O'REILLY: OK. The latest poll has you with a 23 percent favorable, 37 percent don't know. You do the math, OK. And you're up at 60 percent of people who could like you. You are the biggest threat because you are a star, media star, whereas you're the only Republican. There aren't any other Republicans who are media stars but you. Now, that's why they're attacking you so vehemently. Do you know that?

In other words, "You could be really popular some day, and don't know you know how that makes liberals crazy?"

Nothing but the tough questions from that guy.

The paper explains:

Embracing the progressive--and sometimes politically risky--principle that the cost of carrying out public policies should fall to the well-off more than the disadvantaged, both the House and Senate bills would place new taxes on the wealthy to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.

Since mostly people aren't "well-off," and raising taxes on the wealthy tends to be rather popular with most people, what exactly is the political risk here? Surely the article will tell us. Oh, here it is:

In a recent Associated Press poll, 57 percent of those surveyed favored taxing people who earn more than $250,000 a year to pay for the healthcare overhaul. Of a variety of financing options tested in the survey, that tax was the only idea supported by a majority.

In other words, the not-very-risky idea of raising taxes on the wealthy.

The piece, by Carl Hulse, informs us that the three "have all been skeptical of a public health insurance option," and that all "represent states won handily last year by Sen. John McCain."  An accompanying chart provides more data:  when they each were first elected and when they're next up for re-election; their margin of victory in their last race and their state's presidential results in 2004 and 2008; the population and median income of their states; and what percentage of their constituents are enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid or are uninsured.

The implication is that these figures might help readers better understand these senators' stances on healthcare reform.  But one obvious potential influence goes unmentioned: the money these politicians get from healthcare interests.  For Nelson, the figure $664,000 in the 2005-10 election cycle; for  Landrieu, it's $615,000;  and for Lincoln, $763,000.

By providing readers with information about state residents' income and health insurance status, and leaving out the sums contributed by health interests, the Times is suggesting that the politicians take their voters' interests into account and ignore their own.  If that sounds like the kind of politicians you're familiar with, then you're likely to find the Times' coverage of the politics of healthcare reform highly informative.

There is one serious argument for this course: that a civilian court will provide greater legitimacy for the imposition of the death penalty than a military tribunal. But the guilt of these terrorists is not in question. And it is difficult to imagine that those repulsed or impressed by Khalid Sheik Mohammed's confessed crimes will care much about the procedures surrounding his sentencing.

Gerson seems to be saying in that last sentence that nobody actually cares about the rule of law.  That's not literally true, of course, but from the vitriol expressed toward the idea of  defendants having constitutional rights, you do get the idea that its stock is at a low ebb.

Asked to choose between a larger influx of troops to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and train the Afghan military, and a smaller number of new U.S. forces more narrowly focused on training, Americans divide 46 percent for the bigger number, 45 percent for the lower one.

Apparently the Post thinks the debate is between a smaller surge to train the Afghan military, or a larger one to do that plus defeat bad guys. No surprise, then, that a lot of people would find the larger surge option appealing. But does that resemble the actual military debate going on over Afghanistan? And why exclude the option of sending no additional troops, or bringing the ones already there back home?

This is the second time in the last few weeks that the Post's polling on Afghanistan has seemed designed to inflate support for a surge of some sort. As FAIR noted, the paper's October 21 report featured this poll question:

U.S. military commanders have requested approximately 40,000 more U.S. troops for Afghanistan. Do you think Obama should or should not order these additional forces to Afghanistan?

The Post had previously asked the question in a more neutral manner-- i.e., without referring to "U.S. military commanders" or to Obama, which seemed to significantly increase the level of support for a troop surge (from 24 percent to 47 percent).

It seems fairly clear that the Post's editorial page is strongly supportive of a troop surge; is someone trying to make sure the paper's polling helps them make that argument?

The Washington Post, though, went with this headline today: "Housing Plan for Jerusalem Neighborhood Spurs Criticism."

The article by Howard Schneider refers to a "disputed neighborhood of Jerusalem," the "Jewish neighborhood of Gilo," a place "annexed to the city in a step not recognized by the international community."

There is also a reference to White House policy, noting that the Obama administration "has vacillated in its stance on Israeli construction in areas claimed by the Palestinians."  This is downright bizarre; the entire discussion about "Israeli construction" concerns illegal Israeli settlements--or, perhaps more accurately, colonies--in the West Bank. Why, then, refuse to label Gilo accurately? It's an old story, actually; as Extra! pointed out in 2002, Gilo was a cause for pro-Israeli media activists, who pressured outlets like CNN to stop referring to Gilo as a settlement and use terms more innocuous like "neighborhood." It's still working, it would seem.