Don’t trouble Garcia with facts. “He wins by a landslide. And I think that the White House knows now that he has it locked. That’s why he’s on the air all time talking to Latinos about the things that are important to them.”

Where does CNN find these guys? Does no one vet them? Garcia was in exclamation-point mode about how Obama granted in interview to Eddie “Piolin” Sotelo, “the biggest radio star in the Hispanic world…..He’s the Rush Limbaugh of the Latinos.”

Garcia said that Obama told Piolin “‘I have five more years and I’ll get it done. He’s feeling pretty cocky and he should. I mean, you can accuse him of a lot of things, but he can count.”

Is that true? Did Obama really go on Spanish radio and claim a Republican Congress would support him? And no one challenged him? He said Republicans have “shown themselves unwilling to talk at all about any sensible solutions to this issue, and we’re going to have to just keep up the pressure until they act."

In his opinion piece on CNN.com, Garcia boasted, “After watching the Republican candidates lock the kryptonite that is the immigration issue around their necks during the Arizona debate, my bet is that President Barack Obama could win another term — even if he loses key swing states such as Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.”

Losing all those states wouldn’t make for a “landslide.” It will make for a loss.

Garcia told Kyra Phillips, “The President had issues with Latinos…[but] the Tea Party has the Republicans locked in, because they need to pander to the Tea Party to win the primary but they’re not going to be able to pivot back, because Latinos are looking for someone authentic. You can’t all of a sudden in August or September come back to Latino voters and say, ‘Oh I love you. I want immigration reform.’ They’re going to say you’re a phony.”

So how “authentic” is Obama when he sidelined this supposed gold mine of a political issue to sell Obamacare, insisting all the way that his health “reform” wouldn’t cover illegal aliens? In fact, he was openly denounced by liberals for abandoning the issue. “He is the deportation president,” said “undocumented activist” Daniel Rodriguez in Time magazine. Time’s cover carried the words “Yo Decido: Why Latinos will pick the next president.”

This is odd, since whites are still 64 percent of the population. Time and CNN select the Latino vote as crucial because they want to make the Republicans cry uncle on amnesty. Time’s Michael Scherer began his cover story by slamming Gov. Jan Brewer for “the most incendiary
immigration law in the country.”

But who made that law a national issue? The liberal media did. They put all the political pressure on anyone opposed to illegal immigration. It was “incendiary” despite a Rasmussen poll finding 70 percent of Arizonans supported the tougher law. The Obama-obedient media never found it “incendiary” for Obama to announce in 2011 that he was suspending most deportations in a transparently political move.

Take a look at the numbers from the Pew Hispanic Center, which estimated that 69 percent of Latinos voted for Democrats in 2006 and 67 percent for Obama in 2008. But in 2010, that percentage dropped to 60 percent, even though liberals surely tried to make Tea Party “racism” an issue to Latino voters.

Republicans shouldn’t write off the Latino vote, but they can wonder how much of that nine-percent slice of Latinos would switch to Republicans if they Xeroxed the liberal amnesty position. CNN and Time could wonder if Obama will hurt his Latino “landslide” by canceling pipelines and signaling a hard-left position on abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty. But they’re too busy celebrating and pandering to minority voters as the most crucial, special voters of all.

As much as CNN likes to tell the public and advertisers that it’s squarely in the sensible center between the partisan attacks of MSNBC and Fox News, the reality says otherwise. Even if CNN has no Screaming Schultzes or Crazy Larry O’Donnell types, it’s still firmly in the Democratic sphere of influence.

On his show “In The Arena” on May 12, CNN host Eliot Spitzer recounted how a story in The New York Times “brought a smile to my face. It said the president of the United States calls you for wisdom and advice about issues around the world. So first, when he calls you, what does he say? Hi, Barack calling for Fareed? What does he do?”

His guest Zakaria replied, “Mostly it's been face-to-face meetings. You know, usually organized by Tom Donilon, the national security adviser,” and it’s been a “very thoughtful conversation.” (That certainly compliments both sides of the chat.) Spitzer then added “I’m not going to ask you what you have said to the president but it makes my heart warm that the president is calling you for wisdom and advice.”

Zakaria is the host of “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” a Sunday CNN news offering. He was happily – proudly – acknowledging that he counsels the president. Neither CNN nor Zakaria found this admission compromised its self-image of neutrality for an instant. There were no urgent denials, as Katie Couric tried to smother Whoopi Goldberg’s on-air claim in 1997 that they marched at abortion rallies together. Zakaria openly proclaimed his presidential access.

The folks at CNN certainly failed to remember how their network reacted on November 18, 2002, after Bob Woodward broke the “scoop” that Fox News president Roger Ailes had sent a memo on the War on Terror to Karl Rove, who then shared it with President Bush. CNN anchor Paula Zahn (a former Fox employee) asked commentator Jack Cafferty,“Does that shed new light on ‘we report, you decide’ Jack?” Cafferty joked, “‘Fair and balanced.’ [laughter] We better leave that alone.”

On that day, the Ailes “controversy” was in heavy rotation. CNN's “Talkback Live” also devoted a segment to the subject, as did “Crossfire” and “Wolf Blitzer Reports.”

So how many segments has CNN devoted to its own compromised position? None, unless you count Howard Kurtz brushing over it all by himself (no outsiders, please) on “Reliable Sources” on Sunday. Zakaria never touched it on his own Sunday show, and when he showed up on Monday’s “Situation Room” to discuss rape allegations against the head of the International Monetary Fund, Wolf Blitzer wouldn’t breathe a word of it.

If Roger Ailes sending a memo to Rove compromised Fox’s independence, then what about Zakaria’s ongoing face-to-face strategy sessions with President Obama? As controversy grew over the weekend, Zakaria tried to claim, “At no point did President Obama ask me for advice on a specific policy or speech or proposal, nor did I volunteer it. I know that he has had similar meetings with other columnists.”

This denial doesn’t pass the laugh test. What the hell did they talk about, then? If Obama is looking to formulate a policy and a speech (as the New York Times article asserted), then merely being in the room with him and moving your lips is advising him. As Zakaria himself said of meeting Obama in the Times, “He is searching for a way to pull back and weave a larger picture.”

But Zakaria isn’t just a “columnist,” as he’s been with Newsweek and now Time. He hosts a Sunday show on foreign policy for CNN. To now claim that Zakaria's covert meetings do not conflict with his journalistic integrity is not only inaccurate, it’s hypocritical by CNN’s own standards. If they were really interested in the image of journalistic independence, Zakaria would recuse himself immediately from covering foreign policy that affects the United States.

What’s happened to our “news” media? They don’t see their role as simply providing the public with the best information. They would much rather apply all their wisdom gleaned from their Harvard and Yale educations to assist the government in running the country.

Incredibly, here’s how Zakaria actually ended his show on Sunday. He showed several Internet reworkings of the historic picture of Obama’s staff watching the bin Laden takedown, and announced: “This one may be my favorite. The superhero squad. President Obama is Captain America, Vice President Biden as Flash. Madame Secretary [Hillary Clinton] as Wonder Woman, and many more.”

Where are Jack Cafferty’s “fair and balanced” wisecracks now?  

The Muslim Brotherhood is in talks with opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei to form a unity government to replace the regime of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a U.S. ally.

Pundits on both the left and the right have naively portrayed the Brotherhood — a worldwide jihadist movement based in Cairo — as a pro-democracy force that has “courageously campaigned against the government and for the poor,” as a CNN anchor put it. Obama adviser Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer, argues that the U.S. “should not be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood.” He claims it “renounced violence years ago.”

by OutloudOpinion.com For more Podcasts visit www.outloudopinion.com

Universal Studios executives have decided to replace a trailer for Vince Vaughn’s new comedy, The Dilemma, after CNN newsman Anderson Cooper blasted it for its negative use of the word "gay."

"The teaser trailer for The Dilemma was not intended to cause anyone discomfort," the studio statement said. "In light of growing claims that the introduction to the trailer is insensitive, it is being replaced. A full trailer, which has been in the works for some time, will post online later today."

When Ellen welcomed Cooper to show, she thanked  him profusely for being out front on the bullying issue, and Cooper replied, “There’s a lot of intolerance in the world and that trickles down into schools.” That sounds just like Kathy Griffin’s "trickle-down homophobia" attack line from Larry King Live. 

Ellen deGeneres added that schools need more sensitivity training: "I honestly think we need course – just like math, just like history, just like English – there should be class of Compassion, for kids at a young age to start learning about compassion, and kindness, and understanding, um, that we’re all different, and accepting our difference. And I think that would be a great curriculum that kids learn in school if they don’t get it anywhere else.”

Cooper and de Generes agreed that phrases like “that’s so gay” and the gay F-bomb are commonplace on TV and at the movies. (In fact, the Ad Council runs an ad with Hollywood celebrities denouncing the phrase “That’s so gay.”) Cooper claimed he’s talked to so many kids where teachers allow the gay F-bomb to be used, “and that’s gotta stop, because these words have power, and they’re used like weapons.” Then came the part about the Vince Vaughn trailer:

I was sitting in a movie theater over the weekend and there was a preview of a movie, and in it, the actor said, ‘that’s so gay,’ and I was shocked that not only that they put it in a movie, but that they thought that it was okay to put that in a preview for the movie to get people to go and see it. I just find those words, those terms – we’ve got to do something to change, to make those words unacceptable because those words are hurting kids.

And someone else I talked to recently said that the words people use and the things people say about other kids online, it enters into their internal dialogue. And when you’re a kid, it can change the way you see yourself and the way you think about yourself – the worth that you give to yourself. And I think we really need to focus on what language we’re using and how we’re treating these kids.

TV Newser reports

On October 4th, I had a very good conversation with Jon Stewart, and I had the opportunity to apologize for my inartful comments from last week.  I sincerely extend this apology to anyone else whom I may have offended.

As Jon was kind enough to note in his show Monday night, I am very much opposed to hate and intolerance, in any form, and I have frequently spoken out against prejudice. Despite what my tired and mangled words may have implied, they were never intended to suggest any sort of narrow-mindedness  and should never have been made.

Richard Prince of the Maynard Institute found it strange that the National Association of Hispanic Journalists was so quiet (add to that their Facebook page seems more concerned about "net neutrality" in the last few days): 

 "NAHJ isn’t commenting on Rick Sanchez’s firing. Nor am I," President Michele Salcedo said by e-mail on Sunday.

Asked to explain the decision not to comment, Salcedo did not reply.

Other board members followed suit, despite reassurances that their responses would not be reported as speaking for the organization.

"NAHJ has not made an official statement on this situation regarding Mr. Sanchez’s employment status. I don’t feel comfortable making a statement when the group has not done so first," said Gustavo Reveles Acosta of the El Paso Times, vice president for print.

Prince noted past NAHJ president Rafael Olmeda of the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel questioned CNN’s quick firing on his Facebook page, comparing it to CNN’s tolerance of anchorman Lou Dobbs despite liberal lobbying for his removal:

"Rick Sanchez’ comments were unprofessional and unwise. Fireable? It’s not like he referred to humans as being of another species. It’s not like he sat in an anchor’s chair for years and spread demonstrable falsehoods about the largest minority in America. People have kept their jobs at CNN and other networks after saying far worse for far longer. Not defending what he said. Just wondering when unwise words warrant swift termination and when they warrant an attack on politically correct thought police."

The matter was also discussed on NPR’s Tell Me More on Tuesday, and Olmeda seemed to defend the NAHJ there:

MICHEL MARTIN: Well, I do want to also mention that the National Association of Hispanic Journalists has also declined to comment on this. We’ve asked if the organization, as a group, has a comment on it. And Richard Prince has also asked, and as an organization, they’ve declined to comment. Which – and I do wonder what that says.

OLMEDA: Well, my history with the organization – I can answer it as if the question had been posed to me three years ago. And my answer would have been we tend not to weigh in on personnel matters. If an organization fires an employee, we try to stay out of that as much as possible. There – are there reasons that people would expect NAHJ to say something? Sure. But, you know, when it comes to a boss firing an employee, it takes a lot for us to jump in on that.

Actually, three years ago, NAHJ president Olmeda was demanding Dallas Fox affiliate KDFW reinstate reporter Rebecca Aguilar after she accused a local man of being "trigger-happy" after he defended himself against an intruder. 

Showing greater restraint than the CNN anchor, Flynt replied, “I can’t do that.” (Video available here.)

It’s bizarre that an anchor on CNN, which touts itself as “the most trusted name in news,” would ask a pornographer to smear public officials by name without any independent journalistic corroboration. Larry Flynt is no gift to ethics, but he seemed to understand better than Don Lemon the need for restraint.

Talking about an unnamed senator who might be gay, Flynt claimed “we were ready to expose the senator at one time, but then the guy who is really his lover was actually married and that produced a kind of conflict that we didn’t want to — that we didn’t want to go to.”

If that element of Flynt’s story is true, does anyone think CNN would show similar restraint in harming a third party if given the chance to torpedo a Republican’s career?

Here’s the transcript from the 6pm ET Newsroom on October 3, an interview later replayed in the 10pm ET hour:

DON LEMON: So this week, as we mentioned, the Supreme Court is taking up the case of anti-gay protests during military funerals. At first glance, it probably makes no sense that "Hustler Magazine" publisher Larry Flynt is connected to all of this, but this – really, his landmark case against the late Jerry Falwell is being cited by the defense for Fred Phelps, for Westboro Baptist Church leader, who organized those protests. Flynt isn’t happy about that but he says he can’t oppose it.

LARRY FLYNT: What they were doing, in terms of protesting the funeral of someone burying their dead, coming home from the war, I can’t think of anything more despicable, more insensitive to do. You know, but Justice Rehnquist, in my case, he was a senior Supreme Court justice, and he wrote the majority opinion. And he said often things are done under the guise of the First Amendment with less than admirable intentions but the government had no right to suppress it.

So while we have the great basic freedoms like the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble and to petition our government for redress, you know, we really can’t get caught in a position, whether it’s the mosque in New York or what the issue is or burning the Koran, where we are compromising the basic freedoms that our nation was founded on. And it’s difficult cases like this one involving the protests of the funerals that the Supreme Court has to weigh in on.

I regret that they are using my precedent-setting case with the Reverend Jerry Falwell. I think it was slightly different in one respect, but in another respect it wasn’t.

LEMON: Hey, let’s talk about the Senate race in my home state of Louisiana. We’re talking about David Vitter and Charlie Melancon. Of course, they’re running — Charlie Melancon is taking on David Vitter. How did a Hustler interview end up in a campaign ad for Melancon?

FLYNT: Well, we were the ones who really outed Vitter on this, and it wasn’t a question of an indiscretion with a prostitute in Washington. But we concluded a case with the investigation in New Orleans as well. This guy was like the Energizer Bunny at the same time he was going around about abstinence, you know.

I mean, he was probably one of the biggest philanderers in the Senate. So, I’m often accused when I expose people like him, just doing it to expose his sex life. Nothing can be further from the truth. What I’m exposing is the hypocrisy. I don’t want…

LEMON: Well, let me ask you. You have offered $1 million for anyone who can come forward to your magazine to say that they have had sex with a high-ranking official. Are you still doing that and do you have any tips yet?

FLYNT: We’re still doing it. We always got ongoing investigations, but they take a while.

LEMON: So no tips?

FLYNT: Pardon?

LEMON: No tips yet?

FLYNT: I’ll give you a couple of clues. We know we’ve got a gay senator, you know. We just like to see him come out of the closet. And I think we’ll be exposing that in the next few months if he doesn’t.

And I’ve got a really great story, a very high-ranking Republican talking to a woman on a cell phone, and we have the tape where he said — oh, she mentioned family values to him. He said, "Oh, family values, that’s crap, I just talk about that on television." Well, we felt, boy, this is a real doozie.                                

LEMON: You want to give us an idea of either one of these guys? The senator? No hints?

FLYNT: I can’t do that. My attorney says you can’t use the tape because it was taped in Pennsylvania, which requires two-party consent so you can’t use it. So, I mean, those are the kind of things that we’re up against. But we constantly have interesting investigations going on at all times. We were ready to expose the senator at one time, but then the guy who is really his lover was actually married and that produced a kind of conflict that we didn’t want to — that we didn’t want to go to. We wanted better evidence.

TVNewser

On Thursday evening, the now-former CNN anchor blasted Jon Stewart as a "bigot" on Pete Dominick’s radio show and indicated that Jews ran CNN and the media. He also criticized the "top brass" at CNN for supposed prejudice and went into detail about his hatred for Fox News, as NB’s Matthew Balan reported earlier on Friday afternoon.

We encourage our readers to leave their comments on this breaking news.

Before putting his colleagues at MSNBC on his "list," the CNN anchor invoked his longtime vendetta against his other competitor and took a swipe at the last vice president: "Much was made of Vice President Cheney’s insistence- remember this?- on only watching Fox News in his travels. It’s a true story. Whenever he checked into hotels, he would have his staffers tune all of the TVs in the hotel to only Fox News, so he could just hear about his policies, repeated back to him by a right-wing television network."

Sanchez then moved on to his main subject: "Well, today I asked this question: what about MSNBC and their relationship now with this White House? Here’s ‘The List U Don’t Want 2 Be On.’" He continued with the claim that "if you don’t think for one minute that MSNBC is to Barack Obama what Fox was to Bush and Cheney, then you obviously haven’t heard this comment that I’m about to share with you- this comment from Deputy White House [Press] Secretary Bill Burton."

Burton, speaking for President Obama, sang the praises of Olbermann and Maddow during a September 28 briefing on Air Force One, citing them as examples of people who "keep our government honest and pushes and prods to make sure that folks are true to progressive values," continuing that the President "thinks that those folks provide an invaluable service."

After reading the quote, the CNN anchor speculated that he wasn’t "sure that neither Olbermann nor Maddow is happy about Burton’s comment. We tried calling them today for a comment about this segment, and so far, we’ve heard nothing back." Actually, Olbermann enthusiastically responded to the deputy White House press secretary just hours later, as Mediaite pointed out on September 29: "I want to thank Mr. Burton for his kind words and the President for his, and I want to- sort of rise to this bar."

During the last part of the segment, Sanchez hinted he was outside the partisan divide between his competitors:

SANCHEZ: …[I]n an effort to praise them, Burton has actually revealed MSNBC’s bias, or at least what the White House perceives as their bias. It’s right there. I mean, that’s what he is saying- pushing and prodding progressive values is ‘an invaluable service’? What if, as an American, I don’t agree with all progressive values, Mr. President? And by the way, since when is news supposed to have a limited point of view- only progressive? Oh, that’s right. I just remembered. Ever since Fox decided to give mostly the conservative Republican side, and then MSNBC followed suit with mostly the liberal Democratic side- I guess I forgot.

Look, from what I can tell, I wasn’t necessarily liked by the Bush White House, and I don’t think I’m particularly liked by the Obama White House as well. And you know what? That’s the way I like it.

Without using any direct label for himself, the anchor is essentially claiming, as he has done in the recent past, that he and CNN "play it down the middle." But past instances indicate otherwise. Besides all the times he has gone after Fox News and conservative talk radio, along with individual conservatives, Sanchez gushed over then-candidate Obama’s overseas trip in July 2008: "[The] trip…seems to be captivating the rest of the world as much, if not more so, than many in the United States." After the President’s inauguration, he slammed those making light of the Democrat’s frequent use of a Teleprompter as being on the "far right" during a March 27, 2009 segment.

One can only speculate why Sanchez thinks the Obama White House doesn’t "particularly like" him, but it isn’t for a lack of rushing to their defense. Perhaps he irked Mr. Obama after he accidentally labeled the chief executive the "cotton-picking president of the United Sates" on August 30. "The world may never know," to quote a line from the classic Tootsie Pop commercial.

The full transcript of the segment from Thursday’s Rick’s List, which aired 45 minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour:

SANCHEZ: Much was made of Vice President Cheney’s insistence- remember this?- on only watching Fox News in his travels. It’s a true story. Whenever he checked into hotels, he would have his staffers tune all of the TVs in the hotel to only Fox News, so he could just hear about his policies, repeated back to him by a right-wing television network. Well, today I asked this question: what about MSNBC and their relationship now with this White House? Here’s ‘The List U Don’t Want 2 Be On.’

Look, if you don’t think for one minute that MSNBC is to Barack Obama what Fox was to Bush and Cheney, then you obviously haven’t heard this comment that I’m about to share with you- this comment from Deputy White House Secretary Bill Burton. You ready? Here it is: ‘If you’re on the left, if you’re somebody like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, or one of those folks who helps to keep our government honest and pushes and prods to make sure that folks are true to progressive values, then he (Obama) thinks that those folks provide an invaluable service.’

Now, I’m not sure that neither Olbermann nor Maddow is happy about Burton’s comment. We tried calling them today for a comment about this segment, and so far, we’ve heard nothing back. But essentially what’s going on here is, in an effort to praise them, Burton has actually revealed MSNBC’s bias, or at least what the White House perceives as their bias. It’s right there. I mean, that’s what he is saying- pushing and prodding progressive values is ‘an invaluable service’? What if, as an American, I don’t agree with all progressive values, Mr. President? And by the way, since when is news supposed to have a limited point of view- only progressive? Oh, that’s right. I just remembered. Ever since Fox decided to give mostly the conservative Republican side, and then MSNBC followed suit with mostly the liberal Democratic side- I guess I forgot.

Look, from what I can tell, I wasn’t necessarily liked by the Bush White House, and I don’t think I’m particularly liked by the Obama White House as well. And you know what? That’s the way I like it. Olbermann, Maddow, MSNBC- at the very top of ‘The List (tonight that) U Don’t Want 2 Be On.’

On Wednesday’s Rick’s List, CNN’s Rick Sanchez implied that Fox News played some kind of part in James O’Keefe’s attempted "punk" of correspondent Abbie Boudreau: "The same right-wing videographer, who entrapped and embarrassed innocent people in the past, tries it again- this time on a CNN correspondent….How could he try something so stupid, and what was Fox News’s role?" [audio clip available here]

Sanchez made this parting shot at his longstanding nemesis on the last prime time edition of his show, as the 8 pm time slot on CNN is being taken over on October 4 by a new program featuring former New York governor and "Client Number Nine" Eliot Spitzer and pseudo-conservative Kathleen Parker. The anchor raised his implying question about the apparent "role" of Fox News during the lead-in to his program. Instead of making a direct accusation against Fox News, as he did in the aftermath of the murders of three Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania police officers in April 2009, he replayed an earlier interview with Boudreau from the top of the 4 pm Eastern hour of his program.

At the beginning of the interview, Sanchez stated that O’Keefe "that took down a liberal group, ACORN, by ambushing them and presenting them in an unfair light after his video was shown endless times on Fox News." Unfair light? The "liberal group," as the anchor correctly describe them, had already been under investigation for illegal activity. As CNN itself reported in October 2008, authorities in Nevada conducted a raid on the organization’s headquarters in Las Vegas as part of an investigation into voter registration fraud (though anchor Kiran Chetry referred to ACORN as merely a "non-profit group"). Speaking of unfair, how about the time Sanchez highlighted an unsubstantiated quote of Rush Limbaugh?

The CNN anchor only directly mentioned his competitor by name during the segment during the beginning, but one of his later questions led to Boudreau mentioning them and their possible involvement. Thirty-three minutes into the hour, Sanchez brought up the document that O’Keefe and one of his collaborators made in the process of planning their "punk" of the CNN correspondent, which was subsequently leaked to the network. Though the 13-page document apparently didn’t specifically mention Fox News, Boudreau named them as one of their possible "allies" in the planned stunt:

SANCHEZ: Let’s go to the second part of the document. In the document- and there we’re seeing James O’Keefe- he- does the document explain why he had planned to do this? What his M.O. was for us here as a network at CNN?

BOUDREAU: Okay, and just to be clear, this document- at the very beginning of the document, it says written by- and it’s one of James’ mentors and one of his fellow activists- under activist, it lists James’ name. Now, James would have been the person who acted out this entire punk. James has said in a statement that he knows about the document, but I’ll just go ahead and read his e-mail to us-

SANCHEZ: Okay.

BOUDREAU: It says, ‘That is not my work product. When it was sent to me, I immediately found certain elements highly objectionable and inappropriate, and did not consider them for one minute following it.’ But our reporting will show- and we’ll reveal all the details in our documentary- that appears not to be true.

SANCHEZ: So he was- at least your reporting seems to indicate that he was in on it.

BOUDREAU: Yes. You asked about the first part-

SANCHEZ: Okay. Yes. In on what? What was the M.O.? What did they plan to do with this video they’re going to have on you and him inside this boat?

BOUDREAU: Okay. Well, that is unclear. But that was all in the second part of the document.

SANCHEZ: Right.

BOUDREAU: The first part of the document that you are asking about is about how to punk CNN into reporting a false story, either about Sarah Palin or about the Tea Party movement. And what they would then do is give their allies or their ‘friendly’s,’ as they called them in the document, which would be FOX News-

SANCHEZ: Right.

BOUDREAU: A heads-up, that CNN is about to report a fake story so that they could- quote, ‘pounce on CNN and undercut CNN’s credibility’- and that was the first part of the document. It was very detailed about how that plan was supposed to go down.

SANCHEZ: That’s a heck of a story.

So it’s purely speculation of both Boudreau and Sanchez’s part that Fox News might have played any role in this, purely because his first and most infamous set of videos on ACORN aired multiple times on their competitor. It’s just another example of the CNN’s anchor’s continuing vendetta against the network, where he has questioned their legitimacy as a news organization, or slammed them as "way, way, way to the right" or "the voice of the Republican Party."

Are "Mama Grizzlies" who oppose state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP) and teachers’ unions unfaithful to their maternal name? CNN anchor Kiran Chetry joined Newsweek’s Lisa Miller Monday in wondering if that is so. Miller appeared on CNN’s "American Morning" to feature her most recent piece on "Mama Grizzlies," prominent female conservatives in the vein of Sarah Palin.

"All the candidates that we – whose records we looked at, are against the Obama health plan in general, and yes, the CHIP program in specific," reported Miller, a senior editor for Newsweek. "There are rising numbers of poor children in this country, a quarter of America’s children are poor. It seems like a funny way to say that you’re for kids, and be against all of these programs."

Miller ultimately concluded that the "Mama Grizzlies" movement will fall short of its political goals, because "the issues facing the country are complex, and bears are not."

"Do we really want bears to solve our problems?" Miller quipped at the end of the segment.  

Kiran Chetry agreed that the candidates’ positions may contradict their maternal title. "I guess if you strip away the core message of the Tea Party candidates, which Sarah Palin has really helped endorse, they just want less government, they want less spending. That, unfortunately at times, butts up against things that many say would be good for kids."

Among the examples of "Mama Grizzlies" failing to help America’s children? Both Miller and Chetry noted the candidates’ opposition to S-CHIP programs, teachers’ unions, Pell Grants, and Obamacare as evidence.

Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle’s opposition to a domestic violence bill in the Nevada state legislature and Minnesota Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s vote against a federal parental-leave policy drew some attention as well.

So who on the Democratic side would make a good "Mama Grizzly?" Miller said Hillary Clinton would, being a "powerful woman and a mom," although she wouldn’t admit it.

A partial transcript of the segment, which aired on September 27 at 8:14 a.m. EDT, is as follows:

KIRAN CHETRY: It’s interesting, because when you take a look at some of the candidates she’s referring to, and we can talk about some of them, they aren’t necessarily all on the same page with each other when it comes to some of these issues. I mean, is this sort of a coherent set of ideas, or is it more of a marketing tool?

LISA MILLER, Senior Editor, Newsweek: Right, well, I mean, I would say – and we say at the end of the story that it is really more of a marketing tool. It’s a very compelling image, right? Everybody who’s a parent has that feeling of wanting to protect their kids. And if we make it America’s kids, or our kids, you know, our future, it’s a very powerful image.

On the other hand, you know, Christine O’Donnell for example isn’t a mom. So she talks about our grandchildren in speeches, but she’s not actually a "Mama Grizzly." And then on things like education, the "Grizzlies" are really all over the place. You know, Sarah Palin is actually quite progressive on education. She has always talked about paying teachers more. In Alaska, she ramped up the budget for the Department of Education over and over again before she left the position of Governor of Alaska. She promised a big infusion of money to the schools. Whereas Angle and Bachmann are known for sort of hating the teachers’ unions, fighting back against lobbyists. All of them, many of them, have this anti-Department of Education position, you know, parents know what’s good for kids, and administrators and bureaucrats should get out.

CHETRY: Right, but just because you’re against the Department of Ed doesn’t mean you’re not for kids getting a better education.

MILLER: I guess that’s true. On the other hand, you know, a lot of them have voted for – against things like Start, programs for poor kids, Pell Grants, which are to help, you know, poor kids get college education –

CHETRY: Right, and this is the interesting part. Because, I mean, I guess if you strip away the core message of the Tea Party candidates, which Sarah Palin has really helped endorse, is they just want less government, they want less spending. That, unfortunately at times, butts up against things that many say would be good for kids. We have Bachmann, Michelle Bachmann in the Congress, and Nickie Haley who are both against the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, that provides health care to poor children.

MILLER: All the candidates that we – whose records we looked at, are against the Obama health plan in general, and yes, the CHIP program in specific. There are rising numbers of poor children in this country, a quarter of America’s children are poor. It seems like a funny way to say that you’re for kids, and be against all of these programs.  

CHETRY: Yeah, the other issue that you talked about is the voting against – was it Angle who voted against a Domestic Violence bill in the Nevada legislature?

MILLER: Yes, and Bachmann voted against a federal parental-leave policy for federal employees. So when you have a new baby, time off. That seems like a good thing for kids.

CHETRY: Is there a Democratic equivalent to the "Mama Grizzly" phenomenon on the other side?

MILLER: Well, I mean, I think, you know, you could call Hillary Clinton a "Mama Grizzly," right? She’s a powerful woman, she’s a mom. But I don’t think she would ever call herself a "Mama Grizzly." She doesn’t fit in to this demographic.

CHETRY: You wrote in an interesting line at the end of the article that said in the wild, real "Mama Grizzlies" are known to be aggressive, irrational, and mean. The issues facing the country are complex, and bears are not. So what is the upshot of this?

MILLER: Well, I mean, I think, you know, it’s a great marketing tool, as we said at the outset. You know, calling upon women’s primal maternal instincts is a good thing, but let’s think about it. I mean, this is a very divided country, and we have some big problems to solve. Do we really want bears to solve our problems?