For the Today show, Democratic Representative Patrick Kennedy's departure from Congress was something to mourn because it represented, as NBC's Matt Lauer lamented, "The end of an era. There's been a Kennedy in Congress since John F. Kennedy entered the House back in 1947." The nephew of the late President was invited on Monday's Today show to commemorate the occasion with he and co-host Meredith Vieira fondly looking over newly-released photos of JFK from and reminiscing about his father, the "great" Ted Kennedy.

For the record the Today show got their facts wrong, as the MRC's Rich Noyes pointed out, there was no Kennedy in Congress from January 1961 to November of 1962 as Representative Ben Smith held that seat long enough until Ted Kennedy was old enough to take over.

The following teaser and exchange were aired on the November 8 Today show:

At least Eric Boehlert of the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters isn't opposed to all tax cuts. He's just hazy on when it's actually happened.

Appearing on Stephanie Miller's radio show this past Monday, Boehlert praised former president Bill Clinton for cutting taxes on top earners in this country -- when Clinton did just the opposite.

Here's the relevant exchange between Boehlert and Miller, during a discussion of Republicans' Pledge to America which cites a quote from John F. Kennedy on tax cuts (audio here) -- 

Achtung, Sgt. Schultz -- you're making it up again.

The liberal radio host and MSNBC flamethrower got carried away in his indignation Monday over controversy about whether Obama's speech on education should be shown in classrooms.

My how things have changed, Schultz pontificated (audio here) --

I don't know, when I was a kid, and I was a little dude when John Glenn was flying around the, in outer space, and the president was going to speak to the nation! And all the kids in the elementary school, I remember, we were all so fired up! That we were going to hear from the president! And the president was going to say something about being in outer space and is John Glenn going to get home OK?! The president was going to talk to us, we were kids! We were excited! And then when John Glenn splashed down, we heard from the president and it was so cool! It's just not cool anymore, I guess. It's a different country.

Is Ed Schultz determined to make his mark as the dumbest man in media? Hardly a day passes without the lib radio host and MSNBC action hero providing more fodder for the premise.

On his radio show Monday, Schultz rushed to the defense of first lady Michelle Obama for criticism of her winging off to an opulent Spanish resort hotel during -- as Schultz and other liberals oft remind us -- the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Here's Schultz defending Mrs. Obama after first talking about a campaign ad that mocks House Minority Leader John Boehner as an out-of-touch elitist golfer (click here for audio) --

Rick Sanchez stumbled again on-air on his CNN program on Monday, getting the year of the famous Kennedy-Nixon television debate wrong by a margin of two years. Sanchez, who was trying to describe South Carolina Democratic senatorial candidate Alvin Greene's first public speech as the "converse" of the debate, initially guessed 1962 as the year of the debate, but then broadened his answer to "early '60s" [audio available here].

The anchor, who misidentified the Galapagos Islands as Hawaii during CNN's live coverage of the February 27, 2010 Chilean earthquake, and "joked" that it was too cold in Iceland for volcanoes on April 15, brought on correspondent Jessica Yellin to discuss Greene's speech. Twenty-one minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour, Yellin mentioned how she had "talked to the audience [at the speech] beforehand....Every single person I spoke to was a skeptic before, and almost all of them said they'd vote for him afterwards or support him."

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Racism, according to the liberal. Isn't it obvious?

Same reason that Republicans and conservatives oppose Obama, the liberal quickly adds.

Here's the latest example of this threadbare line of criticism, from Brent Budowsky, a columnist for The Hill's Pundits Blog and former congressional staffer.

Appearing on Ed Schultz's radio show Tuesday, Budowsky offered an over-the-top analogy (click here for audio) --

BUDOWSKY: These Republicans today, Ed, are more right wing and obstructionist than the segregationist, racist senators during the days of the civil rights. Even those racist senators that filibustered civil rights, they also supported jobs and Medicare and some other things. You know, we're up against a party on the Republicans that is so far off the right end, they're acting like South Africa during the days of apartheid.

Good Morning America on Monday touted an adulterous affair John F. Kennedy had in the early 1950s as a "love story" and a "torrid and fleeting romance." Co-host George Stephanopoulos lauded the Kennedys as "American royalty" and the show offered no hint of criticism over the infidelity. [Audio available here.]

"Love letters" revealing the relationship between an engaged and then just-married Kennedy and a Swedish woman are being put on auction this week. The correspondence between the two show that JFK was cheating on his wife from the very start. Yet, Stephanopoulos delicately spun, "They've been called a window into the complicated and conflicted existence that was Kennedy's life."

Reporter Chris Bury narrated one of the letters from Kennedy to his Swedish mistress, Gunilla Von Post, asserting that the then-Senator "senses that their destinies are drifting apart." He quoted, "I just got word that my wife and sister are coming here. It will be all be complicated, the way I feel now, my Swedish flicka. All I have done is sit in the sun and look at the ocean and think of Gunilla. All love, Jack."

PaulSamuelsonAt35In its obituary on the passing of Nobel economics laureate Paul Samuelson, who died on December 13, Michael Weinstein at the New York Times lavished well-deserved praise on the winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Economics for building "one of the world’s great centers of graduate education in economics" at MIT, but erred seriously in recounting his most visible public policy role.

Also worth noting is how the Times headline at Samuelson's obit compares to those the paper accorded Milton Friedman and John Kenneth Galbraith upon their deaths. Friedman and Galbraith were also pioneering economists in their own right who passed away after living into their 90s during the final half of this decade:

  • Samuelson (December 13, 2009) -- "Paul A. Samuelson, Economist, Dies at 94."
  • Friedman (November 16, 2006) -- "Milton Friedman, Free Markets Theorist, Dies at 94."
  • Galbraith (April 30, 2006) -- "John Kenneth Galbraith, 97, Dies; Economist Held a Mirror to Society."

Of the three, only the free market capitalism-championing Friedman, who like Samuelson but unlike Galbraith was a Nobel-winning economist, was deemed undeserving of being identified as a member of his chosen profession in his Times obit's headline.

More seriously, Weinstein rewrites history to give Samuelson significant credit for the prosperity of the 1960s where very little is due.

The announcement of Sen. Ted Kennedy's death came at 2 a.m. Eastern on Aug. 26 and a little over 15 hours later, two prominent liberal voices were scheming as to how the president and other Democratic leaders could use his passing to advance a political agenda.

Huffington Post editor Arianna Huffington appeared on MSNBC host Ed Schultz's Aug. 26 program and was asked by Schultz if it somehow could be used to push "real reform" for health care.

"The passing of Ted Kennedy - could this be a rallying cry for progressives to carry this fight through and to see real reform and health care in this country?" Schultz said. "Because, of course, I think everybody on the left knows that this was his passion, this was his cause."

Jim Acosta, CNN Correspondent | NewsBusters.orgCNN correspondent Jim Acosta hyped the forthcoming inaugural address of President-elect Barack Obama during a report on Tuesday’s American Morning: “...Barack Obama’s inaugural address may be more than the speech of his lifetime. Historians and speechwriters say it could be one for the ages, if he can rise to the occasion.” He reenforced this sentiment with clips from a former Clinton-Gore speechwriter who predicted that it’s “a pretty good certainty that you’ll have schoolchildren reading this speech hundreds of years from now” and a professor who claimed that “it’s almost impossible for Obama to fail.”

Co-host John Roberts introduced Acosta’s report, which started 25 minutes into the 6 am Eastern hour of the CNN program, by focusing on the “great anticipation about the inaugural address” and how many “expect it to stand with some of the greatest ever presidential inaugural speeches.” Acosta began with his “speech of his for the ages” line,” and played a clip from Obama’s 2004 speech at the Democratic convention. He echoed Roberts’s earlier lines by stating how “the stage is being set for an address that’s destined for the history books.”

The Obama-lovin' was in full bloom on Wednesday's "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" when interim "Meet the Press" host Tom Brokaw actually said, "I don't remember this level of excitement for a new president since 1960 when Jack Kennedy was elected President of the United States."

Now, in fairness, as I was born in 1960, I don't know what kind of excitement existed for JFK after that November's election was concluded.

However, as Ronald Wilson Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by a far greater margin -- popular and electoral votes -- in 1980 than Kennedy beat Richard M. Nixon twenty years prior, this comment by Brokaw seems to be the typical liberal media member's revisionist view of history (video embedded below the fold, relevant section at 24:11, h/t TVNewser):

Expatica is an overseas publication for US expatriates in Europe with six country-customized editions. It betrays many of the biases that permeate mainstream US journalism. What follows is a prime example of that.

The publication's Germany version today has an article celebrating the 19th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall that makes it appear as if it, well, y'know, sorta just serendipitously happened because a bunch of people protested for a while.

Here are the key paragraphs (bolds are mine):