On Accuracy

Seriously now ... WHAT liberal media?

LAUER: Katie pressed him [Howard Dean] on that and we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and found out that technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct.

No, Matt. ACCURATELY speaking, Howard Dean was ENTIRELY right and Katie Couric was ABSOLUTELY shilling right-wing talking points.

... and does anyone seriously doubt that this used to qualify as evidence for a liberal bias when commentators would say such things regarding GOP officials? I mean, at what point do we stop calling the whole "liberal media" parrot call a meme and call it what it truly is ... a punchline.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, one more nail in the argumentative coffin for the "side" that's trying to peddle this as a bipartisan scandal. This courtesy of The American Prospect:

In the weeks since Abramoff confessed to defrauding tribes and enticing public officials with bribes, the question of whether Abramoff directed donations just to Republicans, or to the GOP and Democrats, has been central to efforts by both parties to distance themselves from the unfolding scandal. President Bush recently addressed the question on Fox News, saying: ?It seems to me that he [Abramoff] was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties.?

Although Abramoff hasn?t personally given to any Democrats, Republicans, including officials with the GOP campaign to hold on to the Senate, have seized on the donations of his tribal clients as proof that the saga is a bipartisan scandal. And the controversy recently spread to the media when the ombudsman for The Washington Post, Deborah Howell, ignited a firestorm by wrongly asserting that Abramoff had given to both. She eventually amended her assessment, writing that Abramoff ?directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.?

But the Morris and Associates analysis, which was done exclusively for The Prospect, clearly shows that it?s highly misleading to suggest that the tribes's giving to Dems was in any way comparable to their giving to the GOP. The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.

That, my friends, is the sound of an argument ending. Wonder how long it's going to take the talking-point crowd to come back over to the reality-based world.