Mark Halperin has a feature in Time magazine every week called "The Big Questions."

For a process-obsessed campaign reporter, this means a weekly who's up, who's down scorecard, in an easy to follow Q-&-A format.

This week's questions:

Is Sarah Palin in or out?

What could hold her back?

When does she have to decide?

Part of his answer to question one: "Palin remains more interesting to listen to than any other candidate."  Coming from a guy who once said, "I'm ready to cancel my vacation to go cover Rick Perry," maybe this isn't surprising. It is worth pointing out that Sarah Palin isn't, you know, a candidate for anything.

After praising her "maverick appeal" and "pox-on-both-parties, anti-Establishment message," Halperin notes that "as always, the media can't get enough of her."

Well, he's right about that.

From Time magazine's Rick Perry cover story (9/26/11):

When you look at Perry, it's easy to picture him in an old Western. His late arrival in the primary field in August certainly felt like that moment when the big stranger steps through the swinging saloon doors and all heads pivot and the plinky-plunk piano dies away.

Wait-- there's more!

Moreover, Perry doesn't mind kicking over idols in the high church of conventional wisdom, a favorite Tea Party pastime. He's the one who calls Social Security a "monstrous lie," throwing in "Ponzi scheme" for good measure. Social Security is called the third rail of American politics, which is, of course, a reference to the electrified portion of a subway track. Touch it and you die. But there aren't any subways where Rick Perry comes from.

The New York Times reported today (9/13/11) on the controversy, citing FAIR:

But the CNN debate on Monday was the first event hosted jointly by a major news organization and a Tea Party group. And their partnership left some questioning whether the network had gone too far in reaching for centrist credibility.

"Is there really a need for another national cable news channel devoted to promoting far-right elements within the Republican Party?" the liberal media watchdog group FAIR said Monday in an e-mail alert to its members in which it labeled the Tea Party "a controversial political group."

Jeremy Peters and Brian Stelter also picked up on CNN's weak attempts to spin their Tea Party connection--despite the fact that questions were being piped in from Tea Party events, and the Tea Party Express picked the audience members inside the auditorium:

Here in Tampa, there were signs the network was sensitive to perceptions that it was being too cozy with Tea Party activists. During a tour of the debate hall, Mr. Feist referred to the gatherings in Arizona, Virginia and Ohio, saying, "We'll have watch parties." He was swiftly corrected by CNN's special events producer, Kate Lunger, who interjected, 'Well, we won’t have watch parties."

That distinction--whatever it might be--was probably lost on most viewers.

Veteran journalist Bob Parry wrote a great piece about "the hidden political reality behind 'centrist' journalism--a never-ending pandering to the right." Parry added that he's seen this kind of thing first-hand:

it's useful to have some specific right-tilted story--or event--to point to, just in case a right-wing critic decides to target you as a "liberal." CNN, which the right has sometimes smeared as the "Communist News Network," can now cite its collaboration with the Tea Party as valuable right-wing "cred."

When I was working at PBS Frontline in the early 1990s, senior producers would sometimes order up pre-ordained right-wing programs--such as a show denouncing Cuba's Fidel Castro--to counter Republican attacks on the documentary series for programs the right didn't like, such as Bill Moyers' analysis of the Iran/Contra scandal.

In essence, the idea was to inject right-wing bias into some programming as "balance" to other serious journalism, which presented facts that Republicans found objectionable. That way, the producers could point to the right-wing show to prove their "objectivity" and, with luck, deter GOP assaults on PBS funding.

Send a message to CNN about the cable network's partnership with the Tea Party Express, a far-right group with a history of virulent racism, to produce a Republican presidential debate: See "CNN Throws a Tea Party," FAIR's latest Action Alert.

Please post copies of your messages to CNN, or comments on this Action Alert, in the comments thread below.

Frontrunner-of-the-moment Rick Perry is getting a lot of press for his performance at the recent Republican debate--especially because he's standing by his belief that Social Security is a "monstrous lie" and a Ponzi scheme, and that climate change is an untested theory advanced by corrupt, discredited scientists.

You can call such ideas a lot of things. "False" or "untrue," for example, would work. But a lot of reporters characterized Perry's performance in positive terms. In today's New York Times (9/9/11), Michael Shear writes that Perry

made clear in his first national appearance that he would campaign as an unabashed Southern conservative who is unafraid to speak bluntly, would double-down on controversial statements and planned to shrug off the concerns of the Republican establishment.

Shear later added that "Perry did not back down Wednesday night from his assertion that Social Security was a failure, even in the face of direct criticism by Mr. Romney."

"Unabashed," "unafraid," not backing down--these are all more or less positive descriptions.

Likewise, on NBC Nightly News (9/8/11), Andrea Mitchell said: "Perry proved he could throw a punch and take one. And he was unapologetic about attacking Social Security as a monstrous lie."

So he's not only a fearlessly blunt speaker, he's also an unapologetic punch-thrower. This is the kind of coverage the Perry campaign would probably pay for. Yes, there are pieces here and there that point out that, you know, Social Security isn't actually a massive scam. On the other hand, Washington Post liberal Ruth Marcus writes today (9/9/11): "On the substance, Perry’s point about Social Security-as-Ponzi scheme has some grounding in reality." She gets around to criticizing him, but that's a lot of ground to cede to a falsehood.

As Greg Marx notes at CJR,  the media designation of certain pieces as "factchecks" is strange because one might logically conclude that run-of-the-mill articles don't dwell on checking the facts of politicians (a conclusion that would largely be a correct one). He points to a CBS News piece on Perry and Social Security that quotes other Republicans disagreeing with his stance. Readers are apparently being asked to believe either Karl Rove or Rick Perry on the issue. That's a lot to ask of anyone.

It seems like just yesterday that Michele Bachmann was in the "top tier," thanks to her narrow victory in the mostly meaningless Iowa straw poll. She had "momentum." Then came this week's debate and, well, things are looking different. As the Washington Post described the scene at the debate:

Meanwhile, any momentum that Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), who won the Iowa straw poll in August, may have had from that victory has been extinguished by Perry.

The debates have been a forum in which Bachmann has shone, but she was sidelined on Wednesday night.

She was not asked a question until 14 minutes into the debate, and during an exchange on healthcare, she shouted for a chance to speak--only to be told that it was Huntsman's turn.

This should serve as a reminder that "momentum" in electoral politics is basically just how much attention media decide to grant a given candidate. Then when the press decide to pay less attention to your candidacy, they can observe that they had no choice--you lost your "momentum."

New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley has a piece (8/31/11) about Al Sharpton's debut as an MSNBC host. It seems his show, like others on the channel, could use more of a debate:

On Monday Mr. Sharpton followed the patented formula, bringing in two experts who agreed with him that recent efforts in North Carolina and other states to stiffen voter-identity requirements and restrict early voting would mostly affect the minorities and younger voters who turned out in record numbers for Barack Obama in 2008. Mr. Sharpton called it a "poll tax by another name." It’s an interesting issue, and not one that other MSNBC talkshows have addressed with the same degree of passion, but it would also have been helpful to viewers to learn how proponents of voting restrictions justify the legislation.

While diversity of viewpoints is a nice goal, this is one of those issues where the "other side" doesn't have much of a case. Voter ID laws are, in theory, supposed to protect against voter fraud--which is an almost completely nonexistent problem. Stanley's paper has written a couple of  editorials about this, citing the Brennan Center's excellent work on the issue.

There are obviously plenty of things you can say about Al Sharpton or MSNBC. Wishing that his show would feature more guests spewing misinformation is hardly "helpful."

Washington Post ombud Patrick Pexton dedicated his column this weekend (8/29/11) to addressing complaints about the skimpy coverage of Republican presidential contender Ron Paul. It's hard to argue with the numbers he's gathered:

Still, the Post’s coverage of Paul looks thin compared with its stories on Bachmann. In the past six months, the Post has published online or in print 34 staff-written stories plus 12 wire service stories on Bachmann, who has served not even five years in the House, and that doesn't count the blog posts about her on the Fix or Glenn Kessler's Fact Checker pieces. The Post published 19 staff-written stories on former House speaker Newt Gingrich in that time, plus one wire story and many blog posts. On Paul, a congressman for more than 20 years, who was No. 2 in fundraising after Romney in the last report, the Post has published just three full stories, a couple more that had large sections on him along with other candidates, two wire stories and the Fix blog posts.

Bachmann has a 46-5 advantage over Paul--that's pretty stunning (and it doesn't even count Bachmann's appearances in the Fact Checker column, which is a place you're likely to read about her). A Post editor assures that more coverage of Paul is forthcoming, and that Gingrich got more coverage because his "campaign imploded when most of his senior staff walked out in June." You don't normally hear journalists talking about the need to thoroughly cover campaigns that are in complete disarray.

There is little reason to care about what the polls say right now about who's leading in the Republican presidential nomination. But the media obviously think otherwise, hence this headline in the Washington Post yesterday (8/25/11):

Romney Loses GOP Front-Runner Status

The "news" is that Rick Perry is leading in a new Gallup Poll. But read a little further:

The survey showed Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) at 13 percent and Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) slipping to 10 percent. No other candidate registered in the double digits.

So this means Paul's in the "top tier" now, right?

This is a good time to issue a quick reminder about the hazards of paying too much attention to early polling:

In 2003, early polling of the following year's Democratic nominees (e.g., CBS News poll, 12/14-12/16/03) showed eventual nominee John Kerry in the middle of the pack, trailing Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Richard Gephardt and Joe Lieberman. An August 2003 USA Today/Gallup poll (8/25-8/26/03) showed front-runner Lieberman with a 10-point lead over Gephardt. As the dynamics of the nomination race shifted, so did the polls--but not in a way that would suggest the polling would predict the winner. By January 2004, Howard Dean was leading the pack, followed closely by Wesley Clark (1/2-5/04).

On the Republican side:

in the 2000 race, Bush's only serious competition came from Sen. John McCain, who was trailing far behind in the early polls--behind Elizabeth Dole, Dan Quayle and Steve Forbes (e.g., NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 1/99).

On NBC Nightly News (8/16/11):

ANDREA MITCHELL: Perry's Texas swagger is his calling card, bred of a hardscrabble boyhood on the family farm and Aggie roots at Texas A&M. Perry's chief claim to challenging President Obama is the Texas jobs record. Perry says his state produced 40 percent of all the jobs created across America in the last two years, with an unemployment rate at 8.2 percent, well below the national average, partly because of the oil and gas boom, partly because of growing trade with Mexico and federal defense spending in Texas.

Since Perry's campaign is based almost entirely on his state's jobs miracle, it's not too much to ask that journalists get this straight.

An 8.2 percent unemployment rate is not "well below the national average."  The national rate is a little over 9 percent. So, yes, Texas is doing better than the country as a whole--but not by much. Compare Texas to other states, though, and things don't look so great: The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 26 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas.

There's a lot of chatter--and presumably more to come--about this Politico story today (8/9/11):

Obama Plan: Destroy Romney

By Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin
August 9, 2011 04:29 AM EDT

Barack Obama's aides and advisers are preparing to center the president's reelection campaign on a ferocious personal assault on Mitt Romney’s character and business background, a strategy grounded in the early-stage expectation that the former Massachusetts governor is the likely GOP nominee.

It's a safe bet that the Obama campaign, being a political campaign, will engage in some pretty rough stuff.  But this piece makes it sound like something terrible is already happening (look at the headline!).

Politico talks about a "dramatic and unabashedly negative turn" in a campaign that hasn't really started, but concludes nonetheless that

the candidate who ran on "hope" in 2008 has little choice four years later but to run a slashing, personal campaign aimed at disqualifying his likeliest opponent.

Smith and Martin explain:

The onslaught would have two aspects. The first is personal: Obama's reelection campaign will portray the public Romney as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama's advisers in about a dozen interviews, "weird."

I'm not sure how that would necessarily qualify as a plot to "destroy" Romney. It's been more or less the consensus view after his 2008 campaign that Romney had trouble with authenticity--something Republicans have talked about.

They go on:

The second aspect of the campaign to define Romney is his record as CEO of Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that was responsible for both creating and eliminating jobs. Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession--a sort of political Gordon Gekko.

They're going to use his record against him?!

The piece goes on to say that the campaign will make an issue of Romney's flip flops--again, I'm not sure how this is any different than saying they're going to run a political campaign.

The piece talks about how Obama's campaign has studied Bush's 2004 campaign against John Kerry;  they seem to express some professional admiration of the Bush team's ability to turn the campaign into something other than a vote on Bush's first term in office. This doesn't seem all that remarkable, given that campaigns study other successful campaigns in order to figure out what made them successful.

I don't doubt Obama's people feel like they'll need to play dirty in order to win. There's some speculation that "weird" means "talking about his Mormonism." That could be true (and an unwillingness to vote for a Mormon has held pretty steady in polling on potential candidates).

But thinking they'll do any of this is different than actually showing that they're doing it. Politico's role in Beltway journalism is to try and drive the narrative; they're already out now with a "Romney campaign responds to Obama campaign" piece.

The right is apparently up in arms over this photo of Michele Bachmann that appears on the cover of this week's Newsweek:

If someone wants to say this is an unflattering picture, fine.

But Bachmann's supporters are unlikely to find much in Lois Romano's article to complain about. On the campaign trail, Bachmann's "simple, black-and-white distillations of complex problems are cheered as refreshing and tough." A campaign speech is a "folksy assault on a bloated federal government."

Explaining Bachmann's apparent surge, Romano writes:

Just months ago, Bachmann was the butt of jokes on late-night TV for her flawed grasp of U.S. history. But all that changed one night this spring when she took the stage at the first major GOP presidential debate with the middle-aged, drab men running for the nomination, and set herself apart with poise and precision. When others meandered or waffled, she shot back with answers that reduced Washington's dysfunctional gridlock to understandable soundbites.

I'm not sure comedians have stopped writing jokes about her-- or that her "grasp" of U.S. history has changed much since the spring. So much of the corporate media's enthusiasm for Bachmann comes down to cheering her performance at that one debate. People who watched it, or read the transcript afterwards, might have a hard time reconciling the upbeat characterizations of Bachmann's performance with the actual words she spoke from the stage.

As we pointed out, her  answer on jobs, the biggest political question of the moment, was a call to close down the Environmental Protection Agency, which she said should be called  the "Job-Killing Organization of America." Was that "poise and precision?"

But it's not just Newsweek. In the Washington Post, former Bush adviser Nicolle Wallace wrote that at the debate, "Bachmann's answers were crisp, strategic and smoothly delivered."

The press have set the bar for Bachmann somewhere near the floor--which means she'll almost always be exceeding expectations. This is one of the defining features of the coverage of her presidential campaign.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote a rather apoplectic column about presidential candidate Michele Bachmann this week, lamenting the fact that other GOP candidates aren't calling her out for being completely ill-prepared for the job:

Bachmann does not deserve to be in the presidential race. Legislatively, she has done little, she knows next to nothing and what she thinks she knows is wrong.

He also called her "an ignoramus" and "a bigot when it comes to gays."

Straight news coverage obviously isn't going to put things like that. But what's remarkable is how reporters seem to give Bachmann credit for being sort of, kind of, well-informed--at least relative to another political figure.

Here's Time magazine's recent take:

It is easy to dismiss Bachmann as a shorter Sarah Palin with a Minnesota accent. But there are important differences. Whereas Palin can stumble over simple questions, Bachmann is far surer on her feet. When Fox News host Chris Wallace recently recounted some of Bachmann's most outrageous statements and asked point-blank whether she is a "flake," the congresswoman didn't blink and delivered a firm recitation of her credentials. During a 2010 interview on MSNBC's Hardball, Bachmann stuck so resolutely to her talking points that the exasperated host, Chris Matthews, asked whether she was "hypnotized." She smiled and repeated them again.

"They'll throw nothing but heat at her, and she stays in the batter's box and doesn't flinch," marvels an adviser to a rival Republican candidate. Her fans say that's because Bachmann, who has two law degrees, offers more substance than Palin and can speak intelligently--and without Palin's mangled syntax--about policy issues. "She's smart. She's well informed," says Ralph Reed. It's true that Bachmann has a scant House record and a penchant for factual misstatements, including her bizarre claim that NATO air strikes killed up to 30,000 Libyans. But few other politicians so effectively combine policy, ideology--and pure star power.

Talk about exasperating.

The ability to recite talking points instead of answering questions can be called a lot of things-- being "sure on your feet" isn't one of them.

Bachmann has a "penchant for factual misstatements"--one example is given, sandwiched between tributes to her intelligence. Compare that to this assessment from early this year, courtesy of a PolitiFact editor:

"We have checked her 13 times, and [found] seven of her claims to be false and six have been found to be ridiculously false," PolitiFact editor Bill Adair told Minnesota Public Radio.

He added that no other politician had been factchecked as often as Bachmann without saying something that was found to be true.

"I don't know anyone else that we have checked more than a couple times that has never earned anything above a false," Adair said. "She is unusual in that regard that she has never gotten a rating higher than false."

That's pretty astounding--and doesn't really come through in the coverage of her campaign.

On top of all of this, of course, is the notion--rampant in the coverage of her campaign--that Bachmann should be compared to Sarah Palin. There's something strange--and deeply sexist--about this. But without a doubt, being compared to the most famously inarticulate national political figure of our era does a tremendous favor to Bachmann.

Richard Cohen is wondering when other Republican presidential candidate will criticize her record; the same question should be asked of the press corps.

The speculation about whether Texas Gov. Rick Perry will jump into the Republican presidential race boils down to one word: Jobs. Perry's state has been generating jobs at an impressive rate--which Perry likes to think is due to low taxes and lax regulations. Some of the coverage points to important caveats--the booming oil economy, for instance, and rapid population growth both make Texas fairly unrepresentative.

Today the Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece by Ana Campoy and Sara Murray  about the Texas miracle. The papers shows that many of these jobs are in the public sector; a million total new jobs over the past decade, but roughly "300,000 of the new Texas jobs were in government."

What's more, this graph accompanying the piece shows the rate of private sector job creation declining since 2008, while the rate of growth in  public employment* continues to rise:

The Journal includes this typical line from Perry:

"Government doesn't create any jobs," he said last month on Glenn Beck's show on Fox News. "They can actually run jobs away."

He's partly right. As the Journal points out, Perry's budget cuts will lead to job losses in the public sector, particularly in the public schools. While he might not deserve credit for the Texas job boom, he can claim credit for some likely job losses.

*Note: Corrected to more accurately reflect the chart (thanks to commenter Kyle O.)

"Make Way for the Radical Center" is exactly the sort of headline that suggests a story one might want to skip. But this is a Tom Friedman column (7/24/11), so you know it's going to be good for...something.

This time around, the jet-setting third party advocate is writing about something called Americans Elect, which Friedman hails as  "a viable, centrist, third presidential ticket, elected by an Internet convention."

"I know it sounds gimmicky," he writes. Well, yeah.

Also slightly familiar, to anyone who remembers Unity '08, which was once described as "an Internet-based third party that plans to select its presidential candidate through online voting." That description came from one Tom Friedman, on June 16, 2006.  Or the Tom Friedman of May 3, 2006, who hoped for an internet-based third party that was "big, strategic, centrist and forward-looking."

This isn't to say there's anything wrong with efforts to challenge the two-party system, which certainly limits political expression. But it's curious that Friedman assumes that the "center" isn't being adequately represented--or that, more importantly, a truly democratic nominating process would yield a "centrist" ticket. There's no reason to believe that would happen. Friedman's candidate would "challenge both parties from the middle"--but why would the people choose such a candidate? And is a third party "financed with some serious hedge-fund money" really a step in the right direction?

One rule Americans Elect has set down: A presidential candidate has to cross the party line to find his or her running mate--as Friedman puts it, "a Democrat must run with a Republican or independent, and a Republican with a Democrat or independent."

This sounds like... well, something that Tom Friedman would advocate. Which he did, in 2004: "I want to wake up and read that John Kerry just asked John McCain to be his vice president." Or consider the Tom Friedman who, in 2007, suggested that if Obama were to win the Democratic nomination, he "might want to consider keeping Dick Cheney on as his vice president." The reason had something to do with Iran policy: "Mr. Obama's gift for outreach would be so much more effective with a Dick Cheney standing over his right shoulder, quietly pounding a baseball bat into his palm." Ah, the magic of centrism!

Tom Friedman already has too much influence in our political discussion. Do we really need hedge fund millionaires organizing a third party in order to bring his columns to life?