In December 2008, the NBER declared that a recession had begun in December 2007. As I've noted several times in several places, they did this despite several contrary indicators such as positive economic growth in the second quarter of 2008, and at best inconclusive results relating to income, industrial production, and employment.

Nonetheless, the establishment media has consistently run with the NBER's definition of when the recession began. After all, they're the experts. Who are we peons to dare to point out that using the normal person definition, the recession began in the third quarter of 2008, continued for four quarters, and ended when GDP went positive in the third quarter of 2009?

In a move that one would expect is causing an excess of expletives inside the White House, NBER officials have indicated that they can't yet conclude that the recession as they define it has ended. A New York Times story carried at CNBC tells us the following (internal link added by me):

Recession Arbiters, Wary of Certifying an Upturn

A committee of economists, charged with determining the official turning points in the nation’s business cycles, certifies the beginnings and ends of recessions. But this time, the committee members say, the evidence is not so easy to decipher.

The committee announced Monday that it cannot yet declare an end to the recession that began in December 2007. Several members of the body had reported this to The New York Times on Sunday. Such an acknowledgment is rare in the history of setting dates to business cycles and could affect the behavior of investors and consumers.

Despite a recent uptick in employment and income, the decision of the committee at a meeting on Friday reflects a lingering worry that the economy could turn downward again in a so-called double-dip recession.

Several economists on the committee, which has seven active members, said they considered such a turn to be unlikely. But, they said, the duration and severity of the contraction have made it hard to determine with authority that a recovery has begun.

The gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, officially began rising in the second half of 2009, suggesting that a recovery might have quietly started. But the committee takes other factors into consideration, like employment trends and consumer confidence.

Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, and Christina D. Romer, the chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, are former members of the committee, and its position could potentially affect their outlook on monetary and fiscal policy.

Here's the full text of the NBER announcement, which is actually dated Thursday, April 8 (paragraph breaks added by me):

NBER COMMITTEE CONFERS: NO TROUGH ANNOUNCED

CAMBRIDGE, April 8 -- The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met at the organization’s headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on April 8, 2010.

The committee reviewed the most recent data for all indicators relevant to the determination of a possible date of the trough in economic activity marking the end of the recession that began in December 2007. The trough date would identify the end of contraction and the beginning of expansion. Although most indicators have turned up, the committee decided that the determination of the trough date on the basis of current data would be premature.

Many indicators are quite preliminary at this time and will be revised in coming months. The committee acts only on the basis of actual indicators and does not rely on forecasts in making its determination of the dates of peaks and troughs in economic activity.

The committee did review data relating to the date of the peak, previously determined to have occurred in December 2007, marking the onset of the recent recession. The committee reaffirmed that peak date.

As to the reaffirmation of the December 2007 start date noted at the end of the announcement, employment, one of NBER's "actual indicators" has changed substantially since its announcement in December 2008. Seasonally adjusted job losses during the first quarter of 2008, thought at the time to be 247,000, then adjusted to 338,000, have since had a final downward revision to only 93,000. Also, don't forget that the unemployment rate didn't go above 5.1%, a level that many economists and other consider to be full employment, until May of 2008.

But you really didn't expect a committee of self-anointed academic geniuses to change its mind, did you?

Meanwhile, if the press is going to be consistent, it's going to have to assume that the recession hasn't ended yet until their designated experts tell them it isn't so. Does anyone expect them (or the administration) to tone down their supposedly indisputable claims that we're in the midst of "recovery and "rebound"? Me neither.

It would be a lot easier if we simply used simple, easily understood objective measurements, wouldn't it? As it is, the same crew that has in my opinion unfairly benefited from a seven-month Bush-bashing free ride (December 2007 to June 2008) on the recession's beginning will get no sympathy from yours truly while it twists in the wind waiting for the NBER to make up its mind over nine months after the recession as normal people define it ended.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

In the 2PM ET hour on MSNBC on Tuesday, left-wing Huffington Post writer Ryan Grim commented on the Republican National Committee spending scandal: "You know, what Republican donors do, generally, is pretty obnoxious to the American people. What did they have to cancel? They had to cancel a polo match, some yachting, you know, trips to bondage clubs."

Grim went on to claim: "if you want to get money from rich Republicans, you're going to have to engage in some of these obnoxious activities, so they like that to happen without the entire nation watching. Now that everybody's watching, it makes it a lot harder for them to raise money from these rich Republicans."

While Grim pretended to be a journalist reporting facts, he told Hall: "I actually haven't spoken to any – any big Republican donors the last few days." He simply noted how he was "hearing" things "in general" about RNC donors. Hall even remarked at the end of the segment: "Well Ryan, for a guy who hasn't spoken to any big money donors in 24-48 hours, not bad intel there." Apparently MSNBC now sees liberal ranting against the GOP as "intel."   

Grim earlier argued that in the wake of the spending scandal, "Republicans are sort of setting up an alternative infrastructure...in order to go after Democrats....with extreme partisan rhetoric. So you thought the RNC was partisan now? Just wait until you see what they come up with over the next few months."

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

2:08PM

TAMRON HALL: And more upheaval at the Republican National Committee. Today the RNC's chief of staff Ken McKay has resigned after that scandal involving a risque nightclub trip and accusations of lavish spending. McKay's departure makes him the highest ranking official to leave the RNC since the scandal first broke. Ryan Grim is with the Huffington Post and he joins us now. Ryan, thanks for joining us.

RYAN GRIM: Thanks for having me.

HALL: So again, someone stepping down, this time a big name. And the natural question to follow is what does this mean for Michael Steele?

GRIM: Well, Michael Steele is probably going to be fine. It takes – it takes two-thirds of a vote of the RNC to kick him off. And he was put up there with such fanfare a year and a half, or whatever it was, ago that it would be a real – it would look terr – it would be a PR nightmare for them to be ousting Michael Steele at this point. You know, they're only a few months away from the mid-term elections. Maybe if that doesn't go very well, at that point they could revisit it. But he's going to be fine for the short term, at least.

HALL: I want to play what Newt Gingrich had to say today on the Today show. Kind of similar, actually, to what you're saying. And we don't have it. But anyway, he said, 'I think it's foolish for Republicans to focus on Michael Steele as a person. I think what we ought to do is focus on defeating the Democrats.' So maybe once in your life you agree here with Newt Gingrich on a topic. He's saying, listen, back off of him. But is Michael Steele a damaged brand?

GRIM: Hey, if Newt says so, you know. No. He is a damaged brand, but what you're seeing is that the Republicans are sort of setting up an alternative infrastructure in order to go – in order to go after Democrats. That's what we see with Steele circling the wagons here. He's going to be kind of an isolated figure. That's going to have an actual real world impact, though, in that the RNC, the only way they're going to have to raise money now is they're going to e-mail out to their supporters and they're going to send mail-outs to supporters. And you don't raise money over an e-mail list or mail list by asking nicely. You do it by – with extreme partisan rhetoric. So you thought the RNC was partisan now? Just wait until you see what they come up with over the next few months.

HALL: And Ryan, what are you hearing from some of these big donors, especially since McKay is now out?

GRIM: Surprisingly, I actually haven't spoken to any – any big Republican donors the last few days. But what I'm hearing, in general, about the Republican donors is that, you know, they're disgusted at the way that this is being dragged through the media. You know, what Republican donors do, generally, is pretty obnoxious to the American people. What did they have to cancel? They had to cancel a polo match, some yachting, you know, trips to bondage clubs. Those are things that they don't really want in the news. But if you want to get money from rich Republicans, you're going to have to engage in some of these obnoxious activities, so they like that to happen without the entire nation watching. Now that everybody's watching, it makes it a lot harder for them to raise money from these rich Republicans.

HALL: Well Ryan, for a guy who hasn't spoken to any big money donors in 24-48 hours, not bad intel there. Thanks, Ryan.

GRIM: Thank you, Tamron.

HALL: Greatly appreciate it. 

If you think the felony conviction is a more condemnable offense for a political candidate, you may want to give up your dream job as a Huffington Post columnist. In the bizarre world of Arianna Huffington, the master's thesis is apparently the more reprehensible offense.

HuffPo columnists relentlessly attacked now-Va. Governor Bob McDonnell for his "frightening" views on marriage and the family as expressed in his 1989 thesis. But lefty blogger Tim Russo, who is running for office in Cleveland, is just the victim of local media that "want him to pay for [his felony conviction] for the rest of his life," presumably by suggesting that soliciting sex from a minor demonstrates a lack of judgment unbecoming a public servant.

I know, really radical stuff.

HuffPo columnist Howie Klein wrote today,

Russo has the sort of leadership experience Cuyahoga County desperately needs at this dangerous, hopeful crossroads. But local media are doing their best to scuttle his campaign before it really begins. Why? Because in November 2001 he solicited sex from an FBI agent posing online as a minor and was made Pervert of the Day for an entire 24-hour news cycle. Local media want him to pay for that for the rest of his life.

"It's time to no longer be defined by our mistakes," says Russo. "This new legislature, in my own hometown, needs precisely the experience I can deliver, and I'm not going to let a stupid mistake I made almost a decade ago stop me from trying to deliver it. Not for one second."

Anyone tuned into Rust Belt politics learned about Russo's conviction long ago -- if not on the day of the arrest in 2001, then years later when Russo posted honest, revealing and specific details about the event and his life after it on his blog. He has never hidden from the charges, admitting it was the biggest mistake of his life. He never bothered to have it expunged.

Instead, Russo took some old Kennedy advice and hung a light on his problem, remaining transparent about it and trying to make up for it in his actions, in his efforts to make his city, country, and his world a better place in which to live.

Media coverage of Russo's candidacy in Cleveland has focused almost solely on the titillating nature of Russo's 9 year old "news."  On March 1, Channel 3/NBC investigative reporter Tom Meyer called his story, which was essentially based on Russo's own blog, an "exclusive." Cleveland's daily paper, the Plain Dealer, ran an article several days later that again rehashed the circumstances of his arrest nine years ago -- they even published the original prosecutor's notes and transcripts from the case online, a decision which led to persistent death threats.

The local media are rehashing Russo's felony conviction now that he is running for office? Oh, the horror! Who do they think they are to bring up a felony conviction from nine years ago. It's not like he wrote a politically incorrect master's thesis two decades ago. That, by HuffPo's standards, would qualify him for media scrutiny and derision.

Columnist Cecile Richards wrote for HuffPo last September,

While this thinking [evinced in McDonnell's master's thesis] is pretty frightening, most frightening is that Bob McDonnell is now leading in the Virginia polls. Like other extreme-right candidates, Bob McDonnell is working hard to distance himself from his voting record, public statements and actions, and now, his dissertation at Regent.

Polls indicate that Virginia women can and likely will make the difference in this election and their votes are very much up for grabs. Senator Creigh Deeds, 100 percent pro-women's health and 100 percent pro-working women, is gaining ground. Despite Bob McDonnell's predictions, working women have not been responsible for the demise of American society, but women may very well be responsible for the end of McDonnell's political career.

Not so much.

Very strange that none of the website's columnists consider Russo's crime "frightening," or grounds for the end of his career. Quite the opposite, actually.

HuffPo also lent its megaphone to Virginia's Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor, Jody Wagner, who wrote, "The Associated Press wrote that the discovery of these statements by Bob McDonnell has the potential to 'shake up [this] race.' Together, we can make sure that it does."

And yet, HuffPo writers are now complaining that the discovery of damning facts about Russo is somehow unfair or promoting an illegitimate objection to his candidacy. Very strange, indeed.

Erick Erickson wrote at RedState,

If you search the entire article, one word is left out — one crucial, vital, relevant word. Can you guess what it is?

Felony.

Tim Russo was charged with and convicted of being a felony sex offender, charged with importuning (a fancy way of soliciting sex with a minor), attempted disseminating matter harmful to a juvenile, and possessing criminal tools.

Yeah one little detail — how could they ever have forgotten to put that in. But it’s okay. Russo wants everyone to know he did not have to register as a child predator. Seriously.

So because he did not have to register as a child predator, it is okay now? It is okay to serve in elected office?...

Sadly we are forced to take these people seriously simply because they are so unserious — what is good is bad and what is bad is good. Up is down and down is up.

Yes, the strange standards of the Huffington Post have the power to confuse even the most level-headed voters. 'Sexist Bob McDonnell bad. Sex offender Tim Russo good.' Bizarre.

As Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos so touchingly pointed out to Steele, a few Republican leaders have been publicly highly critical of Steele and according to a "poll of insiders" only 20 percent consider him an asset to the party.

"Everyone seemed to like him and recently it's like story after story after story - is this guy being villainized?" Fox Business Channel's Eric Bolling asked Coulter on the April 5 "Happy Hour."

"I think so, I think he's being attacked because he's very effective," Coulter replied.

She made note how Ken Blackwell had been her original choice for chairman, but said Steele had been more than adequate. "[S]ince Michael Steele got the job, I see him on TV and I think he's very effective on TV. He's smooth, he's cool, he's hip, he always makes solid arguments."

"He was on a plane during this incident at this voyeur club," Coulter reminded Bolling. "But you know the Democrats have the audacity to complain about some low-level staffer doing something stupid by taking ...Young Republican Eagles or whatever to a sleazy club in LA - excuse me! Loretta Sanchez - an actual Democratic Congresswoman who was co-chair of the DNC - had a Democratic gala event...at the Playboy Mansion - which finally had to be cancelled."

"You had Harold Ford when he was a Congressman - memorialized in a very famous commercial - going to a Playboy party after the Super Bowl," she continued. "Democrats are in no position to be complaining about some low-level staffer who has since been fired from the RNC going to this tacky club."

FBN's Bolling then switched topics to the November mid-term elections - and the ramifications of such a diverse, non-partisan group like the Tea Party.

"Let's talk about the Tea Party and its effect on the GOP. Are they going to dilute the conservative vote, and let the Democrats keep both houses?" Bolling asked.

"That is a danger," Coulter acknowledged. "The problem is a lot of the people who are joining Tea Parties haven't been particularly politically active until now but they have been awakened by the Democrats socializing one-sixth of economy, and these endless stimulus bills and bailouts for GM and Chrysler. And so people who haven't been political are getting involved in politics, and they do need some guidance, and they have to stop being told that there's no difference between the Democrat and the Republican Party. The rule of thumb is: there are a lot of bad Republicans, there are no good Democrats."

And as far as the elegant DNC-produced "Health Reform is a BFD" t-shirts? Coulter loves them.

"I do love the t-shirts because they confirm Rahm Emanuel's point that the Democratic base are, well um, I'll paraphrase - f-ing retards. Can you imagine Republicans putting out t-shirts - ‘Go! Contract with America!'?"

Notably, just over a year ago on the March 24, 2009, Countdown show, Olbermann seemed to express a negative view of American "values" generally when he mocked the name of Gary Bauer's American Values organization as sounding like a "discount septic tank operation." Olbermann: "Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, former Reagan domestic policy adviser and now president of American Values which, despite the name, is not a discount septic tank operation, writing at Politico a mere two months after the last of dozens of conflicting Pentagon reports suggested with almost no verification that 61 former Gitmo detainees had been identified as returning to terrorism."

Returning to Wednesday's show, Olbermann treated Rubio's words as if they were worse than his own history of attacking conservatives which has included accusing President Bush of being a "fascist" and of engaging in "a form of terrorism against his own people," and suggesting that President Bush deserves to go to hell. The Countdown host accused Rubio of committing the "greatest crime against this country of which any politician can be guilty." Olbermann:

But what I would never claim about you is that you do not love this country. ... when you question whether or not I love this country, you have crossed a line. You have inadvertently revealed that you don`t see those with other viewpoints as merely disagreeing with you. You have inadvertently revealed that you dismiss them as not loving this country. This, in turn, proves that if you are elected to office, you will not in the slightest be representing, nor even defending, the people of your state who did not vote for you. And that, perhaps, is the greatest crime against this country of which any politician can be guilty.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Wednesday, March 31, Countdown show on MSNBC:

KEITH OLBERMANN: First, tonight`s "Quick Comment." Mark Rubio, the Tea Party candidate for the Republican nomination for the Senate from Florida, has yet to be mistaken for one of the bright young lights of American politics. Mr. Rubio gave a speech today in West Palm Beach at which he endorsed offshore drilling, condemned amnesty to illegal immigrants, and, according to the Palm Beach Post, closed with a thought he said originated on the Glenn Beck Show. No, he did not start weeping, not even speaking in tongues.

He said, regarding immigration, quote, "There are millions of people in America that hate our country, so why can`t we just do a trade? We`ll send you Sean Penn, Jeanine Garofalo and Keith Olbermann, and you can send us people that actually love this country and want to help us build it."

Mr. Rubio, you have long behaved like a teenager who has borrowed his father`s suit. I think you don`t understand this country. I think you imperil this country. I think your stupidity is an indictment of the education system in this country. And I`m sure you feel exactly the same way about me.

But what I would never claim about you is that you do not love this country. I would never even claim that in your own way, you have not believed you have tried to build it. You have the right to criticize anything you want about me, or anybody else with whom you disagree politically. But when you question whether or not I love this country, you have crossed a line. You have inadvertently revealed that you don`t see those with other viewpoints as merely disagreeing with you. You have inadvertently revealed that you dismiss them as not loving this country.

This, in turn, proves that if you are elected to office, you will not in the slightest be representing, nor even defending, the people of your state who did not vote for you. And that, perhaps, is the greatest crime against this country of which any politician can be guilty.

Mr. Rubio, I am the great grandson of immigrants, as you are the son of immigrants, who came to this country for its opportunity and its freedom. And I know one thing for sure: my ancestors and yours were trying to get away from people like you.

This explains why it hasn't been covered much -- and maybe not at all -- in any establishment media outlet.

On March 26, the Catholic News Agency had an exclusive interview with Michigan congressman Bart Stupak. Wait until you see some of the things he admitted to CNA (bolds are mine):

Rep. Stupak: Speaker Pelosi had extra health care votes 'in her pocket'

The health care reform bill would have passed the House without the votes of Rep. Bart Stupak’s pro-life Democrats because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “always carries a number of votes in her pocket,” Stupak told CNA in a Thursday phone interview.

The Michigan Democrat explained that by opting for the executive order, pro-life Democrats believe they ensured the legislation was “somewhat restrictive” towards abortion funding.

“Speakers never bring a bill to the floor, unless they have the votes. And they always have few in reserve,” Stupak revealed, describing this as a “common tactic” that was used in the defeat of the Dornan Amendment in a funding bill earlier this year.

“The Speaker always carries a number of votes in her pocket,” he said, meaning that some members who voted ‘no’ would have voted ‘yes’ if needed.

“I had a number of members who thanked us after because they could vote no.”

Rep. Stupak said he thought the votes available for Sunday’s vote totaled 222.

Well, okay Bart, who were these Dems who didn't have the courage to vote their convictions, and instead wish to go back to their constituents and claim they didn't support the ObamaCare monstrosity? (crickets ...)

Better yet, pal, don't tell us. It would be much more convenient for November voters to presumptively assume that their no-voting Democratic congressman really was a "yes" until Bart bailed them out. That works for me, and it would work for many other like-minded Americans -- which is why the press will more than likely pretend that the CNA-Stupak interview doesn't exist.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

10:25AM

DAVID SHUSTER: Is the tea party movement skating on thin ice? Tea party favorite Sarah Palin has just endorsed three conservative republicans running for Congress. Palin is supporting Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Vaughn Ward of Idaho, and Allen West of Florida. Democratic strategist Craig Varoga created the Patriot Majority PAC to fight against tea-party-backed candidates. And Craig joins us now. Craig, first of all, why create this sort of PAC? What's – what is it that makes you afraid?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Targets; Palin Endorses Three Tea Party Candidates]

CRAIG VAROGA: Well, let me say what Patriot Majority is. We believe that America is stronger if we take care of our economy, if we create jobs, if we keep our schools strong, provide affordable health care, but also face the challenges that are confronting us around the world.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Targets; PAC Launching Counter-Attack of Tea Party]

The reason why we're opposed to the tea party and the reason why we will be opposing candidates, is one, they're distracting us from actually dealing with the real problems we confront as a nation.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Anti-Tea Party Movement; Craig Varoga, Democratic Strategist; Founder, Patriot Majority Action Committee; Group Targeting Tea Party-Backed Candidates]

But two, their extremism, they're, you know, I mean, either looking the other way or encouraging harassment and violence is actually not only coarsening American life, it's putting people in danger. We saw that, you know, about a dozen members of congress were threatened simply because they had voted for health care. That's unacceptable. We don't believe in it. We believe that a majority of Americans oppose those actions by the tea party. And we think it's everybody's patriotic duty to rise to the occasion and oppose them.    

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Targets; PAC Targeting 12 to 15 Conservative Races]

SHUSTER: What are the specific races, specific campaigns that you're going to be targeting?

VAROGA: Well, we're actually doing this in a very interesting way. It's – you know, we're not going to put the list together by ourselves.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Targets; PAC's Mission: To Ensure Congress Tea Party-Free]

We're calling on Americans across the country to report and to suggest races where they want to oppose tea party candidates. I mean, there are a lot of people out there, you know, who have been affiliating with the tea party, at least on the Republican side, and who are saying that they're tea party candidates.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Targets; PAC: Americans Need to Confront Tea Party]

So we're basically going to ask the American people to make the suggestion in terms of who the tea party candidates are, who should be opposed. We think-

SHUSTER: Well, would that include, for example – would that include, for example, a sitting members of Congress like Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Targets; PAC: Citizens Across U.S. to Monitor Violence]

VAROGA: I mean, absolutely. Anybody's on the table at this point, in terms of opposing them, if they're ideas are dangerous and if they're actually participating and making America weaker by preventing us from rising to the occasion. So, you know, I'm not going to put her on the table, I'm not going to take her off. We're going to listen to people who are out there at the grassroots who support Patriot Majority in order to decide who those 12 or 15 are going to be.

SHUSTER: Craig Varoga, the founder and president of the Patriot PAC – Patriot Majority PAC. Criag, thanks for joining us this morning.

VAROGA: Okay, thank you so much for doing this.

SHUSTER: You're welcome.

Rodriguez agreed and touted Democratic Party talking points on ObamaCare: "Right. And also, if you ask the Obama administration, they'll tell you maybe people will see the few health care changes that are taking effect immediately and actually like them and it'll turn the tide of public opinion."

"That certainly is the hope," Dickerson replied, but then lamented: "The polling right now does not give the Obama administration a lot of encouragement on that front." He explained that the American public was simply afraid of change: "The problem is that people are nervous about change and this is an enormous change in their lives....people really just don't believe it yet."

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

7:10AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Here at home over the weekend, we saw the growing tea party movement kick off this 42-city protest tour against the passage of health care reform with Sarah Palin leading the charge, promising the Democrats that the upcoming elections would be a referendum on health care reform. How worried do you think the Democrats are? Because this is a party that is growing. Look at the number of people there. And it has a ton of momentum.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Politics; Palin Leads Charge Against Obama & Health Care]

JOHN DICKERSON: Well, the worry is that conservatives and tea party activists are energized. And their key argument is that legislators in Washington and the President aren't listening to them and now that this health care legislation has passed that's a perfect piece of evidence in that complaint. And so what they're – what Democrats are worried about in particular is that the opposition, the conservatives, are just more energized, more exercised, and they'll turn out at the polls in November. What Democrats can only hope for is that tea party activists somehow overreach and that that ends up becoming a stain on the Republican Party.

RODRIGUEZ: Right. And also, if you ask the Obama administration, they'll tell you maybe people will see the few health care changes that are taking effect immediately and actually like them and it'll turn the tide of public opinion.

DICKERSON: That certainly is the hope. The polling right now does not give the Obama administration a lot of encouragement on that front. The problem is that people are nervous about change and this is an enormous change in their lives. And then, in addition to that, they saw a political process over a year that didn't give them much reason to be more confident. So now that it's passed, the President's out there stumping, trying to explain people what's in this bill. The problem is people really just don't believe it yet.

RODRIGUEZ: And lastly, how about Sarah Palin campaigning for John McCain and against his more conservative opponent this weekend. You good got to give her props for loyalty.

DICKERSON: Indeed you do. They have maintained their relationship even though there has been this extraordinary out-in-the-open feud between Palin and lots of the top members of McCain's campaign. Ultimately in that feud, McCain had to come out and say he still, sort of, stood behind the former leaders of his campaign. Anyway, all water under the bridge. She's now out there trying to help John McCain, who's in a very tough race.

RODRGUEZ: Alright, John Dickerson. Thanks so much, John.

DICKERSON: Thanks, Maggie.

Perhaps tuning in to NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" isn't high on your list of priorities, outside of wanting the chance to catch Dan Rather suggest something bizarre like President Barack Obama couldn't sell watermelons. However, if you had watched the March 28 broadcast of the program, you would have found the show's roster of panelists think the Tea Party movement is a black mark on the Republican Party, as far as it pertains to unseating the Democratic majority in Congress.

Matthews' show featured NBC Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O'Donnell, Newsweek's senior Washington correspondent Howard Fineman, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger and Atlantic senior editor Andrew Sullivan. In the aftermath of the passage of ObamaCare into law, some have suggested this was a defeat for the Tea Party movement. Matthews asked if the mere existence of this movement was a plus or minus for the Republican Party.

"OK, all things considered, if there were no Tea Party crowd, we never saw them demonstrate - would that be better for the Republican Party, or is the Tea Party a plus for them in November, winning elections?" Matthews asked.

Although not a total, the answers from Matthews' panel showed the deck was stacked in one direction, the lone of exception being Kelly O'Donnell, who only conceded the Tea Party association would be a bad thing, but the energy it created was a positive:

O'DONNELL: Well I think they need the energy. They don't want the brand name "tea party."
MATTHEWS: Is it a plus?
O'DONNELL: Overall on the energy side
FINEMAN: No, overall it's a negative and that negative - and that negative, if the tea partiers continue to project the image they've been projecting over the last few days, it's a net negative. In the general election, for the Republicans, it's a net negative.
BORGER: I think it looks positive now, but I'm going to agree with Howard. I think in the end, it's going to backfire on Republicans because it could energize Democrats.
SULLIVAN: After '97, when the Tories lost in Britain, they got tagged as the nasty party and they are still trying to get out from under that 13 years later.

If the media outlets are going to report on tea party events, they're not likely to get any benefit of the doubt much of the time.

Case in point - at the Tea Party Express event on March 27 in Searchlight, Nev., which former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin spoke, CNN's Fredericka Whitfield wasn't quite prepared to give the rally credit it was due as far as participation. She estimated that hundreds, but if not, "at least dozens of people" were in attendance. (h/t fstaff with assist from Mark Finkelstein)

"Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin there in Searchlight, Nev., was the backyard of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but today it's the backdrop of this Tea Party Express - making a stop here," Whitfield said. "Hundreds of people, at least dozens of people - we haven't gotten a count of how many people turned out there. We heard Sarah Palin talk about everything about the campaign, to unseat Sen. Reid to what she calls ObamaCare, on the heels of that health care vote and even talking about her definition of her love of America."

Politico's Kenneth Vogel had a little higher number, saying "an estimated 20,000 tea partiers gathered for a rally in a windswept desert lot," in his March 27 report on the event.

But Whitfield still had her own interpretation of Palin's message at the rally.

"Also trying to kind of explain or structure the language she has used about reloading America," Whitfield said. "Many people talked about some of the language that's been used by Republicans, including her as inciting violence as a result of the health care vote. She says she is not inciting violence. Instead, she says she is inspiring people to stand up for their God-given rights in her language. Sarah Palin there as she takes the steps there and heads onto that crowd. Folks, she said she is off to Massachusetts next."