On Saturday's Huckabee show on FNC, host Mike Huckabee interviewed gameshow host Chuck Woolery, who admitted to being conservative and voiced support for term limits, the Constitution, and tea party protesters. As the segment started, the former host of game shows Love Connection and Scrabble joked: "I'm now sacrificing my career coming out as a conservative. So I'll never be hired in Hollywood again once they find out I'm doing it on your show."

I can actually remember that on Rush Limbaugh's television show from the 1990s that he once played a clip from Scrabble in which host Woolery admitted to liking Limbaugh after the word "Limbaugh" was revealed as the answer to a word puzzle in which the clue was, "He's been blamed for a lot of bad rush (Rush) hours." Woolery joked that the puzzle was made up by a "pinko commie," and declared, "I like Rush Limbaugh."

Below is a transcript of portions of the interview from the Saturday, November 28, Huckabee show on FNC:

It's a night and day difference between the media's scrutiny of former President George W. Bush and the current command-in-chief, President Barack Obama. And the coverage of three Navy SEALs now facing a court martial that captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq, who allegedly was the mastermind of the murder of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in 2004, is proof.

John Scott, host of "Fox News Watch" noted this story on the show's Nov. 28 episode and asked why there hasn't been more coverage about it.

"Pretty outrageous story came out, in my view, this week," Scott said. "These three Navy SEALs who were involved in capturing one of the most wanted bad guys in Iraq - the guy supposedly responsible for planning the execution of those four Blackwater contractors. The SEALs are now facing charges because the guy somehow wound up with a bloody lip. Is the media paying attention?"

Like Katie Couric, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted (on NBC’s Daily Nightly blog) he was dazzled to be invited to the White House state dinner on Tuesday night. Also like Couric, he failed to explain whether a national news anchor attending a White House dinner might be compromising their appearance of being independent of presidential power. Instead, we were offered pinch-me talk:

At one point last night – at several points, actually – I turned to my wife and asked, "What, exactly, are we doing here? Can you believe where we are?" I suppose there are people who are blasé about State Dinners, but we are not among them. I was honored to attend. It was a warm and glittery evening in a beautiful place...with better-than-average people! It was a thrill to see everyone – the boldface names, obviously...

And he also then saluted all the military people, Secret Service guards, and ushers and other helpers. But mostly, we was thrilled to hang out with the Obamas:

If you aren't familiar with liberal radio host and MSNBC action hero Ed Schultz, you are about to encounter the quintessence of the man.

Schultz made the mistake of allowing a guest on his radio show Tuesday who knew what he was talking about. And as the conversation proceeded between Schultz and former Republican congressman Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, now with the Heritage Foundation, it became obvious that Schultz didn't have a clue (click here for audio) --

SCHULTZ: OK, give us your new information from the Heritage Foundation on health care. Tell us how screwed up the Democrats are on that.

ISTOOK: Well, you know, I think this may be in the category of unintended consequences, although frankly it may be part of the cost control. As we've been going through this 2,000 pages that have been brought up for debate in the US Senate, evidently the penalties that they put upon employers if their, the people who work for them go into this public plan, this so-called insurance exchange ...

SCHULTZ: Don't tell me they're going to jail! Please ...

ISTOOK: No, this is not about that.

The global warming alarmists are beginning to lose the PR battle, at least that is what a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll is indicating. But this has the usual purveyors of climate change doom-and-gloom trying to rationalize the shift in public opinion.

 The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin, who regularly has her objectivity called into question on the issue of anthropogenic global warming, attributed this to nothing more than political polarization. Eilperin, a former contributor for the left-of-center Huffington Post and wife of the liberal Center for American Progress' so-called "climate specialist" Andrew Light, appeared on MSNBC on Nov. 28 and offered that explanation.

"What you're seeing is increasing political polarization," Eilperin said. "What we've seen is from since three-and-a-half years ago where there was kind of an all-time high in terms of people believing in it. You've seen the biggest drop among Republicans by about something like 22 points, and then independents dropped less than that and then with Democrats, it was a much smaller drop - just about 6 points."

Have you ever been in an argument with a liberal and got so frustrated by the non sequiturs being uttered that you wanted to ask, "Are you literate? Do you own a newspaper?"

Well, on Wednesday, conservative talk radio host Michael Graham did exactly that to liberal talker Laura Flanders.

Appearing on MSNBC's "The Ed Show," the pair were contentiously debating the need for healthcare reform when Flanders said, "We are seeing a handful of naysayers basically derail our whole process. Americans voted for change."

This was all Graham could stands, cuz he couldn't stands no more (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t HotAirPundit):

As a result of the growing ClimateGate scandal, Penn State University is investigating Michael Mann, its high-profile professor on the sending and receiving end of controversial e-mail messages recently obtained from a British Climate Research Unit.

Mann, as one of the originators of the infamous Hockey Stick graph, is the climatologist at the very heart of the global warming myth.

As the creator of "Mike's Nature trick," a particularly damning phrase used in one of the e-mail messages in question, Mann is also a key figure in ClimateGate. 

Given his importance to the climate movement and all those involved including Nobel Laureate Al Gore, President Obama, and Congressional Democrats desperately trying to enact cap and trade legislation, it will be very interesting to see how this press release from Penn State gets reported in the coming days (h/t Anthony Watts via Marc Morano):

The Washington Post Saturday published a syndicated cartoon that addressed the seriousness of the growing ClimateGate scandal while marvelously bashing Nobel Laureate Al Gore.

This came a day after associate editor Eugene Robinson said the e-mail messages obtained from the British Climate Research Unit damage the "consensus" concerning man's role in global warming.

Is the Post trying to tell us this scandal is far more significant than most American media are letting on?

Before you answer, consider the following hysterical question asked by cartoonist Lisa Benson in Saturday's opinion section -- "Sooo...Did Al Gore invent climate change?" (larger version below the fold, h/t Tim Graham):

Twice in the past week, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has on his Countdown show tried to dismiss the popularity of Sarah Palin’s book Going Rogue by mentioning discounts like Newsmax’s promotion that offers the book for $4.97 to new subscribers. Olbermann first raised the issue on the Thursday, November 19, show, as he mentioned rumors of high sales numbers. Olbermann: "Publishing industry rumors, first week sales more than half a million. No idea if any of them were not at these 50 to 75 percent discounts."

On Monday’s show, during a discussion with MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe, Olbermann again tried to credit the popularity of Palin’s book to discounts after Wolffe commented that she would soon have millions of dollars:

KEITH OLBERMANN: Millions, she got it upfront, right? Because she's not going to get millions if they're selling this book at Newsmax for $4.97. You and I, as authors, understand: Get it upfront, right?

RICHARD WOLFFE: We would hope that Bob Barnett did his job in that way. But look, you know, she is turning out the crowds. This book is selling, and let's hope people are reading it.

OLBERMANN: It's $4.97! If we sold books for $4.97, they'd be stacked up out here and people would be taking them as they went home.

Also on the November 19 show, the Countdown host suggested there was "tackiness" in Palin’s plan to visit Fort Hood and donate book proceeds to victims of the massacre there, and quoted a Palin critic who compared her to the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, as Olbermann called the comparison "apt." Olbermann:

Washington Post associate editor Eugene Robinson Friday called the growing ClimateGate scandal a "major embarrassment for the scientists involved" that undermines the "consensus" concerning man's role in global warming.

Even more concerning to Robinson was that these scientists "seem to be trying to squelch dissent" from anyone that disagrees with them.

"The fact is that climate science is fiendishly hard because of the enormous number of variables that interact in ways no one fully understands," he wrote. "Scientists should welcome contrarian views from respected colleagues, not try to squelch them. They should admit what they don't know."

As you can see, Robinson was by no means trying to downplay the significance of this scandal:

Some great college football games so far this holiday weekend -- Texas-Texas A&M, Alabama-Auburn and WVU-Pitt certainly didn't disappoint.

Anything exciting today?

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: ClimateGate.

Yeah, I know we've been discussing this for a week, but I wonder what the staying power of this scandal is.

Is it the game-changer many think, or will it be gone in time for Obama to make something positive happen in Copenhagen?

The mistakes President Obama has made in recent months that have led to his plummeting poll numbers aren't his fault.

According to Time's Joe Klein, it's all being caused by -- and I quote! -- "the media's tendency to get overwrought about almost anything."

Yep. After withholding from the public material information about Obama last year that almost certainly would have doomed his candidacy, the press today are focusing too much attention on silly things like his: response to the Fort Hood massacre; not spending enough time on unemployment; accomplishing nothing in Asia, and; allowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be tried in New York City.

As one reads Klein's Wednesday column, you get the feeling he dearly misses the good old days when anything Obama did or said was met with thunderous applause, and anything that could take the bloom off the rose was squelched:

Katie Couric bubbled over with delight in her 14 Twitter tweets on the state dinner (half of them pictures, like this one with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs). None of them addressed whether accepting an invitation to a state dinner might hurt your appearance of independence (or whether she has one of those when it comes to the Obamas):

My recap of state dinner: Lots of saris, beautiful orchids, Mrs. O looked amazing! Seemed 2 ft taller than wife of India PM.

Prez looked tired from China, tablecloths were deep celadon, lots of dresses in sea foam green for whatever reason…

Jennifer Hudson was spectacular…she sang somewhere – wish I could sing like her, she’s sick!

New York Times environment reporter Andrew C. Revkin had a post yesterday that was primarily about an open letter from Judith Curry.

Revkin describes her as "a seasoned climate scientist at Georgia Tech .... (who) has no skepticism about a growing human influence on climate." Revkin writes that "Dr. Curry has written a fresh essay that’s essentially a message to young scientists potentially disheartened in various ways by recent events."

Here are some of the key paragraphs from Curry's letter that touch on that matter:

It doesn't matter whether it's Spider-Man giving the fist bump to President Obama or New Jersey kids singing Dear Leader's praises, the left likes to indoctrinate the young. The latest example is Mad Magazine trying to make former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin look foolish and "dangerously delusional."

Mad magazine, which no doubt you are surprised even exists anymore, decided the way to get attention is make fun of Palin. The January 2010 issue bashes Palin as "Blunder Woman" in part of a cover story devoted to the "20 Dumbest, People, Events and Things" of 2009. The magazine criticized her for "going ‘rogue,'" saying "‘rogue' is the Eskimo word for ‘stupid.'"

The Palin item depicts her in a skimpy Wonder Woman-esque outfit standing behind three different comic book covers. Those range from her tangling with the Joker, depicted as David Letterman, for his joking about her daughter to "The War of 2012: Part 1 of 36." Here's the text they included with the item:

Newsweek deputy editor Julia Baird only arrived in America in 2007 from Australia, but she knows how to play a good corporate soldier. In the wake of Newsweek’s Sarah Palin cover fiasco, she wrote a column for the November 30 issue loyally dedicated to making excuses for her editor Jon Meacham’s bratty cover theatrics, like he was the editor of Spy magazine for a week. Palin’s complaints of sexism are lame, declared Baird:

And now Palin thinks she has been Palinized by NEWSWEEK, for last week’s cover image of her looking fit and posing in running shorts, even though she has been photographed and filmed more than once in aerobic gear (most recently on Oprah just a few days ago.)

Baird knows that Barack Obama has been photographed topless in a swimming suit, too, and that didn’t make the cover of Newsweek. (A few pages before Baird’s column in the November 30 issue is a photograph of Obama topless in the surf, illustrating the Palin quote that her Newsweek cover was "sexist and a wee bit degrading.")

Well, it's not quite as bad as Paul Krugman critiquing the Fox Business Network, but a little troubling because tax dollars are being spent to undertake such an effort.

A Nov. 27 post by incoming White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer on the The White House Blog attempted to fact check a Nov. 27 column by Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, proving the left-wing noise machine isn't the only shop in Washington, D.C. criticizing conservative voices (h/t Amanda Carpenter of The Washington Times).

"In today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer takes great pains to paint a bleak picture of health care reform as ‘monstrous,' ‘overregulated,' and rife with ‘arbitrary bureaucratic inventions,'" Pfeiffer wrote. "The columnist's argument may be cogent and well-written, but it is wholly inaccurate."

It's nice that the story of Rom Houben has recently made the news. I carried it as one of my own "Positivity" posts earlier this week.

A Google News Search on "Rom Houben Laureys" (not typed in quotes; Laureys is the last name of Houben's principal doctor) at about 11:30 p.m. ET came back with 1,528 results relating to the word of his amazing recovery and ability to communicate after 23 years of being "comatose."

That same search also comes back with 197 results questioning the legitimacy of his recovery. That number appears likely to grow, as the core article leading those results was only 8 hours old when this post was prepared.

From Brussels, the Associated Press's Raf Cassert gave voice to the doubters, while avoiding one of the real reasons why they're engaged in their doubting:

If there is an entertainment trend ripe for satire, it is the begging-for-attention smut routines at nationally televised music awards shows. How low can these "artists" go? Sadly, there is always another frontier. "American Idol" runner-up Adam Lambert was the latest offender at the November 22 American Music Awards on ABC, with a routine complete with S&M bondage slaves, deep male-on-male kissing, and simulated fellatio on stage.

All in front of millions upon millions of impressionable youngsters. It was another in-your-face Janet Jackson moment.

There’s only one thing that makes this funny. It’s the idea that somehow none of this was planned, that it was just a spontaneous eruption. ABC was embarrassed enough by Lambert to cancel a planned performance on "Good Morning America." If they expected cheers for that, they’re sadly mistaken. ABC clearly wanted to avoid making its news division question the entertainment division’s horrendous decision-making.