UPDATED REPORT: Economists comprised only 6 percent of guest appearances discussing stimulus on cable news, Sunday shows
SUMMARY: A Media Matters review of the Sunday talk shows and 12 cable news programs from January 25 through February 15 found that during 203 hours of programming on Sunday mornings and weekday afternoons and evenings, only 41 of 722 total guest appearances in discussions about the economic recovery legislation and debate in Congress, were made by economists -- a mere 6 percent. The review is an update of a Media Matters study released February 11 that found that from January 25 through February 8, only 5 percent of the total guest appearances that included discussions of the recovery plan were made by economists.
In a February 4 article on The Huffington Post, Crooksandliars.com founder John Amato observed: "I'm sure you've heard about the hundreds of economists that are either for or against President Obama's stimulus plan. My question to the media is: Where are they?" A Media Matters for America review of the Sunday talk shows and 12 cable news programs from January 25 through February 15 found that during 203 hours of programming on Sunday mornings and weekday afternoons and evenings, of 722 total guest appearances in discussions about the economic recovery legislation and debate in Congress, only 41 were made by economists -- a mere 6 percent.
As Media Matters has extensively documented, media coverage of the plan has also been marred by conservative falsehoods and misinformation.
The analysis presented here is an update of a Media Matters study released February 11. That study found that from January 25 through February 8, only 25 of the 460 total guest appearances that included discussions of the recovery plan were made by economists, or 5 percent of the total. This update, which extended the time period under study through February 15, found that little has changed.
Media Matters purposefully used a broad definition of "economist" to be inclusive, coding as an economist any guest who has a master's degree or doctorate in economics or who has served as an economics professor at a university or college, as best as we could determine. (All current members of Congress were coded as non-economists.)
On cable news channels, economists made a total of 33 guest appearances out of 639 guest appearances in broadcasts that included guest discussions of the stimulus. The show that featured the most guest appearances by economists was Fox News' Glenn Beck, which featured 10: Arthur Laffer (who appeared twice), Stephen Moore (who appeared four times), Barry Ritholtz, Amity Shlaes, Thomas Sowell, and Ben Stein:
|
Cable channels |
||||
|
Program |
Economist guest appearances in which stimulus was discussed |
% |
Total guest appearances in which stimulus was discussed |
Hours of programming in which stimulus was discussed |
|
The Situation Room |
5 |
5% |
104 |
42 |
|
Lou Dobbs Tonight |
2 |
4% |
49 |
15 |
|
Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull |
0 |
0% |
35 |
11 |
|
Anderson Cooper 360 |
0 |
0% |
53 |
13 |
|
Your World with Neil Cavuto |
6 |
8% |
77 |
15 |
|
Glenn Beck |
10 |
26% |
38 |
13 |
|
The O'Reilly Factor |
1 |
4% |
28 |
11 |
|
Hannity |
1 |
2% |
62 |
14 |
|
Hardball with Chris Matthews |
1 |
1% |
78 |
15 |
|
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue |
4 |
6% |
70 |
14 |
|
Countdown with Keith Olbermann |
1 |
4% |
27 |
14 |
|
The Rachel Maddow Show |
2 |
11% |
18 |
12 |
Among the Sunday shows, ABC's This Week featured the most economist guest appearances, with three over the course of four broadcasts:
|
Sunday shows |
||||
|
Program |
Economist guest appearances in which stimulus was discussed |
% |
Total guest appearances in which stimulus was discussed |
Number of broadcasts in which stimulus was discussed |
|
This Week |
3 |
11% |
28 |
4 |
|
Face the Nation |
1 |
10% |
10 |
4 |
|
Meet the Press |
2 |
11% |
19 |
4 |
|
Fox News Sunday |
2 |
8% |
26 |
4 |
Restricting the definition of "economist" to guests
with a doctorate in economics produced substantially lower numbers. Twenty-seven
of the 722 guest appearances during the period studied were by people with a
Ph.D. in economics -- 4 percent of the total. Under the more restrictive
criterion, Glenn Beck's
tally of economist guest appearances falls from 10 to 3:
|
Cable channels |
||||
|
Program |
Economics Ph.D. guest appearances in which stimulus was discussed |
% |
Total guest appearances in which stimulus was discussed |
Hours of programming in which stimulus was discussed |
|
The Situation Room |
5 |
5% |
104 |
42 |
|
Lou Dobbs Tonight |
0 |
0% |
49 |
15 |
|
Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull |
0 |
0% |
35 |
11 |
|
Anderson Cooper 360 |
0 |
0% |
53 |
13 |
|
Your World with Neil Cavuto |
4 |
5% |
77 |
15 |
|
Glenn Beck |
3 |
8% |
38 |
13 |
|
The O'Reilly Factor |
0 |
0% |
28 |
11 |
|
Hannity |
1 |
2% |
62 |
14 |
|
Hardball with Chris Matthews |
1 |
1% |
78 |
15 |
|
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue |
4 |
6% |
70 |
14 |
|
Countdown with Keith Olbermann |
0 |
0% |
27 |
14 |
|
The Rachel Maddow Show |
2 |
11% |
18 |
12 |
The numbers for the Sunday shows barely changed with the
more restrictive criterion:
|
Sunday shows |
||||
|
Program |
Economics Ph.D. guest appearances in which stimulus was discussed |
% |
Total guest appearances in which stimulus was discussed |
Number of broadcasts in which stimulus was discussed |
|
This Week |
2 |
7% |
28 |
4 |
|
Face the Nation |
1 |
10% |
10 |
4 |
|
Meet the Press |
2 |
11% |
19 |
4 |
|
Fox News Sunday |
2 |
8% |
26 |
4 |
The following is a list of all guest appearances by
economists using the broad definition outlined above, with a separate column
noting which ones have economics Ph.D.s:
|
Date |
Network |
Program |
Guest |
Economics Ph.D.? |
|
1/28/2009 |
MSNBC |
Hardball with Chris Matthews |
Armey, Dick |
Yes |
|
2/10/2009 |
CNN |
The Situation Room |
Armey, Dick |
Yes |
|
2/11/2009 |
FNC |
Your World with Neil Cavuto |
Armey, Dick |
Yes |
|
2/10/2009 |
MSNBC |
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue |
Bernstein, Jared |
Yes |
|
2/13/2009 |
FNC |
Your World with Neil Cavuto |
Bernstein, Jared |
Yes |
|
2/5/2009 |
CNN |
Lou Dobbs Tonight |
Ferguson, Niall |
No |
|
2/4/2009 |
MSNBC |
Countdown with Keith Olbermann |
Huffington, Arianna |
No |
|
1/25/2009 |
ABC |
This Week |
Krugman, Paul |
Yes |
|
2/4/2009 |
MSNBC |
The Rachel Maddow Show |
Krugman, Paul |
Yes |
|
2/13/2009 |
MSNBC |
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue |
Krugman, Paul |
Yes |
|
2/10/2009 |
FNC |
Glenn Beck |
Laffer, Arthur |
Yes |
|
1/28/2009 |
FNC |
Glenn Beck |
Laffer, Arthur |
Yes |
|
2/11/2009 |
FNC |
Hannity |
Lindsey, Larry |
Yes |
|
1/28/2009 |
FNC |
Glenn Beck |
Moore, Stephen |
No |
|
2/2/2009 |
FNC |
Glenn Beck |
Moore, Stephen |
No |
|
2/11/2009 |
FNC |
Glenn Beck |
Moore, Stephen |
No |
|
2/12/2009 |
FNC |
Your World with Neil Cavuto |
Moore, Stephen |
No |
|
2/13/2009 |
FNC |
Glenn Beck |
Moore, Stephen |
No |
|
1/27/2009 |
MSNBC |
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue |
Orszag, Peter |
Yes |
|
2/5/2009 |
CNN |
The Situation Room |
Orszag, Peter |
Yes |
|
2/5/2009 |
FNC |
Your World with Neil Cavuto |
Orszag, Peter |
Yes |
|
2/8/2009 |
ABC |
This Week |
Reich, Robert |
No |
|
2/3/2009 |
FNC |
Glenn Beck |
Ritholtz, Barry |
No |
|
1/30/2009 |
CNN |
The Situation Room |
Rivlin, Alice |
Yes |
|
2/8/2009 |
CBS |
Face the Nation |
Romer, Christina |
Yes |
|
2/12/2009 |
MSNBC |
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue |
Romer, Christina |
Yes |
|
2/11/2009 |
MSNBC |
The Rachel Maddow Show |
Sachs, Jeffrey |
Yes |
|
1/26/2009 |
FNC |
Glenn Beck |
Shlaes, Amity |
No |
|
2/9/2009 |
CNN |
Lou Dobbs Tonight |
Smick, David |
No |
|
1/30/2009 |
FNC |
Glenn Beck |
Sowell, Thomas |
Yes |
|
1/30/2009 |
FNC |
Glenn Beck |
Stein, Ben |
No |
|
2/6/2009 |
FNC |
The O'Reilly Factor |
Stein, Ben |
No |
|
1/25/2009 |
NBC |
Meet the Press |
Summers, Larry |
Yes |
|
2/8/2009 |
FNC |
Fox News Sunday |
Summers, Larry |
Yes |
|
2/8/2009 |
ABC |
This Week |
Summers, Larry |
Yes |
|
2/9/2009 |
CNN |
The Situation Room |
Summers, Larry |
Yes |
|
2/9/2009 |
FNC |
Your World with Neil Cavuto |
Summers, Larry |
Yes |
|
1/30/2009 |
FNC |
Your World with Neil Cavuto |
Wheelan, Charles |
No |
|
2/1/2009 |
NBC |
Meet the Press |
Zandi, Mark |
Yes |
|
2/6/2009 |
CNN |
The Situation Room |
Zandi, Mark |
Yes |
|
2/15/2009 |
FNC |
Fox News Sunday |
Zandi, Mark |
Yes |
A spreadsheet of all the guests who discussed the recovery plan
classified as either economists or non-economists is available here [PDF file, 80KB].
Methodology
Media Matters coded the following cable news shows for the weeks of January 26-30, February 2-6, and February 9-13:
The Situation Room (4-7 p.m. ET), CNN
Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN
Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, CNN
Anderson Cooper 360 (10 p.m. ET hour only), CNN
Your World with Neil Cavuto, Fox News
Glenn Beck, Fox News
The O'Reilly Factor (8 p.m. ET broadcast only), Fox News
Hannity, Fox News
Hardball with Chris Matthews (5 p.m. ET broadcast only), MSNBC
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, MSNBC
Countdown with Keith Olbermann (8 p.m. ET broadcast only), MSNBC
The Rachel Maddow Show (9 p.m. ET broadcast only), MSNBC
(Note: On February 9, some shows were pre-empted by, or broadcast at a different hour because of, President Obama's 8 p.m. press conference. CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull was pre-empted at the 8 p.m. hour and was not coded. Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor aired at 9 p.m. and was coded at that hour. Fox News' Hannity did not air at all on that night. MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann aired at 10 p.m. and was coded at that hour.)
Media Matters also coded the Sunday-morning talk shows on ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC for January 25, February 1, February 8, and February 15. All shows were one hour long except for CBS' Face the Nation, which runs for 30 minutes:
Face the Nation, CBS
Fox News Sunday, Fox
Meet the Press, NBC
This Week, ABC
Media Matters counted as appearances instances in which someone appeared as a guest on a show -- either live during the show or in a taped interview aired during the show -- and discussed the economic recovery plan. If a guest appeared more than once in a broadcast during separate segments, that guest was counted only one time for the purposes of this study. Reported stories and news packages were not included in the study. Guests who did not participate in a discussion of the plan were also not included in the study.
All guests coded were classified as either an "economist" or "other." To be classified as an economist, a guest must have received an advanced degree in economics or served as an economics professor at a college or university. We used bios, profiles, resumes, and news stories available online to determine as best we could each guest's educational background and professional experience. We coded all current members of Congress as "other" without assessing their educational or prior professional background. Ben Stein, whose bio states that he "worked as an economist at The Department of Commerce," was coded as an economist. David M. Smick, who, among other things, is the founder, editor, and publisher of The International Economy magazine and the author of The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy, was also coded as an economist.
Media Matters also analyzed the guest appearances using a more restrictive definition of "economist" as a guest with a Ph.D. in economics.
Broadcast hours calculated for this study include only broadcasts in which at least one guest was on to discuss the economic recovery plan. Transcripts for shows were reviewed through the Nexis news database. Transcripts for CNN shows were also obtained through CNN's website. Shows for which no transcripts were available were viewed via digital recordings.
RSS Feeds
Conservative economists is an oxymoron considering the Bush governance. Spending money like a drunk texan does not require an economy degree of any kind.
Economists can't make the economy run perfectly. In most cases they tell you what happened after the fact.
That right there is why I only listen to Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich when it comes to the economy. They ain't got no book-learnin' to warp their opinions like them PHDs.
I'm with you, Neon. Fox news has all of the economatricians I need, and all of the facts I need- Trickle-down works... or it will eventually, if we just give it a few more decades.
Yeah, and the self-correcting market forces that we're meddling with, too. Obama's just too impatient to let real-world Ayn Rand economics work its magic.
exactly. these guys don't have a clue even if it bit them in the derriere.
Or in Greenspan's case, they take an hour to tell you nothing, claim that no one could have foreseen that greed and other forms of human frailty could possibly have entered the equation while attempting to explain away their bogus markets are self-regulating malarkey or that foxes would not have acted out of their own enlightened self interest and assorted other objectivist gibberish ayn rand rubbish.
this is such a worthless exercise anyway. Who in their right mind goes to Hannity or Glenn Beck or Maddow for economic wisdom, they are political shows.
Psst! Look two top level posts down...
Snoop, JimmyB specifically said "in their right mind", not "right wing mind".
I don't think this number is out of line especially when it is evident that there was only one economist, (Mark Zandi) consulted when this "stimulus" plan was put together.
:-)
What supply side schmuck fed ya that gop-slop nonsense, ug, clueless kudlow or clueless cavuto?
Let me get this straight: Obama has selects a team of economists to consult regarding economic issues including:
Ben Bernanke: PhD Economics MIT., 1979.
Lawrence Summers: age 16, he enters MIT, Economics (S.B., 1975). PhD Harvard (1982)
Austan Goolsbee: B.A. summa cum laude (economics), Yale University, 1991; M.A. (economics), Yale University, 1991; Ph.D. (economics), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. Alfred P. Sloan Fellow (2000-02) and
Fulbright Scholar (2006-07).
Christina Romer: bachelor's degree in economics from The College of William & Mary in 1981, Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1985.
Cecilia Elena Rouse: Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. Currently serving as Theodore A. Wells '29 Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University.
Romer, Goolsbee, and Rouse are Obama's nominees to the Council of Economic Advisors which has an additional staff of twenty top economists.
...and you say he only consulted one Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's?! You do realize that Zandi's main reservation about the stimulus plan s that it is too small. And this is only a very short list of top economists (and others from various sectors of the economy and representing divergent points of view on the political spectrum) selected by Obama to consult regarding the economic crisis. A crisis produced by years of bad government policy and what I regard as outright criminality on the part of a few Wall Street kleptocrats. Is it that, as usual, you could care less what the truth is? Do you just make stuff up then post it or are you a pathological liar? It must be one or the other. Take your smiley faces and shove them--they are passive aggressive and further evidence that you are nothing but a brain dead heartless sociopath.
MM doesn't explain why they think it's essential that only "economists" are qualified to speak on the economy. People who have good experience in government and business are just as qualified - often more so - to speak on economic matters more than so-called "economists."
For example, Leon Panetta hadn't had a single minute of experience in the intelligence world, yet he is now director of the CIA. We now expect him to speak and opine on intelligence matters.
MM's numbers and tables are just silly without any reasoning behind them.
Where did they say "only" economists?
They never said that only economists are qualified to speak.
the part that "only" shoes can see. just like he does with every other story he comments on.
umm well panetta may lack field experience but he isnt entirely lacking when it comes to the CIA. i mean he was Chief of Staff so he would have been present for the daily intelligence briefings. so he got to see stuff that most of us wouldn't to begin with. plus being chief of staff gave him management skills, which with any federal agency may be good.
just because you lack intelligence experience means nothing. of all the directors of the OSS/CIA, half had that experience and half did not. and the ones that did, half of those did horrible. and the half that did not, half of them did horrible as well.
so in teh grand scheme of things when it comes to CIA director, its a dice roll. Leon will be good or bad, give it a year and see how he does
Well, looking at his Car Improvment team or what ever they are called, they have less then 6% in the Automotve industry, what about this clean energy project team meeting, looking at that board the only person on it with any energy expertise was T.Boone Pickens. Most of the others are individuals that have never worked in the Private sector. Most of Obama's teams are government folks, not many that have ever held a job in the private sector. Which is par the course for Obama, heck he has never held a job in the private sector.
Which is par the course for Obama, heck he has never held a job in the private sector. markbfoot
You sure about that? I'm sure that I read that he....
Worked as an associate attorney with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland - 1993-2002
Or that he was a...
Writer/Researcher for Business International Corporation. - 1983-1984
Ben you are correct, and glad you are. Now I can show you this, cause he was working for the law firm doing civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development. Worked on cases like these. Oh, hey this is why we are in this mess now.
In 1993 Barack Obama became a litigator of voting rights and employment cases with the law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. (a.k.a. Davis Miner), where he remains a Counsel to this day. In 1994 Obama worked for Davis Miner on a case titled Barnett v. Daley, where he was part of a legal team that sought to raise the number of black super-majority voting districts in Chicago from 19 to 24. According to the judge in the case, Richard Posner, the Obama team held that “no black aldermanic (city council) candidate in Chicago has ever beaten a white in a ward that had a black majority of less than 62.6 percent, and it is emphatic that the ward in which the population is 55 percent black is not a black ward -- is indeed a white ward, even though only 42 percent of its population is white.”
In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his fellow attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few loans to black applicants and won the case. As one commentator noted in May 2008, legal “successes” such as this were probably responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007. That is, banks were not loaning to blacks whose credit was poor. When the law forced them to lend money anyway, the inevitable collapse occurred.
So you knowingly post a blatant lie to make this weak point? Alrighty.
The first part you posted re; districting/redistricting in Chicago - sounds like Delay in Texas.
As for the second paragraph re; the Citibank case - so the government held a gun to the bank's "head" and forced them to provide these loans? Even one of your links refers to "redlining". You are familiar with that practice? It would appear the law suite was meant to stop UNFAIR lending practices. Can you provide any proof that banks and/or mortgage lenders were forced to provide loans to people who they knew could not pay it back?
Groan. Your factiness is only surpassed by your moxie. Yep, them poor black folks forced all them bankers to give 'em houses they couldn't afford. That's just so much horse sh*t and has been refuted so many times on here...
And another straw baby is given life.
You know one of the bad things about trying to attach a personal opinion to a factual post? Someone might read the post and find out for themselves what it really said:
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.
The parties settled the case on May 12, 1998, with an agreement that provided for waiver of some fees for class members, should they reapply for a loan, and also for various procedures to ensure that Citibank followed its own loan policies in a race neutral way.
Hmmm, holding blacks and whites to the same standards if they exhibit the same economic standards sounds nothing like your claim of forcing banks to give loans to blacks who's credit was poor. Oops!
Isn't it odd that the last two sentences of your screed were plagiarized from an answers @ yahoo article.
Nice work. You even have the exact punctuation they used.
Even Barney will occasionally drop a comma from the original before posting it as his own "scholarship".
Another collar for Officer Worrierking. This cracks me up. What is it with these wingnuts and their complete obliviousness to any ethics? How many book reports did they get busted on by teachers who had the Encyclopedia Brittanica?
It's amazing, they get caught lying on a regular basis, and seem completely dumbfounded that it affects their credibility. Do they live with doting mothers who just don't call them on this stuff?
Eric Holder, experienced in his field.
Tim Geithner, Degree in economics.
Shoot.
Also, Dennis C. Blair. Worked for DCI now in DNI. Experienced in his field.
We have not only more than 6% fo the names we have mentioned, but well over 50%.
Peter Orszag, economist handling the budget. educated and experienced in his field. Shoot.
I would like to see more true Economist on these shows, most of the ones I have seen say this is a bad deal. That the stimulas package is not going to stimulate. I still would like to know how the first stimulie to go out was to Medicare, how many shovel ready jobs does that create?
It avoids shovel ready jobs by keeping people alive.
Fog, that was not the intent behind Obama stimulas package, he said shovel ready, now here he is going back on his word.
Don't worry Foghorn, I'm sure most got your joke. It just didn't penetrate the shovel-ready skull.
Um, mark? There are no economists on Beck, Hannity or O'Reilly. You may want to look to a different source if you really want to know what most ecomomists say about the stimulus package.
Snoopy, according to MMFA it seems you are wrong, matter of fact (MMFA facts) Glenn Beck seems to have largest % of all the shows. Hey, just using MMFA information. Also, FYI Beck comes on during working hours for me, so have not listened to his show is sometime, but now that I know he puts on real economist, maybe I should podcast.
I knew I could get you to refer to real data! This is a big day for you, I'm real proud of you Mark!
Well for you Snoopy, just another day of you being wrong.
Being wrong once in a blue moon doesn't bother me, but I'm sure it must get tiring for you?
Now kids, I'm sure if you both grab your shovels and go after it, you can get markb's pile shoveled off right quick!
I think it's gonna take a village... ;)
Well in my part of the country, medical facilites, and infrastructure, do not rise magically from the ground. Work in medical fields pays pretty good too. Medical training supports a good sized wage earning population as well.
If your going to determine the effectiveness of the stimulus by only the number of shovels in motion, then I think your understanding of it will suffer.
That makes it a win-win thang for you then. You can continue to complain with authority about it from, a position of self inflicted ignorance.
Eweston, so if the money was for the continuation of a Medicare, (on going cost) why put it in this package. It should have been placed in a seperate bill. This was for short term fix, but Medicare is long term cost for the Feds.
Your going to have to back up your argument. Why would using stimulus bill money be bad here? A job, even a short term one, puts money into wallets, while long term employment continues to be the personal goal for most of us.
Looking for the mythological Goldilocks Solution?
Been some talk of having it on a separate bill, so. If long term modification is needed, then hopefully a bill will be produced to do so.
6 percent? So what?
How many economists know what they are talking about? How many of them correctly saw the upcoming dotcom bubble? The housing bubble? The meltdown on Wall Street?
Aside from a few, like Dean Baker at CEPR, who did see these things coming, most economists aren't worth listening to.
In addition to Paul Krugman, I'd like to see Ravi Batra being interviewed. He has predicted the markets accurately for the past 20 years of so...
How many of the pundits invited to these shows know what they are talking about? Media Matters corrects their falsehoods every day. But that's a question you conveniently won't ask.Careful, truth. This is the point where gops usually retort with "Oh, yeah! Well if Media Matters is so smart, why didn't they tell them that before the fact!" or words to that effect.
Hey, it's not like they've got anything to lose.
didn't they count paul krugman, i see him everywhere, esp. olbermann. i mean nobel prize right.
First, CNBC is notably absent. Larry Kudlow has economists on regulary.
Second, economics is a field full of specialists. A macroeconomist will have more to add than a micro or international economist. Just like you wouldn't expect a podiatrist (foot doctor) to be an expert in neurosurgery (though you may expect him to be able to understand the basics), you shouldn't expect any economist to be able to add something to a stimulus debate.
Also, some percentage of economists are in the banking industry. Those economists may have some vested interests in the outcome of some of these debates...
Sounds like 6% too many to me.
Right...maybe they should have invighted you and Anuttieramerican in to enlighten the electorate on these matters. If you add ignoramuses like Oxymoron Limbaugh, Luffa O'Reilly, Pretty Boy Hannity, Skankmouth Coulter, Bernard Shellgame Madoff, and Michael Stamenson then convicted criminals like Jack Abramoff, Ted Stevens, and Alan Fabian you pretty much have a right wing economic dream team. Can't wait to see it on Faux. Let the ranting and drooling begin.
"Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he's not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations...Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that the White House czars don’t have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate."
Sounds like consistency and a reasonable concern to me. Why does this bear mention here?
Nobody wants to be responsible for arousing the rabble.
Just let people come on and lie about one of the most important bills in our lifetime.
Corporate Media is filled with propagandists like George Will and dimwits like Joe Scarborough (who admitted he knew nothing about the Stimulus) and Lord Haw Haw-types like Rush Limbaugh who preach to the ignoramuses and the core-hater psychos. What we want mostly is hard empirical facts and well-reasoned commentary. Otherwise it behooves us to tune out and go elsewhere for our dose of the daily intelligence, like C-SPAN, NPR, the BBC and the Web.