MSNBC resident Victorian gent Rachel Maddow must have felt so dutiful for correcting an inaccurate statement by one of her guests.

Which made it all the more amusing that Maddow during the same show perpetuated a hoary media myth created two decades ago. (video after page break)



With the usual self-satisfied smirk, as she karate-chopped the air in front of the word "SHAMPAIGN," MSNBC host Rachel Maddow mocked the idea of a Newt Gingrich surge by picking up on her fellow gay activist Dan Savage's smear of Rick Santorum: the one which insures that a Google search of Santorum leads to Savage's comparison of the religious conservative to semen and fecal matter. Don't ever let them tell you MSNBC is classy.

"They’ve gone through this with Donald Trump now and Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, and Herman Cain. We sort of expect them to do this with everybody in the field -- I mean, except for Rick Santorum. Nobody’s going to vote for Rick Santorum, come on," Maddow sneered. "But the idea of a Newt Gingrich surge is almost as absurd as people – uh, you know, Googling Rick Santorum and saying, 'I like what I found here, I`m going to vote for this guy.'" Then came the Springtime for Hitler references.



With insightful backwards logic like this, the new CNN show “Parker Spitzer” is certain to be a runaway hit – if just for the comedic value alone.

On CNN’s Oct. 8 broadcast of “Parker Spitzer,” disgraced former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the co-host of this program, trotted out a theory that seems so peculiar one might think he was pre-excusing what many feel is the eventual Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives. (h/t Greg Pollowitz)

“Let's switch gears for a second,” Spitzer said. “Earlier today or a couple days ago, Newt Gingrich said 60 seats would be the Republican pick-up. I've got a crazy theory for you. I think the White House wants to lose the House. It needs a foil. It needs an enemy. Agree or disagree?



On her CNN Headline News show Thursday night, Joy Behar thought the "Obama's Katrina" language from Republicans was odd, since the "Bush/Cheney administration" is responsible for both disasters. Steve Kornacki of Salon.com insisted "all of the insults, all of the criticisms that were hurled at the Bush right after Katrina, they are just dying to throw back at the Democrats."

Behar replied: "But isn't this sort of like the same problem, the Bush/Cheney administration started it and now this poor guy has to mop it up. I mean, they deregulated the oil industry, right? And is it ever a good idea to deregulate such a huge corporation like that? That's a bad idea."

Behar proclaimed that it bothered her that this could hurt Obama politically when he had nothing at all to do with it and deregulation was all Bush's fault:



Roland Martin, CNN Anchor; Erica Hill, CNN Correspondent; Jessica Yellin, CNN Correspondent; Lisa Bloom, TruTV host; & Steve Kornacki, New York Observer Columnist | NewsBusters.orgCNN’s Roland Martin on Wednesday’s “No Bias, No Bull” program featured another panel which leaned overwhelmingly to the left, during a discussion about the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8. Four of the five participants -- CNN correspondent Erica Hill, Lisa Bloom of TruTv, New York Observer columnist Steve Kornacki, and the Reverend Byron Williams of Resurrection Community Church in Oakland, California all sided with advocates of same-sex “marriage.”

Rev. Williams, who is affiliated with the liberal People for the American Way, argued that the decision “seems to go against our democratic values.” Hill asked the pastor, “Should that decision on marriage be left up to different religions, different faiths to make, and leave this to be more of a civil matter? And if that’s the case, why should God enter it at all?” Kornacki argued that there was an “inevitability” to the legalization of same-sex “marriage,” explaining that “you’ve got four states legalizing it. You’ve got people under 35 supporting it overwhelmingly. I mean, isn’t this just really a question of time, and we shouldn’t be that exercised about it?” Bloom thought that it was a “huge civil rights issue, and this is the first court ruling that I’m aware of that says that a majority vote -- a bare majority vote, can take away the constitutional rights of a protected minority group.”