Appearing as a guest on Wednesday's Tonight Show on NBC, HBO's Real Time host Bill Maher mocked GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum's pro-life views, inspiring laughter from host Jay Leno.

After Leno brought up presidential politics, Maher cracked that the former Pennsylvania Senator "thinks life begins at erection":

JAY LENO: What do you make of Rick Santorum's surge? You must be thrilled.

BILL MAHER: Oh, don't even say that word about Santorum. It sounds dirty. He's a, Rick Santorum, a little conservative for me. Thinks life begins at erection, this guy, I mean. what, I mean.

After Leno and the audience laughed, the HBO comedian continued:

There are people like that who think life begins the second the sperm hits the hooha. Before the man can even light a cigarette or get up and get a towel, there is a third person in that room. Before the woman can even say, "What are you thinking?" there is a third person in that room.

He went on to mock Tea Party activists for being willing to support Santorum, and brought referred to his opposition of the modern gay rights agenda:

But I think it's funny that, you know, this election, remember, up until recently was going to be election all about money. Deficits and jobs and the deficit and the spending too much, this is what the Tea Party was so upset about, right? Weren't they made at the bankers and the bailouts? And then, you know, somebody shoves a big, gay penis in their face, and they jump at it.
 

On Saturday's Fox News Watch, FNC contributor and conservative talk radio host cited a letter released last Monday by NewsBusters publisher and  Media Research Center president Brent Bozell which called on the media to give more attention to President Obama's attempt to force religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees, even if these institutions object on religious grounds. (Video below)

Crowley cited numbers on how little attention had been given by the broadcast networks and CNN as of Monday, and credited the MRC with coaxing more attention to the issue from the media:

Brent Bozell at the Media Research Center did extraordinary investigative research into what the broadcast networks and the cable networks were doing on this issue. And what he found was that ABC and NBC did not cover this story for a full 16 days, CBS covered it only after 10 days, and CNN mentioned it briefly when the original decision came down, and then not again for 10 days.

She continued:

Once he publicized this, then the networks were forced to cover it. Fox was covering it relentlessly, and it became a huge issue, and it actually forced the White House to change their tack on this.

Below are both video and a transcript of the relevant portion of the Saturday, February 11, Fox News Watch on FNC:

JON SCOTT: So the White House backtracked from its original position. What about the way they did so, Monica? Is that going to solve the controversy?

MONICA CROWLEY: Well, I'm not sure that it solves the controversy, but I will say this is the power of the media. Brent Bozell at the Media Research Center did extraordinary investigative research into what the broadcast networks and the cable networks were doing on this issue.

And what he found was that ABC and NBC did not cover this story for a full 16 days, CBS covered it only after 10 days, and CNN mentioned it briefly when the original decision came down, and then not again for 10 days. Once he publicized this, then the networks were forced to cover it. Fox was covering it relentlessly, and it became a huge issue, and it actually forced the White House to change their tack on this.

SCOTT: And compare that with the Susan G. Komen controversy. That was a private organization, a fundraising organization that had decided  it didn't want to give some, I mean, a minuscule amount of its money to Planned Parenthood. And, according to the media, the earth was falling down.

KRISTEN POWERS: Well, that's because all their friends cared about it, you know, I mean, it gets into a situation where it's like everybody they know is talking about it, so it must be the most important thing that's happening in the world. And, yeah, the coverage of it was relentless, and then you have this issue, which is a major issue that affects so many people, and they really weren't interested in it.

But what I would say is I don't think it was just the Brent Bozell thing. I think it was that a lot of liberal Catholics came out, you know, and E.J. Dionne and Mark Shields and, you know, people who support Obama on pretty much everything saying this is not okay.
 

As NewsBusters has been reporting, NBC's Matt Lauer had an interview with President Obama on Super Bowl Sunday that was as soft as cream cheese that's been sitting in the sun for hours.

One such sickeningly squishy moment was when the Today show host let his guest get away with claiming he "ran an affirmative campaign" in 2008 without negative attack ads (video follows with transcript and commentary):

MATT LAUER, HOST: This idea being able to reach out and connect to the middle class and having the middle class reach out to a political candidate.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Right.

LAUER: On Friday you held a fundraiser.

Pres. OBAMA: Right.

LAUER: You raised $900,000 in a couple of hours. I think 25 wealthy individuals paid $36,000 apiece to spend a couple of hours with you.

Pres. OBAMA: Yeah.

LAUER: How do you think the guy sitting, drinking a beer and eating chips watching the game today can identify with something like that?

Pres. OBAMA: Right. Well, I think, Matt, if you–if you noticed about a month and a half ago, I also had lunch with five folks who had given 25 bucks each who were part of this huge base of supporters that we have all across the country. And it's precisely because we've been able to create a grassroots movement that I was successful in 2008 and I think will be successful this time. Now if you ask me would I love to take some of the big money out of politics? I would. Unfortunately, right now, partly because of Supreme Court rulings and a bunch of decisions out there…

LAUER: Right.

Pres. OBAMA: …it is very hard to be able to get your message out without having some resources.

LAUER: Maybe the better question is how will you spend the money? By all accounts you can raise a lot of money for this campaign. Some people say up to a billion dollars. We've just seen in Florida on the Republican side a lot of money spent, about 100 percent of it spent on extremely negative personal ads. If you raise a billion dollars to keep this job, can we expect the same kind of negativity coming from that money?

Pres. OBAMA: What I can tell you is in 2008, part of the reason that we were successful is we ran an affirmative campaign about my vision for where the United States should go. And I think what Americans want to hear more than anything else is how are you going to help me right now? If they're hearing a persuasive argument about how we are going to recreate a solid path for middle class success in this country, then I think I'll win regardless of the negative ads coming in.

LAUER: Then to that end, and this may sound like a bit Pollyanna, Mr. President.

Pres. OBAMA: Right.

LAUER: But when a Republican nominee is chosen…

Pres. OBAMA: Hm.

LAUER: …would you agree to meeting with that person, whether it's Governor Romney or Speaker Gingrich or whoever, and getting together with that person and talking about how the two of you plan to conduct yourselves over the course of this campaign? I think the American people would like that. Would you agree to that?

Pres. OBAMA: You know, I think that you'll be able to see how we conduct ourselves in the campaign. I think it'll be consistent with how I conducted myself in 2008 and hopefully how I've conducted myself as president of the United States. One of the worries we have, obviously, in the next campaign, is that there are so many of these so-called super PACs, these independent expenditures that are going to be out there, there's going to be just a lot of money floating around. And I guarantee you a bunch of that's going to be negative. But it's not going to be enough just to say, `The other guy's a bum,' you've got to explain to the American people what your plan is to make sure that there are good jobs at good wages and that this economy is growing over the long term. And whoever wins that argument I think is going to be the next president.

If Lauer were really concerned with the President running a positive campaign without attack ads, he could have brought up a study reported by Science Daily days before the 2008 elections:

The 2008 presidential campaign, as reflected in candidates' television spots, has been one of the most negative campaigns in history. A University of Missouri professor analyzed this year's candidates' television spots, including last night's 30-minute ad by Sen. Barack Obama and found that only one other campaign matched this level of negativity.

William Benoit, professor of communication in the College of Arts and Science, found that in television spots from 1952-2004, candidates averaged 40 percent attacks in their ad statements. In this year's race, the statements in Obama's ads were 68 percent negative compared to 62 percent for Sen. John McCain.

"The only campaign in history that matches this level of negativity was in the first ever presidential TV spot campaign when Dwight Eisenhower had negative attacks in 69 percent of his ad statements," Benoit said.

Since Obama spent more money in 2008 than any other presidential candidate in American history, this means he spent more money on attack ads as well. In fact, nobody's close.

While Lauer made a point about such ads, and tried to get Obama to sit down with whoever his opponent is going to be and "[talk] about how the two of you plan to conduct yourselves over the course of this campaign," maybe he could have brought actual statistics into the equation to refute the President's contention that he "ran an affirmative campaign" in 2008.

Not surprisingly, that didn't happen because the Today show host quickly changed the subject:

LAUER: Which leads me well into this next question because I have talked to so many people over the last couple of years, President Obama, who were huge supporters of yours back in 2008.

Pres. OBAMA: Right.

LAUER: And today they're not sure.

The moral of the story is that negative ads will once again be a press focus during this campaign.

But much as they did in 2008, the Obama-loving media will do everything in their power to shield the current White House resident from any criticism regarding his paid attacks while constantly carping and whining about what his opponent is doing.

Nice job, Matt. That's some fine journalism there.

For more examples of Lauer's mastery, please see NBC's Lauer to Obama: Can Mitt Romney 'Identify With the Middle Class?' and NBC's Lauer Chats With Obama About GOP Candidates 'Pummeling Each Other': 'Does This Help You?'

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

Sitting through the Republican debate on Saturday night with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos was just painful, from beginning to end. Some of it was just political Ambien.  But when it was finally over, there was just one question. Who in the GOP in his/her right mind invites a historically shameless Democratic spin controller like Stephanopoulos to “moderate” a primary debate like this – ever?

The only thing that can be said in defense of that horrible decision was turning to NBC the next morning and seeing “moderator” David Gregory be even more slanted in his questioning. ABC slanted the ideological questions in their debate by a ratio of six questions from the left to each one from the right. The NBC ratio was eight to one.

Why must the Republicans keep handing over their debate stage in the primary season to the people who desperately want them all to bumble, stumble, and fall on their face on national TV?

In the ABC debate – an event held for Republican voters presumably to decide who is reliably conservative enough to win the nomination – ABC asked three questions from the conservative perspective, and twenty from the left (25 were ideologically neutral). Twelve of the 48 questions, or 25 percent of the night’s total, were devoted to promoting contraception and gay marriage, so trite and repetitive that finally the audience booed them down.

Is this what happened in the Democratic debates last time? Were candidates Obama and Clinton badgered about governments promoting contraceptives, even to children? What about abortion, and the candidates’ radical views? In fact, in the entire 20 Democratic debates in 2007 and 2008 monitored by the MRC’s Culture and Media Institute, there were only seven questions about abortion…in the entire campaign.

But the Republicans get Stephanopoulos the Partisan asking Mitt Romney, “Do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” By the sixth follow-up question, the audience was booing.

Diane Sawyer pounded Romney with the typical homosexual activist sitting at home. “Would you weigh in on the Yahoo question about what you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say, ‘We simply want to have the right to,” as the — as the person who wrote the e-mail said — “we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships.’ In human terms, what would you say to them?”

Because, as America knows, opposing the homosexual lifestyle makes one not just insensitive, but inhumane.

Many Republicans loved Newt Gingrich when he slammed the ABC moderators for their obvious bias. No one, he pointed out, ever asks about the secular Obama progressives driving the Catholic Church out of the adoption process by demanding they place children with gay couples. “The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.” 

Over on NBC, Gregory and his co-conspirators asked 25 questions from the liberal perspective, and just three from the right. It was extra-skewed by Gregory including quotes liberal activists on Facebook. “And this from Martin Montalvo, because we do have a spending crisis but also a lot of people hurting. He writes this: 'With more Americans on government assistance than ever before, is it un-American for Americans to feel relieved when the government helps them?'"

How perverse is this question? More than 45 million Americans are on food stamps, a record high. It’s “un-American” to question this ever-increasing load of government dependency? 

Boston media hack Andy Hiller demanded both Romney and Santorum needed to become “a voice for increasing gay rights.” He even made it personal with Santorum. “What if you had a son who came to you and said he was gay?” The applause line would be “What if you had a son who came to you and admitted he was a conservative?”

But worst of all, these “moderators” couldn’t utter a single question that was negative about Barack Obama. Not one.

Instead, Hiller pestered Rick Perry to agree with a Washington Post article written by John McCain right after the Tucson shootings, that Obama “is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals.”

These are not moderators. They are Obama partisans. Again: Why is the GOP putting up with this? 

Saturday's NBC Nightlly News hyped a poll finding that 64 percent of Californians would be willing to pay more taxes "if the money went to public schools." (Video below)

Substiute anchor Kate included a plug for the report in the opening teaser:

Tax hike: Why people in one state are saying bring it on. Tonight, why they're willing to pay more.

Before a commercial break, she plugged the segment again:

When Nightly News continues on this Saturday evening, why some people are saying: Go ahead, raise my taxes.

As she introduced the story, after noting that in California the state is "struggling to live within its means," Snow added:

But something unusual is happening in California. The cuts have been so severe that some people are actually saying they could live with higher taxes.

After a clip of a school teacher complaining about the budget cuts, correspondent George Lewis declared:

And now, Californians are contemplating something that would have been unthinkable previously. In a poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California, 64 percent of Californians said they would pay more taxes if the money went to public schools.

After a soundbite of former Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg arguing that Californians would be willing to support an increase in some taxes if they believe the money is not wasted, Lewis warned that anti-tax sentiment may yet thwart plans to raise taxes:

GEORGE LEWIS: But this is the state where a guy named Howard Jarvis led a taxpayer revolt in 1978, passing an initiative called Proposition 13, dramatically slashing property taxes. His legacy lives on with organized opposition to any new proposed tax hikes.

JON COUPAL, HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION: I think the public reaction would be very negative. California voters have rejected the last seven proposed state-wide tax increases.

Lewis concluded:

California has been hit harder by budget cuts than most other states. And the looming battle will test  whether the people here have had a change of heart about taxes and the value of government services.

Below are both video and a complete transcript of the report from the Saturday, December 31, NBC Nightly News:

KATE SNOW, IN OPENING TEASER: Tax hike: Why people in one state are saying bring it on. Tonight, why they're willing to pay more.

…

SNOW, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK: When Nightly News continues on this Saturday evening, why some people are saying: Go ahead, raise my taxes.

…

KATE SNOW: Starting tomorrow, a big new round of budget cuts will take place in California, which, like so many other states, is struggling to live within its means. But something unusual is happening in California. The cuts have been so severe that some people are actually saying they could live with higher taxes. More tonight from NBC's George Lewis.

GEORGE LEWIS: A lot of glitter has gone out of the Golden State. A tough economy and high unemployment have left the public coffers empty and the governor announcing $1 billion in painful cuts.

GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN (D-CA): This is not the way we'd like to run California, but we have to live within our means.

LEWIS: Everything from welfare programs to libraries to education, one of the areas hardest hit. With widespread protests over tuition hikes at state universities, and elementary schools cutting the number of teaching days.

TRACY OUTMAN, CALIFORNIA TEACHER: These are the kids that are going to be running our country someday. Are they really going to be ready?

LEWIS: And now, Californians are contemplating something that would have been unthinkable previously. In a poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California, 64 percent of Californians said they would pay more taxes if the money went to public schools. To help the schools and other vital services, Californians will get to vote on at least one initiative next year to raise state taxes. Governor Brown has filed an initiative that would increase sales taxes one-half cent and hike income taxes on millionaires by as much as two percent.

ROBERT HERTZBERG, FORMER CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY SPEAKER: What we know is folks are willing to pay for the bills as long as they know their money's not being wasted.

LEWIS: But this is the state where a guy named Howard Jarvis led a taxpayer revolt in 1978, passing an initiative called Proposition 13, dramatically slashing property taxes. His legacy lives on with organized opposition to any new proposed tax hikes.

JON COUPAL, HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION: I think the public reaction would be very negative. California voters have rejected the last seven proposed state-wide tax increases.

LEWIS: California has been hit harder by budget cuts than most other states. And the looming battle will test  whether the people here have had a change of heart about taxes and the value of government services. George Lewis, NBC News, Los Angeles.
 

Based on a report filed earlier today and time-stamped 8:16 p.m. as of when this post was prepared, it would appear that the last thing Associated Press writers Charles Babington and Kasie Hunt want is a competitive Republican primary season, and that they'll twist reality and the numbers to fit their meme. Oh, and in case you haven't gotten the establishment press memo, Rick Perry is still Mitt Romney's only real competitor.

Funny, I don't remember the AP or anyone else in the establishment press calling Hillary Clinton's nomination "inevitable" in October 2007, when, according to Real Clear Politics (RCP), Ms. Clinton was outpolling Barack Obama by an average of 24 points in 18 polls (and by probably more over John Edwards, though that info wasn't available at RCP).

Though it's not definitive because of the passage of time and the disappearance or archiving of reports, a Google News Archive search from September 1 – December 31, 2007 on [Hillary inevitable "Assocated Press"] (typed exactly as indicated between brackets) returned no story posing the possibility of Mrs. Clinton's inevitability. But in 2011 on the Republican side, Babington and Hunt have gone full-bore for a Romney wrap-up (bolds and numbered tags are mine):

Romney inevitable? Perry weighs TV ads to slow him

Mitt Romney seems firmly in command [1] in a Republican presidential field that hasn't figured out how to stop him.

Twelve weeks before the first party voting, the GOP establishment is coalescing around the former Massachusetts governor. He has more campaign experience, money and organization than anyone else. He showed again this week that he's the best debater in the bunch. [2] And President Barack Obama's campaign is treating him almost as the presumptive nominee [3] – even though Romney still faces challenges in some early voting states.

The biggest question in Republican circles is when and how Texas Gov. Rick Perry will use his own substantial campaign funds to buy TV ads hitting Romney's record on health care, abortion, gay rights and job creation.

Perry's campaign, which seems best-positioned to challenge Romney, dropped broad hints Wednesday that the moment is near.

… The tone is different up the coast in New Hampshire. Among rank-and-file Republicans there, even those who favor other candidates have a sense that Romney has gained an air of inevitability.

… Although Republican and Democratic insiders see Romney as the front-runner, several signs give Perry and the other rivals hope. Most Republican polls show Romney falling well short of a majority of support, [4] as restless voters consider one alternative after another.

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota surged in mid-summer, then fell as Perry briefly soared. In recent polls, former pizza company executive Herman Cain has ranked as Romney's top rival, [5] although few campaign strategists believe he will be the nominee. [6]

An NBC-Marist College poll in Iowa found that tea party supporters prefer Cain. In national polls, combined support for Cain, Perry and Bachmann exceeds Romney's support. [7]

Seriously, you almost have to wonder what planet Babington and Hunt are on, because so many items they claim to be facts are simply either vast understatements, erroneous, delusional, or some combination:

• [1] — Romney's "firm command," as carried currently at RCP, is all of 2.7 points over Herman Cain. More on that shortly.
• [2] — Does anyone recall consensus conclusions that Romney has clearly "won" many or most of the debates so clearly that the AP's "best debater" tag is justified? Neither do I. Search through top-tier conservative blogs and you won't find evidence obviously supporting Babington's and Hunt's fantastic notion.
• [3] — Romney supporters won't like reading this, but there is plenty of reason to believe that the Obama campaign wants Romney to be the GOP's nominee because they believe they can defeat him. So of course they're going to play along with the AP's and the rest of the establishment press's "inevitability" game.
• [4] — "Well short of a majority of support"? How about "not even averaging one-fourth support"? Romney's recent polling average at RCP is 22.0%; he hasn't polled above 25% in any poll carried at RCP since mid-July.
• [5] — How nice of the AP to wait until Paragraph 11 to mention the name of the current GOP runner-up at RCP. Just this evening, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll came out showing Cain leading Romney by 27%-23%, with all other rivals, including Perry, to whom the AP report devoted seven paragraphs, trailing by over 10%.
• [6] — See Item [5]. If polling is supposed to ultimately reflect voting, why do "few campaign strategists believe he (Cain) will be the nominee"? Maybe the better question is why anyone bothers polling if they're going to completely ignore the results.
• [7] — The combined RCP figures for Cain, Perry, and Bachmann don't merely "exceed" Romney's support. At a combined 38.4% vs. Romney's 22%, they're within striking distance of doubling it, and even closer thanks to the new poll mentioned in Item [5].

Nothing is "inevitable" about this race, and if Charles Babington, Kasie Hunt, and the Associated Press haven't figured that out yet, they should spare us all the pain of reading and listening to their syndicated reports and just quit the news business. If they know better and are falsely and deliberately reporting "inevitability" which clearly doesn't exist, they need to tell us why.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

While morning and evening newscasts from all three broadcast networks in the last few days have focused on anti-Mormon sentiment within the Republican Party, FNC's Special Report with Bret Baier on Monday noted that self-identified Republican voters are substantially more willing to accept a Mormon President compared to Democrats.

FNC correspondent Carl Cameron observed that Democrats are "least tolerant" compared to Republicans and independents as he recounted the findings of a Quinnipiac poll:

But a Quinnipiac poll of voters taken this year says fully 68 percent of Republicans are comfortable with a Mormon President, as are 64 percent of independents. Democrats are the least tolerant, with 49 percent comfortable with a Mormon President.

By contrast, on Monday's Good Morning America, ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl cited an ABC News poll as he only recounted numbers for Republicans:

In an ABC News poll earlier this year, the overwhelming majority of Republicans said a candidate's faith should not be a factor, but 20 percent – that's one out of every five – said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he is Mormon.

On the previous night's World News Sunday, ABC's David Kerley had similarly resisted divulging the views of Democrats:

DAVID KERLEY: We crunched the numbers from four years ago. With nearly half of the Republican primary defining themselves as evangelicals, only 20 percent of them voted for Romney.

…

DAVID MUIR: David, you mentioned where evangelicals stand, but Americans as a whole, have they moved at all, in your opinion, on the Mormon faith?

KERLEY: They have. The Republicans have, as well, David. In fact, our latest poll showed about 20 percent of those leaning Republican say they are less likely to vote for a Mormon, but, back in 2008, that number was 36 percent, so it certainly has dropped significantly. But for Romney, it's those evangelicals he's got to deal with.

On Monday's The Early Show on CBS, correspondent Whit Johnson noted polling on Republican voters from four years ago after Mitt Romney gave a speech addressing his religious beliefs, and more recently:

Polls after that speech showed that 52 percent of Republican primary voters said that most people they knew would vote for a Mormon. [52 percent say yes, 33 percent no] Fast forward four years, and not much has changed, with about half saying the same. [45 percent say yes, 36 percent no]

On Sunday's Today show, after noting that in 2007 Romney had to reassure "conservative doubters," NBC's Mike Viqueira showed on screen the poll numbers on the views toward Mormons of several religious groups, as he highlightd the views of evangelical Christians:

A recent survey shows about a third of white evangelicals would be less likely to support a candidate if they were Mormon. Despite the efforts of Romney and others, those numbers have hardly changed since the last campaign.

Below are transcripts of relevant portions of several stories from ABC, CBS, NBC and FNC from Sunday and Monday:

#From the Monday, October 10, Good Morning America on ABC:

JONATHAN KARL: In an ABC News poll earlier this year, the overwhelming majority of Republicans said a candidate's faith should not be a factor, but  20 percent – that's one out of every five – said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he is Mormon. And, George, on Sunday, both Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain were directly asked if Mormons are Christians, and both of them declined to answer that question directly.

#From the October 9, World News Sunday on ABC:

DAVID KERLEY: We crunched the numbers from four years ago. With nearly half of the Republican primary defining themselves as evangelicals, only 20 percent of them voted for Romney.

…

DAVID MUIR: David, you mentioned where evangelicals stand, but Americans as a whole, have they moved at all, in your opinion, on the Mormon faith?

KERLEY: They have. The Republicans have, as well, David. In fact, our latest poll showed about 20 percent of those leaning Republican say they are less likely to vote for a Mormon, but, back in 2008, that number was 36 percent, so it certainly has dropped significantly. But for Romney, it's those evangelicals he's got to deal with.

#From the Monday, October 10, The Early Show on CBS:

WHIT JOHNSON: This issue has followed Romney since his first run for President in 2008. He attempted to quell the concerns then with a speech on faith in America.

MITT ROMNEY: Let me assure you that no authorities at my church or any other church for that matter will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.JOHNSON: Polls after that speech showed that 52 percent of Republican primary voters said that most people they knew would vote for a Mormon. [52 percent say yes, 33 percent no] Fast forward four years, and not much has changed, with about half saying the same. [45 percent say yes, 36 percent no]

#From the Monday, October 10, NBC Nightly News:

CHUCK TODD: Rommey, who addressed the issue of his faith in the last campaign, said such attacks damage the Republican Party.

MITT ROMNEY, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Poisonous language doesn't advance our cause. It's never softened a single heart, nor changed a single mind.

TODD: At issue for evangelical Christians is how Christ fits into Mormonism. While Mormons share a belief in salvation through Jesus, their own scriptures – the Book of Mormon – expands on the fundamental Christian teachings of the Bible.

RICHARD LAND, THE ETHICS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION: Anybody who reads the Book of Mormon or reads the teachings of the Mormon Church, if they're an orthodox Christian, they're going to come away saying this is not apostles creed, nicine (sp?) creed, standard, boiler plate Christianity.

#From the Sunday, October 9, Today show on NBC:

MIKE VIQUEIRA: It isn't the first time Romney has had to defend his faith. As a candidate in 2007, trying to assure many of the same conservative doubters.

MITT ROMNEY, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If I'm fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest.

VIQUEIRA: A recent survey shows about a third of white evangelicals would be less likely to support a candidate if they were Mormon. Despite the efforts of Romney and others, those numbers have hardly changed since the last campaign.

#From the Monday, October 10, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC:

CARL CAMERON: The pastor defends his views, citing a year old survey of 1,000 Protestant pastors taken by an evangelical group.

PASTOR ROBERT JEFFRESS, FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH DALLAS: Three out of four agreed with the position that Mormonism is not Christianity, Mormons are not Christians. This is no new news.

CAMERON: But a Quinnipiac poll of voters taken this year says fully 68 percent Republicans are comfortable with a Mormon President, as are 64 percent of independents. Democrats are the least tolerant, with 49 percent comfortable with a Mormon President.

But Sunday on Meet the Press, in a remark I expect will not be relayed much if at all by the rest of the establishment press, Alan Greenspan said that default is impossible — which puts him directly at odds with the rest of Washington's elites and Ben Bernanke, his successor as Federal Reserve chairman. On July 14, Bernanke said: "A default on … (U.S. Treasury) securities would throw the financial system … potentially into chaos."

Wait until you see the reason why Greenspan says default is impossible, as carried at CNBC's web site in an item by Patrick Allen:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on Sunday ruled out the chance of a US default following S&P's decision to downgrade America's credit rating.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default" said Greenspan on NBC's Meet the Press.

"What I think the S&P thing did was to hit a nerve that there's something basically bad going on, and it's hit the self-esteem of the United States, the psyche" said Greenspan.

Well, Alan, I don't know exactly why you said what you said, but perhaps you used the same "logic" employed by Yves Smith at the New York Times in April:

The United States is simply not at risk of default. Default is impossible for a sovereign currency issuer.

As I wrote at the time in reaction to Ms. Smith's contention:

It must be my fertile imagination which found the following currency-issuing nations which have defaulted in past few decades:

• Mexico, 1982 — “In the wake of Mexico’s default, most commercial banks reduced significantly or halted new lending to Latin America.”
• “On August 17, 1998, the Russian government devalues the ruble, defaults on domestic debt, and declares a moratorium on payment to foreign creditors.”
• “Argentina defaulted on part of its external debt at the beginning of 2002.”

Then there are nations which have repudiated their debts. As seen here (go to the second page of the document), “Mexico (1914), Russia (1917), China (1949), Czechoslovakia (1952), and Cuba (1960) repudiated their debts after revolutions or communist takeovers. Some countries, such as Austria (1802, 1868) and Russia (1839), defaulted after losing wars; others, such as Spain (1831) and China (1921), defaulted after enduring major civil wars.”

If Greenspan, Smith et al are additionally leaning on the fact that the dollar is still the world's reserve currency, that's not a long-term given either. And just because your country wants to issue debt, that doesn't mean anyone will want to buy it. Even if investors are willing to buy a overindebted country's new bonds, it doesn't mean that they won't demand interest rates that are much higher than risk-free.

Much like bankrupt persons with the delusion that they're okay because they still have unused checks in their checkbook, Alan Greenspan apparently thinks the Fed can create money out of thin air forever without dire consequences as long as the Fed's computers still have power. And here I thought he was old enough to remember the Weimar Republic.

I suspect a comment such as this would have received pretty wide play by now if it had been uttered during the Bush administration after Greenspan's retirement.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

 On Thursday’s NBC Nightly News, correspondent Kelly O’Donnell filed a report recounting recent criticisms of Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann. The report included a clip of Bachmann mispronouncing the word "chutzpah," a video clip produced by gay activists who visited her and her husband’s counseling clinic, and a pledge she signed that included a hyperbolic statement about slavery which has been distorted by liberal critics.

After anchor Brian Williams set up the report by noting that Bachmann is getting "closer scrutiny" now that her poll numbers are up, O’Donnell began her report by highlighting the Minnesota Congresswoman mispronouncing the "ch" in "chutzpah" like the "ch" in "change":

KELLY O’DONNELL: And on nighttime cable, the GOP contender hammers the President, always a magnet for attention and criticism, like when she mispronounced the Yiddish word "chutzpah."

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): Because he has a lot of chutzpah. He spent a trillion dollars on the stimulus – it failed.

O’Donnell soon informed viewers of a pledge Bachmann signed in which she promised to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. At one point, the lengthy document highlighted the high out-of-wedlock birth rate of the black population by hyperbolically noting that black families were more likely to live with both parents during the slavery era than in modern times.

As if the statement were meant to be a defense of slavery, O’Donnell highlighted the exaggerated criticism of Bachmann for signing the overall document:

O’DONNELL: But on a separate page, the group made a startling claim. A child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household than a child born after President Obama's election. Aides say Bachmann signed only a portion of the document. The group later removed the slavery reference.

BACHMANN: Certainly it would be absurd for anyone to think that a child raised in slavery would be better than not. That's a terrible thing to say.

After including a statement by Bachmann from 2004 in which she spoke out against promoting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, O’Donnell highlighted video filmed recently by gay activists who visited a counseling clinic of the Bachmann’s:

O’DONNELL: And there’s new criticism aimed at the counseling clinic run by Bachmann and her psychologist husband, Marcus. A gay rights activist took undercover video there last month and says he was told prayer and therapy could make him straight.

On Monday, ABC's World News had led with the story.

Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Thursday, July 14, NBC Nightly News :

BRIAN WILLIAMS: To presidential politics tonight, and, while it's way early yet, Michele Bachmann has emerged as something of a rock star on the right, at the top of the polls in the state where she was born in Iowa. And she's gaining nationally as well. But as any front-runner will tell you, with that status comes closer scrutiny, and that's exactly what's now happening to Michele Bachmann. The story tonight from NBC's Kelly O'Donnell.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): That's what we're trying to figure out, what would be-

KELLY O’DONNELL: Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's day job is wrapped up in the debt limit showdown.

BACHMANN: Well, I’m no on raising the debt ceiling right now.

O’DONNELL: And on nighttime cable, the GOP contender hammers the President, always a magnet for attention and criticism, like when she mispronounced the Yiddish word "chutzpah."

BACHMANN: Because he has a lot of chutzpah. He spent a trillion dollars on the stimulus – it failed.

O’DONNELL: And social issues are causing heat for her campaign. Last week, Bachmann signed an Iowa conservative group's 14-point marriage vow in which she pledged vigorous opposition to same-sex marriage or any change to traditional marriage. But on a separate page, the group made a startling claim. A child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household than a child born after President Obama's election. Aides say Bachmann signed only a portion of the document. The group later removed the slavery reference.

BACHMANN: Certainly it would be absurd for anyone to think that a child raised in slavery would be better than not. That’s a terrible thing to say.

O’DONNELL: Bachmann's past comments against homosexuality are also getting scrutiny. In a 2004 speech, she referenced the devil and said homosexuals need compassion.

BACHMANN AUDIO: It's a very sad life. It's part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay. It's anything but gay.

O’DONNELL: And there’s new criticism aimed at the counseling clinic run by Bachmann and her psychologist husband, Marcus. A gay rights activist took undercover video there last month and says he was told prayer and therapy could make him straight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE THERAPIST: I really am going to recommend that we start working on how you can develop your attraction towards women.

O’DONNELL: Bachmann has avoided questions on the clinic. Aides say she cannot respond because of patient confidentiality. Bachmann's social views help make her a front-runner in Iowa. Aides tell me they'll release her latest fund-raising figures tomorrow and claim they're pleased with the numbers. Kelly O'Donnell, NBC News, Washington.

 Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News highlighted a movement by those who object to federal regulations blocking Americans from buying the traditional incandescent light bulb. Although he plugged the report by calling one of the legal but unpopular bulbs a "rallying point against government interference in people’s lives," anchor Brian Williams neglected to note that Democrats controlled Congress in 2007 as he introduced the report by informing viewers that President Bush signed the bill into law that year:

Back in 2007, unbeknownst to most Americans, Congress passed a law phasing out regular incandescent light bulbs. President George W. Bush signed the bill, and the phaseout starts next January. The idea of this forced switch to the new bulbs and the light they give off and how long some of them take to warm up, has irritated a lot of folks who consider it the ultimate example of intrusive government reaching into our homes and lives. An effort in Congress to reverse it failed just this week. But in Texas, they're not giving up the fight.

Reporter Kevin Tibbles went on to inform viewers of an effort in Texas to get around federal regulations and encourage the production of traditional light bulbs in their state.

Williams, who has a history of devoting time on his show to environmentaly issues, notably once before warned about the disadvantages of the newer bulbs that consumers may be unhappy about after the ban takes effect.

Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Wednesday, July 13, NBC Nightly News :

BRIAN WILLIAMS, IN OPENING TEASER: Light bulb revolt: With the deadline looming that forces us to stop using regular light bulbs, some are fighting back against using the new ones.

…

WILLIAMS, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK: When we come back here tonight after a break, how those squiggly shaped energy-saving light bulbs are becoming a rallying point against government interference in people’s lives.

…

WILLIAMS: Back in 2007, unbeknownst to most Americans, Congress passed a law phasing out regular incandescent light bulbs. President George W. Bush signed the bill, and the phaseout starts next January. The idea of this forced switch to the new bulbs and the light they give off and how long some of them take to warm up, has irritated a lot of folks who consider it the ultimate example of intrusive government reaching into our homes and lives. An effort in Congress to reverse it failed just this week. But in Texas, they're not giving up the fight. Our report tonight from NBC's Kevin Tibbles.

KEVIN TIBBLES: From his lighting store in Fort Worth, John Patterson takes a dim view of the upcoming ban on traditional incandescent bulbs.

JOHN PATTERSON, LIGHT STORE OWNER: I believe that Americans ought to have a choice and be able to have a free choice to decide what they want to do with themselves.

TIBBLES: So Patterson supports a new Texas law aimed at circumventing the ban by allowing "Made in Texas" incandescents to be sold in Texas, authored by State Representative George Lavender.

STATE REP. GEORGE LAVENDER (R-TX): We're tired of the federal government micromanaging our lives.

TIBBLES: Many still love the bulb that was invented 140 years ago. The traditional bulb we all grew up with.

PATTERSON: They call it an Edison base or a medium base. Goes in a regular light bulb socket.

TIBBLES: Okay, and the other one?

PATTERSON: This is the compact fluorescent light. This particular one is a 15-Watt, the new kid on the block.

TIBBLES: Whoa, a lot brighter.

PATTERSON: A lot brighter.

TIBBLES: Does anybody say that’s a little harsh?

PATTERSON: Well, if they're too harsh, you can turn down the wattage.

TIBBLES: While the light may differ some, the new light bulbs are more energy-efficient.

STEVEN NADEL, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY: The old light bulbs are really electric heaters that give off a little bit of light – 90 percent of the energy is given off by heat.

TIBBLES: But the new bulbs also contain small amounts of mercury.

REP. TED POE (R-TX): If I dropped this light bulb, we would have to evacuate the House of Representatives, according to the EPA light bulb law.

TIBBLES: One group – Freedom Action – opposes the ban with a video of a black marketeer dealing in the contraband of the future.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN IN AD: An incandescent light bulb.

TIBBLES: There is one problem with selling incandescent light bulbs in Texas with the words "Made in Texas" stamped on it.. There aren’t any light bulbs of any kind made in Texas. But then a light bulb went off in George Lavender's head.

LAVENDER: If we attract light bulb manufacturers to the state of Texas, then it's a great jobs program.

TIBBLES: The message in Texas: Don't mess with the light bulbs in the Lone Star State. Kevin Tibbles, NBC News, Fort Worth.