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. 

"The Tower commission did not find Reagan a lousy orator; they found him a lousy president," Rep. Barney Frank said of Reagan to Time magazine in the aftermath of the Iran-Contra Affair in 1987.

And more recently, those on the left, and also some on the right, have declared the era of Reagan over for the Republican Party - a point more rational voices on the right aren't willing to concede.

So why are some supporters of liberal causes attempting to co-opt Reagan to promote their own ideals?

Asking "WWRD?" ("What would Reagan do?") is becoming a trend on myriad issues, including global warming alarmism, health care legislation, attacks on the Tea Party movement and, surprisingly, liberal pundits seeking to put the best face on President Barack Obama's leadership.

Videos Embedded Below Fold

Reagan a ‘Climate Champion'?

Imagine a scenario where former Vice President Al Gore and Reagan would team up for a common cause. Doesn't sound at all plausible, unless you're buying into a campaign that a group called Republicans for Environmental Protection is trying to promote.

On their Web site, ClimateConservative.com, visitors can find a number of radio spots the group is airing during the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck programs on stations in New Hampshire. These ads suggest Reagan would have been all about combating the so-called threat of manmade global warming.

"Reagan knew that good stewardship is a conservative value," the announcer says in one ad after a Reagan speech. "Scientists found chemicals were depleting the earth's ozone layer. Reagan pushed through the treaty that fixed the problem. He ignored radio pundits who claimed ozone depletion wasn't real. Today, scientists warn that heat-trapping pollution is dangerously altering our climate. Once again, some want us to ignore the problem, but that would endanger our children's future - contrary to the conservative values Reagan stood for. It's time to ask, what would Reagan do?"

The other two ads convey the same message to suggest Reagan would have been on board reacting to climate change alarmism with domestic policies that wouldn't necessarily translate into solving this supposed problem and would cripple the U.S. economy. However, according to John D. Heubusch, executive director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, that's speculation, and it's hard to imagine a scenario Reagan would be on board an economy-challenging obstacle like cap and trade.

"I know that, particularly in this economic climate, he would want to promote policies that protect our environment in a way that doesn't cost us jobs or place an unfair burden on the U.S. taxpayer," Heubusch said to the April 3 Los Angeles Times, reacting to the ad.

The Gipper Against the Tea Parties? 

Ron Reagan, one of the sons of the former president, is a liberal whose political views that are very different from his father's. For whatever reason, the younger Reagan didn't seem to think his father would have been on board with a movement that advocates for smaller government, one of the fundamental tenets of Reagan-style conservatism.

Back on HLN's Jan. 26 "The Joy Behar Show," host Joy Behar asked Ron Reagan what his father would have thought about the modern tea party movement. Ron said that his father, the conservative icon wouldn't have looked upon the Tea Party movement favorably.

"Oh, I think he would be unamused by the tea partiers with their Hitler signs and all the rest of it. No, I don't think he'd be cottoning to that much at all," Reagan replied.

That curious claim is counter to what the elder Reagan wrote in the Dec. 7, 1973 issue of National Review. In that article, Reagan clearly laid out the stakes as he saw them in the battle against bloated government and massive taxation, writing, "[the idea of limited government] must prevail because if it does not, the free society we have known for two hundred years, the ideal of a government by consent of the governed, will simply cease to exist."

As Reagan's other son, Michael Reagan recently explained to the Business & Media Institute, the 40th president would have been a staunch advocate of the Tea Party movement.

"I think that my father would have been supportive of a grassroots movement, as he was always supportive of grassroots movements, you know, in this country," Michael Reagan said. "I mean, people need to remember without the grassroots, Ronald Reagan probably doesn't become president of the United States of America and he worked the grassroots on a regular basis during his political career, and especially between the years of 1976 and 1980 after the loss in Kansas City."

Obama: The Next Reagan?

Since his death in 2004 - and despite all the hostile coverage he has got from the media during his presidency - Reagan is often compared to his ideologically opposite successor President Barack Obama, who has been shown to be a media darling.

Newsweek senior Washington correspondent and MSNBC regular Howard Fineman spoke glowingly of the similarities between Reagan and Obama in the Nov. 30, 2009, issue of Newsweek:

There are some remarkable affinities, personal and historical. Like Reagan, Obama shares a celebrity's sense of comfort on the (public) stage, a belief in sticking to the script, and a faith in the power of the written word spoken from an imposing rostrum. He also shares Reagan's reverence for the power of a narrative in politics - Reagan, because he was an actor; Obama, because he is a writer. Obama came of age politically when he arrived on the mainland in the Reagan years.

He watched Reagan attack with bold ideas the Carter era's sense of hopelessness and ‘malaise'; saw him and his party get hammered in the first midterm election in 1982; saw him, during a severe economic downturn, rebound to a sweeping second-term ‘morning in America' victory in 1984.Around the White House right now - beset by a weak economy and dire midterm election prospects - the story of the Gipper is uplifting, at least to the man in the center chair at the cabinet table.

And Fineman isn't alone. Ed Schultz, a liberal radio talker and host of MSNBC's "Ed Show" made a similar comparison on his April 5 program. However, Schultz's evaluation was done in an effort to attack the GOP for opposing the extension of unemployment benefits.

"Ronald Reagan was called the great communicator," Schultz said. "There's simply no question that Barack Obama is also a great communicator. He needs to be speaking up aggressively and making it clear that in this moment, what Tom Coburn is doing is not making a point about the deficit. What Tom Coburn is doing is slowing down the economic recovery, because when you stop these unemployment benefits, you squeeze money out of the towns that are hardest hit across this country."

And some have taken it a step further - that Obama is better at being Reagan than Reagan. According to CNN's Soledad O'Brien, the comparison was not only valid but Obama had exceeded Reagan's abilities as a communicator.

"The good news for this president, of course, is that he, like Reagan, is the great communicator, gets very high marks on that," O'Brien said on CNN's Jan. 27 "The Situation Room. "And in fact when we asked in the polls how do you rate him as a communicator, Obama - now 90 percent say he's a great communicator, a good speaker and communicator. Reagan 84 - 84 percent said that President Reagan was a great speaker and great communicator. So he's beating Reagan, who was known as ‘The Great Communicator.'"

But even where Obama has failed, particularly the economy, pundits have managed to trot out the Reagan comparison to prop up the current command-in-chief.

"If we can just - I've been wanting to share this on ‘Meet the Press' for some time," former "NBC Nightly News" anchor Tom Brokaw said on NBC's March 14 "Meet the Press." "Looking forward beyond the elections this fall about the political future of President Obama, here are some numbers that people may want to keep in mind. These are the unemployment rates in key states in 1982, well into President Reagan's first term. Look at the screen. Michigan, 16.8 percent; Alabama, 14.3; Ohio, 13.9; down through 12 and above. That went on into 1983. Did it spell the end of the Reagan presidency? Not exactly."

And although it's convenient for the left to draw these comparisons for the sake of political expediency, Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, says Barack Obama is hardly cast in the mold of Ronald Reagan.

"One can quarrel about the efficacy and justice of the Reagan tax cuts and the Obama health care expansion, but one thing is plain from the political styles that these presidents have brought to the passage of their signature domestic legislation," Berkowitz wrote for The Weekly Standard on Aug. 10, 2009. "Reagan's forthright approach is more consistent with democratic norms and the presuppositions of a free society than Obama's hide-the-ball tactics."

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.

"Helen Thomas," reported Lloyd Grove for the Daily Beast, "is worried that all the downsizing at media outlets will result in less-reliable coverage of the president." Thomas went on to lament the rise of new media as a viable alternative to traditional journalism.

With all due respect to Thomas and her distinguished career as a reporter, it is not at all clear that someone with views as liberal as hers -- placing her as they do well outside the mainstream of American political opinion -- is at all preferable an intermediary to a pajama-clad blogger or iPhone photographer.

The ability of non-credentialed citizen-journalists to report the news for themselves can potentially put an end to media gatekeepers who consistently side with the liberal left. For her part, Thomas has vehemently denied any liberal bent in the White House Press Corps, despite tremendous evidence to the contrary.

Thomas lamented a loss in "accountability," but who keeps Old Media accountable? She specifically targeted bloggers, saying,

They can ruin lives, reputations, and once you send something into the air, it’s going to land, and there’s nothing that can curb them from saying anything they want. Everybody with a laptop thinks they’re a journalist, and everybody with a cellphone thinks they’re a photographer.

And all those with printing presses and Columbia journalism degrees think they are entitled to a monopoly on information.

Sorry Helen, but according to the Pew Research Center only 29 percent of Americans believe that the press generally gets its facts straight. Only 26 percent believe the press is politically objective. An institution with such abysmal standing in the eyes of the public cannot credibly claim to be satisfying an indispensable social and political need.

Of course, 70 percent also think journalists try to cover up their mistakes, so Thomas's denial is predictable.

If anything, new media journalists must hold themselves to a higher standard if they wish to be successful. In general, they must start from a state of obscurity and build relationships with an audience. They are not granted an air of legitimacy simply by their existence.

As White House correspondent Bill Plante told Grove, the people who get "the decent information" are "the people who rely on trusted filters, whether they’re online or on the air."

There are still "trusted filters" among the tattered remains of the legacy of Cronkite and Murrow. But citizen journalists working with laptops and smartphones have to prove they are trusted filters. Old Media is consistently demonstrating that it comprises fewer of those every day, and Americans are turning to the alternative.

That is a fact to be rejoiced, not bemoaned.

Christopher, who has had a much-publicized run-in with Andrew Breitbart, has a new hero, former American Enterprise Institute scholar David Frum. Christopher elevated Frum to messianic status in a Good Friday April 2 post headlined "Did David Frum ‘Die' For GOP's Sins?" specifically praising the former AEI scholar for his appearance on Comedy Central's April 1 "The Colbert Report."

According to Christopher, Frum still wants to be a conservative and hasn't converted to the liberal ideology, like others have before him. He argued that lends credence to Frum, who is more known for levying criticisms about conservatives and Republicans, and not his conservative world view. (As if being popular with the liberal blogosphere was a badge of honor.)

"See, he still wants to be a conservative," Christopher wrote. "That really cuts down on his job prospects. If he was a true apostate, he'd be the toast of the liberal blogosphere, telling appreciative millions how he's seen the light."

Christopher took it a step further and opined that "Colbert Report" host Stephen Colbert was right when he said the Republican Party was like a "cult" for opposing ObamaCare so fervently.

"Colbert hits the nail on the head when he compares the GOP to a cult," Christopher added. "The 2008 election, and the health care debate after, saw the Republicans increasingly whipping up and harnessing the energy of that fringe that Frum spoke of. The big difference now, though, is that it is the cult's followers who are offering the Kool Aid, and the cult's leaders who must now drink."

Christopher, who has determined to take the role of economist (and didn't get what unemployment numbers released April 2 really could mean), hedged his bet that unemployment numbers will improve and the GOP could possibly be forced to eat their words and embrace the likes of Frum.

"Still, these are unique times," Christopher wrote. "With the GOP pursuing its promise to run on repealing health care reform, and with today's encouraging job numbers, Frum and I could look like geniuses come November. That'll be good for me, but what it does for Frum is anyone's guess. If November goes badly enough, maybe the Republicans wake up and start listening to voices like Frum's."

Christopher's employer, Mediaite, which has a home page that at first glance appears to be a sounding board for media critics against all things conservative, was founded by Dan Abrams, a former MSNBC host and the Chief Legal analyst for NBC News. According to Mediaite, the Web site had a record-breaking month of March, as it attempts to establish a foothold in the blogosphere.

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.