That was too much free speech for the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which lawyered up and sent the publishing house an ominous letter intimating it may be in violation of several campaign finance laws – claiming the video was an in-kind contribution to Republicans. This despite the fact that…

Corporations are permitted to make independent expenditures with no coordination with candidates…

Or the simple possibility that Simon & Schuster has printed tens of thousands of copies and would now like to, you know, sell them.

The DCCC’s attorneys suggest it’s improper for a corporation to host a video on its website that in turn directs viewers to Rep. Eric Cantor’s ERIC-PAC website that solicits contributions for Republican candidates for Congress.

But consider this: if Simon & Schuster really wanted this book to fly off the shelves, or Republicans to be helped, wouldn’t they offer a much more prominent video presentation — on a CBS property like 60 Minutes? It wouldn’t be the first time. (They put Simon & Schuster-published The Big Short by liberal author Michael Lewis in that promotional slot.) Seton continued:

Never ones to let the facts get in the way of a good beating….

The DCCC is looking for an “assurance” that the book will be promoted legally.

This is chilling language and a chilling move coming from the Party that is (for now still) in control of Congress – what with their ability to hold “investigative” hearings and haul anyone they wish before them for intimidation purposes disguised as interrogative ones. 

Not to mention a Democrat President with the keys to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and what is quickly becoming the most ideological and partisan Justice Department in our nation’s history. 

It doesn’t occur to Democrats and liberals that they too can write a book and get it published and promoted – in just the same manner as have the Republicans?  You know, meet free speech with free speech.

Apparently not.  Instead they seek to drop the censorship hammer.  Again.

HuffPo Panics about GOP Sweep of Ohio

Looks like the Huffington Post is buying into the “As Ohio goes, so goes the nation” meme this election cycle, based on a story out today.

The HuffPo item is by Liz Sidoti. But Sidoti is a national politics writer for the Associated Press, and what Holt really read was what AP would like us to believe is a supposedly "objective" analysis of the electoral situation in Ohio right off the wire. Word for word, the item at HuffPo is the same dispatch as found at the AP’s main site. The only clue as to its origin, which Holt missed (and it’s easy to see how), is the teeny-tiny AP logo where Sidoti’s byline appears.

In other words, Sidoti’s stridency and Democrat-sympathetic viewpoint are so obvious that she passes the HuffPo zealotry test.

Here are some examples of how Sidoti "successfully" came off as a  budding HuffPo pundit:

Dems’ prospects threatened by economic woes

Frustrated, discouraged and just plain mad, a lot of people who have lost jobs – or know someone who has – now want to see the names of Democrats on pink slips. And that’s jeopardizing the party’s chances in Ohio and all across the country in November’s elections.

In this big swing-voting state alone, Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland is in a dogfight for re-election. Senate candidate Lee Fisher may be even worse off. As many as six House Democrats could lose their jobs this fall. Recession-fueled animosity is dominating every race, giving Republicans hope of huge victories.

… In Ohio, like almost everywhere else, voters don’t much care for Washington, Wall Street or anything resembling the establishment. They grouse about every politician, including President Barack Obama, whom Ohioans played a critical role in electing. They fume over the nation’s teetering finances.

… Republicans are hoping to capitalize on voters’ economic disillusionment, frustration with Obama and tea party-generated enthusiasm.

Democrats are relying on a financial advantage, a robust get-out-the-vote operation and, mostly, the ghost of George W. Bush to curb an expected Nov. 2 shellacking.

… at Suzzie’s Beechwold Diner, Steve Reither epitomizes the Democrats’ other big challenge: a fired-up electorate tilting toward the GOP.

A Republican-turned-independent, Reither is sick of both parties and says: "They all talk about change and nothing changes." But he saves his harshest words for Obama, whom he calls a socialist and a liar. This year, he says he’ll probably vote largely with the GOP in November – "I’ll hold my nose" – simply to fire Democrats.

"This administration and his cronies are running this country into the ground," Reither, 55, says as he finishes his breakfast. The owner of a small auto restoration business, he says he’s been struggling for the past two years, and he blames Obama’s policies that "hurt the little guy."

Democrats at all levels are sounding a populist tone, casting their races as helping voters on Main Street vs. Republican policies intended to help Wall Street. Republicans, in turn, argue that Democrats – led by Obama – are making a tough economic situation worse with a free-spending, big-government agenda.

Of course Sidoti’s work looks like HuffPo punditry, as it’s all from the Democrats’ "woe is us, these terrible things are happening" perspective. Republicans are seen as the unworthies upsetting the apple cart. And voters? Well, they’re just "mad" and full of "animosity."

It’s quite instructive to see how an AP report is correctly interpreted as left-leaning output. And sad to say, Liz Sidoti isn’t anywhere near the wire service’s worst offender.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Guess which one Gallup partner USA Today hyped?

Here’s how USA Today staffer Susan Page began her September 2 online story (filed at noon today):

Nearly two years after Barack Obama was elected president, Americans still are inclined to blame his predecessor for the nation’s current economic problems.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than a third of those surveyed said George W. Bush deserved a great deal of the blame for economic woes and a third said he should get a moderate amount of it. Not quite another third called that unfair, saying Bush warranted not much or none of the responsibility.

The 71% saying Bush should get blamed was a modest decline from the 80% who felt that way about a year ago, in July 2009.

A search of the USAToday.com website failed to turn up a story specifically devoted to the September 1 Gallup poll that gauged voter preferences for the parties based on the issues.

Staffer Susan Page did make a brief reference to the poll in a September 1 "analysis" article regarding President Obama’s Oval Office speech about the end of combat operations in Iraq, but that occurred in paragraphs 17 and 18 of her 20-paragraph story:

But the Iraq war is no longer the driving issue for Americans facing job layoffs and home foreclosures. In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,021 adults Friday through Sunday, those surveyed rated the economy, jobs, government corruption and federal spending as the top issues shaping their vote in November’s congressional elections — and preferred congressional Republicans over Democrats on handling the economy by double digits.

The war in Afghanistan ranked eighth in a list of nine issues.

Here’s an excerpt from Gallup.com’s website regarding the top issues poll:

PRINCETON, NJ — A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds Americans saying the Republicans in Congress would do a better job than the Democrats in Congress of handling seven of nine key election issues. The parties are essentially tied on healthcare, with the environment being the lone Democratic strength.

The Republicans’ advantage on most issues is an indication of the currently favorable political environment for the party. Of particular note is the parity between the two parties on healthcare, an issue on which Americans historically have viewed the Democrats as superior.

A similar USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in October 2006, just prior to Democrats’ major gains in that fall’s elections, highlights the potential implications of these findings. That poll, which includes several issues measured in the current survey, found the Democrats leading on all eight issues tested at that time, including some usual Republican strengths like terrorism and moral values.

In more bad news for liberal Democrats, Gallup.com released another poll today that shows that "Republicans Hold Wide Lead in Key Voter Turnout Measure":

PRINCETON, NJ — Two months before this year’s midterm congressional elections, Gallup finds 54% of Republicans, compared with 30% of Democrats, already saying they have given "quite a lot of" or "some" thought to the contests.

This "thought" measure is an important variable in Gallup’s well-established classification of "likely voters," which is put into use closer to Election Day. The current gulf in thought between the parties mirrors the partisan gap in Gallup’s voter enthusiasm measure that is tracked weekly.

We’ll have to see how USA Today covers this later today or tomorrow, but I’m not holding my breath for the paper giving it much attention, if any.

That’s the impression one might get from consuming two Friday Associated dispatches and a related AP Video.

Bernanke apparently took full charge of anything and everything having to do with the economy on Thursday evening. As noted early Friday morning (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), two Thursday afternoon dispatches from the wire service in advance of the government’s Friday morning GDP report widely predicted to contain news of a significant downward revision to second-quarter economic growth placed surreal importance on the content of a speech he was to give Friday morning shortly after that report’s release. The names of President Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Tim Geithner, and Larry Summers were totally absent from both reports.

Friday, in the wake of the downward revision of second-quarter GDP from an annualized 2.4% to 1.6%, AP’s primary economic report about Bernanke’s apparent first day as Emperor-in-Chief again failed to name the five folks just mentioned, as did a one-minute video from Mark Hamrick found here (after a 30-second commercial).

Here is some of what Christopher Rugaber, with assists from Jeannine Aversa and Alan Zibel, wrote about Ben’s big day:

Economy edges closer to stalling, government says

Shortly after the government’s revision, Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke said the Fed was ready to take additional steps to prevent a second recession, if the economy deteriorates further. But he stopped short of promising any action.

The Fed "will do all that it can to ensure continuation of the economic recovery," he said.

… Bernanke, speaking to a Fed conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo., acknowledged the economy has slowed more than policymakers had anticipated and said it is "vulnerable to unexpected developments."

He did say he expects growth will pick up next year. The central bank chairman also sought to reassure the financial markets that he has the tools needed to bolster the economy and will use them if business activity slows further.

Bernanke outlined several options, including having the Fed buy more securities, most likely government debt or mortgage investments, as a way to drive down interest rates on all sorts of debt and spur more spending that might get the economy going.

Bernanke made clear "he is willing to act to ensure that the recovery remains on the right path," said Zach Pandl, an economist at Nomura Securities.

That reassured the financial markets, which rose sharply after the Fed chairman’s speech.

… How much the government could help at this point is an open question. The Fed has already lowered its key short-term interest rate to nearly zero, but that has yet to rejuvenate the economy. The benefits of federal stimulus programs are fading, and Congress has declined to pass any major new aid.

… The Fed chief said the foundation is being laid for stronger growth in 2011: Households are saving more and healthier banks are more willing to lend. That should boost consumer spending, which makes up 70 percent of U.S. economic activity.

Once again, it’s as if Ben Bernanke is the only guy with any kind of influence on the course of the economy. Obama, Geithner, Summers, anyone else in the White House, Pelosi, Reid, or anyone else in Congress’s Democratic majority? Even though they are collectively responsible for fiscal policy, taxes, spending, regulation and oversight, we’re apparently supposed to believe that they’re all just spectators now, and that they’re as powerless as you or I to influence growth or employment. These people couldn’t possibly have anything to do with why we are where we are, or with why the economic outlook is so grim, could they? Zheesh.

As to President Obama, the AP’s Mark S. Smith took a transparently sympathetic tone in a separate Friday evening missive:

Vacationing Obama can’t escape economy

President Barack Obama biked and golfed under a brilliant New England sun Friday, yet he couldn’t escape the cascade of dour news on the economy as his vacation neared its end.

The Commerce Department reported the economy grew at a much slower pace this spring than previously estimated, a mere 1.6 percent. That followed reports earlier in the week on badly slumping home sales and tapering business spending on manufactured items.

Obama has conferred with his economic team on the phone while vacationing. And before his latest round of Martha’s Vineyard golf Friday, he met for about 15 minutes in the clubhouse with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to discuss the economy.

… The economic news brought renewed criticism for the administration.

… But with cloudless skies over Martha’s Vineyard after rain earlier in the week, the president did what he could to seize some downtime.

"The White House" did comment on Friday’s GDP news, but the AP didn’t mention it, at least based on searches at its main site on "White House GDP," "White House growth," and "White House grew" (each entered without quotes), all of which returned nothing relevant. An AP search on "Obama grew" (without quotes) returned only the Smith report just cited.

AFP did cover the administration’s reaction, such as it was:

The White House said Friday the latest US economic growth data represented "positive news" but that the lowered estimates mean more work is needed to keep the recovery on track.

"Four consecutive quarters of economic growth is positive news, but the revised numbers mean there is still much more we need to do to continue on the path to recovery and that remains the focus of the president and the economic team every single day," said a senior administration official with the vacationing President Barack Obama.

… "President Obama is focused on taking the next steps to keep the economy growing including assistance to small businesses, export promotion, the extension of tax cuts to the middle class, and investments in areas of our economy where the potential for job growth is greatest, like clean energy," the administration official said.

The "senior administration official" tasked with announcing this blather seems to have requested anonymity. If so, I can’t say I blame him or her. When no one else is getting named, why would anyone volunteer to be the only person in the Washington establishment besides Big Ben associated with the economy?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The front page of the Times covered flooding in Pakistan, Team Obama’s tough evaluation of offshore drilling permits, and a chilling Rod Nordland story on new public executions by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan. But the front page also offered "Walking in New York? Beware Men Turning Left" and "Exclusive Golf Course Is Also Organic, So a Weed or Two Get In."

At least the Times covered the DeLay story. To date, the newspaper "of record" has not mentioned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s exclamation last Tuesday that "I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican."

The Times was quick to note that DeLay still faces the indictment of Democratic Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle from 2005. The caption under DeLay’s picture read "Tom DeLay still faces a trial in Texas on unrelated charges of money laundering and conspiracy." Reporter Charlie Savage elaborated:

Mr. DeLay’s legal troubles are not yet over. He still faces a trial in Texas on unrelated state charges of money laundering and conspiracy in connection with campaign donations during the 2002 election. A trial on those charges, for which he was indicted in 2005, was delayed for years because of an appeal by co-defendants, but a hearing on pretrial motions is scheduled for next week.

Savage made no attempt to calculate how much money the federal government has spent investigating DeLay, which was standard operating procedure for the media during Clinton investigations. Instead, Savage reminded the reader of all the prosecutors’ successes:

The scandal, which helped Democrats win majorities in Congress in the 2006 election, led to convictions or guilty pleas by two of Mr. DeLay’s former aides; former Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio; two former White House officials; Mr. Abramoff himself; and several other former Congressional aides and lobbyists. Mr. Abramoff was released from prison in June.

There were no conservative groups to complain about the partisanship of the process, but Savage did bring in a liberal group (without a label) to lament how it was a malodorous outrage that DeLay hadn’t been jailed:

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog group, sharply criticized the Justice Department’s decision to close the investigation into Mr. DeLay’s role without charges.

“It’s a sad day for America when one of the most corrupt members to ever walk the halls of Congress gets a free pass,” Ms. Sloan said. “The Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute Mr. DeLay for his actions sends exactly the wrong message to current and future members.”

The only supporter of DeLay in the Times piece was DeLay:

But Mr. DeLay said that he had done nothing wrong and that his political enemies had spent more than  “criminalization of politics and the politics of personal destruction” that he contended his case exemplified.

“The new politics — it’s a decade coming up with “frivolous” ethics charges against him. He denounced the “criminalization of politics and the politics of personal destruction” that he contended his case exemplified. “The new politics — it’s no longer good enough to beat you on policy,” he said. “They have to completely drown you and put you in prison and destroy your family and your reputation and finances, then dance on your grave.”

A new poll suggests Americans have more positive feelings for the Tea Party movement than for either of the Democratic leaders in Congress. The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey finds 30 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party movement, compared to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 21 percent and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s 11 percent.

The evening before, on Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News, Todd declared: “It’s an unhappy America” where “the Democrats hit a record high in their negative rating – 44 percent” while “the Republicans are doing even worse – 46 percent of the country has a negative view of the Republican Party” and “even the Tea Party – which has actually enjoyed a little bit of a renaissance over the last six months – 34 percent now have a negative view. Just 30 percent have a positive view.”

The next morning (Thursday) on the Today show, Todd repeated: “Democrats hit an all-new high in their negative rating. Republicans have even a higher negative rating. The Tea Party, which had enjoyed a positive rating for awhile, now they have a negative rating.”

More in Geoffrey Dickens’ post: “NBC’s Todd Proclaims If GOP Wins in November It’s Still ‘A Bad Election Night for All of Washington.”

More of Todd’s poll summary on the August 11 NBC Nightly News, transcript provided by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth for Todd’s look at evaluations of the parties:

CHUCK TODD: It’s an unhappy America. Look, they don’t like the Democrats. The Democrats hit a record high in their negative rating – 44 percent. Just 33 percent have a positive rating on them. The Republicans are doing even worse – 46 percent of the country has a negative view of the Republican Party; 24 percent has a positive view.

Even the Tea Party – which has actually enjoyed a little bit of a renaissance over the last six months – 34 percent now have a negative view. Just 30 percent have a positive view.

What does this mean for the fall campaign? Right now, voters are sort of in a hold-your-nose moment. They’re sort of split decision – 43 percent want Democrats to keep control; 42 percent want Republicans to take control. But, among voters who have the highest interest in the November elections, this is where Republicans have a potential big advantage – 50 percent of high-interest voters want Republicans to take control of Congress, and just 39 percent would like to see the Democrats keep control.

But, again, it’s an unhappy America. And this election, right now, could turn out being a hold-your-nose election when you go into that ballot box.

Bream’s “Grapevine” item on the August 12 Special Report with Bret Baier where she was filling in for Baier:

A new poll suggests Americans have more positive feelings for the Tea Party movement than for either of the Democratic leaders in Congress. The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey finds 30 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party movement, compared to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 21 percent and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s 11 percent. 33 percent of those surveyed have had a positive attitude toward the Democratic Party compared to just 24 percent for Republicans. Congress’ overall job score even worse: 21 percent approved compared to a whopping 72 percent who disapprove.

"Also, do you think a Hispanic-American can be a Republican?" teased Sanchez. "Harry Reid doesn’t think so. And I’m going to tell you what Hispanic groups are saying about his opponent as well."

Instead of interviewing a Hispanic Republican who is offended by Reid’s insensitive remarks, Sanchez brought on Miguel Barrientos, a liberal talk show host, to "drill down" on why Angle is allegedly ignoring Hispanic journalists.

"These charges against Angle, are they real?" asked a bewildered Sanchez. "Is she really blocking out the Latin media? Or is this just a case of opportunism by her opponent, Harry Reid?"

After Barrientos confirmed that Angle apparently does not feel the need to reach out to media personalities who describe themselves as "activists" who "get involved very heavily in the political area," Sanchez wondered if the Republican Senate nominee is merely an incompetent campaigner:

Well, look, maybe she’s just not good at this. Maybe she’s hired people who aren’t very savvy at reaching out to the media. Maybe they’re not very organized and they don’t return phone calls. You know, there’s a stretch between someone not being competent at dealing with the media and somebody blocking out a specific part of the media, simply because they don’t like them, because they’re Hispanic or black or Asian or whatever the accusation is.

Reid drew fire when he claimed he doesn’t "know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican." Rather than criticize Reid for insulting the intelligence of every Hispanic Republican in America, Sanchez characterized the Senate majority leader’s statement as something that "some, possibly even what many, Americans think."

A transcript of the relevant segment can be found below:

CNN
Rick’s List
August 11, 2010

8:30 P.M. E.S.T.

Also, do you think a Hispanic-American can be a Republican? Harry Reid doesn’t think so. And I’m going to tell you what Hispanic groups are saying about his opponent as well. This is a hot political story, and I’m going to take you through it when we come back. This is RICK’S LIST. I’m glad that you’re here.

RICK SANCHEZ: I am so excited about that. Can’t wait to share it with you. Welcome back. I’m Rick Sanchez. It may be what some, possibly even what many, Americans think. But should it be said by the Senate Majority Leader? What am I talking about? Should Harry Reid suggest that no self-respecting Hispanic-American can be or should be a Republican? Play it, Kel.

Sen. HARRY REID (D-NV): I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?

SANCHEZ: No, you don’t need to say more. Now, as a South Floridian, I can tell you, senator, that there are many Hispanic Republicans. The question is whether Senator Reid is taking advantage of his opponent’s problems with Hispanics in Nevada. A problem that seems to have come to a head lately with the Latino reporters saying that Sharron Angle is blacking out the Latin media, blacking them out. They say they’re not invited to her press events, that they’re not set press releases, and their phone calls aren’t even being returned. Those are the accusations. Those are the charges. Now we asked both camps about this. Here’s what I got from Reid’s camp. Right? He sent me this tweet saying, look, Rick, "Angle’s anti-saving jobs, helping unemployed, social security, Medicare, and says immigration reform overriding our culture." So he takes a shot at her. Well, here’s what Angle tweets, alright. "Harry Reid pulls out race card again, whacks himself in the head." So you could see that they’re going at each other here. Now we asked Angle to join us tonight but she declined. I’ll read you her comment nonetheless. "We have brought on more communication staff," she says, "in recent days, and we will be reaching out to all media outlets aggressively between now and Election Day." "This attack," she says, "is an attempt by Harry Reid to distract the voters from his record and his insensitive comments yesterday regarding Hispanic voters." So here we go, tit-for-tat, right? Joining me now to wade through all this is Miguel Barrientos. He’s a community activist and radio host for KLAV-AM out in Las Vegas. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to roll the R’s while on American television. That was kind of neat.

All right. Let’s start with this. These charges against Angle, are they real? Is she really blocking out the Latin media? Or is this just a case of opportunism by her opponent, Harry Reid?

MIGUEL BARRIENTOS, KLAV-AM talk show host: First of all, hello, Rick. We have been working in the community through our radio show. We’re activists. We get involved very heavily in the political area. And we have contacted Sharron Angle’s office saying we want to hear what’s going on, we want to know what the tea party feels about, you know, opening the door to the Latinos, especially when you’re talking about immigration issues. And we have not gotten any phone calls returned. We don’t get support from their staff to say, "this is what we feel." We always hear what they say on the local print media, but doesn’t come forward and talk to our community to our media.

SANCHEZ: Well, look, maybe she’s just not good at this. Maybe she’s hired people who aren’t very savvy at reaching out to the media. Maybe they’re not very organized and they don’t return phone calls. You know, there’s a stretch between someone not being competent at dealing with the media and somebody blocking out a specific part of the media, simply because they don’t like them, because they’re Hispanic or black or Asian or whatever the accusation is. Are you sure when you make this accusation that you’re saying, "look, she’s got a problem with Hispanics?"

BARRIENTOS: Well, I’m not – I don’t think she dislikes Hispanics. When you have potentially 100,000 voters that are going to be coming out to vote in the elections and she’s not paying attention to the segment of the community, maybe you’re right. Maybe she doesn’t understand, maybe she’s incompetent, maybe she’s not interested in the Latino vote at this point.

SANCHEZ: She says that she’s going to try and hire some people to reach out to you. What’s your reaction to that?

BARRIENTOS: Well, I think now that you brought it to her attention, maybe she’s going to get a little smarter on how she’s going to run the campaign and get some Latinos out there to maybe speak on her behalf, which I think is a good idea.

SANCHEZ: There’s a possibility that someone in her camp would feel like you’re not going to give her a straight shot anyway. In other words, that much of your coverage is going to be directed towards the Democrat because the voting record there in Nevada tends to be from Hispanics, more of a Democratic vote than a Republican vote. How would you answer that charge?

BARRIENTOS: Well, we have issues on the table, Rick. We have issues such as immigration reform. You know, this is something that we have been fighting since 2003 here in Nevada. We’ve been working with the politicians. The Republican Party has basically ignored our call. They don’t support anything that has to do with immigration reform. The DREAM Act is a big issue that our community is faced with, and we need to open up the doors for higher education for those who qualify. I mean, it’s always negative, negative, negative, when it comes down to our issues. So how are we supposed to feel when they’re not really taking care? We’re part of the constituency in her district.

SANCHEZ: We’ll leave it at that, then. We understand your point of view and we’ll continue to drill down on this topic. Miguel Barrientos, thanks so much, sir.

BARRIENTOS: Thank you, Rick.

At the five major wire services whose reports I reviewed — The Associated Press, Reuters, UPI, AFP, and the business-oriented Bloomberg News — Rosty’s Democratic affiliation made at least one appearance. But the prominence and directness of those appearances varied widely.

Not surprisingly, the Associated Press and writer Don Babwin did the worst job of identifying Rosty’s party, waiting until the eleventh paragraph to directly tag him (the eighth paragraph contains a generic reference to the "Chicago Democratic machine"), and poured it on the thickest when referring to the supposedly beloved bygone days of bipartisanship:

Rostenkowski became symbol of power and excesses

With his rumpled suits and gruff, growling voice, former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski was far more comfortable behind closed doors than in front of the camera or behind a podium.

Rostenkowski left speeches to others, but he quietly wielded enormous power on Capitol Hill for more than 30 years, becoming one of the most powerful lawmakers of his time – and a potent symbol of Washington’s excesses after he pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

When Rostenkowski died Wednesday of lung cancer at age 82, those who knew him recalled a meat-and potatoes politician from an era that doesn’t exist anymore, where leaders crossed party lines to cut deals and seek consensus, and where a young man from Chicago’s Northwest Side could grow up to shape the national agenda as head of a congressional committee. Today most of that power rests with the House speaker.

… Back home, where he emerged from the Chicago Democratic Machine, Rostenkowski brought in millions of federal dollars for public works projects, including improvements to the Kennedy Expressway, the transformation of Navy Pier on Chicago’s downtown lakefront into a recreational area, and the construction of a train line to the city’s biggest airport.

… Rostenkowski was at once a tough politician who called Chicago politics a "blood sport," and a master at the disappearing art of political compromise. So even as he fought battles on behalf of Chicago mayors back home, the staunch Democrat worked closely with President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush in Washington.

"We were going to work together," he once said. "We were going to get something done. We were Democrats and Republicans, but we were also legislators."

Sensible, Constitution-based conservatives more accurately recall the years fondly described by Babwin as the period when Congressional Republicans could usually be counted to eventually cave in to the government-expanding ideas of Democrats and then figure out a way to pay for them by becoming what Newt Gingrich, who become the first to seriously change that dynamic in 1994 (unfortunately not consistently), used to call "tax collectors for the welfare state."

At Reuters, Nick Carey got the D-word into the third paragraph, while remarkably (and correctly) connecting Rostenkowski to a current congressman in serious trouble:

Former Representative Dan Rostenkowski dies at 82

Dan Rostenkowski, who as Congress’ chief tax-writer was one of most powerful U.S. politicians in the 1980s and early 1990s until brought down by a corruption conviction and a 17-month prison sentence, has died at age 82.

The office of an alderman in Rostenkowski’s old congressional district in Chicago on Wednesday confirmed his death.

As chairman of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee for 13 years starting in 1981, the Illinois Democrat had a hand in some of the most important legislation of that period.

But a federal grand jury indicted him on felony corruption charges in 1994, and he eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud.

Just last March, another Democrat who led the Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel, was forced to step down as chairman in the face of ethics charges.

UPI’s unbyllined coverage was hard on Rosty but overly light on the D-word, putting in the worst performance of all five wire services in that regard. The coverage never directly referred to him as a Democrat, only noting that his father was a party member:

Former U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski dead

Former U.S. Rep Dan Rostenkowski, who rose to be chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and went to prison in disgrace, died Wednesday. He was 82.

Rostenkowski died at his summer home in Powers Lake, Wis., after a long battle with cancer, the Chicago Tribune reported.

A onetime Washington political insider and power broker, Rostenkowski represented his Chicago 5th Congressional District in Congress for 36 years, rising to head the powerful tax-writing Ways and Means Committee that rewrote the 1986 U.S. tax code. The son of 32nd Ward Democratic Alderman Joseph Rostenkowski, Daniel was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1958 and served until scandal brought him down in 1994.

He was indicted on 17 counts ranging from mail and wire fraud to obstruction of justice, including hiring ghost payrollers and maintaining political slush funds.

Over at AFP, the unbylined story’s headline weirdly didn’t name Rosty, but got the D-word into the third paragraph, while doing a pretty good job of succinctly describing his political life:

Powerful 18-term former US congressman dies

CHICAGO — Dan Rostenkowski, a powerful legislator during the Ronald Reagan era who was elected to 18 terms in Congress before being arrested on corruption charges, died Wednesday at the age of 82.

An old-style Chicago ward boss and protege of the windy city’s legendary mayor Richard J. Daley, Rostenkowski served in the House of Representatives from 1959 to 1995.

As chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee from 1981 until 1994, the Illinois Democrat helped broker a key deal to keep the Social Security system solvent and played a major role in reforming taxes, welfare and foreign trade.

He was unseated by an upstart Republican in the 1994 election after being indicted in a wide-ranging corruption case where he was accused of everything from maintaining slush funds to accepting bribes.

Despite pleading guilty to two counts of mail fraud for misusing taxpayer money in 1996 and serving 15 months in jail, Rostenkowski maintained his innocence for the rest of his life.

He was pardoned by outgoing President Bill Clinton just before Christmas 2000.

Business-oriented Bloomberg News was the only outlet to put Rostenkowski’s party affiliation into its headline, and otherwise pulled no punches on using the D-word. As would be expected, Laurence Arnold’s story concentrated on Rosty’s involvement with tax legislation:

Dan Rostenkowski, Democrat Who Steered Tax Policy, Dies at 82

Dan Rostenkowski, a product of Chicago’s fabled political machine who engineered U.S. tax policy, indulged in the perks of his job during 36 years in Congress and wound up in prison for misusing funds, has died, according to a Democratic official. He was 82.

He died today at his home in Wisconsin, the official said.

As chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee from 1981 to 1994, Rostenkowski was a Democratic rampart that three presidents had to navigate if they hoped to change U.S. tax laws as well as health and Social Security policies.

The grandson of Polish immigrants and protégé of legendary Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, Rostenkowski was “big, brash and bellowing — a door slammer and, at times, a bully,” Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray wrote in “Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform,” an account of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

That law was Rostenkowski’s best-known achievement. He worked with Republican President Ronald Reagan and other lawmakers to lower tax rates while ending enough deductions and shelters to avoid increasing the federal budget deficit.

He became something of a national celebrity for urging viewers, in a televised address, to send letters supporting tax reform to “Rosty, Washington, D.C.” Tens of thousands of letters came in that way, and for a time “Write Rosty” buttons were the rage on Capitol Hill.

His long career ended in an indictment, lost reelection, conviction and prison sentence.

Since Bloomberg mentioned health policy, it’s worth recalling that one of Rosty’s worst political moments related to how he wanted to "reform" Medicare. As would be expected from a Democrat, it involved taxes and higher premiums. Eventually it was kicked to the curb. That’s because as a YouTube courtesy of CBSNewsOnline shows, opposition was fierce.

The video’s last few moments capture an exchange that could have come straight out the Democratic Party’s 2010 playbook:

Rostenkowski (to a reporter walking alongside him as he was attempting to "escape," i.e., avoid talking to, an angry crowd of seniors): I don’t think they understand what the government’s trying to do for them. That’s always been a problem.

Reporter: Do you sympathize with their anger on this?

Rostenkowski: No, I don’t think they understand what’s going on.

With all due respect to the late congressman, the upset seniors knew exactly what was going on then; many more of us understand it even better now.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

In contrast, filling in as anchor of the CBS Evening News, Erica Hill managed to accurately describe the late Congressman as “a product of Chicago’s Democratic political machine.”

Handling the anchor duties on ABC’s World News, George Stephanopoulos, a Democratic House staff member when Rostenkowski was at the zenith of his power, announced:

We have a high profile political death to note tonight. Dan Rostenkowski was steeped in Chicago politics from the start. Elected to Congress at the age of 30, he served there 36 years, 13 of them as Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee before a scandal that saw him serve time on fraud charges. In 1985, he famously asked Americans fed up with the tax system to write him.

Viewers than saw a clip of Rostenkowski: “Even if you can’t spell Rostenkowski, put down what they used to call my father and grandfather, Rosty. Just address it to R-O-S-T-Y, Washington, DC.”

Stephanopoulos finished: “Dan Rostenkowski was 82.”

Over on the NBC Nightly News, fill-in anchor Ann Curry read this short item:

Dan Rostenkowski, once one of the most powerful lawmakers in Washington, died today. He rose to become Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, but ended up at the center of the House Post Office scandal and was voted out of office in 1994. He spent 15 months in prison, then went back to live in the same house he grew up in in Chicago’s north side. Dan Rostenkowski was 82 years old.

The Washington press corps had affection for Rostenkowski and his liberal policies. Here are representative flashbacks to three articles in the MRC’s MediaWatch newsletter:

From the June 1994 MediaWatch:

Rostenkowski’s Free Ride
Media Mourn 17-Count Indictment as Tragedy for the Country

Some reporters treated House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski’s 17-count indictment on embezzlement and jury tampering not as an outrage, but as a tragedy. On NBC’s Today May 25, Tim Russert declared: "It’s sad. It’s not something people are gloating over because the fact is, Bryant, Congressman Rostenkowski came here as a political hack from Chicago and turned into a very formidable national legislator." NBC reporter Lisa Myers added: "It’s a big loss for the President, it’s a big loss for the Congress, and I think it’s a big loss for the country."

On ABC’s Good Morning America the next day, co-host Charles Gibson pleaded the chairman’s case: "What’s involved here is perhaps, what, some $50,000 in stamps and some phantom jobs for friends?….Here, though, is a guy who passes bills or is shepherding bills worth billions of dollars risking his career for small amounts, or you think, amounts significant enough that there’s real corruption here?"

Despite the unfolding of the House Post Office scandal since early 1992 and an ongoing Justice Department investigation of Rostenkowski, reporters have failed to ask him about it. CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer interviewed him twice in 1993. On February 7, he asked only one question: "Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss if I did not ask you… you’ve been investigated by a U.S. Attorney now for I don’t know how many months, can you tell us if you’ve been given any indication if that is about to conclude?" On May 16, he asked nothing about it.

Today’s Bryant Gumbel interviewed Rosty twice in 1993, May 17 and August 15. He also asked nothing about the investigation. On the day after Rosty won a primary election in March of this year, Gumbel asked only about the campaign and nothing about the charges. On June 27, 1993, Rostenkowski appeared on Meet the Press, but no one asked about his ethics.

The only NBC exception came on the September 28, 1993 Today, when Stone Phillips asked: "You have had your own legal troubles of late, subject of an investigation into the House Post Office scandal. How much of a distraction is that for you and how much will it continue to be?" On May 18, 12 days after the news leaked that prosecutors planned to indict Rostenkowski, Tom Brokaw interviewed him on the NBC Nightly News but failed to ask anything about it.

In the more than two years before the indictment leak, the Big Three networks aired only 22 stories on Rostenkowski’s possible crimes. In the first two months of 1988, the Big Three networks did 26 stories on Ed Meese’s connection to an Iraqi pipeline deal. Meese was never indicted.

From the August 1995 MediaWatch:

A Tale of Two Schieffers
Worrying About Rosty, Not Newt

On February 7, 1993, Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation. A very apologetic Bob Schieffer waited until the end of the interview to slip in a tepid question about an ongoing ethics investigation: "I’d be remiss if I did not ask you, your office has been investigated, you’ve been investigated by a U.S. Attorney now for I don’t know how many months. Can you tell us if you’ve been given any indication if that is about to conclude and do you feel in any way if that’s going to impede your authority to work on these economic problems?"

On the July 9, 1995 Face the Nation, Schieffer and U.S. News & World Report Senior Writer Gloria Borger fired four questions at Speaker Newt Gingrich about his ethics.

This year Schieffer lacked the "when can we get on with business" tone. While he was concerned that a long investigation into Rostenkowski may have impeded his authority, with Gingrich it smelled of a cover-up: "Maybe this sounds as an odd question, but, you know, until the ethics committee announced on Friday that they were indeed going to call you and Rupert Murdoch, there had been charges, most of them from Democrats, that the whole thing was being, been dragged out. That the ethics committee had taken no testimony under oath, that they had subpoenaed no documents. Eric Engberg of CBS had reported that they hadn’t even gotten a briefing from any relevant agencies. Do you think the ethics committee has been dragging its feet on this? And would you like to tell them to speed up to at least clear up all of this?"

    
From the May 1996 MediaWatch:

Rosty Dearest

On April 9, former Illinois Congressman and Ways and Means Committee boss Dan Rostenkowski pled guilty to two felony counts of corruption while in Congress. The night of and morning after the plea, the Big Three networks read anchor-briefs on his conviction. Time, U.S. News and World Report, and Newsweek also kept the conviction to tiny one- or two-paragraph blurbs in their April 22 editions (although  Newsweek broke the plea story the week before).

ABC’s Cokie Roberts was the only network reporter to address the story. On the April 14 This Week, Roberts hurled a softball to Rosty about his good intentions. She recalled that in 1992 she asked him, "’Why are you running for re-election when you could just go home and have this money.’ You said ‘I want to get healthcare done, I want to hang that scalp on my wall.’ Here it is four years later, you’ve spent $2 million in legal fees, you’re about to go to jail and health care isn’t done. What are you feeling?"