Who says a little engineering mixed in with your journalism is a bad thing? At least one MSNBC host and Washington Post reporter said it's a journalist's job to focus on "real issues" in the hotly debated issue of health care reform.

This was the topic of discussion in a panel featuring John Rother, executive vice president of Policy and Strategy for AARP, Ceci Connolly of The Washington Post, Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity and host Dr. Nancy Snyderman during MSNBC's "Dr. Nancy" Aug. 10.

Rother argued there has been far too much hyperbole on the issue, which he insisted was meant to mislead the public.

The New York Times and the Washington Post had a pretty profound disagreement this morning on whether or not Obama has a chance to get a health care "reform" proposal through Congress this year, with the Times, predictably, being far more optimistic about prospects for the president's big-government health plan.

Times health care reporter Kevin Sack portrayed Obama-style health care "reform" as having serious momentum in the lead two paragraphs of his Friday article, "Health Care Reform's Moment Arrives (Again)."

In their heart of hearts, few in the Obama administration would have predicted late last year that they would be this well positioned by June to achieve a major victory on health care. As the economy faltered, and attention focused on Wall Street and Detroit, it seemed unthinkable that Congress would be ready to devote the summer of 2009 to the costly proposition of providing health coverage for all, a goal that has eluded presidents since Theodore Roosevelt.

But five months after the inauguration, health care dominates the domestic agenda on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Any package that emerges will preserve the country's private insurance system, at least for now. It could nonetheless bring sweeping changes, requiring that everyone be insured, creating a government health plan to compete with commercial carriers and perhaps taxing employer-provided health benefits.

By contrast, the top two paragraphs of Ceci Connolly's lead story in Friday's Washington Post seem to have come from an alternate universe:

Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle (picture at right is part of a Getty Images pic at a related New York Times story) has just upped the ante in Washington's tax-avoiding/evading game of "Can you top this?"

Whereas recently confirmed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "only" $40,000 in back taxes and interest, principally relating to unpaid Social Security and Medicare taxes (with a dash of retirement-plan penalty and illegally deducted overnight summer camp expenses included in the mix), the man who Rush Limbaugh used to call "Puff" Daschle during his Senate days has upped to ante to six figures.

Jake Tapper at ABC's Political Punch appears to be the one breaking the story (HT NRO's The Corner):

Bumps in the Road: Obama's HHS Secretary Nominee Faces Tax Questions Over Car and Driver

Five years ago, The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly did a front-page smear of Christian AIDS activist Jerry Thacker, who had been appointed to the presidential AIDS commission. The headline? "AIDS Panel Choice Wrote of a ‘Gay Plague.'"

Thacker, who is HIV-positive himself, had merely written on his Website that health authorities and journalists had used the term "gay plague" during the early 1980s. Amid a media firestorm, he withdrew his nomination the next day.

Fast forward to Connolly's lede in the August 7, A-2 story "Early Lessons Forgotten, AIDS Conference Told," on the International AIDS Conference's finding that HIV/AIDS is skyrocketing largely because of homosexual sex. Connolly describes AIDS in a similar way to how Thacker put it:

A telephone tipster made a very interesting point to us today about The Washington Post. In the midst of their coverage of the Anna Nicole Smith case, and a Vermont campaign-finance limit case, the Post found no room Wednesday for the pro-life win in NOW v. Scheidler. (That's the case where NOW tried to have clinic protesters charged under a mob-racketeering statute.) The Post could argue that the case is a bit of a rerun: the court dismissed it in 2003, only to have a federal judge keep the case alive like a zombie. But the court ruled 8 to 0 and the feminists were routed in the opinion by none other than liberal Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer. USA Today published a fairly prominent, thorough piece Wednesday on Page A-4.

Ken Shepherd noted that the front page of Monday's WashPost carried a story with the headline "Access to Abortion Pared at State Level." But I had a different take on reporter Ceci Connolly's piece. It begins: "This year's state legislative season draws to a close having produced a near-record number of laws imposing new restrictions on a woman's access to abortion or contraception." This language of danger to "women's access" sounds like abortion-advocate wording.

The question that emerges: is every pro-life measure a "restriction"? The third paragraph begins: "Three states have passed bills requiring that women seeking an abortion be warned that the fetus will feel pain, despite inconclusive scientific data on the question." Does an informed-consent rule really qualify as a restriction? The Post isn't going to call it what is really is: a restriction on an abortion clinic's ability to persuade women to buy what it's selling.

There's a lot of talk of parental notification and consent requirements in the story, which are restrictions, but then the question: is a 12-year-old girl a "woman"? (Ceci also cites the Alan Guttmacher Institute as a main source for the story, without noting it's an arm of Planned Parenthood.) She also includes in this "restrictions" story new bills recognizing the "fetus" as a human being under assault and murder laws, which again in no way "restrict" women's "access" to abortion.

Near the end of Ceci's story comes this passage: "Not all the restrictive measures came from Republican-controlled states. Democratic governors in Kansas and Pennsylvania signed budgets that steer millions of dollars to organizations that provide alternatives to abortion." Now how on Earth does that qualify as a "restriction" to women's "access"? It allows women to seek alternatives, if that's where they want to go. Once again, it is only a "restriction" on abortion clinic business, in that it might attract women away from an abortion. I don't think the Post would argue that funding anti-smoking programs is a "restriction" on smoking.

In Washington Post staff writer Ceci Connolly's below-the-fold piece, "Access to Abortion Pared at State Level," Ms. Connolly tagged abortion-regulating measures passed by state legislatures recently as "antiabortion measures" and the proponents of same as "antiabortion forces." Yet a search of Nexis by contrast reveals that efforts to regulate 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens are never tagged as "anti-gun" but rather as "gun control,"the term favored by liberals who advocate strictly regulating, if not banning, gun rights.

The day after her paper reported on a potential stem cell breakthrough which doesn't require destroying human embryos, the Washington Post's Ceci Connolly today wrote a piece focusing on liberal politicians and scientists receiving the news unenthusiastically, concerned that the promise of stem cell therapies that don't require the destruction of human embryos would undercut their pet research project, creating stem cells by destroying unborn human beings.