Why is this relevant? Well, as another IBD editorial on Thursday noted, EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz, who became deservedly infamous last week when his public articulation of his "Crucify Them" philosophy towards enforcement of environmental laws and regulations in a speech a year ago was exposed, really loves the film, which industry officials have shown is riddled with deceptions and outright falsehoods. Not only that, he was also involved in making it:

---

Armendariz said in the same speech his proudest moment in his first year at EPA was to have its enforcers watch “Gasland,” an anti-fracking propaganda documentary financed by the government of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who also opposes all U.S. drilling. Armendariz collaborated with its makers, and got his name in the credits.

IBD could have and perhaps should have gone much further in its criticism of Antagonistic Al. Armendariz, whose resume communicates what should be a high level of relevant scientific expertise, had to throw any fealty he had to the scientific method overboard by becoming associated with the "Gasland" and praising its final result.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America's Energy In Depth blog thoroughly debunked so much of what is in "Gasland" in June 2010 that one almost has to conclude that the list of truths in the film was miles shorter than the list of false assertions and contentions. The film misstated facts about provisions in laws passed by Congress; misrepresented the degree to which fracking is currently regulated; completely miscommunicated key facts relating to the fracking process; recycled long-discredited environmentalist memes; and in at least seven instances, in the blog post's words, was "just making stuff up." In February 2011, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ignored industry objections to the film's eligibility for an Academy Award. Well, at least it didn't win. Sorry, Hugo.

Further, it would appear that:

• One of the film's "hooks," namely that producer Josh Fox was offered $100,000 for the right to drill on his land, is highly questionable at best and complete fiction at worst. This claim was parroted in a June 1, 2010 Associated Press story, which also relayed Fox's claim (with what I believe to be little or no skepticism) that he was still receiving such offers. A separate EID blog post on June 7, 2011 by Tom Shepstone makes a compelling case that it's virtually impossible that Fox received such an offer, and that if he did, it couldn't have come from the company whose documents are, according to Shepstone, the only ones which conform "with the format and wording of the document displayed in Gasland."
• Another dramatic hook, namely "the much-vaunted and disturbing image of flammable running water from faucets," is similarly bogus in the supposed "lesson" it tries to communicate: "Well yes, apparently many can (do this) – but sadly for Gasland, for reasons au naturelle. Fox highlights the instance of a flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colorado pinning the blame on gas development. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission however disagree(s), maintaining, 'Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [natural occurring] in origin” and they found “no indications of oil and gas related impacts to the water well.'"
• In general, filmmaker Josh Fox is a guy who isn't exactly wedded to the concepts of total accuracy and thorough vetting, having been quoted as follows: "I’m sorry but art is more important than politics. … Politics is people lying to you and simplifying everything; art is about contradictions."

Armendariz's involvement with "Gasland," especially as an alleged scientist, his praise of its deeply deceptive content, and his eagerness to brainwash his subordinates with it, all should make it obvious that he is unfit to hold his EPA post or any other position involving regulation.

Following the lead of the Obama administration, which IBD correctly asserted is protecting Armendariz, the establishment press is ignoring the aforementioned crucial elements of this story. Just two examples: The Associated Press, which on Thursday covered the EPA administrator's "apology" while erroneously reporting that Armendariz's outlook only applies to "bad players" who are "not complying with the law (Christopher Helman at Forbes made mincemeat of that claim by recounting the EPA's fantasy-based attempted crucifixion of Range Resources), has done no follow-up story in the intervening 2-1/2 days. Similarly and just as incorrectly, John M. Broder at the New York Times's Green Blog on Thursday claimed that Armendariz's crucifixions remarks targeted "some violators of pollution laws." Helman demonstrated that Range Resources violated no laws, and thanks to its corporate spine eventually forced an EPA courtroom retreat.

What's described here exemplifies yet again how reading key stories and editorials at Investor's Business Daily is indispensable if one wishes to be truly informed, because it so often addresses and exposes matters the establishment press should be covering — and won't — and is absolutely fearless in calling them out.

As to Armendariz's continued presence at EPA, I wrote on Thursday that "If this guy holds onto his job — forget the 'apology,' which can’t possibly undo Armendariz’s outlook as practiced — we will know all we need to know about the Obama administration’s regulatory mindset."

Well, now we know, and there can be no remaining doubt.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

In covering GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's appearance at the annual National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis yesterday, Associated Press aka Adminstration's Press reporter Charles Babington pretended to know nothing about President Barack Obama's opposition to basic Second Amendment rights. At least I hope he was pretending, because Obama's hostility to the right to keep and bear arms is longstanding, well-known, and did not stop when he swore an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" on January 20, 2009.

I have excerpted Babington's first four paragraphs plus three others. I will follow that with a rundown of Obama's pre-2008 gun-hostile record, his meeting with the Brady group in May 2011, and this "little" thing called Operation Fast and Furious Babington and his establishment media colleagues have mostly deliberately ignored for well over a year (bolds are mine throughout this post; HT to a frequent emailer):

---

Romney: Obama will erode the rights of gun owners

The presidential campaign briefly veered from the emotional Mommy Wars on Friday to the back-burner issue of gun rights, with Mitt Romney telling the National Rifle Association that President Barack Obama is not protecting gun owners – even though the topic has rarely arisen during his time in office.

Without offering details, Romney said that Obama would like to erode gun owners' rights.

"We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners," Romney told thousands of NRA members in St. Louis for their annual convention. "President Obama has not. I will."

Obama has said relatively little about firearms, deeply disappointing gun-control groups. Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said the president's record "makes clear the he supports and respects the Second Amendment, and we'll fight back against any attempts to mislead voters."

… Asked for details to support the claims, Romney's campaign said Obama has appointed judges, including Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who have supported moves such as placing temporary limits on importing semiautomatic assault weapons. The campaign said Attorney General Eric Holder has not adequately backed people's rights to own and use firearms.

But gun-control groups such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence have expressed dismay over the lack of attention to their concerns. In its most recent assessment, in 2010, the group flunked on Obama on all seven issues it deemed important.

Campaigning in 2008, Obama said: "I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. … There are some commonsense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

Well, Charles, if it's "details" you want, details you'll get.

Here is a rundown of Obama's gun-hostile history which I posted in late October 2008 by reference to a more complete rundown prepared by the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action:

• Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.
• Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.
• He voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
• He has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.
• Obama also supports local gun bans in Chicago and other cities.
• Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.
• Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.
• Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.
• Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.
• Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping, one-gun-a-month sales restrictions, a ban on inexpensive handguns, gun owner licensing and gun registration, and mandatory waiting periods.
• Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.

My post also notes that Babington's then-colleague Nedra Pickler wrote in February 2008, with no sense of irony, that Obama "said he does not intend to take away people’s guns," but "voiced support for the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns." But after the Supreme Court's Heller ruling overturning the DC ban in late June, Obama said "he supports the decision."

My post goes reference another very important and less-known matter, namely that Obama worked with a group which conspired to create the artificial appearance of legal scholar-based opposition to Second Amendment rights, and almost succeeded:

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

(The Review) solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment. ….. Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

….. The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times.

….. The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) ….. expand(ed) its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation.

….. The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms.

….. The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

If that's not enough for Mr. Babington, let's look at a May 2011 example of Obama stealth (HT Hot Air) which seems to run in the same vein as his promise to Russia's Medvedev that he'll have more flexibility" after winning reelection (internal links were in original):

While the Obama administration said it is committed to gun rights, a gun control advocate has spilled the beans, saying Obama is using stealth to work on firearms restrictions.

The Washington Post did a story on Steve Croley, the White House gun control czar. Croley is considered to be an expert on regulation and tort law. His approach to gun control appears to be a regulatory one.

According to the article, Jim and Sarah Brady visited Capital Hill on March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan; to push for a ban on "large magazines."

The couple reportedly were meeting with press secretary, Jay Carney, when, according to Sarah Brady, the President came in. She said the President told her he wanted to talk about gun control and "fill us in that it was very much on his agenda."

She went on to say Obama told her, "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

The statement reinforces an article in the Huffington Post describing how the administration is exploring ways to bypass Congress and enact gun control through executive action.

The Department of Justice reportedly is holding meetings discussing the White House's options for enacting regulations on its own or through adjoining agencies and departments. "Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. "

I guess Mr. Babington might be able to claim that he wasn't really lying when he wrote that the topic of gun control "has rarely arisen," and that "Obama has said relatively little." But, as just seen, at least one time when the topic arose and Obama said something, it was to make the point that he is "working on" gun control.

Finally, a bit on Fast and Furious from Darrell Issa, who also spoke at the NRA convention, as relayed by Katie Pavlich at Townhall, including its relationship to the administration's just-described gun control goals:

Entering the Edward Jones arena to an applauding audience at the NRA Annual Convention in downtown St. Louis Friday, Congressman Darrell Issa made it clear his congressional investigation into the Operation Fast and Furious scandal isn’t going away until the Obama Justice Department comes clean.

 

“The investigation of Operation Fast and Furious will not end until the full truth is exposed to every American,” Issa said, adding senior officials at the Department of Justice will be held accountable for the lethal program, including Attorney General Eric Holder.

“Eric Holder’s contempt for Congress and his failure to comply will not go unanswered, and you can count on me,” Issa said as a woman yelled, “Thank you!”

… Issa also touched on the motivations behind Operation Fast and Furious and how liberal Democrats in Congress have reacted to revelations in the scandal.

“Fast and Furious can be seen as nothing else but a needless attack on our right to keep and bear arms,“ Issa said. “When the facts began to come out about Fast and Furious, no surprise, Democrats in Washington, immediately seized on the opportunity to talk about the need for additional gun control laws.”

For months, I have been stressing the importance of understanding Operation Fast and Furious was not a “botched” program or an accident. Instead, DOJ officials made calculated decisions to allow some of the most ruthless criminals in the world to help themselves to American guns, while throwing law abiding gun dealers under the bus.

The bottom line for Charles Babington is that Mitt Romney is right. He either should know this and doesn't, making him extraordinarily ignorant, or he does know it and won't acknowledge it. All in all, it's just another typical Obama-supportive report from the Adminstration's Press.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Less than two weeks after his suspension for previous intemperate tweets was lifted, Roland Martin was engaging in personally insulting "mis-tweetment" again this afternoon with PJ Media's David Steinberg.

In a series of tweets at around 5 p.m. tonight seen after the jump, Steinberg criticized Martin for spending so much time on the press's Trayvon Martin obsession — where one person tragically died — while ignoring the impact and meaning of the documents leaked by an unnamed Department of Justice official relating to the Fast and Furious "gunwalking" scandal — as a result of which "at least 300 Mexicans, plus at least two American law enforcement agents" have been killed. Martin's responses were immature, insulting, condescending — and all too typical of a press corps which, now that it is seeing poll results it doesn't like, has in certain cases taken to calling voters stupid.

From Martin's Twitter feed (reads from the bottom up; most offensive tweets by Martin are in orange boxes):

There's also this, from Steinberg:

Roland Martin apparently isn't interested in learning anything. His interest, that of his network, and that of the preponderance of the national press would appear to be advancing anything which might be perceived as helping the reelection prospects of Barack Obama, and deliberately suppressing genuine news which might hurt him. Legitimate journalistic considerations seem to pale in comparison.

Though tempting, it might not be a good idea to lobby CNN to suspend Martin again. I sort of like how he’s showing the world who he really is, and what his continued employment says about the network which employes him.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Wednesday afternoon, Matthew Balan at NewsBusters noted that two of the three network morning shows failed to mention disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's Democratic Party affiliation.

Not that it's an excuse, but what was probably their primary raw material, namely three Tuesday reports from the Associated Press, completely failed to tag Blago as a Democrat, specifically the following (idea HT to NB commenter "trak65"):

• Don Babwin and Michael Tarm, as carried at Yahoo News — "After crime, punishment awaits ex-Gov. Blagojevich"
• An unbylined item carried at the Portland (ME) Press Herald — "Defense: Ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s actions were criminal" (currently dated December 7, but content is clearly from Tuesday)
• Michael Tarm, as carried at TriValleyCentral.com in Arizona — "Blagojevich hoping for light sentence"

Wednesday's coverage of Blago's 14-year sentence at the AP and the New York Times tagged him as a Democrat in the third paragraph, which beats nothing. But most short broadcast announcements won't get that far, and it's reasonable to believe that the journalists involved know that. Reuters waited until about Paragraph 15.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Jonathan Alter, who spent 28 years at Newsweek, has been a columnist at Bloomberg News since early this year. Just this year, the reliably and insufferably liberal Alter, among many other things, called the Republican House's passage of Paul Ryan's budget plan in April an attempt "to throw Granny in the snow," and coldly calculated that in the wake of her shooting, Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was more valuable to Barack Obama's reelection efforts alive than dead.

In early January, Alter, appearing on an MSNBC program, took great offense at Rep. Darrell Issa's suggestion that the Obama White House is "one of the most corrupt administrations ever," claiming that "there is zero evidence" of it. The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney proceeded to identify seven such examples. Alter must have been saying "la-la I can't hear you" during Carney's chronicle, as his October 27 column was an exercise in sheer fantasy from beginning to end (bolds are mine throughout this post):

---

Obama Miracle is White House Free of Scandal

President Barack Obama goes into the 2012 with a weak economy that may doom his reelection. But he has one asset that hasn’t received much attention: He’s honest./p>

… Although it’s possible that the Solyndra LLC story will become a classic feeding frenzy, don’t bet on it. Providing $535 million in loan guarantees to a solar-panel maker that goes bankrupt was dumb, but so far not criminal or even unethical on the part of the administration. These kinds of stories are unlikely to derail Obama in 2012. If he loses, it will be because of the economy — period./p>

Even so, the president’s Teflon is intriguing. How did we end up in such a scandal-less state? After investigating the question for a recent Washington Monthly article, I’ve been developing some theories./p>

For starters, the tone is always set at the top. Obama puts a premium on personal integrity, and with a few exceptions (Tim Geithner’s tax problems in 2009) his administration tends to fire first and ask questions later./p>

… But the White House’s intense focus on scandal prevention has had mixed results. The almost proctological vetting process has ended up wounding Obama as much as prospective nominees. He gets cleaner but often less imaginative officials./p>

… The vigilance about wrongdoing has worked better when it comes to oversight of the $787 billion stimulus program. The money might not always have been spent on the right things. But a rigorous process supervised by Vice President Joe Biden, and made transparent with the help of recovery.gov, has prevented widespread fraud and abuse./p>

… Every time Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican from California who leads a House investigative committee, calls the Obama administration “corrupt” without offering any evidence, he hurts his cause. It’s much harder to make a story register as a bona fide scandal when the political motivation is so obvious./p>

It’s also harder to find room for such stories when so much other news is breaking. Scandals like the Monica Lewinsky affair were almost a luxury of good times, when the nation could afford to obsess about a blue dress. Not these days./p>

…. According to a metric created by political scientist Brendan Nyhan, Obama set a record earlier this month for most days without a scandal of any president since 1977. The streak probably won’t last, especially if he gets a second term, where scandals are more common. But the impression of rectitude will be part of the voters’ assessment of him next year. He’ll need it.

Here's Brendan Nyhan's hysterical definition of a scandal:

Nyhan says that political scientists generally see The Washington Post as a solid indicator of elite opinion — so for his study, a problem officially curdles into a scandal once the S-word is used in a reporter's own voice in a story that runs on the front page of the Post. Bush made it 34-months before he faced a scandal in the Post. And as of this morning, Obama has beaten that record.

You read that right. A scandal is a scandal when — and only when — the Washington Post says it's a scandal, and only on its front page. For what it's worth, the headline at Associated Press story (possibly supplied by the subscribing outlet) called Solyndra a scandal on September 17.

For the rest of us, here is what a scandal is:

1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.
3. damage to reputation; public disgrace.
4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip.
5. a person whose conduct brings disgrace or offense.

In advance of a column I wrote in September in response to American University history professor Allan Lichtman's claim that the Obama administration had to that point been "scandal-free", I compiled a by no means complete list of items which would fit one of the five areas just described. In the column itself, I added Solyndra, LightSquared, and Operation Fast and Furious. Scandal-free? It's more like scandal fatigue.

As to Obama's honesty, the contrived tale of his mother's supposed lack of health insurance during the time leading up to his death will do for openers. There are roughly three dozen more arguable lies identified here since his term began. Honest, schmonest.

Jonathan Alter is of course entitled to his opinion, but he's not entitled to his own comprehensive set of made-up facts. Bloomberg executive Washington editor Al Hunt should have laughed Alter's column out of the building — but as another bondafide far-lefty, the odds are he thought it was brilliant journalism.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

ABC’s World News and the CBS Evening News on Wednesday night both allocated full stories to Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner and his evolving non-denial denials over the lewd photo sent from his Twitter account, but not the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams.

Williams instead made the news judgment to skip Weiner and highlight the “PR problem” Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie faces for taking a state police helicopter to his son’s high school baseball game – and later found 25 more seconds to note the retirement of NBA star Shaquille O'Neal.

Williams’ decision to ignore Weiner came despite the fact NBC’s Luke Russert conducted an interview with Weiner which aired in the afternoon on MSNBC. (NB: “Luke Russert Impales Weiner with His Own Words.”)

After deciding to give air time to advance Democratic efforts to tar Christie, Williams at least included a counter-point:

And while he is still the guy a lot of Republicans want to run for the White House, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has a PR problem – there it is [photo of Christie by a NJ state police helicopter] using one of the state's new helicopters to fly him to his son's baseball game. The head of the state police pointed out, in a statement today, he is the Governor 24/7. The office has to go with him wherever life and his travel lead him.

Summarizing Wednesday morning interest: “ABC, NBC Spotlight Growing Weiner Photo Scandal; CBS Punts.”

How the ABC and CBS anchors introduced their Wednesday night, June 1, Weiner stories:

Diane Sawyer, on ABC’s World News:

A political controversy has been all the talk in Washington today. Congressman Anthony Weiner had his name on a photo sent everywhere on Twitter. And our Jon Karl caught up with the Congressman to ask him about the strange story that keeps getting stranger.

Harry Smith, on the CBS Evening News:

It started out with a photograph on a Congressman's Twitter account, and now the story has gone absolutely viral on media of every kind. Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York denied today that he sent a lewd photograph to a 21-year-old college student in Seattle. Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes has the story.

Saturday’s The Early Show gave 28 seconds to the Brown/Whitman story within a report filed by CBS correspondent Whit Johnson which also dealt with Democratic efforts to defend their congressional majority from Republicans.

NBC overall gave the story the most attention, including full reports on the Today show on both Friday and Saturday, and on Friday’s NBC Nightly News. ABC covered the story on Friday’s Good Morning America and on the same day’s World News. More details on Friday morning coverage of the story on ABC and NBC can be found here.

Below are transcripts of the relevant stories from Friday’s World News on ABC, the CBS Evening News, and the NBC Nightly News; followed by Saturday’s The Early Show on CBS and Saturday’s Today show on NBC:

#From the Friday, October 8, World News on ABC:

6:36 p.m. 1 minute 30 seconds in duration

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: In other political news, another twist in the tight race for California governor. For days, Republican Meg Whitman has been on the hot seat over an illegal immigrant housekeeper. Now it’s Democrat Jerry Brown’s turn, thanks to an aide using a word that shouldn’t have been used and wasn’t meant to be heard. David Wright has the story.

JERRY BROWN, CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC GUBERNATORIAL NOMINEE: Hey, Scott, give me a call, Jerry Brown, love to talk to you.

DAVID WRIGHT: The latest bomb shell in the California governor’s race came from a voice mail message that kept recording after Democrat Jerry Brown thought he hung up. He was seeking a union endorsement but got word the union was about to back his opponent.

BROWN AUDIO: Do we want to put an ad out?

WRIGHT: At that point, a second voice chimes in with a harsh word about Republican Meg Whitman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: She’s a whore.

ANDREA JONES RIVERA, MEG WHITMAN CAMPAIGN: These are offensive comments that have no place in any conversation at any office – worst of all, in the middle of a gubernatorial campaign.

WRIGHT: The Brown campaign has apologized for the salty language.

BROWN AT DEBATE: This is a question of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

WRIGHT: At their most recent debate, Brown called Whitman a hypocrite for employing an illegal immigrant as a nanny for nine years. Whitman called Brown a bully.

MEG WHITMAN, CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL NOMINEE: It was a political stunt-

WRIGHT: On the air waves-

CLIP OF AD: Whitman was caught reaping millions from insider stock deals.

WRIGHT -the two candidates have traded endless barbs – $140 Million spent on ads, including $120 million from Whitman’s own pocket, a new record. This campaign seems to be bringing out the worst in these two candidates. David Wright, ABC News, Oakland.

#From the Friday, October 8, CBS Evening News:

6:48 p.m. duration 40 seconds

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: In another hotly contested race, some nasty language was caught on tape, and that’s tonight’s "Campaign 2010 Hot Sheet." In the California governor’s race, Democrat Jerry Brown and an aide were caught on voice mail blasting Republican Meg Whitman, accusing her of cutting a secret deal with a police union. A warning, the language is graphic.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #1: What about saying she’s a whore?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #2: That’s good.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #1: Whore.

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE OF JERRY BROWN: Well, I’m going to use that.

RODRIGUEZ: It’s not clear who spoke the offensive word, but the Brown campaign apologized to Whitman and anyone else who may have been offended. A Whitman spokesman said the language was an insult to the women of California.

#From the Friday, October 8, NBC Nightly News :

7:07 p.m. 2 minutes 10 seconds in duration

BRIAN WILLIAMS: And now to the governor’s race here in California. It has been a rough one by any standard, but it’s now hit a new low thanks to a piece of audio recorded on a voice mail that was not supposed to be for public consumption. Our report tonight from NBC’s Lee Cowan.

LEE COWAN: As campaign calls go, the one Jerry Brown made to the offices of a Los Angeles police union last month sounded pretty routine.

JERRY BROWN AUDIO: Hey, Scott, give me a call, Jerry Brown, love to talk to you.

COWAN: Brown left a voice mail, but when he hung up-

BROWN AUDIO: Your support means a lot to me Thanks.

COWAN: -the call didn’t disconnect. What was then captured was an impromptu strategy session, the sausage making of political campaigns. And much like sausage making, it wasn’t pretty. On the call, Brown sounded frustrated. He mused that he had lost the police union’s support because he’d threatened to cut public safety pensions, while his opponent Meg Whitman promised something different.

BROWN AUDIO: Do we want to put an ad out? That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be, that they’ll go to Whitman, and that’s where they’ll go because they know Whitman will give ‘em, will cut them a deal, but I won’t?

COWAN: Suddenly, what appears to be a second voice is heard.

BROWN AUDIO: What about saying that-

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE AUDIO: She’s a whore! Whore!

BROWN AUDIO: Well, I’m going to use that. It proves you’ve cut a secret deal to protect the pensions.

COWAN: Whitman, anxious to divert headlines from her undocumented housekeeper troubles, responded almost immediately. "The use of the term ‘whore’ is an insult," the statement read. "This is an appalling and unforgivable smear." Brown’s campaign insists he was responding to the notion of Whitman cutting a deal, not the idea of name-calling, but admitted, "At times our language was salty. We apologize to Ms. Whitman and anyone who may have been offended." Still, the Whitman campaign says this isn’t the end of it. The two are scheduled to face off for their third and final debate next week, where the less than endearing term is sure to be brought up again. Lee Cowan, NBC News, Los Angeles.

#From the Saturday, October 9, The Early Show on CBS:

REBECCA JARVIS: Midterm election campaigns are entering the home stretch, and the White House is putting out its biggest stars with the hopes of saving some Democratic candidates trailing in the polls. And, as November looms, a new strategy is emerging. CBS News correspondent Whit Johnson is at the White House this morning and more with the story. Good morning, Whit.

WHIT JOHNSON: Rebecca, good morning. Tomorrow President Obama and Vice President Biden head to Philadelphia for another big rally. The White House is hoping to reignite and reenergize the Democratic base – and they’re doing it by calling out some familiar names.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: In this Senate race, two groups funded and advised by Karl Rove have outspent the Democratic Party 2 to 1.

JOHNSON: In Illinois this week, President Obama used Karl Rove as Democratic bait, the latest strategy to get voters fired up over millions of dollars of political ads paid for by special interests.

CLIP OF AD: Friends don’t let friends vote Alexi.

JOHNSON: Meanwhile, Republicans are staying on message calling the upcoming election a referendum on President Obama.

JOHN BOEHNER, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: As Americans, we have to decide, do we want another two years of job-killing policies coming out of Washington? Or have we had enough?

JOHNSON: As party leaders refine their agendas, some statewide races are getting nastier by the day. The California governor’s race, a recorded conversation between Democrat Jerry Brown and his staff has added fuel to an already hostile contest.

JERRY BROWN, CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC GUBERNATORIAL NOMINEE, IN AUDIO: They know Whitman will give ‘em will cut them a deal, but I won’t. But she will probably believe it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What about saying that she’s a whore?

JOHNSON: The Brown campaign apologized for the incident, but a spokesperson for Meg Whitman called it appalling and unforgiveable. The President and Vice President have been on the campaign trail for weeks stumping for various candidates, but next week, for the first time this election year, Michelle Obama, the First Lady will hit the road for a number of endorsements and fund-raisers across the country. Rebecca?

JARVIS: And, Whit, last night on his program Bill Maher did another thing putting himself into this debate. He posted a photo of an Ohio politician – you see it there on your screen – posing in SS uniform. How’s it going to, Whit, impact elections there?

JOHNSON: Well, Rebecca, that’s Rich Iott, Republican and Tea Party favorite. At ths point, all indications are the race is gong to go to the Democrat anyway, but he did defend himself to the Atlantic, saying that this was not a Halloween costume, this was simply a World War II Nazi reenactment group he used to be a part of. He does not subscribe to the tenants of Nazism. He says he is simply fascinated with the history of Nazi Germany, but certainly not something he wants to be talking about this close to the election.

#From the Saturday, October 9, 2010, Today show:

LESTER HOLT: Now, to California’s bruising gubernatorial race, and the already ugly campaign may have reached a new low. NBC’s Lee Cowan reports.

LEE COWAN: As campaign calls go, the one Jerry Brown made to the offices of a Los Angeles police union last month sounded pretty routine.

JERRY BROWN AUDIO: Hey, Scott, give me a call, Jerry Brown, love to talk to you.

COWAN: Brown left a voice mail, but when he hung up-

BROWN AUDIO: Your support means a lot to me Thanks.

COWAN: -the call didn’t disconnect. What was then captured was an impromptu strategy session, the sausage making of political campaigns. And much like sausage making, it wasn’t pretty. On the call, Brown sounded frustrated. He mused that he had lost the police union’s support because he’d threatened to cut public safety pensions, while his opponent Meg Whitman promised something different.

BROWN AUDIO: Do we want to put an ad out? That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be, that they’ll go to Whitman, and that’s where they’ll go because they know Whitman will give ‘em, will cut them a deal, but I won’t?

COWAN: Suddenly, what appears to be a second voice is heard.

BROWN AUDIO: What about saying that-

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE AUDIO: She’s a whore! Whore!

BROWN AUDIO: Well, I’m going to use that. It proves you’ve cut a secret deal to protect the pensions.

COWAN: Whitman, anxious to divert headlines from her undocumented housekeeper troubles, responded almost immediately. "The use of the term ‘whore’ is an insult," the statement read. "This is an appalling and unforgivable smear." Brown’s campaign insists he was responding to the notion of Whitman cutting a deal, not the idea of name-calling, but admitted, "At times our language was salty. We apologize to Ms. Whitman and anyone who may have been offended." Still, the Whitman campaign says this isn’t the end of it. The two are scheduled to face off for their third and final debate next week, where the less than endearing term is sure to be brought up again. For Today, Lee Cowan, NBC News, Los Angeles.

Someone call The Police . . .

What were the Parker Spitzer producers thinking?  If there was one guy you’d want to keep at a decent distance from a female co-host, it’s Gov. Love Potion #9.  But when I tuned into the show, for the first time, tonight, I was shocked to see the way the pair had been virtually thrown into each other’s laps.

A bit of inside TV baseball: I host a local TV show in my hometown. I’m always struck by how, when I’m sitting what feels quite close to a guest, we appear miles apart on camera.  So for Parker and Spitzer to appear so close on TV, they must literally be rubbing, well, elbows.

I can’t say Parker looked particularly ill at ease with the set-up, though at times she appeared to lean away some.  But it certainly made me, and presumably a chunk of viewers, uncomfortable to see a guy with Spitzer’s track record getting so up close and personal.

For the love of Pete, put Spitz behind Plexiglass!

PS: As long as I’m offering aesthetic criticism, I’d tell the producers to lose the jazzy intro music.  Between the music and the intimate seating arrangement, the show’s opening brings to mind a couple at a hotel piano bar.

Excuse The Substance–but note how Parker, supposedly the show’s "conservative," condescends to Christine O’Donnell as a "girl" who, while "cute and spunky," Parker wouldn’t want running the country. 

After the FNC host asked if there was a media double standard at play, regular panel member Jim Pinkerton of the New America Foundation cited Tim Graham of the Media Research Center – parent organization of NewsBusters – by name. Pinkerton: "Oh, absolutely. As Tim Graham at the Media Research Center was the first to point out, you know, look, this was huge news at the time when they thought he’d be convicted of all sorts of stuff. When he’s exonerated, notice no story."

Below is a transcript of the relevant segment from the Saturday, August 21, Fox News Watch, with critical portions in bold:

ERIC SHAWN: Well, that’s former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. He is off the hook. The Justice Department has dropped its corruption investigation of the former Congressman after six years. DeLay was probed primarily for his involvement with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. It hit the front pages of the Washington Post on Wednesday. Guess what, the New York Times, page A-18. Jim, double standard when it comes to covering this?

JIM PINKERTON, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Oh, absolutely. As Tim Graham at the Media Research Center was the first to point out, you know, look, this was huge news at the time when they thought he’d be convicted of all sorts of stuff. When he’s exonerated, notice no story.

SHAWN: How come?

PINKERTON: I think it’s media bias, just a hunch.

SHAWN: Ellis, you’re a columnist, yeah, what?

ELLIS HENICAN, NEWSDAY COLUMNIST: Yeah, it might just be, Jim, the media. I mean, every single newspaper and television news organization I’ve ever been around spends a whole lot more time talking about charges than they do of acquittals. You might even ask Blago about that, in fact. His almost acquittal this week didn’t get nearly the coverage of all of those tapes, all those tapes.

RICH LOWRY, NATIONAL REVIEW: That got a lot of play. That was an exception. Blago did get front-page coverage.

JUDITH MILLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: In fact, the media were much busier covering Blago than they were Tom DeLay.

SHAWN: Blago, by the way, is on Fox News Sunday this weekend, so we can all spend some time on planet Blago.

LOWRY: He’s a very interesting media story in his own right because he’s managed to make himself into a C-level celebrity, and that’s enduring value no matter what happens to his legal case.

SHAWN: Does that help with the legal case?

LOWRY: It might a little bit. It might, you know, help with the jury.

PINKERTON: If you’re playing to one juror, as he seemed to be doing in the case, that guy who hung the jury on 23 of 24 counts.

LOWRY: She hung him on one – selling the Senate seat. The others were more evenly split.

SHAWN: What does it say about the confluence of the media and the criminal justice system? When you have a DeLay who was being investigated, on the front page it’s all over the place, and then it gets dropped. And when it gets dropped, you don’t hear anything about it.

LOWRY: The interesting thing about the Blago case there’s a backlash in the media now against Patrick Fitzgerald-

SHAWN: Mr. Hero.

LOWRY: -and the tendency of the media is to soak up these allegations and just believe the prosecutor is always right. There’s a real backlash now which is a healthy one.

HENICAN: Yeah, but remember that the drama is always the bigger story than the whimper at the end. I think that’s true in all cases.

PINKERTON: (INAUDIBLE) …point that just shouldn’t get lost. And that is, I can remember Ray Donovan, the Secretary of Labor under the Reagan administration, he was indicted or something, couple of years of trials, he was acquitted, and he just went before the cameras and said, okay, "Now where do I go to get my reputation back?"

HENICAN: Poor Blago.

SHAWN: Yeah, came down the front steps of the Bronx courthouse and no one could give the answer.

After detailing the accusations against California Congresswoman Waters, Mitchell noted the formal ethics charges filed against New York Congressman Rangel and touted his defense: "…he, we now know, tried to point out that Mitch McConnell and others allegedly did the same thing, trying to raise money for a center named after them. He’s claiming that this is a matter of bias."

Mitchell’s guest, Politico editor-in-chief John Harris, continued to make the case: "…that there is a clear double standard and they’re asking why is it that the new congressional ethics procedures seem to be the result of that, seem to be a number of African-Americans that are getting put under a tough ethical microscope….They say that there seems to be a pattern that reflects, they’re alleging, a racial bias."

Similarly, on Sunday’s CNN Newsroom, anchor Don Lemon interviewed the Reverend Al Sharpton and wondered: "…some are openly questioning why two high profile African-American House members are coming under such tough scrutiny. Do you think that black members are being targeted unfairly by the Ethics Committee?"

After Mitchell wondered if there was an "analogy" between the violations Rangel has been accused of and actions Republican members of Congress have taken in the past, Harris sympathetically observed: "…what has happened to Congressman Charlie Rangel is that the – sort of the ethical standards of the institution, both the specific rules and the expectations, change over time." Harris went on to add: " Remember Charlie Rangel came into the Congress as a reformer….so things that he considered unexceptional, in fact, become objectionable under the new standards."

Mitchell followed up by again pointing to Republicans supposedly being guilty of similar things: "But soliciting money for his institute at CCNY in New York City, which is something that Mitch McConnell, Jake Garn, other former senators, all seem to have done, Jesse Helms. So there are a lot of Republicans who’ve been in this context and nobody’s even talking about Senator John Ensign and all the stuff that’s going on over there."

However, Mitchell did acknowledge the extensive tax allegations against Rangel that could not be explained away: "But he doesn’t focus, of course, in that defense, on the tax charges, and $600,000 in income. I mean there is a litany of taxes that were allegedly not paid and of course, the rent controlled apartments and the like." Harris replied: "That’s right and that’s why Democrats are not eager for a full public airing of this."

Mitchell concluded: "It would be pretty stunning to have two trials going on in the Ethics Committee of two such high-profile members of the Congressional Black Caucus at the same time. And I think you’re going to see a lot of backlash there as well, politically."

Here is a full transcript of Mitchell’s August 2 segment with Harris:

1:00PM TEASE

ANDREA MITCHELL: And are the ethics police on the Hill color-blind? If so, just how do you explain what’s happening to the Congressional Black Caucus? The latest on the Rangel and Maxine Waters investigations from Politico’s John Harris.

1:21 PM TEASE

MITCHELL: And coming up here, are black lawmakers being singled out by the ethics watchdogs on Capitol Hill? New charges of racial bias.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Ethics Cases & Racial Tensions]

1:24PM SEGMENT

MITCHELL: California Congresswoman Maxine Waters now fighting ethics charges of her own after reportedly intervening with regulators on behalf of a California bank on which her husband once served as a board member and holds stock. And reports indicate that the powerful Congresswoman is also refusing to cut a deal to avoid a public Ethics Committee trial. And this, of course, following on the Charlie Rangel embarrassment for House Democrats.

Well, some members of the Black Caucus are crying foul. Politico editor-in-chief John Harris joins us now. John, what is the beef here? This certainly came up in Rangel’s defense, where he, we now know, tried to point out that Mitch McConnell and others allegedly did the same thing, trying to raise money for a center named after them. He’s claiming that this is a matter of bias.

JOHN HARRIS: Right and that there is a clear double standard and they’re asking why is it that the new congressional ethics procedures seem to be the result of that, seem to be a number of African-Americans that are getting put under a tough ethical microscope. And, in fact, having the equivalent, the congressional equivalent, of charges brought against them. They say that there seems to be a pattern that reflects, they’re alleging, a racial bias.

MITCHELL: Well, do you think that there is a real analogy here between what Congressman Rangel allegedly did and what other members, and he seems to be pointing to Republicans in the Senate, did. Clearly not talking about what other House Democrats did.

HARRIS: I mean, I think what happened – what is true and what has happened to Congressman Charlie Rangel is that the – sort of the ethical standards of the institution, both the specific rules and the expectations, change over time. Remember Charlie Rangel came into the Congress as a reformer. He replaced Adam Clayton Powell, who got caught up in ethical controversies in the 1960s. And so things that he considered unexceptional, in fact, become objectionable under the new standards. And I do think there’s – he’s right about this, there does tend to be random element to – like ‘this is okay and passes muster but that doesn’t.’ That’s without trying to pass comment on the particular charges against him, whether they’re valid or not valid. I do, as a generic matter, believe that sometimes it’s somewhat random how these rules get applied.

MITCHELL: He does seem to be, In his own defense, cherry picking it a bit. He’s talking about the fundraising, soliciting money from people who had business in front of the House or any business or any foundation has business in front of the tax committee. But soliciting money for his institute at CCNY in New York City, which is something that Mitch McConnell, Jake Garn, other former senators, all seem to have done, Jesse Helms. So there are a lot of Republicans who’ve been in this context and nobody’s even talking about Senator John Ensign and all the stuff that’s going on over there. So that is one point. But he doesn’t focus, of course, in that defense, on the tax charges, and $600,000 in income. I mean there is a litany of taxes that were allegedly not paid and of course, the rent controlled apartments and the like.

HARRIS: That’s right and that’s why Democrats are not eager for a full public airing of this. Not so subtle comments, of course, we saw at the end of last week from President Obama, saying he’s sure that Charlie Rangel wants to end his career with dignity. But I’m not so sure that what he doesn’t want to end it with is a clear attempt at vindication. He’s so far not taken the kind of, ‘hey could you just move along’ hints that have come from President Obama and from some other Democrats.

MITCHELL: It would be pretty stunning to have two trials going on in the Ethics Committee of two such high-profile members of the Congressional Black Caucus at the same time. And I think you’re going to see a lot of backlash there as well, politically. Thanks so much, John Harris.

HARRIS: That’s right. Thanks, Andrea. See you.

MITCHELL: See you.