The news concerned Federal Judge Royce Lamberth’s refusal of the federal government’s request that he life his August 23 order blocking federal funding for embryonic stem cell research during the appeals process.

Less-informed readers could be excused for believing, at least through first nine of the eleven tortured paragraphs in Holland’s report, that stem cells can only be obtained from human embryos. In Paragraph 10, Holland finally acknowledged the existence of adult stem cells, but then dubiously implied that the litigation was brought solely because the plaintiffs don’t want competition from embryonic research. The AP writer also ignored a fine piece written in early August by wire service colleague Malcolm Ritter (covered at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), who accurately reported that "Adult stem cell research (is) far ahead of embryonic."

What follows are several paragraphs from Holland’s horror, including a ridiculous title falsely implying that no federal funds are going into any kind of stem cell research (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Judge won’t let stem cell money keep flowing

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to lift his order blocking federal funding for some stem cell research, saying that a "parade of horribles" predicted by federal officials would not happen.

Medical researchers value stem cells because they are master cells that can turn into any tissue of the body. Research eventually could lead to cures for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease and other ailments.

The Justice Department argued in court papers last week that stopping the research could cause "irrevocable harm to the millions of extremely sick or injured people who stand to benefit … as well as to the defendants, the scientific community and the taxpayers who have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on such research through public funding of projects which will now be forced to shut down and, in many cases, scrapped altogether."

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth rejected that argument in refusing to lift the restraining order he signed after ruling that the argument in a pending lawsuit – that the research violates the intent of a 1996 law prohibiting use of taxpayer dollars in work that destroys a human embryo – was likely to succeed.

… The scientists suing to stop the research "agree that this court’s order does not even address the Bush administration guidelines, or whether NIH could return to those guidelines," Lamberth wrote in his latest order. "The prior guidelines, of course, allowed research only on existing stem cell lines, foreclosing additional destruction of embryos. Plaintiffs also agree that projects previously awarded and funded are not affected by this court’s order."

(Paragraph 10 — Ed.)

… The lawsuit was filed by two scientists who argued that Obama’s expansion jeopardized their ability to win government funding for research using adult stem cells – ones that have already matured to create specific types of tissues – because it will mean extra competition.

Here are a few paragraphs from the report by Malcolm Ritter that Holland ignored:

For all the emotional debate that began about a decade ago on allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, it’s adult stem cells that are in human testing today. An extensive review of stem cell projects and interviews with two dozen experts reveal a wide range of potential treatments.

… Adult stem cells are being studied in people who suffer from multiple sclerosis, heart attacks and diabetes. Some early results suggest stem cells can help some patients avoid leg amputation. Recently, researchers reported that they restored vision to patients whose eyes were damaged by chemicals.

Apart from these efforts, transplants of adult stem cells have become a standard lifesaving therapy for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases.

… in the near term, embryonic stem cells are more likely to pay off as lab tools, for learning about the roots of disease and screening potential drugs.

The fact that so much is being accomplished with adult stem cells further buttresses the correctness of Lamberth’s ruling. It’s reasonable to contend that anything embryonic cells may someday in theory be able to do, adult cells are doing now, with the rest to follow in fairly short order. So why do researchthat involves killing embryos at all?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

In a presentation that was more a political stump speech than an informative presentation, Solis recited a litany of alleged accomplishments. Many of them have no relationship to what her department does, while some are also objectively wrong. Second, she set up a host of straw men in the form of "those who would" and "to those who want to" to make her department and the administration where she works appear as if they and they alone are the bulwark against rapacious employers and their political allies.

The YouTube video is present at this DOL page (direct YouTube link here). What follows are selected transcribed excerpts, with specific critiques:

Excerpts:

(3:10 – 4:30) You can be certain that like the president, I will not stop working until every American is back on their feet and we have fulfilled our mission to provide good and safe jobs for everyone.

We’re making important inroads towards that goal. So let me tell you, briefly, what we have done so far to get there.

First and foremost, we have reversed the dangerous trend of job loss in our country. Because, just over a year ago, we were losing almost 700,000 jobs per month. We were on the verge of another Great Depression. We took immediate action to stop the bleeding and create jobs. Now, instead of losing jobs, we’ve actually added them in the private sector every month. We’ve averaged about 90,000 jobs for the last seven months.

But something else too, and this is important, our efforts, most notably the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, saved millions of American jobs in the auto manufacturing industry. [1] These efforts have also kept health care workers in clinics and community hospitals. They’ve kept hundreds of thousands of teachers in classrooms, and police and firefighters on the beat where they should be.

(4:50 – 4:58) Now we are making it possible for American entrepreneurs to create and grow businesses that will put people to work. [2]

(5:10 – 5:50) As a result of our quick and bold actions, millions of people are at work, building and rebuilding America’s roads, bridges, ports, and high-speed rail. [3]

And we’re also investing in a new American foundation, and a whole new American industry and employer, and that’s clean energy.

We look at that investment two ways. Advances in biofuels, wind, and solar power will reduce our dependence on foreign energy, and reenergize American manufacturing. I’ve long believed that green jobs can be great jobs, and jobs that every American can take advantage of.

(6:12) I am pleased that this administration is making student loans more affordable and available.

(6:40) Now, as we’ve done all that, we’ve also strengthened the safety net for American workers. We’ve expanded unemployment insurance programs in nearly 40 states so more people can receive benefits. And after decades of failing to rein in the out-of-control health care system, our reforms will control costs, improve care, minimize fraud, and provide security for millions of American families.

(7:23) In the weeks and months ahead, policymakers will be debating what should come next. There are some who will suggest that, when times are tough, it’s time to get tough on working people. [4] They’ll suggest that we cut back on worker training, to cut back on worker safety, and to cut back on giving workers a voice in their workplace. I totally disagree.

To those who say we can no longer afford to train, retool and educate our workforce, I say we can’t afford not to. To those who want to cut corners and disregard safety in the workplace, I say keeping workers safe matters far more than saving a few cents.

And to those who want to deny workers a voice in the workplace, let me be clear: This Secretary of Labor recognizes, respects, and celebrates a worker’s right to organize and bargain collectively.

As individuals and as a nation, we have very important choices to make. And each one merits careful and informed discussion. So in the weeks and months ahead, I hope we can continue this conversation. Each and every one of us has something at stake. And we simply cannot afford to make the wrong choices.

Here are three obvious errors in Solis’s presentation:

• [1] – The "auto manufacturing industry," even at is most broadly defined (which would include all transportation equipment, all motor vehicle and parts dealers, has only three million employees. The Labor Secretary is essentially claiming that there would be no industry without the stimulus plan. Other than to point out that Government/General Motors and Chrysler proactively killed tens of thousands of jobs at auto dealers, this claim is so utterly ridiculous as to require no further comment.
• [2] – Even ignoring individual initiative, it’s as if this administration is the first in recorded human history to "mak(e) it possible for American entrepreneurs to create and grow businesses that will put people to work." She’s kidding, right?
• [3] – The total number of employees in "Heavy and civil engineering construction" was 888,000 in August (not seasonally adjusted). Even if you try to include a healthy percentage of the 2.1 million employed in the "Nonresidential specialty trade contractors" sector, many of whom obviously have nothing to do with infrastructure, there’s no way you get to "millions" of infrastructure workers, period, let alone "millions" who are working solely because of the administration’s "quick and bold actions."
• [4] – Seriously now, who has suggested this, or any of the other conveniently created straw men that follow?

Yes, Bush administration Labor Secretary Elaine Chao did give Labor Day addresses such as this one in 2002. But if she had created something as blatant as this video, the press would have been all over her for playing politics during the entire Labor Day weekend. As it is, I doubt we’ll see much if any criticism of Solis from the establishment press.

In a separate action, DOL removed the following opening paragraph from a web page on the history of Labor Day (original preserved at archive.org; revised) that had contained the same text for at least eight years:

“Labor Day differs in every essential way from the other holidays of the year in any country,” said Samuel Gompers, founder and longtime president of the American Federation of Labor. “All other holidays are in a more or less degree connected with conflicts and battles of man’s prowess over man, of strife and discord for greed and power, of glories achieved by one nation over another. Labor Day…is devoted to no man, living or dead, to no sect, race, or nation.”

More on why I believe that removal of Gompers’s statement occurred can be found here.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

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.

Not surprisingly, it relates to Iraq. The press obviously and bitterly opposed the war from the start, to the point of doctoring photographs, making stuff up, pretending that its sources knew what they were talking about when they didn’t, and ignoring enemy atrocities and Saddam Hussein’s mass graves for years, while often having their journalistic failures and biases exposed by milbloggers and bloggers. So if one were to have guessed ahead of time where a clear break might occur, Iraq would have been a leading choice.

That break comes in an AP email to staff from "Standards Editor" Tom Kent. He must have or at least should have known that its contents would get out. Jim Romenesko at Poynter Online (HT Legal Insurrection) appears to have posted it first, about 16 hours after Kent hit the "send" button:

Subject: Standards Center guidance: The situation in Iraq

Colleagues,

… we should be correct and consistent in our description of what the situation in Iraq is. This guidance summarizes the situation and suggests wording to use and avoid.

To begin with, combat in Iraq is not over, and we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is, even if they come from senior officials. The situation on the ground in Iraq is no different today than it has been for some months. Iraqi security forces are still fighting Sunni and al-Qaida insurgents. Many Iraqis remain very concerned for their country’s future despite a dramatic improvement in security, the economy and living conditions in many areas.

As for U.S. involvement, it also goes too far to say that the U.S. part in the conflict in Iraq is over. President Obama said Monday night that "the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country."

However, 50,000 American troops remain in country. Our own reporting on the ground confirms that some of these troops, especially some 4,500 special operations forces, continue to be directly engaged in military operations. These troops are accompanying Iraqi soldiers into battle with militant groups and may well fire and be fired on.

… Our stories about Iraq should make clear that U.S. troops remain involved in combat operations alongside Iraqi forces, although U.S. officials say the American combat mission has formally ended. We can also say the United States has ended its major combat role in Iraq, or that it has transferred military authority to Iraqi forces. We can add that beyond U.S. boots on the ground, Iraq is expected to need U.S. air power and other military support for years to control its own air space and to deter possible attack from abroad.

Unless there is balancing language, our content should not refer to the end of combat in Iraq, or the end of U.S. military involvement. Nor should it say flat-out (since we can’t predict the future) that the United States is at the end of its military role.

Tom

William Jacobsen’s reaction at Legal Insurrection: "AP Calls Obama A Liar."

Well, it’s clear that AP is asserting that Obama is at least not telling the truth in this instance. Whether it becomes a more global assertion about the President himself based on the plethora of dishonesty the wire service is still willing to swallow from this President and his apparatchiks on domestic as well as foreign policy matters remains to be seen.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Orszag is the eighteenth individual (that we know of) to transition between the White House and the mainstream press. He will surely not be the last. That amazingly high number again underscores the ideological similarities between members of the Obama administration and members of the press.

The New York Times Co. broke the news in a press release today:

"We welcome Peter Orszag’s expertise and insight to our Op-Ed lineup," said Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of The New York Times. "As a Washington insider and one of the most recognizable names in economics, his writing will provide a unique perspective on the national landscape."

Mr. Orszag is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. As President Barack Obama’s first budget director, he worked on the 2009 stimulus package and helped craft the health care legislation passed in 2010. He was an outspoken proponent of the idea that reducing health care costs would be key to maintaining the federal budget and preparing for the country’s economic future.

Presumably, the Times feels that Orszag can be a fair judge of economics – a field in which he is certainly proficient. Orszag’s partisan affiliations don’t seem to bother the Gray Lady.

That was a benefit of the doubt the paper would not afford to some Republican pols-turned-pundits. Take Karl Rove, for instance. After he took a gig with Fox News, the Times stated in a headline, "Rove as a pundit raises suspicions".

"Rove’s new role as a media star marks another step in the evolution of mainstream journalism," wrote Times reporters Jim Rutenberg and Jacques Steinberg, "where opinion, ’straight news’ reporting and unmistakable spin increasingly mingle, especially on television."

The Times has either adapted to this new reality, or was really only terribly concerned when Republicans spun the revolving door. We’ll leave that for you to decide.

First, August sales results were disappointing. Second, it become known today that GM will attempt to go public on November 18, a later than originally hoped post-election date chosen to hopefully allow for another reported quarterly profit to boost investors’ appetite for its shares.

As so often has been the case during Democratic administrations when unfavorable developments arise, the UK press has seen potential problems with the IPO, while the Associated Press has been acting as if all is well.

In two separate items, AP reporters couldn’t even bring themselves to tell readers what the company’s real August sales decline was.

In a report yesterday on the industry’s awful August, reporters Dee-Ann Durbin and Tom Krisher were appropriately gloomy overall, but they massaged GM’s reported result (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Americans nervous about the drumbeat of bad economic news stayed away from auto showrooms. Automakers nervous about their bottom lines didn’t offer deals to lure them in.

As a result, it was the worst August for U.S. auto sales since 1983, when the country was at the end of a double-dip recession. General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Ford all reported declines from the month before and from a year earlier.

The bleak results were a reminder that, for all the good news about the turnaround of the Detroit automakers, the market for cars and trucks in the United States remains frail. Initial data showed sales came in at about 997,000, down 5 percent from July, according to AutoData Corp.

"Coming in below a million units is eye-opening for August," said Paul Ballew, a former chief economist for GM. "I never thought I’d see that. That’s a tepid month for August, which is supposed to be one of the top months of the year."

… "We know it’s going to be a modest recovery. It’s going to be bumpy," said Don Johnson, GM’s vice president of U.S. sales. "What we don’t want to do is get back to putting incentives in the marketplace to keep the plants running."

… Overall, sales at Ford were down 5 percent from July and 11 percent from last August. At GM, sales of its four remaining brands were down 7 percent from a month ago and 11 percent from a year ago.

For the year so far, sales are up 5 percent at GM, which is preparing for an initial public offering of its stock that could come as early as next month.

We learned today that the "next month" part concerning the IPO isn’t going to happen. In her report today, Durbin’s massage was more thorough:

Analyst: GM plans to sell shares on Nov. 18

General Motors plans to start trading shares again on Nov. 18, timing that allows the company one more quarter of earnings to build its case to investors, a firm that researches initial public offerings said Thursday.

Scott Sweet, the managing partner of IPO Boutique, said GM plans to price the shares on Nov. 17 and begin selling them the next day. He said the automaker wants to start a two-week a road show to drum up investor interest on Nov. 3, the day after the midterm congressional elections.

It’s unclear if the IPO dates have been finalized. Two people with knowledge of the process say the automaker’s board hasn’t approved a date for the IPO but is expected to meet next week to discuss the issue. GM is in a "quiet period" before an IPO, so no one is authorized to discuss the process publicly.

… Sweet said his information comes from multiple people on Wall Street but declined to name them. He says the company hasn’t yet established a price for the shares, but hopes to raise $15 to $20 billion with the initial public offering.

The timing could disappoint some Democrats who supported the government’s $50 billion bailout of GM last year and wanted to point to a successful IPO before the elections.

… But one more quarter of earnings could help the automaker establish that it is healthy and capable of making sustained profits. GM earned $2.2 billion in the first half of 2010 despite depressed U.S. auto sales, but it lost $3.4 billion in the fourth quarter of last year.

GM also hopes the U.S. auto market sees some modest improvement this fall. On Wednesday it said its U.S. sales fell 5 percent from July and 11 percent from last August, when they were boosted by the Cash for Clunkers program.

The fact is, as seen in this Wall Street Journal compilation, that GM’s August 2010 sales were 24.5% lower than August 2009. For Dee-Ann Durbin’s and Tom Krisher’s benefit, that’s the result you get when you go to the WSJ link and compare the 185,105 vehicles sold in August 2010 to the 245,066 sold in 2009, and divide the difference (59,961) by 245,066. Yes, according to the company, sales of the company’s four remaining brands were down "only" 11% from a year ago. But it’s your job to report the full story, not merely to parrot the company’s press release.

The folks at the Financial Times understand that, and also see how a company reporting declining sales in its largest market might encounter a bit of difficulty foisting its shares on the investing public. Reporter Bernard Simon also managed to find space for the actual year-over-year sales decline in yesterday’s coverage (link requires free registration):

GM Sales Dip Casts Shadow Over IPO

General Motors’ sales in its core US market sagged in August, potentially complicating its bid to drum up investor support for its forthcoming public share issue.

Sales were a quarter lower than in August 2009, when demand was bolstered by the Obama administration’s cash-for-clunkers scrappage incentives. GM has also eliminated four brands since then.

More worrying, however, was a 7.2 per cent decline from July. Low-margin sales to car rental operators and other fleet owners climbed to 28 per cent of the total, from 25 per cent in July. “August was definitely what we call ‘one of those months’,” said Don Johnson, GM’s head of US sales operations.

Mr Johnson said that consumers remained cautious amid an unexpectedly slow revival in employment. In the longer term, however, he forecast that there was “pent-up demand building” that would “eventually be released when the economy gets a firmer footing”.

… GM filed a bulky draft prospectus for an initial public offering with US and Canadian regulators last month. The US and Canadian governments hold 72 per cent of GM’s equity.

The document warns that in spite of a pick-up in demand since late last year, “many of the economic and market conditions that drove the [earlier] drop in vehicle sales, including declines in real estate and equity values, increases in unemployment, tightened credit markets, depressed consumer confidence and weak housing markets, continue to impact sales”.

If the recent revival falters, the prospectus warns, “our results of operations and financial condition will be materially adversely affected”.

It’s hard to fault Mr. Johnson for his optimism, but if he thinks the revival in employment has been "unexpectedly slow," he’s been reading too many happy-talk missives from Team Obama.

Durbin at the AP and an unbylined Reuters article both report that GM will conduct its IPO "road show" during the two weeks after the November elections. Reuters says that "The final value of the IPO has not been set but one source said early plans for the IPO envisioned selling $12 billion to $16 billion in common stock and $3 billion to $4 billion in preferred stock that would convert to common stock under a mandatory provision." That’s $15-$20 billion of the $50 billion (really more) the government "invested" in return for a 61% stake during the company’s emergence from bankruptcy. Even if the IPO flies, it will still be Government Motors.

Both Reuters and the New York Times correctly noted GMs 25% year-over-year August sale decline. Since AP couldn’t bring itself to do so, the graphic at the top right of this post, which may have seemed a bit over-the-top when it appeared a few weeks ago, is more appropriate than ever.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

BBC has a history of promoting the ultra-leftist agenda on most issues. But to see the channel’s top dog admit it in an interview with the Daily Mail was quite a sight.

Now if only some television outlets on this side of the pond would do the same.

While Thompson pleaded guilty to a liberal slant, he insisted that a new crop of journalists is changing the political face of the BBC.

The Daily Mail’s Paul Revoir reported today:

The TV chief also admitted there had been a ’struggle’ to achieve impartiality and that staff were ‘ mystified’ by the early years of Margaret Thatcher’s government.

But he claimed there was now ‘much less overt tribalism’ among the current crop of young journalists, and said in recent times the corporation was a ‘broader church’.

He claimed there was now an ‘honourable tradition of journalists from the right’ working for the corporation.

His comments, made in the New Statesman magazine, are one of the clearest admissions of political bias from such a senior member of its staff.

The BBC has long been accused of being institutionally biased towards the Left, and an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias.

Talk about honesty!

But while the BBC is looking into ways to remedy its "massive" slant to the left, swaths of the American news media have yet to even acknowledge that that slant exists.

First, do no harm…

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.

In the midst of covering the performance of the broadcast networks last week, David Bauder at the Associated Press noted the following (HT Kevin Alloca at Media Bistro):

Meanwhile, the NBC, ABC and CBS evening newscasts combined for a dubious record last week: the average of 18.7 million people who watched one of the three shows last week was the smallest audience those three telecasts have reached collectively on record, since the infancy of television, Nielsen said.

During the slow news period of late August, the broadcasts broke their previous record — set just last week.

Little did I know that my post last week (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) also covered a negative record-breaker.

The news actually got worse from there, Media Bistro’s Chris Ariens separately reported:

And not a good sign from the younger viewer department — none of the shows broke the 2 million viewer average in the A25-54 demo. That’s the first time that’s ever happened.

I don’t find the contention by the AP’s Bauder about the "slow news period of late August" very convincing. Political campaigns are already heating up, and family vacation season was mostly over, as the large majority of children were back in school last week. The networks’ collective performance was down almost 8% from a year ago for all viewers, and over 14% in the 25-54 demo.

I think it’s more likely that more and more viewers and news consumers are tuning out because they agree with this sentiment.

It will be interesting to see what if any kind of fall recovery there will be at the Big 3 networks’ evening newscasts.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Stephanopoulos raised the President’s remarks about "these kind of myths," as he put it, near the end of a panel discussion with Democratic strategist James Carville and Charles Schwab chief investment strategist Liz Ann Sonders eight minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour. He noted how "a third of Americans believe- question whether he is Christian- a fifth now believe he’s Muslim" before playing a clip of Mr. Obama from his recent interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, where the Democrat gave a light reply to Williams’s statement referencing these poll numbers: "Mr. President, you’re an American-born Christian, and yet, increasing and now significant numbers of American in polls…are claiming you are neither." The President answered, in part, "I would say that I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead."

Moments earlier in the interview, Obama stated that "there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation, that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly," and this is the remark that the ABC anchor zeroed-in on: "You can’t blame the President for wanting this to go away. He also blamed many in the media for perpetuating these kind of myths. But is there anything more he has to do affirmatively to address this, or just hope that it goes away?"

Somewhat predictably, Carville lashed out against those who believed in any of those: "That people are willing to go out and promote this kind of thing- it’s unfortunate. But the most unfortunate thing is that people are stupid enough to believe that out there."

Exactly two months earlier, on June 30, Stephanopoulos brought on liberal columnist Maureen Dowd who bashed the President as "thin-skinned" and unhappy with his media coverage. This prompted the anchor to acknowledge, "And his press hasn’t been nearly as bad as he thinks." One wonders if the former Clinton communications director would still admit that.

The transcript of the relevant portion of the segment from Monday’s Good Morning America, starting at the 12 minutes into the 7 am hour mark:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring James Carville back in here. James, before we go, the President did get those questions from Brian Williams about how- you know, a third of Americans believe- question whether he is Christian- a fifth now believe he’s Muslim. Let’s show again what the President said.

OBAMA (from NBC News interview): Well- look, Brian, I would say that I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead. (laughs) It is what- the facts are the facts. And so, it’s not something that I can, I think, spend all my time worrying about.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You can’t blame the President for wanting this to go away. He also blamed many in the media for perpetuating these kind of myths. But is there anything more he has to do affirmatively to address this, or just hope that it goes away?

CARVILLE: I think Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect that we know that the Lord loves poor people because he made so many of them. I think the President should have said we know the Lord loves stupid people because he made so many of them. (laughs) I mean, what can you do, if somebody like- contrary to every piece of evidence known to man, doesn’t think that he was born in the United States, or, contrary to all the evidence known, that he’s not a Christian. There’s nothing that can be done, and I think he was saying as much to that. That people are willing to go out and promote this kind of thing- it’s unfortunate. But the most unfortunate thing is that people are stupid enough to believe that out there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: All right. James Carville, Liz Ann Sonders, thanks very much.