On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.



One of the more shameless defenders of the Clinton and Obama families in author David Maraniss appeared on MSNBC late Wednesday night with The 11th Hour host Brian Williams to lament that he’s “suffering a bit from PTSD” from Donald Trump bringing up Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades but not worried because their opponents always “overplay their hand” against “Bill Clinton's defense attorney” Hillary Clinton. 



On Tuesday’s Morning Edition on National Public Radio, they turned to a liberal media eminence to explain just how easily Hillary Clinton is winning this election. Washington Post assistant managing editor David Maraniss was just an “Author” in their online headline. Armed with this authority, Maraniss proceeded to talk exactly like a hyperbolic MSNBC surrogate for the Clintons, claiming that Trump’s jail quip in the second debate proved Trump was “against everying about American democracy” and represented the view of a “tin-pot dictatorship in which politicians jail the other side.”



One of the liberal media’s greatest hypocrisies is its opposition to  rhetorical excess. Journalists claim to favor a civil discourse where everyone acknowledges the decency and humanity of their opponents. But in reality, they think conservatives are the forces of inhumanity, and liberal heroes are “iconic,” even comparable to divinity. CNN weekend host Michael Smerconish became the poster boy for this hypocrisy on Wednesday night, proclaiming the Republicans have “overplayed” their rhetoric against Hillary Clinton “in poor taste” – as he unabashedly compared her plight in Cleveland to the crucifixion of Jesus.   
 



Somehow, MSNBC felt on Wednesday night that it needed even more of a reason to show their undying commitment and love to the Clintons that they brought on biographer David Maraniss of The Washington Post during the Republican National Convention (RNC) to blame the “hatred” and “vitriol” from Republicans for why the Clintons aren’t transparent with the American people and decry the “25 years” of “hostility.”



In a sure sign Obama is a lame duck, Sunday’s Washington Post carried a gushy article by assistant managing editor David Maraniss. The subhead was  “Obama set out to be a leader of consequence; From the Affordable Care Act to the opening of relations with Cuba, Obama will leave behind a legacy of liberal achievement.”

In a 2,863-word article that's overblown in length and historical scope, Maraniss said Obama ambitiously sought to be an ideological counter-balance to Ronald Reagan in the greatest-president category, and “It is now becoming increasingly possible to argue he has neared his goal.”



The Washington Post’s ongoing love-bombing of John Dingell continued on Wednesday. Post reporter Ben Terris began promoting Dingell’s wife Debbie to take over his seat in Congress, with an announcement now expected on Friday – without one word focused on any Democrat or Republican challengers, and without any pushback to the notion that this House seat is Property of the Dingells.

The headline was “For Dingell, a life primed for politics: As wife of longtime lawmaker she’s ready to run to take over familiar reins.” It should be “one of the easier transitions to Congress,” proclaimed Terris the Post flower-petal tosser:



[Excerpted from Collusion, by Brent Bozell and Tim Graham]

The media's sneakiest dirty trick in the book is bias by omission, because is is so hard to find, when journalists decide "what the people don't know won't hurt them," or more precisely, "what the people don't know won't hurt our candidate."

In Barack Obama's case this omission emerged in 2012 over his biographical narrative: his 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father, which became a huge bestseller as he prepared to run for president, and enriched him with an estimated $1.3 million in royalties (not to mention almost $4 million for his campaign book The Audacity of Hope), and that's just through 2007. 



The media's gushing and fawning over the current White House resident knows no bounds.

Shortly after the President finished speaking at the Sandy Hook prayer vigil Sunday, Washington Post editor and Barack Obama biographer David Maraniss tweeted, "People will long remember what Barack Obama said in Newtown...his Gettysburg address":



Throughout the very long presidential election cycle, two trends remained consistent. The media lauded Obama no matter how horrendous his record, and they savaged Obama’s Republican contenders as ridiculous pretenders.

From the start of the Republican race in 2011, every candidate who took the lead then took an unfair beating.  They even slimed Sarah Palin in case she decided to run. Martin Bashir announced she was “vacuous, crass, and according to almost every biographer, vindictive too.” Newsweek mocked Michele Bachmann on its cover, making her look pale, confused and nutty, with the headline “The Queen of Rage.” Politico and other media outlets tried to pin sexual harassment claims on Herman Cain without naming, or even knowing the accusers.



Journalists are tweeting about a YouTube video of Washington Post reporter David Maraniss speaking Monday at the University of Virginia's "nonpartisan" Miller Center. When asked if there were Obama books out there that he thinks were wrong, and he said to laughter, "Man oh man, are there." Maraniss began by listing all the Obama books by his fellow reporters in the WashPost/New York Times mob. Jodi Kantor is "a very earnest and smart reporter" and David Remnick's book is "very smart about race."

Then Maraniss turned to the "books I don't respect. He strongly denounced both Ed Klein for The Amateur as "basically a political diatribe," and all the Obama work by Dinesh D'Souza. He accused D'Souza of being "a professor who I think is violating every standard of serious history." (Video clip and transcript below)



During the concluding "Big Question" segment of this weekend's syndicated Chris Matthews Show, the entire panel voiced their belief that Mitt Romney is "better off" if he is perceived by voters to be a "pragmatic, deal-making moderate" rather than a "true blue conservative."

Matthews posed the question: