On Tuesday's edition of the Stephanie Miller radio show, she welcomed the one she called "Dreamy News Man," the former MSNBC anchor David Shuster, now just picking up anchoring scraps from that flailing show with the terminally arrogant former sportscaster on Current TV. Predictably, Shuster pleased the persistently Obama-cheerleading Miller by suggesting the Republicans were in "Crazy-land en masse" on Libya. It's apparently "absolutely crazy" to question the patience, the firmness, the wisdom of Team Obama's foreign policy:

This just goes to show what Republicans are really after. I mean they will try and destroy and smear President Obama using anything they possibly can even if it’s completely and totally illogical. As it turns out, I mean, the President has been following the right strategy for all these many months. He’s been patient when a lot of other people haven’t. He’s been firm when a lot of other people suggested that we have no business being there. And it turned out that this has worked.

I mean, the strategy of the Obama administration and others around the world pursued of sort of helping the rebels, arming them and giving them the time and pace to sort of make their move, it’s worked. And anyone who says otherwise, anybody who says 'Oh the President was too slow' or 'Why didn’t the President move faster' is absolutely crazy!

Miller complained that the Republicans weren't giving Obama enough credit, and gave Bush credit when Osama bin Laden was killed. Shuster said the Republicans are trying really hard to "resuscitate George W. Bush," to the extent that they're considering Gov. Rick Perry, which he called "frightening." Shuster said this shows the dire state of the GOP: "They're so unhinged, they're so off the deep end, that even someone completely insane like Rick Perry can possibly get the nomination."

He suggested all the Republican candidates are losing their marbles:

We’re getting into the silly season where the press releases are going to get increasingly bizarre. It’s so clear that the Republicans, no matter who the winner is, are going to be [for] who can ever be the craziest, who can ever be the most irrational, and illogical, and cynical about the American people, that the American people are so stupid that they might believe some of this nonsense that they’re spewing.

While some networks have tried to say next to nothing about Obama’s Guantanamo flip-flop, they are not happy on liberal talk radio shows on Tuesday. Ex-MSNBC anchor David Shuster told Stephanie Miller he was disappointed that Obama’s been so conciliatory (wasn’t that part of his "purple state" appeal?)

SHUSTER: I though the President was very clear in his election campaign about okay we’re going to close Guantanamo and we’re going to reinstitute sort of the Constitution and Constitutional principles. I mean I think it gets back to sort of my issue with President Obama all along has been there’s such an effort I suppose to sort of want to be conciliatory and sort of you know reach sort of middle ground and compromise.

But I always thought the job of a President was to sort of use the bully pulpit to bring people towards your position. And say "You know what, this is what we stand for, and I’m going to use the megaphone of the Presidency to convince Americans why I am right."

STEPHANIE MILLER: But this is Democrats, you know, again that got scared.

Cranky Boston Globe Magazine writer Charlie Pierce pulled out the old leftist line that only "cowards" avoid civilian trials, including putting Ground Zero masterminds two blocks from their handiwork:

PIERCE: I think everybody was a coward, everybody involved. Including the people who elected the people who made this wonderful reversal of decision possible. I mean I just think every I mean there is absolutely no reason why you cannot try these guys in a civilian court, except for a bunch of staged cowardice by a bunch of people seeking political advantage. It's revolting.

Perhaps we should let Pierce hold a sleepover for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad at his house. They can comb each other's beards. Liberal host Bill Press wasn’t getting over the pain on Tuesday's show:

PRESS: But I do think there's an important principle at stake here, which the president so well articulated in the beginning where he said, look we are a country of law, we have a system of justice that we are proud of, and we also have this military prison down at Guantanamo, which is a black mark on this country's reputation, which is being used by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world as a recruiting tool because of the reputation of Guantanamo. So he says we're going to close that base, shut it down — even George Bush towards the end of his term wanted to shut that place down…

So, I think the president was right the first time around for all the right reasons. And again, this is not something that's going to impact your life or mine directly, but it does represent — I don't think you can deny it — another folding, another compromise, another reversal of direction if you will, another abandoning of principle on the part of President Obama. Not fighting for this, not sticking to his guns, but caving in and saying, "Okay, I wanted to do it here in this country, I wanted to shut down Guantanamo, but I guess I'm not going to do it after all." It's a series of these that we do find so disappointing…..I just wish he didn't give in so much. And I wish when he sets a course that he would just stick to it.

Earlier in the show, Press also complained about other disappointments to ultraliberals, like the "public option," gay marriage, and Afghanistan:

At the same time, like you I've had my disappointments. I really, really think he made a big mistake giving up on the public plan option. I think he made a huge mistake and showed a lack of backbone by caving in on the tax cuts. I'm a big labor guy. I'm waiting for the employee free choice act, man, it never even came up for a vote. I'd like him to get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act. I like the fact we're getting rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell — I think he took too long on that. I'm not crazy about the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, not at all. And only reluctantly support Libya. And this latest thing that looks like we're going to be in Gitmo forever.  

"We" aren't in Gitmo forever. We're simply holding dangerous criminals off our shore at this time.

During the Obama era, Shuster, supposedly a straight-news journalist, has been quick to deride the opponents of the President. On September 10, 2009, he smeared, "Look at the image of the Republican Party, all white males with short haircuts. They look sort of angry. No women, no minorities, and it looks like they’ve sort of become unhinged."

On his now-defunct program, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Shuster assailed conservatives and Republicans as totally irrational: "Plus, the nutty rhetoric continues from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele and Sarah Palin….How offensive can Rush Limbaugh be?"

One of the reoccurring segments on this afternoon program was called Hypocrisy Watch. Shuster billed the piece as going after an "organization or person who clearly seems to be doing something that makes the term appropriate." An analysis by the MRC, however, found that the MSNBC anchor almost exclusively critiqued conservative or Republicans:

Shuster’s "Hypocrisy Watch" segments are hardly a nonpartisan exercise in speaking truth to power, but rather a lazy regurgitation of Democratic talking points. Of the 48 "Hypocrisy Watch" segments since the near-daily feature began January 14, nearly all (86%) blasted Republicans, conservatives and corporations. A mere eight percent — one tenth as few — targeted Democrats or liberals.

…

To make Shuster’s list, it helps to be a strong conservative detested by left-wing bloggers. Radio host Rush Limbaugh has made the list twice, as have Governors Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin, Representative Michele Bachmann, and Senator Jon Kyl, all Republicans. Ex-Bush advisor Karl Rove was named five times, more than all of the Democrats combined.

On March 02, 2010, the cable journalist went after the tea party movement and "right-wing fringe candidates." On March 16, he asked reporter Richard Wolffe, "I mean, what does the White House make of the opposition on the far right?"

Shuster has worked at MSNBC since 2002. Before that, he was employed at Fox News. However, the cable channel-hopping host apparently holds no warm feelings toward his old employer. While at MSNBC, he would often mock FNC:

Horrified by Hume’s Pro-Christian Opinion

"Is it ever, ever a wise idea for a political analyst to essentially anoint themselves somebody’s spiritual adviser, denigrate that person’s religion, and do so on a Sunday political talk show?…Doesn’t it also denigrate Christianity when you do that on a Sunday political talk show. This isn’t church, this isn’t some sort of holy setting, this is a political talk show….I do think it diminishes the discussion of Christianity….This wasn’t Theocracy Today. "

— MSNBC Live anchor David Shuster January 4, 2010, talking about Brit Hume’s suggestion on Fox News Sunday that Tiger Woods would find forgiveness in Christianity.

MSNBC Anchor Demands "Standards" At Other Networks

"Later, the conservative fearmongering over President Obama. [Graphic headline: "Stoking Hatred"]…The inflammatory rhetoric from the wing nuts. Is it merely entertaining or seriously dangerous?"

"So how far is too far? Isn’t there a danger when the rhetoric goes off the charts?…Rush Limbaugh, it appears his ratings are up. Glenn Beck’s ratings are through the roof….Shouldn’t there be some standards at some of these other networks? That‘s a problem, isn’t it? There’s no standards."

— Anchor David Shuster on MSNBC’s 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, March 16, 2009.

MSNBC Anchor Upset by Partisanship of…Fox News

"Look, if Fox wants to consider themselves the GOP house organ, that’s fine. They completely backed it up. When Fox starts describing themselves as journalists or a news organization, that’s where I think it’s appropriate to describe Fox as disgraceful….Their coverage on the Fox News Channel has been atrocious. The stuff that comes out of Sean Hannity’s mouth has been infuriating. The stuff that Bill O’Reilly says has been illogical. You go up and down the schedule and it’s insanity over there….The number of lies, perpetuated, promoted by Fox News is just shameful and it hurts everybody."

— MSNBC daytime anchor David Shuster on left-wing host Stephanie Miller’s radio show, April 30, 2009.

With Shuster’s future at MSNBC in doubt and his possible show at CNN now uncertain, it’s not clear what’s next for the liberal host. But, it’s likely that his obvious bias will be apparent wherever he appears.

MSNBC’s David Shuster was suspended indefinitely today after a flap with the cable network’s brass, who were livid that he filmed a pilot for CNN. Shuster, whose contract is set to expire at the end of the year, has not appeared on air since the news broke.

"If true," said MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Ganes after hearing the news, "this is unacceptable and David will be punished appropriately." MSNBC President Phil Griffin was vacationing in Florida, but reportedly "ripped Shuster a new one over the phone," according to Gail Shister of TV Newser.

This morning MSNBC announced that Shuster has been suspended "indefinitely." Anything less than suspension, an MSNBC exec told Shister, "sends a message from management that this is OK."

Shuster was also suspended in 2008 after he said that Hillary Clinton had "pimped out" her daughter Chelsea. He was repremanded in January for inappropriate comments made on his Twitter feed directed at conservative journalist James O’Keefe.

And on that same day on his radio show, Malloy kept pushing for the deaths (by suicide) of conservative talkers, in reference to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. He thought it outrageous that someone would think militias aren’t threatening, but what’s threatening are hosts like Mike Malloy:

People like me who say that if Limbaugh, and Beck, and Hannity, and the rest of these clowns, in their incitement of the brain-dead followers, if there is another Murrah Federal Building incident, or one similiar to it, these guys ought to commit suicide. That would be the honorable thing to do.

Then he envisioned (and giggled about) these conceptual suicides:  

Limbaugh could eat enough, um, Viagra until gets all rigid and can’t move, can’t breathe. Um, Beck can just shoot himself on the air; Hannity can, um. What can Hannity do? (Laughs) Yeah that’s true. He can grease himself up and go to the bunny ranch! All these guys. Yeah, they all should do the honorable thing and just kill themselves, you’re damn right.

And the qualifier is if they incite people to do another Murrah federal building – and yeah, I said it, and yeah, I stand by it; and I’ll continue to say it!

Malloy also smeared former congressman J.D. Hayworth on Monday: "He’s got that look, it’s hard to describe; the first thing that comes to mind is child molester."

Let’s recall David Shuster’s less-than-tough questions (and non-questions) for Malloy in that Monday segment:  

SHUSTER: Mike Malloy, then how come I see so many Democrats saying they want Sarah Palin to suck as much oxygen out of the room on the Conservative, Republican side?…

SHUSTER: Mike. Your take.

And he even let Malloy play anchorman:

MALLOY: Could I ask a question?

SHUSTER: Mike, we’ll give you the last word.

MALLOY to HUGH HEWITT: Just a question to Mr. Generic Conservative, what is a pseudo-sophisticate?

Answer: It’s not someone who needs a definition.

On Monday, MSNBC host David Shuster insisted Democrats would never stoop to Nazi analogies: "[W]henever we asked Democratic leaders, ‘Look, do you support using a Hitler moustache on a poster of George W. Bush?’ Every single time, they said ‘Absolutely not, we do not approve of that. We want, of course, we want people to protest. But not like that.’"

Shuster should take a nice look at the MSNBC archives — for Hardball on March 4, 2005. Sen. Robert Byrd compared Senate Republicans to Hitler for opposing the unprecedented use of the filibuster against Bush judicial nominees. Chris Matthews and his Democrat guest Steve McMahon agreed this was a "fake foul." Matthews suggested it was at best a "venial sin" and a "gotcha game," and insisted that his Republican guest Charlie Black should also attack the pope or Catholic cardinals for using the word "holocaust" to describe abortion. He even suggested Byrd was sort of  a religious interpreter: 

Now, when that sacred thing to him, the filibuster, is threatened, is it wrong for him, as a human being, to use over-the-top language? Don’t you cut him a little slack? To Bobby Byrd, the filibuster is almost religious. And to have it broken by a bunch of new members of the Senate, who basically come in and say, hey, we’re here. We want to get this done. Let`s get rid of the rule. To him, that is sacrilegious.

So in this Church of the Filibuster, it’s apparently an acceptable sermon to compare the Republicans to genocidal fascists. Halfway through the March 4, 2005 Hardball came this segment:

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball. West Virginia senior Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat, came under fire this week from Jewish groups and Republicans for drawing an historical analogy, a comparison, between the tactics of Adolf Hitler and Republicans in the Senate who want to end the practice on unlimited debate known as a filibuster. Here is Senator Byrd from the United States Senate floor this Tuesday.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law. And he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that, ‘Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.’ And he succeeded. [Edit] And that’s what the nuclear option seeks to do, to Rule 22 of the standing rules of the Senate.

MATTHEWS: Senator — Steve McMahon, by the way — I almost said senator — Steve McMahon is a Democratic strategist. And Charlie Black is a Republican strategist, both friends of the show. So, let’s keep this on an even keel. I saw that picture, gentlemen, and I saw a staffer about to get fired for suggesting he use the comparison to Hitler when arguing whether about whether it’s called the nuclear option, which is basically to say no more filibusters. Steve, are the Democrats right here? Are you guys right in saying this is a big issue, that he did something really wrong here?

STEVE MCMAHON: Well, listen, I think he did something that was in poor judgment and in poor taste. I can’t imagine what Jimmy Carter would have done if you had handed him a speech like that, but he probably wouldn`t have read it. I don`t think, though, that Senator Byrd had a malevolent intent. He was making an historical reference. He normally, Senator Byrd, quotes Cicero and Socrates.

MATTHEWS: Right.

MCMAHON: And nobody understands him. (Matthews laughs.) This time, he quotes — he makes a metaphor, an unfortunate use of a metaphor, that I think he probably wouldn’t have used again today or tomorrow. And I don`t think you’ll much of that.

MATTHEWS: Charles Black, do you share that view, that it was a modest, venial sin here?

CHARLIE BLACK: No, I think it was a terrible thing. And I agree with Abe Foxman of the ADL, who said that Senator Byrd should apologize to the American people.

MATTHEWS: What did he do that offended them? What’s wrong? Who gets hurt by this comment, that he said the Republicans here are using muscle tactics? They’re coming in. They’re getting rid of the filibuster rule. They’re denying us to unlimited debate. And they’re using this tough hardball technique here. What’s wrong with saying this is what Hitler did back in ‘30-something?

BLACK: Well, to Jews, the Holocaust is the most unique thing in history.

MATTHEWS: Right.

BLACK: And Hitler is the worst guy in history. So, as Abe Foxman said, it`s a complete misunderstanding of who Hitler was to compare that to changing the rules of the Senate. And, by the way, it`s the Democrats who have changed the rules by beginning for the first time in history to filibuster judges.

MATTHEWS: Right.

BLACK: To block judges who have a majority in committee and on the floor

MATTHEWS: So, it’s any comparison — any comparison to the Holocaust in any other reference is bad, offensive?

BLACK: Well, I think so, unless there’s something…

MATTHEWS: Remember the pope? Remember the cardinal from New York used to do this? He would say that the amount of babies or preborn children, or fetuses, whatever you want to say, whatever language you use, are being killed every year in abortion, that`s like the Holocaust? Was he wrong to do that? You want to go after the pope now?

BLACK: I wouldn’t do it. I think…

MATTHEWS: You wouldn’t do it. It’s not the same as saying something is wrong.

BLACK: Well, I also think that the murder of millions of unborn babies is more comparable than is changing the rules of the Senate. But I wouldn’t use metaphors about Hitler.

MATTHEWS: But he was talking, Steve — particularly, Charlie, he was talking about a parliamentary maneuver that would change the name of the game. And he compared it to Hitler’s use of parliamentary tactics to get the law changed so he could be a dictator.

BLACK: Well, nobody is trying to be a dictator here.

MATTHEWS: He`s not saying that they’re gassing people or killing people or even penalizing an ethnic group.

BLACK: Well, why did he bring Hitler up then? What is Hitler known for in history?

MATTHEWS: He`s known for being a tyrant, as well as other things.

BLACK: … inappropriate and offensive. He should apologize for it. If he apologizes, I`ll get off his case.

MATTHEWS: Backing Charlie up, here`s a statement from a fellow I know pretty well, Matt Brooks, the executive director from the Republican Jewish Coalition — quote — "‘With his knowledge of history and his own personal background" — here it comes — "as a KKK member, Senator Byrd should be ashamed for implying that his political opponents are using Nazi tactics." This is a Jewish Republican guy. He’s saying he’s wrong on a number of accounts. One, he was calling the kettle black, I guess, by using tactics against a fellow right-winger, I guess he`s saying here, because he used to be in the KKK.

MCMAHON: Well, listen, I’m not surprised that the Republicans are coming out and attacking Senator Byrd and taking this, I think, a little out of context, blowing it up. The next thing you know, they`ll be calling it a crisis and saying he has weapons of mass destruction and calling in the Army.

Look, the guy made an unfortunate reference to the — the — to Hitler. And you’re right. He was talking about a parliamentary maneuver. And what the Republicans don`t want to talk about is the assault on the filibuster, which has been a tradition in the Senate. There are two 22 standing rules. You know, when Bill Clinton was president, the Republicans had the opportunity to use the filibuster. They chose not to. Charlie is right. The Democrats are now accelerating their — their – - their opposition to some of the president`s appointees. But, you know, the president, after they`re turned down one time, just brings them back. So, you know…

BLACK: He brings them back because they have a majority of votes on the floor. The Democrats are changing the tradition of not using the filibuster on the floor against judicial nominees and executive appointments.

MCMAHON: But, Charlie…

BLACK: It’s your side who is trying to change the rules.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you guys…

BLACK: We can have a civil debate. We don`t need to talk about Hitler or…

MATTHEWS: Look, can we get back to Earth here? This guy, Senator Byrd, may be a bit out of date. He may be anachronistic. And, as you point out, he`s always quoting Cicero.    He’s been in the Senate. It has been his life since the mid-‘50s, his life. And he believes dearly, almost in a religious sense, in these rules. He believes dearly in the rules of the Senate, which say any member can filibuster. Now, when that sacred thing to him, the filibuster, is threatened, is it wrong for him, as a human being, to use over-the-top language? Don’t you cut him a little slack? To Bobby Byrd, the filibuster is almost religious. And to have it broken by a bunch of new members of the Senate, who basically come in and say, hey, we`re here. We want to get this done. Let`s get rid of the rule. To him, that is sacrilegious.

BLACK: Chris, let me tell you something.

MATTHEWS: I mean, if you want to understand Byrd. If you don`t want to understand Byrd, why argue about it?

BLACK: I do understand what you`re saying, but I ask for consistency in Senator Byrd. In the ‘70s, when you and I both worked on Capitol Hill, the Senate changed the filibuster rule. They moved it from a two-thirds vote…

MATTHEWS: To 60.

BLACK: To 60. That was at the initiation of liberals. Byrd was against it then. But he didn`t compare any of these liberals to Hitler.

MATTHEWS: Right. By the way, you know who really tried to get rid of the filibuster rule, Richard Nixon, vice president, president of the Senate in 1957. Came in the second term and had the guts to try to get rid of the filibuster rule. And guess who wouldn`t back him up? The liberal Democrats, who said they wanted civil rights. They wouldn`t back him.

BLACK: That`s right.

MATTHEWS: Even though he was trying to fight for civil rights. That was a good day of Dick Nixon.

MCMAHON: That was a good day. There weren’t very many. But that was one of them. And, you know, you know, Charlie — Charlie’s asking for consistency. Senator Byrd has been perfectly consistent. And the one thing you can count on Senator Byrd to oppose is anything that diminishes the power of the United States Senate. He views the Bush administration, I believe, as a bunch of folks who came to town and think they own the government, instead of are entrusted with it. And they want to change all the rules that are inconvenient for them. The filibuster has been available, Charlie, when Bill Clinton was president. The Republicans had the opportunity to use the filibuster.

BLACK: Nobody tried it on the floor on judicial nominees.

MCMAHON: Nobody tried to take it away from them because they didn`t like what they do with it.

BLACK: Byrd was majority leader. And he wanted to govern. Every time he had 51 votes, he wanted to pass something.

MATTHEWS: Right.

BLACK: And that`s all we`re asking. We got the votes on the floor for these nominees. If we didn’t, we’ll shut up.

MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a yes-or-no question? Are we now in an era where the only purpose of politics or journalism is to wait for somebody to say something and then jump on them for two or three weeks? Is that what it`s about?

So the guys, the nobodies on Capitol Hill, the bureaucrats, the politician who never say a word on any issue of any importance, the nobodies, the 400 of them on the Hill you never hear of on television, they’re the winners, because the guys that speak out, like Byrd, they’re the bad guys, because they might just offend. And, in fact, I bet in West Virginia, he doesn`t get a vote against him on this. Do you think he will? Do you think you guys are going to beat him in West Virginia on this?

BLACK: I hope it’s not just a gotcha game.

MATTHEWS: I think it’s a gotcha game.

BLACK: There are some very serious, important issues out here.

BLACK: This one was way over the line.

MATTHEWS: I think it’s been way overplayed. But you might be right. And if people are offended by it, they have a right to raise hell with the guy. Do you think this was a fair issue?

MCMAHON: I think — I’m not surprised that the Republicans did what they did. I think it`s been taken out context and overplayed.

MATTHEWS: Is it a fake foul?

MCMAHON: It’s a fake foul.

Matthews closed the segment by joking to McMahon "I’ll give you some more lines next time."

On MSNBC before the Iraq War in 2003, David Shuster elevated the "anti-war" movement as the equivalent of the United States military, only with a higher morality: "The size of the demonstrators, at least here, at least in Europe, seems to underscore that there are now perhaps two world superpowers," he told Chris Matthews. "There’s the United States and then there are those millions of people who took to the streets opposing U.S. policy."

My, how times – and standards – change. On the weekend of the vote for a massive government intervention in the health-insurance market, these same reporters had a different take. The Tea Party protesters were not going to be hailed for their courageous and patriotic use of their free time. They were going to be smeared for daring to be.

Democrats claimed racial slurs were used against black politicians on Capitol Hill, and an "anti-gay slur" was allegedly heard around Congressman Barney Frank. It is understandable that Democrats would want this opposition to their power grab to be reduced to absurdity, a spasm of racism and homophobia instead of organized conservative idealism.

It is deplorable that our national "news" media went into overdrive on this Democrat public-relations initiative. To listen to the press, the Tea Party’s presence in Washington was violent, dangerous, uncivil, and unprecedented, and their protests threatened to ruin the Republican image – as if that isn’t at the top of the liberal media’s To Do list every day.

In the Iraq-war protests of 2003, the leftist protesters were on the wrong side of the polls. In the health "reform" protests of 2010, the protesters represented an angry majority. Since David Shuster works for MSNBC, in that parallel universe, the majority had become a dangerous and ugly mob.

Shuster asked black conservative Robert Traynham to blame the conservative media for these overheard outbursts (not that any network had them on tape): "Do any conservative media outlets, Robert, bear any responsibility for that? Because when people hear over and over that this is Nazism on the march, or fascism, or that Armageddon is coming, of course some people are going to flip out. "

The whole smear turned ridiculous when conservative radio host Mark Simone told Shuster that every protest has some over-enthusiastic people yelling stupid things. Shuster insisted the left had never behaved in that fashion in the Bush years: ""Nobody spit on a lawmaker. Nobody used a N-word. Nobody used an F-word."

Nobody? Ever? Assuming the illogical to be true, so what? I have a line Mr. Shuster will remember well, because his network allowed it to be aired countless times: "Bush lied, thousands died." Maybe not the F-word, but he was accused of being a mass murderer.

Shuster wasn’t done with Simone: "But the difference is, Mark, that whenever we asked Democratic leaders, ‘Look, do you support using a Hitler moustache on a poster of George W. Bush?’ Every single time, they said ‘Absolutely not, we do not approve of that. We want, of course, we want people to protest. But not like that.’ And you see, it’s just like crickets from the Republican side of this stuff, and that’s the difference."

This "crickets" claim was even more ridiculous on Shuster’s part, since nearly every Republican responded to the question by denouncing the abusive remarks reported. RNC Chairman Michael Steele and House Minority Leader John Boehner insisted on it on NBC’s "Meet the Press," which MSNBC had replayed.

If anything, conservatives and Republicans are failing to respond to the David Shusters by throwing this dead fish right back. Who on Earth is MSNBC to lecture anyone else about hateful rhetoric? The network where several hosts – Ed Schultz and Dylan Ratigan – said Republicans enthusiastically want to see Americans die, even large segments of the American people?

But MSNBC viewers see on-screen graphics like this one: "Crossing the Line: Anti-Reform Protests Take on Malicious Tone."

MSNBC replayed Democratic meanness as almost factual. Even in that "Malicious Tone" segment, Andrea Mitchell calmly relayed Barney Frank’s Tea Party analogy, "comparing the situation to the Salem Witch Trials, with health care being burned at the stake." That remark apparently has malice toward none.

Liberal journalists have squandered any credibility they imagine they have as referees of political civility. They not only fail to decry liberal mudslinging, they do it all on their own.

Shuster also linked the radio host to isolated outbursts over the weekend during protests in Washington. Talking to guest Michelle Bernard, he connected, "Is it possible, Michelle, to draw a link between Rush Limbaugh and when he talks, in a clip we didn’t play, but how supporters should be wiped out?" He asserted, "That sort of venomous language and you create this picture- Rush Limbaugh creates this picture of fascism and Nazism on the march."

While Shuster added that the host’s comments led to people "acting crazily" during protests, he didn’t explain the context of Limbaugh’s quote. On Monday’s show, the host spoke in political terms: "We need to defeat these bastards. We need to wipe them out. We need to chase them out of town."

Liberal Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dyson slammed Limbaugh as a bigot: "What’s not perplexing is his bigotry…This is a bigotaucracy [sic]. I think Rush Limbaugh is trying to foment a universe of bigotaucracy."

He asserted that the radio star’s comments could lead to a culture of violence: "But, that kind of stuff has no place in American civil discourse. And that only foments the kind of dissent that leads to the most attacks on Mr. Obama, the most threats against him as any President." Shuster only added, "I agree."

Linking conservatives to the Confederacy, Dyson charged, "Many conservatives, acid, arch-right conservatives and Republicans, embrace a flag that is not America ultimately."

Have Shuster and Dyson not watched Keith Olbermann, MSNBC host? The vitriolic cable anchor has made all sorts of horrible claims about conservatives.

In January, he trashed Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown: "In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees." What does that do for the public discourse?

A partial transcript of the March 22 News Live segment, which aired at 3:10pm EDT, follows:

DAVID SHUSTER: We’ve been talking a lot today about the reaction to what happened last night. And many conservatives today reacted harshly to the action in Congress. But, nobody on the right produced as much controversial venom this afternoon as Rush Limbaugh.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Every single Democrat who voted for this needs to know, safe district or not, they are going to be exposed and hassled and chased from office.

SHUSTER: Limbaugh then turned to the politics of race.

LIMBAUGH: Here’s what he’s going to say: "There are some people who don’t like your skin color. Who don’t think you should be American." He has come to divide. He has come to conquer. Is there anybody who now doubts what I meant when I said I hope he fails?

SHUSTER: We’re joined by Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson. And also with us MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard, who is President and CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum. Professor Dyson, what goes through your mind when you hear that stuff?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: I mean, if anybody is fomenting dissent, it is Rush Limbaugh, the politics of division, the cruel denial of the utter humanity of Mr. Obama. Those who disagree with him have the right to do so but to disparage his character and to assert these unfounded ideas and propositions about Mr. Obama is just dumbfounding to me. And I think beyond that it, doesn’t do any good to help the conversation in this country between conservatives and liberals and progressives by people trying to make out of whole cloth assertions that cannot be empirically verified. There’s nothing in Mr. Obama’s language, demeanor or reaching out to the right to suggest he is in any way inclined to make this an empire of color or trying to derail what he sees as the benefit for all Americans of social policies that he puts into legislation.

SHUSTER: Is it possible, Michelle, to draw a link between Rush Limbaugh and when he talks in a clip we didn’t play but how supporters should be wiped out? That sort of venomous language and you create this picture, Rush Limbaugh creates this picture of fascism and Nazism on the march. And you then start to have people going out of control acting crazily on Capitol Hill, yelling all kinds of racist things at members of the Congressional Black Caucus, yelling hateful things at Barney Frank, spitting on one member of Congress, can you draw that link?

MICHELLE BERNARD (MSNBC political analyst): There are people that will draw that link but I would, you know, venture to guess that Rush Limbaugh, the amount- the number of people that listen to Rush Limbaugh every day- not all of them are members of the groups that did the horrible things we saw happen over the weekend. I think that what he is saying, unfortunately, is what he is hearing from his listeners and there are people who believe that Barack Obama is here to divide and conquer, at least on racial terms. I don’t believe that. Even you said this morning, earlier, when we were here, Barack Obama, when it comes to race is almost allergic to talking about it. We’ve seen him do that once or twice during his presidency. Several times during the campaign. But, I think I have to disagree with Rush Limbaugh when he says he is here to divide and conquer. The country is very much divided right now on political terms. The Republican Party is divided. The Democratic Party is divided. At one point in time I remember then-Senator Obama saying we are not a nation of red states and blue states. We are a nation of purple states. Well, for better or for worse, since his election we have definitely become a nation of red states and blue states. And we’re going to see it in November. I believe that there are a lot of people, Democrats who are going to lose their seats in November. It doesn’t have anything to do with race. It has a lot to do with the fact that this Congress has done nothing until health care yesterday, since 2008.

SHUSTER: But, I also have to wonder if it has to do with people being whipped up into such a frenzy and it’s one thing to say divide and conquer and maybe that’s, you know, okay. Maybe that’s fine. But here’s what else Rush Limbaugh said today in terms of describing the Obama crowd. Watch.

LIMBAUGH: They look at this country as one big criminal act. One big civil rights, human rights violation. Don’t doubt me. That is how Obama has been raised to look at this country and he believes it.

SHUSTER: That’s about as loaded-

DYSON: That’s ignorant beyond belief. First of all you, can’t even read his books to draw that kind of conclusion. He says in his books about the wide consideration for American values that was deeply implanted in him by his mother, by his grandparents. He was not raised in any traditional sense to have any kind of aspersions against white Americans, being half white himself. And beyond that, Rush Limbaugh speaking about this is one- Americans thinking this is one criminal act, especially African-Americans, black people have been the most patriotic americans in this nation. Going off to war to defend rights that they could not enjoy back home. The confederates of this country tried to secede from the nation. Many conservatives, acid, arch-right conservatives and Republicans, embrace a flag that is not America ultimately. We have died for this flag. We’ve raised it high. We have touted the virtues of America. James Baldwin, the author, said this: "I love America more than any nation on this earth. That’s why I reserve the right to criticize her perpetually." We believe that love is investment in the critical opposition to platforms and parties and principles that we think are destructive. But we don’t have to demonize each other. Michelle Bernard is obviously a brilliant woman. She has a position. I have a position. We don’t have to demonize each other to disagree. And I think Mr. Limbaugh, again, is fomenting these things and I think the conservatives of good conscience should speak out against him to say that he doesn’t represent America at its best.

…

DYSON: All Americans understand that we have an investment in this country and our investment must be protected. It doesn’t mean we don’t disagree, that we don’t have dissent, that we don’t express that articulately. But to resort to this kind of shenanigans, where Mr. Limbaugh is trying to foment racist- quite frankly- animus against Mr. Obama by unfounded opposition to him is just remarkable.

…

DYSON: What’s not perplexing is his bigotry. And we have to- This is a bigotaucracy [sic]. I think Rush Limbaugh is trying to foment a universe of bigotaucracy. And I think we have to speak out on left and right to say, look, "We can disagree with each other. But that kind of stuff has no place in American civil discourse. And that only foments the kind of dissent that leads to the most attacks on Mr. Obama, the most threats against him as any president.

SHUSTER: I agree.

DYSON: And I think we need to be afraid for the future of our nation, not simply the health of Mr. Obama or health care.

In case viewers didn’t get the slant of the segment, MSNBC’s graphic reiterated, "New Low For Right? Conservative Critics Call Owens’ Tale a ‘Sob Story.’" As the MRC’s Tim Graham noted, this story is being heavily pushed by Media Matters and other left-leaning outlets. Shuster did not talk to any conservative voices. (He only played a brief clip of Rush Limbaugh asserting that Democrats are using Owens for their own purposes.)

Shuster prompted the child to explain how he wasn’t being exploited: "Marcelas, first of all, did anybody in the Democratic Party force you to tell this story?" The liberal cable anchor also offered this loaded question to the boy’s grandmother, Gina Owens: "Gina, what was your reaction when you heard Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck targeting your grandson?"

Considering that there are many horror stories from countries that do have government-run health care, wouldn’t it only be fair of Shuster to talk to some of those victims? Despite the journalist’s pledge to "let you judge for yourself," MSNBC doesn’t seem interested in that.

A transcript of the March 19 News Live segment, which aired at 10:22am EDT, follows:

DAVID SHUSTER: Is the right sinking to a new low? We’ll let you judge for yourself. Last week, I interviewed Marcelas Owens who spent his 11th birthday on Capitol Hill fighting for health care reform. It’s a very personal issue for Marcelas whose mother died at the age of 27.

MARCELAS OWENS: -2006. She missed so much that she lost her job and along with her job. And along with that job, she lost her health care. And losing her health care ended up causing her her life. And I wanted to finish her fight for health care. So, I don’t want any other kid to go through the pain that our family has gone through.

MSNBC GRAPHIC: New Low For Right? Conservative Critics Call Owens’ Tale a "Sob Story"

SHUSTER: Conservative radio talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh jumped all over this, accusing Democrats of using Owens to further their cause.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Now, this is unseemly, exploitative. An 11-year-old kid being forced to tell this story all over just to benefit the Democrat Party and Barack Obama. I would also say this to Marcelas Owens. Well, your mom would have still died, because ObamaCare doesn’t kick in until 2014, if they sign it this year.

SHUSTER: Let’s bring in Marcelas Owens along with his grandmother Gina Owens. Marcelas, first of all, did anybody in the Democratic Party force you to tell this story? And are you only doing this story just because of your mom or because of other people who might face a similar situation?

GINA OWENS (To Marcelas): Go ahead. Go ahead.

MARCELAS OWENS: I’m fighting for everybody that might face situations like ours. And I don’t want them to lose someone important to them.

SHUSTER: And, Marcelas, is anybody forcing you to do this?

MARCELAS OWENS: No. I asked to do this. .

SHUSTER: Gina, what was your reaction when you heard Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck targeting your grandson?

GINA OWENS: To be totally honest with you, Dave, my first reaction was that it didn’t matter because it didn’t matter to Marcelas. He just knows that he is fighting for something that he believes in and fighting for a cause that his mother believed in. So he’s not really listening to the negative, and neither am I.

SHUSTER: That is such a powerful statement. And, Marcelas, there’s so much negativity, sometimes on both sides in this debate. What is the message that you have for people when it comes to trying to talk to Congress or trying to explain to Congress your point of view?

MARCELAS OWENS: The message I try to get across is everybody deserves health care.

SHUSTER: And what’s your view of what’s happening now in Washington as we get to the final hours here and the final votes? What do you make of what’s going on?

GINA OWENS (To Marcelas): What do you hope happens?

MARCELAS OWENS: Oh, well, um, I hope that health care gets passed. I mean, the health care bill, and at least the stories about people having health care, but then finding out they don’t have it will stop. I hope.

SHUSTER: Gina, what does it say do you think about the level of our political discourse when- I think, whether people agree with health care reform or not I think at least most people I know admire when an 11-year-old boy like your grandson can get up and have the courage to put himself on the line to express his point of view. What does it say about our political discourse, in your view, when that gets attacked?

GINA OWENS: We’re talking about an 11-year-old child, Dave, so my honest opinion is that when adults are stooping to that kind of low it’s usually because they’re pretty scared about what’s going on. And, in this case, I think that there’s a lot of fear because the health care bill is gaining momentum and it looks like it’s going to pass, from my understanding. So, I think it’s coming actually from fear of the other side, the opposers.

SHUSTER: Well, Gina Owens and Marcelas Owens, we appreciate you coming on, again, today, and best of luck to both of you. And, Marcelas, you’re particularly courageous young man. And I think as I said the last time you were on, I don’t know your mother, but I’m sure wherever she is she is so proud of you and what you’re doing. And good luck to you.

Near the end of the 10AM ET hour on MSNBC Thursday, anchor David Shuster criticized Fox News anchor Bret Baier for having "interrupted the President numerous times" in a "contentious" and "heated" Wednesday interview. Shuster later accused the network of bias: "Fox is far more – far more conservative overall than MSNBC could ever be liberal."

Shuster brought on left-wing Mother Jones editor David Corn and David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner to discuss Baier’s interview with Obama. He asked Corn if Baier’s questioning was "inappropriate," Corn didn’t think so, but joked: "I was just disappointed overall, though, because there were no questions about where the President was born." Freddoso thought Baier got "bogged down" asking the President about the controversial ‘deem and pass’ procedure possibly being used to pass ObamaCare.   

Turning to Freddoso, Shuster cited former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn claiming that Fox News is the "communications arm of the Republican Party." Freddoso discounted that criticism: "You can call names and sling mud. I mean, Fox News definitely – it has more of a center-right perspective than MSNBC, which generally has more of a center-left, political perspective." Prompting Shuster to reply: "But the difference is that – and I’ve worked at both places – and you can find this from every sort of media analyst who’s objective, Fox is far more – far more conservative overall than MSNBC could ever be liberal. It’s not a question of their – one’s five points to the right and one’s five points to the left. It’s not like that at all."

Freddoso responded to Shuster’s accusation by observing: "I don’t know exactly how you would measure – how you would quantify that. I watch MSNBC all the time. I think it’s – I think it definitely has a very liberal lean." Though he added: "But it’s not, you know, to the point where it’s off-putting, it’s something you expect."

Shuster cited an example of supposed Fox News bias: "Today we’ve seen my colleagues…on Fox, repeatedly said ‘how can they have a vote on health care reform, how can they pass this without having a vote?’ We know there’s going to be a vote. It may not be the vote on the Senate bill that they want" Apparently, questioning Democrats on their efforts to shove through massive legislation on a little-known parliamentary procedure is a sign of bias.

David Corn then decided to chime in: "I think the point is that Fox often absorbs the talking points and language that the Republican Party and conservatives are pushing, you know. And if you look, I don’t think there’s anyone – you know, you can talk about Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, they’re certainly liberals. I don’t think they’re as far to the left or as far off the charts, whatever you want to call it, as, say, Glenn Beck is."

Corn went on to claim that unlike conservative Fox hosts who only throw "softballs" at Republicans, liberal MSNBC personalities like Rachel Maddow "interview people who are Democrats and [are] not as soft on that." Maddow certainly wasn’t tough on then candidate Obama in an October 30, 2008 interview, in which her first question to the Senator was why he hadn’t be tougher on Republicans.  

Shuster was following similar talking points voiced by Hardball host Chris Matthews, who on Tuesday declared "there’s absolutely no debate" of Fox News, unlike on MSNBC and CNN.

Here is a full transcript of the Thursday MSNBC segment:

10:52AM:

DAVID SHUSTER: The broadcast world is buzzing today over a contentious interview President Obama had yesterday with Fox. It got pretty heated when Bret Baier interrupted the President numerous times. Take a listen.    

[CLIP OF BAIER QUESTIONING OBAMA IN FNC INTERVIEW]

SHUSTER: Wow. Joining us in the studio, David Corn, Washington editor for Mother Jones magazine and blogger for Politics Daily, and David Freddoso, online opinion editor for the Washington Examiner. David I’ll start with you, was that inappropriate?

DAVID CORN: Well, I don’t think it’s inappropriate for a journalist ever to press the President hard. As we know, Fox News didn’t always press George Bush that hard or Dick Cheney. I mean, I was just disappointed overall, though, because there were no questions about where the President was born.

[LAUGHTER]

SHUSTER: David Freddoso, your view?

DAVID FREDDOSO: It struck me when Baier was asking about process, that he was trying to get the President to own the deem and pass process. And President Obama basically said, ‘okay, I’ll own it. If they vote yes, they’re voting for my bill, if they vote no, they’re voting against it.’ And it seemed a little bit like Baier wouldn’t take yes for an answer. He kind of kept pushing. I mean, I have to agree, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with interrupting the President during an interview. That particular part, at least, I thought, you know, it sort of made me think, ‘ooh, you know, can we move this along? It’s getting a little bogged down.’

CORN: Well he, you know, Bret said – and I like Bret – Bret said that, you know, they had gotten 18,000 questions in and he was going to read a few. And they all seemed to deal with deem and pass and process issues. I mean, I think the President got better when he said I get 40,000 e-mails a day, and they deal with substance.

SHUSTER: Yeah, the President, I think, won that particular exchange. But David Freddoso, Anita Dunn has said that Fox News is the ‘communications arm of the Republican Party.’

FREDDOSO: I mean that’s, you know, fine. You can call names and sling mud. I mean, Fox News definitely – it has more of a center-right perspective than MSNBC, which generally has more of a center-left, political perspective.

SHUSTER: But the difference is that – and I’ve worked at both places – and you can find this from every sort of media analyst who’s objective, Fox is far more – far more conservative overall than MSNBC could ever be liberal. It’s not a question of their – one’s five points to the right and one’s five points to the left. It’s not like that at all.

FREDDOSO: I don’t know exactly how you would measure – how you would quantify that. I watch MSNBC all the time. I think it’s – I think it definitely has a very liberal lean. But it’s not, you know, to the point where it’s off-putting, it’s something you expect.

SHUSTER: But here’s an example. Today we’ve seen my colleagues, counterparts, news anchors during the day on Fox, repeatedly said ‘how can they have a vote on health care reform, how can they pass this without having a vote?’ We know there’s going to be a vote. It may not be the vote on the Senate bill that they want, but-

CORN: I think the point is that Fox often absorbs the talking points and language that the Republican Party and conservatives are pushing, you know. And if you look, I don’t think there’s anyone – you know, you can talk about Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, they’re certainly liberals. I don’t think they’re as far to the left or as far off the charts, whatever you want to call it, as, say, Glenn Beck is. And when, you know, and when you have Sean Hannity doing interviews with Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin, again, and again, and again, you see softballs, softballs, softballs. I’ve seen Rachel interview people who are Democrats and she’s not as soft on that. So I do think there are some – you know, these are object – not objective judgments. They’re subjective judgments. You line up the list, and I think overall the atmosphere there is far to the right than to the left. But nevertheless, Bret can be judged as a news person and that’s-

SHUSTER: Look – and look, I give Bret credit. I actually – I liked the interview. I agree with you. I think it is fine when the President isn’t answering a question, you follow up, I think the issue Fox may have, is that when they start looking back at previous interviews Bret did, they’ll find a very different style towards George W. Bush than he displayed with President Obama. But that’s an issue for media critics to deal with. David Corn, David Freddoso, thank you both so much for coming in. Great discussion. Fascinating issue in the world of broadcasting.