On Monday’s CBS "Early Show," while co-host Harry Smith and political analyst Jeff Greenfield discussed both Hillary Clinton’s win in the Democratic Nevada caucus and John McCain’s win in the Republican South Carolina primary on Saturday, they failed to mention that Mitt Romney had won the Republican Nevada Caucus in a blowout. This just days after Smith interviewed Romney, when the former Massachusetts Governor discussed his expectation of a win in Nevada.
During the January 16 interview, Smith asked Romney about the future of the campaign:
SMITH: Here's one of the questions of the hour, three biggest contests, three different winners on the Republican side. Some people are suggesting that means the Republican party as a whole isn't sure what they want.
ROMNEY: That's very possible. I'm pleased that I have done well here in Michigan. I'm also happy I got Wyoming and got the gold there and, of course, we've got a couple coming up real shortly now. Nevada, which has the most Republican delegates, and I'm going to fight hard there. Also, South Carolina. I think John McCain is way in the lead there, but we'll give him a run for his money, and then comes Florida. I think one of the big surprises is that someone like Mayor Giuliani, who was leading in all these states, either number one or number two, really hasn't been able to hold on to that lead in any way.
Of course, even then Smith was focused elsewhere: "Are you going to campaign at all in South Carolina in the next couple of days?"
On Monday’s show, Smith began the segment by declaring: "It was democracy in action this weekend after Hillary Clinton edged Barack Obama in Nevada. John McCain won in South Carolina. Every candidate was fighting for each and every delegate." If Smith was really interested in "every candidate" and "every delegate" he would have mentioned that Romney leads in Republican delegates and that Nevada has more such delegates than South Carolina.
In a segment that lasted 2 minutes and 10 seconds, only 20 seconds were given to the Republican race and all of those 20 seconds focused on either McCain’s South Carolina win or predictions for the upcoming Republican primary in Florida on January 29, no mention of Romney’s win in Nevada. Smith shifted to the Republicans this way: "Let's move on to the Republicans, then. John McCain gets his win. The next big prize is Florida. What happens down there?"
Here is the transcript of the January 16 segment:
HARRY SMITH: Mitt Romney joins us now from Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Good morning Governor, congratulations.
MITT ROMNEY: Thanks, Harry. Pretty happy this morning.
SMITH: Yeah, I would imagine so. We were with you over the weekend on the campaign trail, and you told me that day that the issues in Michigan were the economy, the economy, and the economy. That's what voters said in our exit poll, too. Do you think what the lesson of today -- or, rather, yesterday was -- translates to the rest of the country?
ROMNEY: I really do. I think you're seeing people across the country very concerned about the economy, concerned about their job, about whether they're going to keep their health care or not. And they want somebody who understands how the economy works, who knows why jobs come, why they go. I spent 25 years in the private sector. Then went off to the Olympics, and of course I've been a governor as well. But they want that -- that first hand knowledge of how it -- it is that jobs come and go.
SMITH: Here's one of the questions of the hour, three biggest contests, three different winners on the Republican side. Some people are suggesting that means the Republican party as a whole isn't sure what they want.
ROMNEY: That's very possible. I'm pleased that I have done well here in Michigan. I'm also happy I got Wyoming and got the gold there and, of course, we've got a couple coming up real shortly now. Nevada, which has the most Republican delegates, and I'm going to fight hard there. Also, South Carolina. I think John McCain is way in the lead there, but we'll give him a run for his money, and then comes Florida. I think one of the big surprises is that someone like Mayor Giuliani, who was leading in all these states, either number one or number two, really hasn't been able to hold on to that lead in any way.
SMITH: Are you going to campaign at all in South Carolina in the next couple of days?
ROMNEY: Oh, sure. I'd love to pick up some portion of the delegates, if I could, and maybe pull off some kind of a surprise.
SMITH: Some people would say, though, you spent an awful lot of money there, you spent a lot of money in a couple of the other contests too. Your money is finally paying off. Is it your money or is it your message?
ROMNEY: Well, I wish it could be as easily managed as just by putting money into something. It has to be message. The ads only do so much. They acquaint people with who you are, but the message has to connect with people. Right now it's coming down to debates and message.
SMITH: Alright Governor, thanks so much. We'll see you down the line.
ROMNEY: Thanks, Harry.
Here is the transcript of the January 21 segment:
HARRY SMITH: It was democracy in action this weekend after Hillary Clinton edged Barack Obama in Nevada. John McCain won in South Carolina. Every candidate was fighting for each and every delegate. Jeff Greenfield, our CBS News Senior Political Analyst, is along with us this morning to talk about all of that. Let's talk about this fight between the Clintons and Barack Obama. Because a truce was supposed to be called. But Bill Clinton didn't sign that truce apparently. What's going on?
JEFF GREENFIELD: It's unusual to have a former president getting this involved. But then, under these circumstances, where it's the guy's spouse, you can understand it. Newsweek Magazine reported -- reports this week that Ted Kennedy and Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who worked for Clinton in the White House, but is from Illinois, have both told the president to knock it off. They're very worried about this kind of internecine battle, they're worried about the African-American vote. And I think they're also -- there's a factor that if this Democratic race gets involved in identity politics, the black versus the woman, that doesn't help whoever's the nominee.
SMITH: But the Clintons keep saying 'oh he's a plus,' 'he's a plus.' Is he a poison and a plus all at the same time?
GREENFIELD: Yep. Same thing as in 2000. Democrats -- remember, this is the only two-term president Democrats have had since FDR and a lot of them love him. I do think relations between the, quote, 'first black president,' as somebody famously called Clinton, and the community, is going to get very frayed as we go on in this race.
SMITH: Let's talk about South Carolina coming up this Saturday for the Democrats. Who needs the win more?
GREENFIELD: Obama. In fact, I think already you can see people -- discounting it saying, well, as many as half the voters are going to be African-Americans, so of course what do you expect? Now, that wasn't the case a few weeks ago. But I think it's fair to say that he needs this win. So that the next step after that is Super Tuesday, 22 states, and it would be good for –
SMITH: Needs the momentum, although he's still leading --
GREENFIELD: No, momentum is the most overused word. There is no momentum, folks. Drop that from the vocabulary.
SMITH: There is no momentum, alright.
SMITH: Let's move on to the Republicans, then. John McCain gets his win. The next big prize is Florida. What happens down there?
GREENFIELD: Boy, you know, the fourth biggest state in the country, and each of the four top guys have their own constituencies, military people, entrepreneurs for Romney, evangelicals for Huckabee, and Giuliani, the transplanted New Yorkers. This is the one that's going to be the biggest one so far.
SMITH: Alright. Jeff Greenfield as always, thank you for your insight.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Once again, the MSM tries to
January 21, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Chris NormanOnce again, the MSM tries to relegate the GOP to second or even third status by ignoring their primaries. Will they bother covering the GOP convention? If this trend continues, they may bar the GOP nominee from the election debates - contending that he doesn't draw enough interest.
CBS not the only one with blinders on ...
January 21, 2008 - 16:08 ET by qapilotPlenty of people (in and out of the MSM) are ignoring not only
Romney's win in Nevada, but his sizable lead in delegates. Neither Meet
the Press nor This Week with George S. discussed Romney's
showing. In print, a search on Google news reveals only a few
mentions of Romney's win, which was immediately attributed to a sizable
Mormon population in Nevada. (While there are many Mormons in
Nevada, the state is not exactly known for epitomizing the Mormon
lifestyle.) Some even trumpeted (loudly) Romney's loss in
South Carolina as a significant blow, and said absolutely nothing about
Nevada, where delegates were more numerous and Romney grabbed the
majority. Even though he won fewer delegates on Saturday,
McCain's win in S.C. was heralded as a triumph, a comeback, a victory
and vindication! Whatever. (Hillary certainly got full
credit for HER Nevada win!)
A FEW on the right are paranoid about Romney because of
the Mormon thing. (Or they are simply ignoring him because Romney's
credentials and personal life leave are rock-solid.) The left is
ignoring him because they know he's the candidate with experience who
will clearly reveal the left's candidate, whoever that turns out to be.
The blackout on coverage of Romney's successes will continue, but it won't
stop him. The press will contintue to castigate him for spending
more money than any other candidate, but the man has to because the
media refuses to give him credit for anything. I admire a man
who's willing to put his money where his mouth is, and doesn't complain
or whine about it. (I reserve the right to complain, though!)
CBS ‘Early Show’ Ignores Romney Win in Nevada
January 21, 2008 - 16:16 ET by kgThese guys must have watch the coverage on MSNBC. All Cris and Mister Olbermann talked about were the democrats even though the info bar at the bottom said they were reporting on the Republicans in Nevada.
In every three Blue Moons.
January 21, 2008 - 16:45 ET by gopsteveIn every three Blue Moons. a Republican tales on the msm and calls them for their bias...why don't they do it more? They have SO MANY targets.
Meanwhile,
Dems make an issue of FOX news, skip their debates, and scream bias...just as Olby and MAtthews are getting ready to host a debate...
just ridiculous...grow a freakin' spine
I for one am glad that
January 21, 2008 - 16:51 ET by KeithI for one am glad that they forgot about Romney. I just wish the rest of you would too! The man is a LIAR and a FRAUD. Here's a snippet of a great article by Joe Farah over at WND, find something to disagree with and then when you CAN'T, tell me what's wrong with you that you support this (my dad marched with King) lying phony. Bold mine.
"Romney claims he had something of a Damascus Road conversion on abortion during his governorship as he studied the issue of embryonic stem cell research. As the legend has it, he decided in a moment of wrestling with his morality that both were wrong.
Left out of that official version of events, however, is this little tidbit: Romney still – to this day – owns stock in two companies involved in embryonic stem cell research.
Now, keep in mind, it was less than three years ago that Romney "saw the light" on the issue of life.
"In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or commodity," he said.
In other words, Romney claims to have awakened to the harsh realities of abortion by studying the issue of embryonic stem cell research.lol.
First, from a logical standpoint, this makes no sense. If you can't see why stabbing an unborn baby in the head with a pair of scissors is an overtly evil act, I don't think any amount of study of embryonic stem cell research will awaken your sense of moral outrage. But that's what Romney would like us to believe. After all, he's got to explain why he discovered so late in his public life that people have an inherent right to life.
But now we're supposed to believe this gazillionaire, worth about $250 million, didn't even bother to examine his own financial portfolio to see how he was actively supporting the killing of unborn babies with his own investments.
Or, are we supposed to believe this was just an oversight? If so – if this guy is so cavalier about his own investments – how are we supposed to trust him with the federal budget?
Now let's move on to the flipperoos that escaped Ann Coulter's attention:
In the age of fetal imaging, where every one with any serious political interests have SEEN PICTURES of BABIES SUCKING THEIR FINGERS IN THE WOMB, we're supposed to believe that Romney the Liar was moved by CELLS ON A FRIGGIN' SLIDE?????!!!!! How you people can rail against a religious man or a war hero who had a couple of policies you didn't like, which were UPHELD by SCOTUS by the way, in favor of a LIAR who would tell you whatever you want to hear at the moment is beyond me.
So what is your point? Its
January 21, 2008 - 17:13 ET by Ryan Mc.So what is your point? Its easy to critize a candidate. Tell me who you think would be better that has any chance to be elected.
You're "facts" are totally unsupported. You have more arguement than facts. I don't think calling Romney a liar is a great intellectual point, especially since you fail to back that assertion up.
You make several statements like "he spurned the NRA" but what does that mean? How exactly do you spurn them? Another problem with your lack of support for your assertion. He joined the NRA last year is how you prove he hates the 2nd amendment? Maybe joining in 1994 might have been political suicide running for govenor of MA? Hardly a sign he hates the 2nd amendment. How does a govenor support the brady bill when that is federal law? His opinion was irrelevant. Did you ever concider that the police were behind the Brady Bill and that in MA that was also suicide to come out and brag that you hate the bill especially when you need their endorsement? I think your general problem is that you fail to consider where Romney was and what he could say in MA, the most liberal state in the union.
Ask why Huck and McCain were consistently liberal and still don't appologize? They had conservatives voting for them and they went left in spite of their voters. They make no appology either. At least Romney says when his old MA positions are wrong. He is certainly not perfect but what is your answer. You can dump on Romney but I don't see any solutions from your post. Who would you have us vote for? Easy to critize, harder to be constructive.
Dude, no offense but READING
January 21, 2008 - 21:15 ET by KeithDude, no offense but READING IS FUNDAMENTAL! He joined the NRA because he is a PANDERING LIAR! Who is CHANGING his LONG STATED OPPOSITION TO SUCH. Just like he CHANGED on ABORTION, not because of some light shed by cells on a slide, but BECAUSE HE'S TRYING TO FOOL PEOPLE LIKE YOU INTO THINKING HE'S A FREAKING CONSERVATIVE. DUH! Similarly, he was PRO-HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS until trying to run for President! Such a man CANNOT BE TRUSTED with his newly found morality! How can you read what I wrote and NOT get that? He LIED about his father, he LIES about his OWN positions, HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED! GO Fred, Go Huck, Go McCain, because at least THEY ARE WHO THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN! The same can actually be said for Rudy, however I despise who he has always been so that's a non-sat for me!
Keith, what is it with you
January 21, 2008 - 21:57 ET by Gary P JacksonKeith, what is it with you and homosexuals? You realize there are bigger fish to fry, so to speak, don't you?
Three things the next President must do. One is continue the Bush Doctrine. The second is keep the economy growing. Third, end illegal immigration. Those will be full time jobs.
If there's any time left, maybe they can round up the queers for stoning or something!
Well you weren't convincing
January 22, 2008 - 12:50 ET by Ryan Mc.Well you weren't convincing me until you said DUH! I can't respond to that.
As to your hate for gays, go ahead and try to get them all you want. As to how Romney is "Pro-Homosexual Rights" as usual, you provide no proof of your assertion. Hard to respond to your silly rants.
Huck was asked by Romney whether taxes increased while he was govenor by .5 Billion. He was asked three times and would not admit it. That doesn't bother you at all? I guess Huck saying that giving extra freebees to illegals then saying on the eve of SC that we should boot all the illegals out is ok with you too? But Romney is a liar. Hmmm.
Ryan, Romney is Pro-Gay
January 22, 2008 - 13:10 ET by LeonRyan,
Romney is Pro-Gay Rights. Or at least he was until he decided to re-create himself as a fake conservative.
See 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy for proof.
I ask a simple question:
January 22, 2008 - 14:09 ET by Ryan Mc.I ask a simple question: What is Pro Gay Rights? Maybe you guys can define that for me. I thought Romney was against gay marriage. If that is not the case I'll be happy to stand corrected but if that is the case what is your problem with him? I don't have a fear of gays, nor do I want them persecuted for being gay so maybe we disagree here about something more fundamental? I just don't want to see marriage to mean anything a liberal says it is.
Leon, gay rights...
January 22, 2008 - 14:18 ET by Clear thinkerRomneys support for gay rights are more current than that. He supported gay rights all through his run for Gov of Mass.
See link...
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/RomneyLogCabinLetter.pdf
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
That letter is interesting.
January 22, 2008 - 18:51 ET by Ryan Mc.That letter is interesting. It specifically does not mention gay marriage, which would lead me to believe that he does not support gay marriage.
The problem I have with you guys is that anything other than an expression of hate for gays is "Pro-Gay". He states in your link that he liked Don't ask Don't tell, as he'd like gays to not have to be dishonest. He supports anti suicide efforts and an antidiscrimination law which I believe helped gays get their partners assets if they die.
Sorry but I don't see the evil you guys do. The problem with your post and Keith's is that it implies Romney is Pro gay marriage which is what I think of when you say Pro-gay. I think rather than call him pro-gay you should state specifically what your problem is.
Pretty racist of you keith,
January 22, 2008 - 13:00 ET by amberPretty racist of you keith, what about "Go Keyes!" He is who he always has been too.
Propaganda About Romney
January 22, 2008 - 11:37 ET by PopularTechNo surprise Huckster Fanatics are trying to attack Romney
Ann Coulter: "Romney is Strongest GOP Candidate" (Video) (4min)
Endorsements:
Ann Coulter Endorses Mitt Romney (Human Events)
Bob Jones, Fundamentalist Christian College Chancellor Endorses Mitt Romney (FOXNews)
Craig Sandler, Former NRA Executive Endorses Mitt Romney (Press Release)
Dave Keene, President of The American Conservative Union Endorses Mitt Romney (NewsMax)
Dr. John Willke, Founder of Pro-Life Movement Endorses Mitt Romney (NewsMax)
Judge Robert Bork Endorses Mitt Romney (NewsMax)
National Review Endorses Mitt Romney (National Review Online)
Paul Weyrich founder of the Heritage Foundation Endorses Mitt Romney (NewsMax)
Ross Perot Endorses Mitt Romney (The Dallas Morning News)
Tom Tancredo Endorses Mitt Romney (FOXNews)
Abstinence:
Romney Announces Abstinence Education Program (Boston News)
Immigration:
Romney Allows Massachusetts State Troopers to Detain Illegals (FOXNews)
Romney Blasts Immigration Deal (NewsMax)
Romney Vetoes In-State Tuition for Illegals (The Boston Globe)
Right to Life:
Mass. Governor Mitt Romney Vetoes embryonic Stem-Cell Bill (FOXNews)
- Mass. Lawmakers Override Romney Veto on Stem Cell Research (FOXNews)
Mitt Romney Warns of 'Orwellian' Stem Cell Research (NewsMax)
"It is wrong to allow science to take an assembly-line approach to the production of human embryos, the creation of which will be rooted in experimentation and destruction" - Mitt Romney
Mass. Governor Mitt Romney Vetoes Emergency Contraception Bill (FOXNews)
Mitt Romney: Why I Vetoed Contraception Bill (Boston Globe)
Marriage:
Romney: "Marriage is Between a Man and a Woman" (Video) (1min)
2003 - Massachusetts governor vows to pursue marriage amendment (USAToday)
2004 - Romney urges constitutional ban on same sex marriage (USAToday)
Second Amendment:
"I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a cornerstone of our personal freedoms. Should I be fortunate enough to become President, I will stand up and fight against any attempt to weaken or infringe upon our Second Amendment rights. And I will do this without any apology and without any hesitation." - Mitt Romney
Governor Romney Signs Pro-Gun Legislation Clarifing Muzzleloader Law (NRA)
Governor Romney Signs Pro-Gun Legislation Allowing Exemptions for Target Pistol Manufacturers (NRA)
Governor Romney Signed Pro-Gun Legislation Providing Free Replacement Licenses (Gun Owners Action League)
Governor Romney Issued a Proclamation Declaring May 7, 2005 as "Right to Bear Arms Day" (Gun Owners Action League)
Governor Romney Suspended "Administrative Fees" to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Fund (Gun Owners Action League)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Will The Real Romney Please
January 22, 2008 - 12:15 ET by fosstenWill The Real Romney Please Stand Up?
by Erich Pratt
Director of Communications, GOA
As he travels through the South -- contemplating a run for the presidency -- Mitt Romney sounds like the modern-day incarnation of John Wayne. He tells shooters how he used to hunt rabbits as a boy. He visits with attendees at gun shows, impressing them with his knowledge of the Bill of Rights. He quotes the "right to keep and bear arms" language from memory and assures gun owners he's on their side. But wait, isn't this the same Mitt Romney -- the former governor of Massachusetts -- who boasted that his view on firearms was "not going to make me the hero" of the gun lobby? In fact, it is one and the same man.
So what happened to the candidate who promised that he would not lift a finger to "chip away" at the gun laws in Massachusetts -- a state that has some of the most draconian gun restrictions in the union? When Romney ran for Senate in 1994, he told the Boston Herald that he supported the Brady gun-control law and a ban on scores of semi-automatic firearms. Both laws were heavily supported by Democrats and -- according to President Bill Clinton -- were the reason that his party lost control of the Congress in 1994.
Ten years later, the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms was stripped from the law books. The banned guns became legal once again, and despite the Chicken Little cries from gun control advocates around the country, crime rates did not soar. This should not be surprising. After the semi-auto ban expired in 2004, the Congressional Research Service admitted there was no evidence to support the notion that the ban had actually reduced crime, especially since -- and here's a great admission -- the "banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders" before the ban was implemented.
Likewise, the Brady gun control law has done nothing to curb crime, as was reported in one of the nation's leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association. The journal definitively stated in 2000 that the Brady law has failed to reduce "homicide rates and overall suicide rates" in states after they were required to impose waiting periods and background checks.
But despite the failure of these gun laws, Romney did not back off his support for gun control during his run for governor in 2002. "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said during a gubernatorial debate with Democratic candidate Shannon O'Brien. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety." Perhaps Mr. Romney knows something that the criminologists don't know -- the criminologists who have actually studied these issues and have reported that gun control has failed to make people safer.
What we do know is that even in Massachusetts, Romney has tried to appease both sides of the aisle. As governor, Romney supported legislation to ease restrictions on gun licensing in the state, but he only did so at the expense of gun rights, as he signed a draconian ban on common, household firearms that are owned by millions of Americans across the nation.
This is kind of like the thief who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands $100, but then gives you $25 back to "soften" the blow. Seeing that Mr. Romney likes to frequent both sides of the legislative aisle, Americans are going to want to know where he really stands on issues that are important to them. And when they go to polls next year, voters are going to be asking, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?"
http://gunowners.org...
By the way, Romney was recently quoted as referring to the AK47 as an "unusually lethal" weapon. This demonstrates either gross ignorance or a liberal mentality.
Bush Supported the Assault Weapons Ban Too
January 22, 2008 - 12:52 ET by PopularTechIrking N.R.A., Bush Supports The Ban on Assault Weapons (The New York Times)
I'm not for it but I also voted for Bush.
Huckabee: Raising Taxes OK
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Assault Weapons Ban
January 22, 2008 - 13:16 ET by fosstenJust setting the record straight by inserting facts that were omitted. Romney is squishy on the 2nd Amendment, and there is no dispute of that fact. So is Bush, but Bush isn't running. Romney is. I don't have to vote for him and his support of the AWB is a big reason.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
I love how if Romney wins
January 21, 2008 - 16:55 ET by Ryan Mc.I love how if Romney wins by double digits the primary/caucus is not reported. The excuse is that Romney was expected to win. What does that mean? By who? And do delegates not count if you expect to get them? John McCain wins SC by 3% and he's the front runner with days of coverage. Romney wins NV by 30 plus points worth double the delegates but that doesn't matter. However Hillary's win there is huge!!! I feel like I am in a paralel universe. At least 10 years ago the media pretended to be neutral.
He was virtually unopposed
January 21, 2008 - 16:59 ET by KeithHe was virtually unopposed which is the reason it's not worth reporting. When Hillary won unopposed it was treated with the same disregard, so where's the bias in that?
Keith...It was worth
January 21, 2008 - 17:01 ET by bigtimerKeith...
It was worth reporting...and he wasn't unopposed either.
Period.
The msm doesn't want to report any good items when it comes to Romney...their job is to tear him down.
As you well know and seem to agree with.
Once again Keith. You don't
January 21, 2008 - 17:15 ET by Ryan Mc.Once again Keith. You don't back up your assertion. Where was Hillary uncontested?
Man, READ A FRIGGIN PAPER
January 21, 2008 - 21:17 ET by KeithMan, READ A FRIGGIN PAPER WOULD YA? She was the only top tier candidate to appear in the MICHIGAN PRIMARY.
You are a fool. Your point
January 22, 2008 - 08:08 ET by Ryan Mc.You are a fool. Your point was that where Hillary was uncontested the media ignored her like Romney. Read a friggin' paper dude yourself. She was covered every bit as much as Romney who won a highly contested primary in MI.
Compare the race in MI where
January 21, 2008 - 17:27 ET by Ryan Mc.Compare the race in MI where Hillary was the only big three candidate on the ballot and watch how the media covered how was the uncommitted number going to compare to Hillary's. The coverage on all the networks I watched paid as much attention to the Democrats as the Republican race. Mitt wins NV with most all the candidates on the ballot and ho hum. They obsessed over the Democrats but next to nothing on Mitt. I don't think your assertion stacks up with the facts.
MSM Ignores Romney's 1st place finish...
January 22, 2008 - 12:11 ET by fosstenJust as Newsbusters ignores Ron Paul's 2nd place finish.