Chris Van Hollen

This week marks the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War. But there's another "civil war" of sorts on the horizon, this one between the ultra-liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has thus far steadfastly refused to accept cuts to entitlement programs in the name of fiscal solvency, and the party's more moderate members (which include, amazingly, President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi) who recognize that such cuts are all-but-inevitable.

But true to form, most of the media, fond of labeling GOP infighting a civil war, has yet to brand Democrats' budget feud with that label. This despite the increasing uneasiness of liberal legislators and organizations who are worried the president has already caved to conservatives on the budget battle.

Bob Schieffer on Sunday scolded Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for saying President Obama wasn't serious about the budget.

Two weeks ago, the "Face the Nation" host made the very same observation in a discussion with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) (video follows with transcripts and commentary):

Chris Matthews, on Monday's Hardball, brought on his own personal congressman, Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen, to review how his party was going to distinguish themselves from the GOP in the midterms with Matthews asking the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee head if they were focusing on all the "crazy" Republicans, or in other words "nut collecting." Matthews, after playing a clip of Barack Obama singling out Republicans Joe Barton, John Boehner and Roy Blunt, also reminded Van Hollen the President missed another "crazy" person with "B" name as he proclaimed: "If you're going out looking for nuts, it would seem like you'd put [Michele Bachmann] in your basket." Matthews even tried to pin down Van Hollen by demanding: "What percentage of the Republican Party would you put in the nut bag right now?"

The following exchange was aired on the July 12 edition of Hardball:

Eight former Federal Elections Commissioners today blasted proponents of a Senate bill that would "blunt" the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision, which allowed unions and corporations to spend freely on political advertisements.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, the Commissioners called the bill "unnecessary, partially duplicative of existing law, and severely burdensome to the right to engage in political speech and advocacy." They also accused Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. -- sponsors of the Senate and House legislation, respectively -- of "partisan motives" designed to satiate the Democratic Party's labor union backers.

While some prominent news organizations, including the Washington Post, have raised serious concerns about the  legislation, other ostensibly (or at least presumably) pro-free speech news outlets are either silent or, in the case of the New York Times, simply parrot Democratic talking points and give critics of the bill a mention, though not a voice, and make sure to dub them "the business lobby."

As we've reported here at NewsBusters, the mainstream media has been in a tizzy over Sarah Palin's potentially violence-engendering "target map" for the upcoming midterm elections.

Of course, what the liberal media isn't telling you is that the Democratic Leadership Council used similar "target maps" in the 2004 election. 

Verum Serum blogged about this yesterday morning (h/t Gateway Pundit):

The map appears on this page of the Democratic Leadership Committee [sic] website (dated 2004 during the Bush years). I guess we could argue over whether the DLC counts as “senior party officials” but they’re certainly as much a part of the party as Palin who, after all, currently holds no elected office.

Granted these are bulls-eyes instead of gun-sights, and the targets are states not individual congressmen. But we’re really splitting hairs at this point. This map and the language it uses (Behind enemy lines!) are, if anything, more militant than what Palin used in her Facebook posting.

But wait, there’s more!

Does Chris Matthews want Republican congressmen arrested? On Wednesday's Hardball he actually posed that possibility to Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen, as he blamed GOP rhetoric for causing vandalism of Democratic offices as he asked Van Hollen: "Would you say that this incitement, from the Republican leadership is criminal?" After relaying reports of Democrats receiving death threats and having "windows thrown bricks at," Matthews escalated his usual slandering of the entire Tea Party movement for the offensive or unlawful actions of a few, to actually blaming Republican officeholders for the illegal acts. The concerned MSNBC host also worried: "Is it harder to recruit members to run for Congress now that they're facing death threats?" [audio available here]

The following exchange was aired on the March 24 Hardball:

Good Morning America on Sunday derided the idea that Democratic retirements in Congress spell bad news for the party in 2010. John Hendren, a day before Evan Bayh announced he's leaving the Senate, dismissed, "But, for now, despite all the passionate, anti-incumbent tea parties, the math suggests limited changes on Capitol Hill. A tempest in a teapot." [Audio available here.]

Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland appeared and offered an optimistic spin. However, Hendren failed to mention that Van Hollen is also the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). So, when Van Hollen touted, "For new Presidents, the first midterm election can be very perilous for the President's party," wouldn't it be honest to inform viewers that it's the Congressman's job to offer happy talk?  

Jeff Cohen, founder of FAIR—a self-described progressive media watch group—now a professor of independent media at Ithaca College, invited me to address his class of student bloggers this afternoon.  Asked to name some of the fairer MSM journalists, I included David Gregory on my short list.  That could understandably come as a surprise to those who remember Gregory from his days as NBC's chief White House correspondent, when he earned the ire of the Bush administration for his often-aggressive style.  But I've found that Gregory plays it pretty much down the middle in his new role as host of Race for the White House on MSNBC.  

By coincidence, on this evening's show Gregory vindicated my confidence with some tough questioning of an Obama surrogate on the issue of taxes and spending.  Gregory went so far as to suggest that Obama's indication that he might not press for immediate implementation of tax increases on higher earners makes McCain's case. Gregory's guest was Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  When Van Hollen suggested Obama might postpone his tax-increase plan, Gregory moved in . . .

View video here.