The perpetually anti-war Ed Schultz took his seat behind the desk at MSNBC studios Monday with the expressed mission of selling Barack Obama's air assault on Libya to his viewers.

So passionate was the "Ed Show" host in supporting the President he several times showed video footage of downed Pan Am flight 103 while claiming that Moammar Gaddafi was responsible thereby justifying an attack on him over 22 years later (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):

ED SCHULTZ: President Obama has decided on a more focused, realistic approach. He’s trying to give the rebels who want democracy a fighting chance at just that, and trying to stop Gaddafi, this is the human thing to do, from slaughtering his own people. Now aside from all the reasons for this mission, you will never convince me that Gaddafi didn’t have a hand in the Lockerbie bombing. You’ll never convince me that Gaddafi hasn’t supplied resources to terrorists. Given the fact that Americans died on that 747 over Lockerbie, I’m all for this mission. I think the President of the United States Barack Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt and our support.

Interesting defense. Readers are reminded that Pan Am 103 was downed in December 1988. That's a reason for going after Gaddafi now?

As for "slaughtering his own people" and supplying "resources to terrorists," the same was trued of Saddam Hussein. That hasn't stopped Schultz from repeatedly claiming that wasn't enough of a reason to invade 18 months after 9/11.

Why would these issues support attacks on Libya if they didn't support an Iraqi invasion eight years ago?

Alas, when MSNBCers like Schultz are defending politicians they support, facts and reason are irrelevant:

SCHULTZ: As a country we really don’t have much of a stomach for this right now, and a lot of us are torn because of what all of our needs are here at home. But remember, and this needs to be pointed out: there have been no lies told; no fear games have been played on the American people; intelligence hasn’t been cooked, and; there truly is a coalition of the willing.

"There have been no lies told."

I guess Schultz missed this report from Time magazine Monday:

As it turns out, Gaddafi hasn't done enough to justify humanitarian intervention—despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the administration and human rights organizations admit that reports of potential war crimes remain unconfirmed. Instead, interviews with senior administration officials show that the rehabilitators convinced Obama to go to war not just to prevent atrocities Gaddafi might (or might not) commit but also to bolster America's ability to intervene elsewhere in the future.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing. The ability for the U.S. to muster international force to prevent thugs from killing innocent people is important. But the president and some of his advisers are so eager to rehabilitate the idea of preventive intervention that they're exaggerating the violence they say they are intervening to prevent in Libya. “The effort to shoe-horn this into an imminent genocide model is strained,” says one senior administration official. That's dangerous. Americans deserve an honest explanation when their leaders take them to war.

Well, apart from not getting it from Obama, they're certainly not going to get it from a shill like Schultz.

As for the "coalition of the willing," this is another falsehood the media have been shoving down Americans' throats since Friday. As Fox reported Monday, President Bush had double the partners entering Iraq as Obama has on this Libya mission.

But Schultz was on a roll, and he certainly wasn't going to let the truth interfere with his mission:

SCHULTZ: I have always believed that Gaddafi was a terrorist. Let’s look at the tape again of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Do you need any more evidence? Has Gaddafi ever proven his innocence? […]

I’m with the President on this one, and I think if it is defined the way he says it is, limited in scope, this actually could be a situation where we don’t hear from Gaddafi for a long, long time.

Maybe so, but we haven't heard from Saddam Hussein for many years. I doubt Schultz sees that as a justification for that war.

In fairness to Schultz, he did invite on guests Monday evening that were opposed to this move by Obama, in particular Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.) who reiterated his claim from earlier in the day that this could actually be an impeachable offense by the President.

However, Schultz was resolute in his support even doing a segment later in the program wherein he rationalized the financial cost of the mission because it's a pittance of what we're spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. This of course assumed our roll ends as quickly as Obama and Schultz believe it will.

Add it all up, and it sure was interesting watching this devout anti-war liberal sell this military action to his viewers.

Appears to have worked, for his poll question Monday was, "Do you support military action against Libya?" At press time, almost 2/3 of respondents had said, "Yes."

Ed should be very proud of bringing that many anti-war liberals over to his way of thinking.

MSNBC daytime anchor Contessa Brewer has recently drawn much attention for her shameless bias towards gay-rights activists, especially since she anchors an MSNBC news hour and not a talk show. But today, interviewing ultra-liberal Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), Brewer actually grilled him for his shamelessly-edited ad attacking his Republican opponent Daniel Webster.

Grayson, a freshman Democrat, has made a name for himself in the past year for his outlandish soundbites and theatrics on Capitol Hill. His latest venture into psycho talk is an attack ad accusing Webster of degrading women, calling him the "Taliban."

"So Congressman, your opponent is a fellow American, a longtime public servant of the people of Florida, and you called him the ‘Taliban’," Brewer began. "How do you defend that?"

Brewer also asked Grayson to explain his editing of Webster’s reference to Scripture. The commercial showed Webster quoting the Bible, "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands." However, the ad conveniently left out what Webster said before the quote, distorting the whole context of the remark.

"I have verses for my wife," Webster told his audience. "Don’t pick the ones that say ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, that you’d love your wife even as Christ loved the Church, He gave Himself for it. As opposed to ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’

Grayson was unremorseful for anything he had said, instead trying to turn the interview into an occasion to rehash his leftist talking points about Webster being anti-woman. "We didn’t twist his words," Grayson explained. "But what’s not out of context by any stretch of the imagination… is the fact that he has a terrible record on women’s rights."

Brewer then argued that Grayson should stick to arguing about specific issue disagreements and avoid calling his opponent the "Taliban" and editing his speeches. At that point, Grayson then accused Brewer of avoiding the real topics and focusing on his smears of his opponent, to which Brewer reminded Grayson that he had endorsed his own attack ad, and concluded the contentious interview.

A full transcript of the interview, which aired on September 28 at 12:33 p.m. EDT, is as follows:

CONTESSA BREWER: Welcome back to MSNBC on this Tuesday. I’m Contessa Brewer. Democrats are pushing to get women to show up at the ballot box in November, because without their support, the party in power may lose their majority. And no one is pushing harder than congressman Alan Grayson, running for re-election in Florida.

(Video Clip)

VOICE: Religious fanatics try to take away our freedom, in Afghanistan, in Iran, and right here in Central Florida.

DANIEL WEBSTER: Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands.

VOICE: Daniel Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us. (…) The Taliban Dan Webster – hands off our bodies and our laws.

(End Video Clip)

BREWER: That latest campaign attack ad getting a lot of attention, and here’s Congressman Grayson now, good to see you today.

Rep. ALAN GRAYSON, (D): Thank you. Thanks for having me on.

CONTESSA BREWER: So Congressman, your opponent is a fellow American, a longtime public servant of the people of Florida, and you called him the "Taliban." How do you defend that?

GRAYSON: Well, the Taliban try to impose their bizarre religious views on the rest of us, and so does my opponent and the group that he belongs to, the Institute for Basic Life Principles. Among other things, the Institute for Basic Life Principles doesn’t want women to work outside the home. Where would that leave you?

BREWER: Well, you know, here’s what’s interesting. The Taliban is so far beyond wanting their women to work outside the home. I mean, there are acid attacks on young girls, and there are killings and murders based on what happens with women there. And your opponent has never been accused of that.

Politifact for the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald have actually fact-checked your ad. Their research reveals the full context of what Dan Webster was saying. He was talking to fathers at this conference that you just mentioned, the Institute – let me play the full part, the full context for what he was talking about when he was saying "You submit to me."

(Video Clip)

WEBSTER: I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say she should submit to me. That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, that you’d love your wife even as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, as opposed to wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.

(End Video Clip)

BREWER: He’s basically encouraging, Congressman, men to focus on Bible verses other than "Submit to me." Your ad was rated false on Politifact. Why not just use his stand on women’s issues? Why twist his words?

GRAYSON: We’re doing that. We’re doing that, and we didn’t twist his words. And by the way, it’s a 15 minute speech, and he released only four minutes of it. But we could argue endlessly about whether it’s in context, out of context, whatever. He’s a 28-year career politician, and when a career politician is tagged with his own words, which we quoted in the ad, of course he’s going to respond "It’s out of context." But what’s not out of context by any stretch of the imagination – let me finish – what’s not out of context by any stretch of the imagination is the fact that he has a terrible record on women’s rights. He introduced a bill to eliminate divorce for battered women. He introduced another bill in which only the women who cheat on their husbands cannot get alimony, but husbands who cheat on their wives could. He introduced another bill to eliminate health care for battered women on the basis that battery is a preexisting condition. He actually voted on that.

BREWER: Why not just use –

GRAYSON: Now you tell me what really matters.

BREWER: So if that’s what really matters – if those stands on those issues are what could motivate women to turn out to the polls, then why take a speech where he was saying – again, this is his word – "I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, um, ‘She should submit to me’." Your people cut that, "submit to me," "submit to me," and they put that in. That’s not what he was saying. His stand on the issues should stand alone, shouldn’t it?

GRAYSON: Contessa, look at what you just did. When you ran the ad, you only ran the parts that you wanted to talk about. You didn’t run the parts that I just discussed. You’re doing it. We want to discuss women’s issues, and you’re preventing that from happening.

BREWER: No. No, I’m not, actually I’ve given you to join me, and I want to talk about women’s issues, and I think that women are interested in candidates’ stands on abortion, and on health care, and on family issues, and on equal pay for equal work. I think women want to know those issues. And I think that if your opponent has an appalling stand on those issues, that absolutely you should point it out. My question is, why would you take a piece of sound and make it seem like he’s saying something that, in that moment, he wasn’t saying. As I said, the non-partisan Politifact organization says this ad was false.

And here’s his wife, Sandi Webster, who responded: "Alan Grayson’s latest attack on my husband was shameful. Mr. Grayson seems to have a problem telling the truth, and no problem misleading the public. Dan has been an amazing husband and father, and the finest man I’ve ever known. Mr. Grayson should be ashamed of his nasty smears against my husband."

Given Dan Webster’s stand on women’s issues, are you afraid that this negative attack ad could backfire against you?

GRAYSON: Contessa, I invited you just now to go into what the issues were, and you completely avoided them. Instead, you gave time to my opponent’s wife to express her indignation without addressing g those issues. Dan Webster was on TV the day before he ran this ad, and he was asked point-blank, "What would you do if a women is raped? Would you require her to have the child?" As his legislation requires – he introduced legislation to require raped women – raped women – to bear the child. And he refused to answer the reporter’s question. I think we should talk about these issues, and I don’t think that you should get us off-track, or anybody else, including Dan Webster and his wife.

BREWER: Congressman, your ad begins with you approve that message. That’s your message.

GRAYSON: Yes, and if you’d run the whole thing, people would have seen what I did approve.

BREWER: Congressman Alan Grayson, I appreciate your time today. Thank you.

MSNBC News Live host Thomas Roberts on Monday pleaded with his Twitter followers to help get Lady Gaga on his program, at one point hyping the pro-gay rights singer as the "Joan Baez of her time." [MP3 audio here.]

In the 11am hour, Roberts, who is openly gay and hosted The Advocate On-Air, explained that he had Tweeted Lady Gaga to come on the air and talk about her appearance in Maine to rally support for overturning Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He lobbied, "And I want Gaga to join me. So, I want you to help me. I’ve sent her a message at Twitter.com/LadyGaga and you should too."

He later begged, "So, keep it up out there, Gaga little monsters. Write to @LadyGaga. Try and convince her to come on the show at two o’clock. We’ll even do a phoner with her." (Little monsters is the nickname for Gaga fans.)

Roberts enthused over the singer, whose real name is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta. Talking to radio host Michael Smerconish, he speculated, "So, will Lady Gaga become the Joan Baez of her time?"

Roberts later compared, "And in your opinion, is this like Oprah supporting Obama?"

MSNBC’s daytime anchors, supposedly delivering objective news, have a history of arguing, on-air, for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Contessa Brewer, a colleague of Roberts, is another example.

Partial transcripts for the September 20 segments can be found below:

11:35

THOMAS ROBERTS: Lady Gaga is using her star power today to fight the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy on gay service members. A proposal to repeal the measure attached to a defense spending bill that is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow. Lady Gaga is attending a rally in Maine today. Maine’s senators could cast the deciding votes in favor of the bill. And I’m going to be hosting the 2pm hour right here on MSNBC. And I want Gaga to join me. So, I want you to help me. I’ve sent her a message at Twitter.com/LadyGaga and you should too. See, that’s what it says: "Help me get @ Lady Gaga on my 2:00 p.m. hour." Help me. Little monsters out there. I think that’s- Right? I think that’s what they’re called? I’m asking Courtney Hazlett. She’s right here. But, anyway, little monsters, help me get Lady Gaga on at two o’clock so we can talk about what she’s got planned in Portland, Maine.

11:51

ROBERTS: Welcome back to MSNBC. And I’m asking you to help me today in my Twitter campaign to get Lady Gaga on my 2:00 show here on MSNBC. This is the tweet that I sent to Lady Gaga earlier today, and everyone out there: "Help me get @LadyGaga on my 2pm hour on MSNBC. Want to talk to her about the Maine rally on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the repeal." So, it’s coming up today at 4pm in Portland, Maine. She’s trying to get Senator Collins and Senator Snowe’s attention there in that state. But, I’ve been getting people tweeting me back really nice stuff. JJLucasH saying, "Hey, Lady Gaga, we need you to contact Thomas Roberts for this important 2pm show." Also, I like this one from UNCJohnny: "Make an anchor boy happy." That would be me. Help me get @LadyGaga on my 2pm hour on @MSNBC. So, keep it up out there, Gaga little monsters. Write to @LadyGaga. Try and convince her to come on the show at two o’clock. We’ll even do a phoner with her. We want to hear why she’s doing this at 4pm in Portland, Maine.

2:08

ROBERTS: I want to tell you about Lady Gaga moonlighting as a Washington lobbyist. The pop superstar isn’t giving up her singing gig, but she’s holding a rally in Maine today, making her case to Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to end the military’s policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And here’s the pitch she has out there on YouTube.

LADY GAGA: Ultimately, the law is being enforced using gay profiling. And gay soldiers have become targets. In short, not only is the law unconstitutional, but it’s not even being properly or fairly enforced by the government.

ROBERTS: So this comes a week after the MTV Music Awards when she was escorted by members of the military who were being kicked out for admitting they are gay. I started a Twitter campaign to get Gaga on the show. Unfortunately, we were told she’s not doing press before this.

…

ROBERTS: So, will Lady Gaga become the Joan Baez of her time? Michael Smerconish is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host and a MSNBC contributor. All right, Michael. Give me your take. What do you think?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH: My take- Thomas, I get nervous when entertainment figures weigh in on matters of politics. But, Long ago I had to cross the bridge and say if I pick my entertainers by politics, I would have nobody to listen to and no movies to watch. She has a constituency. And we are such a segmented society. When you think of all the different media outlets, the different internet web sites and so forth that are out there- And I’m sure she has a constituency that Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins may not hear from on this issue or any other. So, for that matter, yeah. I take it seriously. I think that there’s a group of people will come out and be energized like they haven’t because of Lady Gaga.

ROBERTS: Well, she has over six million Twitter followers. I think she’s the number one followed person. And isn’t Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell just a matter of time? So, going after a youth culture, maybe as she is, is the right way to go?

SMERCONISH: Well, I think you raise a great point. My view is that the heavy lifting halready been done on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I do believe it’s a matter of time. On a whole host of issues having to do with same-sex relationships. So, so, perhaps, you know, she smells victory on this and wants to be, in part, credited. I guess that’s a cynical take. But I do think it’s going to happen. And I do believe this will have some impact in energizing people who up until now haven’t been heard from on it.

ROBERTS: And in your opinion, is this like Oprah supporting Obama?

SMERCONISH: Uh, I don’t- You know, dare I say it, I’ve got more respect for Oprah than Lady Gaga. [laughs] I don’t know, man. I- You’ll have to make that judgment.

ROBERTS: But still you understand the power that she has. And when she wields it, and she does so in an effective way, it can make a difference.

SMERCONISH: There’s no doubt about it. The entertainment world generally, I think, is comprised of individuals who if they use it in the right way have tremendous political power.

Amidst a war of words with the White House, character attacks from the Left, and a New York Times hit piece on his connections with lobbyists, House Minority Leader John Boehner has received positive media coverage – from MSNBC of all places. The network ran a portrait of Boehner’s childhood on its 11 a.m. news hour, and again on "Andrea Mitchell Reports" at 1 p.m.

"The public hears a lot of the arguments against [Boehner] from the Left," remarked NBC correspondent Luke Russert on the 11 a.m. MSNBC news hour Monday. "They hear that he’s a country club Republican, if you will, with extensive ties to lobbyists. But it’s quite interesting. He’s a man who comes from very humble beginnings, starting out in a big Catholic family in Reading, Ohio."

Russert narrated a piece on Boehner’s upbringing in Ohio, as one of 12 children. He interviewed one each of Boehner’s brothers and his sisters, as well as his high school football coach.

Words used to describe Boehner included "bossy," "independent," "leadership," "charm," and "heart." Other highlights included his hard work for his family’s bar and for the high school football team, as well as his taking seven years to earn his undergraduate degree because he worked during the day and took classes at night.

Overall, it provided quite a humane and sympathetic look into the upbringing of a prominent Republican politician – one that usually might not be expected of MSNBC.

"It’ll be interesting to see how this narrative comes out in the closing weeks of the campaign," Russert said after the clip played. " It certainly gives [Boehner] more of a human element as opposed to just the ‘Party of No’ face, which Democrats have been trying to stick to him in recent months and weeks."

A full transcript of the segment, which aired on September 13 at 11:34 a.m. EDT, is as follows:

TAMRON HALL, MSNBC Anchor: Well there is intense scrutiny on Republican Minority Leader John Boehner today, following a scathing investigative report in the New York Times detailing Boehner’s relationship with Washington lobbyists. According to the Times, Boehner has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from his campaigns from lobbyists, and helped numerous lobbyists during his time in office. Boehner’s office denies any improper relationships, but in recent weeks President Obama has repeatedly gone after Boehner’s speeches, and really tried to portray him as the face of the Republican Party. Still, the Minority Leader us unknown to millions of Americans. NBC’s Luke Russert has a closer look at the man who could become the next Speaker of the House. And it’s interesting, Luke, in that report – about 55 percent of the people surveyed did not know who John Boehner is –

LUKE RUSSERT, NBC Congressional Correspondent: It is, and a lot of the public hears a lot of the arguments against him from the Left, and definitely President Obama has tried to define Mr. Boehner in the last few weeks. They hear that he’s a country club Republican, if you will, with extensive ties to lobbyists. But it’s quite interesting. He’s a man who comes from very humble beginnings, starting out in a big Catholic family in Reading, Ohio.

(Video Clip)

JOHN BOEHNER, House Minority Leader: …hidden from the people? Hell no, you can’t!

LUKE RUSSERT: Minority Leader John Boehner has risen to political and oratorical heights on Capitol Hill. But that trip began on another hill.

BOB BOEHNER, John Boehner’s brother: If you blink, you miss the street here.

RUSSERT: Hill Street, in Reading, Ohio. And at the top sits the house that he shared with 11 brothers and sisters.

So you had 12 people in this house?

BOB BOEHNER: Yep.

RUSSERT: Or 14? Right? Because you had 12 kids.

BOB BOEHNER: 14. I see the – when we were younger, that addition on the end wasn’t there. Mom and dad slept on a pull-out couch. And John, Steve and I slept in one bedroom, Nancy slept in the other bedroom.

RUSSERT: Maneuvering in such a big Catholic family is where a large part of his leadership skills come from today.         

BOB BOEHNER: It started right there, you know. You might have wanted something done a certain way, but it wasn’t possible because there was too many people. And so you had to figure out the best way to do something and move on with it.

RUSSERT: Of course, his little sister might just say he was bossy.

LYNDA MEINEKE: "Make sure you do your homework," and "Sit up straight." "What are you doing with your clean clothes on?"

RUSSERT: Lynda still works the bar the Boehner family used to own, where John mopped floors. Back then it was named Andy’s Café, after his grandfather.

RUSSERT: Did you ever get angry at him because you thought he was being too harsh on you?

MEINEKE: Oh yeah, because he wasn’t mom or dad. You know, it’s like "Who are you?"

RUSSERT: A teenager who rode motorcycles and played football, even when he was in pain.

GERRY FAUST, Fmr. Moeller H.S. Football Coach: If he could stand the pain, he could play, because it wasn’t going to hurt him. (Unintelligible) He says, "I think the team – we need to do it to win."

RUSSERT: From his mother came his independence.

MEINEKE: Stand up and speak your mind. Yeah, my mother was good at that. She just, you know – she spoke what she thought. She spoke from the heart.

RUSSERT: And from his father his charm, and possibly his heart.

BOB BOEHNER: My dad – (Unintelligible) I think John does the same thing – connect to people. That’s why he’s been successful.

RUSSERT: The beginning of an unlikely climb, which may end with him leading 435 people in a very different house on the hill.

(End Video Clip)

RUSSERT: And Tamron, there you go. Quite an interesting upbringing for Mr. Boehner, learning the art of compromise dealing with 12 – 11 brothers and sisters. Another interesting antidote that I picked up there on the ground in Ohio: it took Mr. Boehner seven years to get his degree from Xavier University in Cincinnati, not because he was partying, but in fact because he was working. He got his degree, a Bachelor’s of Science in night school over the course of seven years. It’ll be interesting to see how this narrative comes out in the closing weeks of the campaign. It certainly gives him more of a human element as opposed to just the "Party of No" face, which Democrats have been trying to stick to him in recent months and weeks.       

In a brief interview with the openly-gay former Army Lt. Dan Choi MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer gave her vocal support to his cause, hoping that the military’s policy of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" ends soon.

Brewer has covered the issue quite one-sidedly in the past on behalf of the gay rights side. She has hosted many gay-rights advocates on her news hour and has barely covered the other side of the DADT issue. Examples: here, here, and here.

Brewer was covering the ruling of a federal judge in California that "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," is unconstitutional. The judge has not yet issued a final ruling, but plans to do so in two weeks. Brewer’s lone guest in the segment was Choi, an outspoken advocate and poster boy for the military gay-rights movement, who was arrested this past spring for chaining himself to the White House fence in protest of DADT.

The news anchor first asked the lieutenant how he felt about the ruling. Then she commented that the DADT policy bans, which include bans on intimate conduct between gays and speaking about loved ones, act as a "severe impediment to dealing effectively" for soldiers far from home.

At the end of the short interview, Brewer told Choi that she stands with him and thinks that "justice delayed is justice denied," hoping that the final ruling on the matter comes soon.

A transcript of the segment, which aired on September 10 at 12:47 p.m. EDT, is as follows:

CONTESSA BREWER: It has been a long time coming, but this may be the end of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." A federal judge in California has ruled that the military’s ban on openly-gay service members is unconstitutional. The judge says she will issue a final ruling, ending the policy for good, in about two weeks. Former Army Lt. Dan Choi, an outspoken opponent of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," he’s an Iraq War veteran, and in April he handcuffed himself to the gates of the White House in a protest of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." Was arrested, spent a night in prison and was discharged from the military in July. Lt. Dan Choi joins me now. Good to see you, sir.

DAN CHOI: Good to see you, Contessa.

BREWER: What’s your reaction to this judge’s ruling?

CHOI: It’s a victory today for the Constitution. The judge reiterated the Bill of Rights, and some of our most foundational principles of freedom, the freedom of expression, free speech. And when you have a policy as vicious as "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," that abridges that free speech and says "You cannot say the truth to your commander or to your best friends. You cannot say three words, ‘I am gay,’" or "You are not allowed to express your commitment to your lover or your partner by saying three words ‘I love you’" – that’s absolutely against not only the Constitution, but against America. It’s against integrity, it’s against our American values –

BREWER: She says it actually bars people from enjoying intimate conduct, and bars them from speaking about their loved ones while serving in uniform, and it bans them from including information in a personal communication that could reveal their homosexuality. If you’re deployed, you’re away from your support system, that’s a severe impediment to dealing effectively, to operating effectively in our nation’s armed forces. But she says she’s not going to issue a final ruling for two more weeks. What should happen right now from our nation’s leaders, not just this judge?

CHOI: Well you’re absolutely right. For the soldiers not only that are in combat, but the ones that come back home and have to deal with so many issues of Post Traumatic Stress or depression or even suicide – which is skyrocketing in the military – I don’t see how our leaders can stand by and do nothing.

 But in this case, if the President and his Justice Department do nothing, do not appeal, do not lift a finger that will waste any energy, waste any statements, or waste any money defending "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," than what we might see is an absolute victory not only for gay veterans, but for our whole military. We don’t have to fire people for being honest anymore, and we can bolster and reiterate not only our Bill of Rights in our Constitution, but our American value of love.

BREWER: Dan, I appreciate it. I stand with you. And I do think that justice delayed is justice denied, and I hope to see this policy end soon.    

Unfortunately, Goldsmith forgot to mention that it was a completely unscientific poll that only appeared within articles on the topic and allowed people to potentially vote numerous times. The slanted poll question read: "Is opposition to the building of a mosque near Ground Zero intolerant?" The three responses offered were: "Yes, it’s pure religious bigotry against Muslims; No, you can be against because it dishonors victims of Sept. 11; Maybe, but the sensitive thing to do is to move it further from the WTC site."

Goldsmith touted the Daily News poll after anchor Jeff Rossen cited a scientific poll on the issue: "A new Siena College poll suggests – and we actually have the results right here – that 63% of New Yorkers oppose this Islamic center. Only 23% support it." After promoting the unreliable online poll, Goldsmith argued: "…there’s a lot of voices coming out….It’s hard to really get a grasp of what the public opinion is, I think."

Here is a full transcript of the August 18 program:

2:08PM ET

JEFF ROSSEN: President Obama not backing down from his comments about the Ground Zero mosque and the Islamic center. At the end of an event in Columbus, Ohio today a reporter asked the President whether he had any regrets, speaking out on the issue.

BARACK OBAMA: The answer is no regrets.

ROSSEN: You couldn’t hear that, he said the answer is no regrets. Samuel Goldsmith is with the New York Daily News. Thanks so much for joining us Samuel.

GOLDSMITH: How are you?

ROSSEN: So, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now calling for an investigation into the groups that are opposing this. What are your thoughts?

SAMUEL GOLDSMITH: Well, she’s the first one to come out and say that there should be an investigation into that side of the argument. So far there have just been calls for investigations into the group behind the project.

ROSSEN: There are reports that the makers – that the developers of the mosque have turned down an offer from the New York Governor David Paterson to relocate this center and this mosque. Is there any compromise left, you think – in the cards?

GOLDSMITH: You know I’m not – I’m having a hard time finding out if that report’s true. I don’t think it is. They said yesterday that they were willing to meet with the Governor. Though they’re also saying they’re not interested in relocating.

ROSSEN: A new Siena College poll suggests – and we actually have the results right here – that 63% of New Yorkers oppose this Islamic center. Only 23% support it. It appears that doesn’t matter to the President or to the Mayor as well. What are your thoughts?

GOLDSMITH: It’s interesting, the poll, we have a poll on our website that also shows that 70% of New Yorkers say that they think the opposition is out of hatred and religious intolerance. So there’s a lot of voices coming out. The polls show one side of it. It’s hard to really get a grasp of what the public opinion is, I think.

ROSSEN: At the same time, 64% of voters say the developers have the constitutional right to build the mosque. So it’s really a very interesting poll. Just as many people say they shouldn’t build it there but they also agree that they have the right to.

GOLDSMITH: Which is basically what a lot of politicians have said, which is they’re not commenting on the wisdom of it, but they believe they have the right. That’s what the President said.

ROSSEN: Samuel Goldsmith with the New York Daily News. Thanks for joining us, sir.

GOLDSMITH: Thank you.

Not only did MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell hail President Obama’s support of the Ground Zero mosque as "politically courageous," but she seemed disappointed when, on the next day, he walked back his comments a bit. On both her Monday and Tuesday MSNBC news hours, Mitchell seemed to emphasize that Obama once again kowtowed to the conservative media on an issue he was originally on the right side of.

Mitchell told Chuck Todd that Obama’s remarks at the iftar dinner in support of the mosque were "politically courageous, in terms of domestic politics." She then asked why Obama then changed his tone the next day. She used the "politically courageous" phrase again, later on the show.

Chuck Todd, meanwhile, labeled the story as one "that was basically a creation of the conservative blogosphere in many ways."

"They amplified it nationally," Todd complained of the conservative media. "It was a local story happening in New York, and then it got amplified by some conservative opinion leaders, including Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, and they seemed to allow themselves to be forced to wade in on the debate."

On her Tuesday news hour, Mitchell remarked to a guest that Obama was "on-text" Friday night. When she asked guest Karen Finney how the President got on everyone’s wrong side over the issue, Finney answered that Obama had gone "off-text, so that’s never a good thing as we know." Mitchell then responded that Obama was "on-text Friday night."

Mitchell also tried to throw water on the intensity of the conservative argument, when she argued that the Ground Zero site might not be so sacred – because three strip clubs already exist in the area.

"And one more question about that hallowed site," Mitchell asked at the end of the segment. "There are strip joints and tatoo parlors, and, I mean, this site is within two blocks, or two blocks away from Ground Zero. But aside from Ground Zero, this is New York. This is downtown New York. There are a lot of less-than-hallowed locations in the retail community there."   

A partial transcript of the two segments is as follows:

ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS 8/16/10 1:00 p.m. EDT

1:01 p.m.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Chuck, take us back to the Iftar dinner Friday night. The President made a statement and drew a lot of praise for at least taking a stand that was politically courageous, in terms of domestic politics. Why then did he seem to change the tone, if not the actual words of his endorsement the next day?

(…)

1:04 p.m.

CHUCK TODD: So it does come across as sort of this idea that he threw something out there to let anybody who wanted to interpret it a specific way, they could. And then, of course, that clarifying statement just added to the confusion and then extended this story. And that’s where they realized – I think that’s why you had Bill Burton, by the way, later that afternoon saying "Hey look, where the President was – he was not clarifying anything, that there is consistency here, because I think they didn’t like this idea that it looked like he was backing away."

ANDREA MITCHELL: Because then he fails to get praise – I mean he’s basically put himself in a position if he was clarifying it, then he’s angered everybody. He doesn’t get any credit, even for being politically courageous.

(…)

CHUCK TODD: And yet, this is a story that was basically a creation of the conservative blogosphere in many ways. They amplified it nationally. It was a local story happening in New York, and then it got amplified by some conservative opinion leaders, including Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, and they seemed to allow themselves to be forced to wade in on the debate. So you do have to wonder on what they say about the media and how they react to it sometimes are two different things.

(…)

1:06 p.m.

ANDREA MITCHELL: You are one Republican who has initally supported – even before the President got into this – you were saying it was the right thing to say, and the wrong thing for Republicans to say. Yet fellow Republicans like Newt Gingrich, for instance, said folks who want to build this mosque who are really radical Islamists, who want to triumphally prove they can build a mosque where 3,000 Americans were killed by radical Islamists. Those folks don’t have any interest in reaching out to the community. They’re trying to make a case about supremacy. He even used the term "Nazi" to describe the analogy of, you know, we don’t let Nazis and we don’t let the Japanese build in Pearl Harbor. I mean,  he sort of all over the place.

We had Sarah Palin tweeting about the President, and she said that we all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? This is not above your pay grade, Mr. President.

What are Republicans doing in making – they’re playing politics with the majority base, which is against the Ground Zero location. But what are they doing long-term?

(…)

1:09 p.m.

ANDREA MITCHELL: And one more question about that hallowed site. There are strip joints and tatoo parlors, and, I mean, this site is within two blocks, or two blocks away from Ground Zero. But aside from Ground Zero, this is New York. This is downtown New York.. There are a lot of less-than-hallowed locations in the retail community there.

ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS 8/17/10

1:46 p.m.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Karen, how did the President manage to get on the wrong side of everyone’s position?

You know, as I understand it, I guess he went off-text, so that’s never a good thing as we know.

MITCHELL: He was on-text on Friday night.

As the anchor of MSNBC’s noon news hour, Contessa Brewer could not openly advocate for supporters of gay marriage – but she definitely seemed to give generous credence to their views on Thursday and Friday. Furthermore, she made snide comments about opponents of same-sex marriage, providing an opposition to their arguments but not seriously questioning proponents of same-sex marriage.

Brewer obviously has strong views on this particular issue, and as a news anchor seems to have trouble keeping her personal opinions out of her news desk duties. In the little time allotted during each show to the same-sex marriage debate, Brewer hosted three pro same-sex marriage guests and none from the opposition.

On Thursday, her guest was a retired female Presbyterian minister who is facing a church trial for conducting multiple gay marriages, having already been acquitted in 2008 before the Presbyterian Church (USA) Supreme Judicial Council.

On Friday, Brewer hosted the two plaintiffs of the recent Proposition 8 court case, Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami – a homosexual couple hoping to marry soon.

Brewer also marginalized the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents with snide remarks and loaded questions. "Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family," she remarked on her Thursday news hour. "So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America?"

When one of her viewers who opposes gary marriage wrote in that having two same-sex parents would "mess up the child development for life," Brewer cynically quipped "I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms."

On Friday, Brewer seemed to be pushing for a quick end to the stay on same-sex marriages in California, apparently using one of the Left’s favorite arguments in equating the current legal battles with the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s.

"You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials," she summarized. "So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied?" she asked, quoting the mantra of the civil rights movement.

A transcript of both segments, which aired on August 12 and 13, is as follows:

MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/12/10

12:00

CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC anchor: A Presbyterian minister in [California] is facing charges from her own church. The authorities believe she violated the church rules by presiding over the weddings of gay couples. Her trial begins later this month in Napa, California, and Rev. Jane Spahr joins me now. Reverend, it’s good to talk to you today.

Rev. JANE SPAHR: Thank you, Contessa. Great to be here.

BREWER: You have been through this before in 2008, when you were acquitted, I understand, from marrying a lesbian couple. So what’s this renewed fight about in the Presbyterian church?

SPAHR: Well the renewed fight is really about all these marriages that I did with so many of my friends who – they’re legal. They were from those dates from June 17th to November 4th in which the state has said "Yes, all these are legal." So it’s been an amazing time to be able to marry so many of my wonderful friends.

BREWER: What’s the official stance of the Presbyterian Church on same-sex marriage?

SPAHR: Well there really isn’t a stance yet, there hasn’t been a ruling on that, so what it is, I think for me, is, as pastors, we should be able to marry the people who come to us, and that is, for me, I take over a year to meet with couples, to work with them, to talk with them about their love, and it’s been an amazing time to be able to do that. So what I say to people, "It doesn’t matter what your sexual orientation is. It matters to me that you have a healthy, just, loving, mutual relationship. So that’s why I meet with couples. So I say "It doesn’t matter to me." What matters to me is that the church could be there to help people have the healthiest, most loving relationships.

BREWER: Given your stand on this, and given that you have been a long-time advocate on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, do you think that you’re a good fit with the Presbyterian Church?

SPAHR: Well I think every church has the opportunity to become open and welcoming, to really follow the founder of our Church, which said, "You all come, and be, and be who you are, and love who you are." When people love who they are, then they can be free to serve in such a healthy and wonderful way. So I think it’s time for the churches to say "Welcome home."

BREWER: But given how many people base their opposition to gay rights on religious or moral principles, what would you say to them, and what would you expect to happen in this trial? Again, it’s a church trial, coming up later this month.

SPAHR: Well again, people will be able to hear the stories of some 11 couples, be able to hear about their love, and to be able to know that we too are people of faith. We too are faithful people. We too care. My friends, Sarah and Sherry, the first couple that was ever named, I’ve been with them through all the things they’re bearing, their fathers, being with them to see their daughters raised, so it’s for people to see us as they really are.

(…)

12:05

BREWER: Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family. So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America?

(…)

12:52

BREWER: And Terrance thinks differently. He says "I believe if a child is raised around two fathers or two mothers that will mess up the child development for life." I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.  

MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/13/10

12:00

CONTESSA BREWER: In the meantime, good Friday the 13th. I’m Contessa Brewer, covering the big news, coast to coast. And on the West Coast, a massive tug-of-war is erupting over the gay marriage fight in California. Opponents want a federal appeals court to act now, before a hold on those weddings expires. …there will be mass confusion about whether the couples are indeed legally married. The judge’s decision to hold off ’till next week not going over well with some.

(Video Clip)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’ve been here for two hours this morning, and we’ve watched so many straight people walk in and get married in front of us. It’s so "in your face," that once again, "no you can’t."

(End Video Clip)

(…)

12:01

BREWER: You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials. So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied?

(…)

12:02

BREWER: Joining me now, Paul Katami, Jeff Zurrillo. They are the plaintiffs in the case to overturn Proposition 8. Gentlemen, good to see you. Let me ask you that question. Do you think justice delayed is justice denied?

JEFF ZARRILLO: Martin Luther King said it very well, in his letters to Birmingham, justice delayed is justice denied, and that’s exactly what’s happening here.  

BREWER: Do you have – do you think optimistic feelings about what happens now with the appeals court? Paul, weigh in.

PAUL KATAMI: We’re absolutely optimistic. We know that we put on a fair and balanced court case. We won on the merits of that case, so now the law is on our side. We know that history is on our side, so it’s just a matter of getting to that finish line and we’re very confident we’ll get there.

BREWER: You know, it’s interesting that the opponents who have filed the suit, guys, say that the judge’s decision that said voters made this Proposition 8 based on anti-gay morality, they said the judge’s statement was cruel because the people of California have actually enacted into law some of the nation’s most sweeping, most progressive protections of gays and lesbians. Do you feel protected in California?

ZARRILLO: It’s really not about feeling protected as much as it is about separate, yet unequal, and that’s what we are, we are a separate yet unequal category. We are second-class citizens in the state of California. And what we really are looking for is just our equal rights, just like every other American is afforded at birth, according to our Constitution.

KATAMI: I think it’s important to remember also that we’re not trying to create a new law or import a law into our Constitution. This was a law that was found in our Constitution, and so we are just trying to reiterate that that law belongs to us fundamentally, so it’s important to remember that our Constitution actually has this law in it. And we’re just wanting it to be applied to us.

BREWER: Alright, gentlemen. Jeff, Paul, thank you both. I appreciate your time.

MSNBC News Live guest host Cenk Uygur on Wednesday railed against opposition to gay marriage, asserting that conservatives "fought against women’s rights and they lost. They fought against civil rights for blacks and they lost." He also touted the supposed moral superiority of liberals, lecturing, "This country is fundamentally progressive." [MP3 audio here.]

To bolster this case, Uygur quoted Marting Luther King: "’Cause as a very smart man once said in the middle of another civil rights battle, ‘The arc of history bends towards justice.’" Yet, liberals hardly have a spotless record when it comes to human rights.

In 1972, Jane Fonda famously parroted communist propaganda while sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. Many progressives have also fawned over the communist murderer Che Guevara.

Uygur derided, "And at some point, some conservatives will pretend they were never against [gay marriage] and that they’ve always been for equality for all…We know better. But, all of that will be irrelevant, because in the end there’s only one thing this country does with conservative ideas when they fight against progress, they throw them in the trash bin of history."

Here, Uygur, the host of the liberal radio show The Young Turks, was just being historically sloppy. Ronald Reagan made Martin Luther King’s birthday a holiday.

When the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for a vote, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the bill. (Republicans were in favor 138 to 34. Democrats supported it 152-96.)

Finally, it was Lincoln and later the Radical Republicans who made the progress for civil rights in the 19^th century.

A transcript of the August 4 segment, which aired at 3:07pm EDT, follows:

CENK UYGUR: Now, look, let’s go to "My Take." Will there be gay marriage all across the country one day? Of course there will. Hear me now. Quote me later. It is inevitable. ‘Cause as a very smart man once said in the middle of another civil rights battle, "The arc of history bends towards justice." This country is fundamentally progressive.

When our founding fathers started a revolution for the idea of self-rule and democracy, it was arguably the single most progressive act in history. Conservatives fought against women’s rights and they lost. They fought against civil rights for blacks and they lost.

They’re fighting against gay rights and they will lose, because this country believes in progress and human rights. That is what it’s absolutely based on. So, we will go through this drama for some time more, but the final act is clear. And then looking back many years from now, Americans will shake their heads and say how could people have possibly thought that?

As they say now about people who fought against integration and a woman’s right to vote. How could they have possibly thought that? And at some point, some conservatives will pretend they were never against it and that they’ve always been for equality for all.

And some of them might even pretend to be fans of famous gay rights crusaders like Harvey Milk as some now pretend to be big fans of Martin Luther King. We know better, but all of that will be irrelevant, because in the end there’s only one thing that this country does with conservative ideas when they fight against progress, they throw them in the trash bin of history.

Black, pictured from an April 30 appearance on PBS’s Bill Moyers Journal, is also Carbone’s husband.

Asserting that my analysis "combined fiction and ad hominem labels," Black proceeded to dig up all the dirt he could find to malign me as an extremist. His investigative work unearthed an article I wrote as a sophomore in high school for a blog I haven’t looked at in years.

Testifying to his wife’s credentials as a "bridge builder," Black described how her book pits the so-called "Blue Family Paradigm" against the "Red State dream." Black then made a truly bizarre and creepy observation: "In their book, rather than in Mr. Fitzsimmons’ sex fantasies about a book he has not read, June and Naomi show that the sexual revolution began in the 50s."

Excuse me for failing to realize a book couched in the terms of liberal families versus conservative families actually contains a unifying message.

Neither Carbone nor her book were the focus of my post. Rather, the post concentrated on how MSNBC failed to put the co-authors in proper context, an omission commonly referred to as labeling bias. As evidenced in his meandering rant, Black either failed read my entire post or is guilty of the destructive divisiveness he pretends to condemn.