“I addressed her as ‘President Palin,’ ” said Debbie McMillan of Orlando. “She said, ‘I like that very much — I could live with that.’” […]

Sheila Schulte, 54, a resident of The Villages who was wearing a button on a red, white and blue scarf that read “Sarah Palin for President 2012,” leaned over and thanked Palin for serving as a great inspiration.

Palin responded, “You’re welcome and I like your pin.”

During her brief remarks, Palin encouraged the crowd to buy her new book. “You can read my story thus far — unfiltered by the media!” Aside from an interview with Fox News, Palin “took no questions” from the media.

This week, Stephen J. Dubner, co-author of SuperFreakonomics, embraced the fevered “Climategate” ravings of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and other global warming deniers in an interview with Fox Business Network host David Asman. Dubner purports that the hacked University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails reveal that the supposed consensus on global warming is because “everybody’s scared to be an outlier, everybody’s scared to be a skeptic.” After Asman compared climate scientists to Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler — Dubner did his own Glenn Beck impression, accusing “potent” scientists of “colluding” to “tell Al Gore what to say,” and “distorting evidence” to “make their findings be right for their position”:

You can’t read these e-mails and feel that the IPCC’s or the major climate scientists’ findings and predictions about global warming are kosher. You can’t. They may be, but if you read these you have to have a whole lot of skepticism about that. And of course, coming into Copenhagen these are going to have a big effect how the world looks at you. They’re going to say, “Wait a minute. You say these climate scientists have been telling us we have to stop burning fossil fuel tomorrow?”

Watch it:

The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, National Public Radio, Washington Times, and other news outlets are participating in this Swiftboat-style smear campaign, following the lead of actual Swiftboat smearer and former Limbaugh and Inhofe employee Marc Morano — instead of bothering to understand what the scientists were actually talking about in the hacked emails.

However, as climate scientist Richard Somerville explained yesterday, “The ice has no agenda.” Arctic sea ice is at historically low levels, Australia is on fire, the northern United Kingdom is underwater, the world’s glaciers are disappearing, and half of the United States has been declared an agricultural disaster area. And it’s the the hottest decade in recorded history.

By asking whether “we have to stop burning fossil fuel tomorrow,” Dubner — a top blogger for the New York Times — gets to the heart of why this bizarre theory of a cabal of all-powerful climatologists is getting support from conservative media and politicians. The incontrovertible science — based not on manipulated data but on decades of basic research — is that the burning of fossil fuels is drastically reshaping our planet’s climate and acidifying the oceans. And the only known way to restore conditions to those safe for human civilization is to dramatically reduce the use of fossil fuels. Doing so, however, would affect the incredible profits and power of the oil and coal industries, and of their ideological allies.

In fact, if we stop treating our atmosphere like a sewer, the climate system will heal itself over time, potentially more rapidly than we expect. That our past inaction will continue to bear consequences into the future is a reason to act with greater swiftness, not to dither further. The longer we delay, the more difficult and expensive the challenge to reduce pollution while adapting to a hostile world becomes.

Last night on his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly used the news to attack Moyers and his journalistic ethics. He also claimed that his producer, Jesse Watters, was solely responsible for Moyers resigning. “Now I think we — Jesse Watters drove him out of PBS,” said O’Reilly. “I think Jesse Watters is responsible for Bill Moyers leaving.” Watch it:

In 2007, Watters ambushed Moyers on the street outside his home. O’Reilly had Watters harass Moyers after the PBS journalist ran a program about impeaching President Bush. O’Reilly claimed that Moyers symbolized “Americans who want their country to lose in Iraq, based upon hatred of all things Bush,” which he determined was a good reason to send his henchman to Moyers’ house. According to O’Reilly, this one interview was what drove Moyers out of his job two years later.

Of course, what O’Reilly didn’t show was a 2008 confrontation between Moyers and Fox News producer Porter Berry, which didn’t go as O’Reilly had planned. This time, Moyers turned the tables on Berry and called O’Reilly a coward for sending out producers to do his dirty work and for refusing to appear on his PBS show. Watch it:

Last night was a prime example of O’Reilly’s inflated ego. He has also taken sole credit for saving Christmas, lowering gas prices, John McCain being behind in the polls in October 2008 (because the senator refused to appear on The O’Reilly Factor), and Spanish prosecutors deciding to drop an investigation into the Bush administration’s torture regime (because O’Reilly threatened a Spanish boycott).

Later in the segment, O’Reilly added that another reason that Moyers is retiring is because PBS was mad at him for not being tough enough on Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a 2008 interview.

Transcript:

GOLDBERG: Avuncular, right. But you know what? I knew Bill Moyers at CBS. I worked with him. He’s a very serious guy. And in that sense I give him — I give him credit. When a lot of people were going for fluff, Bill Moyers wanted to do serious journalism.

Some place along the line, Bill, he stopped being a journalist, and he started of being an advocate. He stopped being a journalist, and he started being an evangelist. And the religion he was preaching for was liberalism.

O’REILLY: Far left.

GOLDBERG: Far left. And when you’re — when you’re that kind of person, there are no shades of gray.

O’REILLY: Now I think we — Jesse Watters drove him out of PBS. I think Jesse Watters is responsible for Bill Moyers leaving. Now Bill Moyers is hammering Bush and Cheney, wanted them impeached, this and that, and you know, taking shots at The Factor. So we sent Jesse out to talk with him. Roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JESSE WATTERS, FACTOR PRODUCER: Mr. Moyers, what do you think about t hat? I mean, come on, do you think…

BILL MOYERS, PBS: Come on my show. I’ll ask you. Bill won’t do it. He doesn’t have the courage. But I’ll ask you.

WATTERS: Bill would have been here today but he’ interviewing Lindsay Lohan.

MOYERS: Oh, of course. Bill’s got his priorities in line.

WATTERS: That’s right. He would have loved to be here, but he can’t make it tonight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right.

GOLDBERG: I’m amazed he knew who Lindsay Lohan was.

O’REILLY: Look, and that was a joke, by the way. There was no Lindsay Lohan interview.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner won’t be there; he’s on Thanksgiving break and home in Ohio. His deputy, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, also didn’t get an invitation to the dinner.

However, this simply isn’t true. As Politico reported, Boehner was invited but turned the White House down. Already, Fox News is trying to gin up controversy by reprinting the Washington Times along with the same error.

HARLAN: It looks as if the rogue route is helping Sarah Palin. Her book tour has meant new support. A new Opinion Dynamics poll for 2012 shows her on top when it comes to landing the nomination. Palin is at 70 percent, about a third higher than this past July. Mike Huckabee stands at 63 percent. Mitt Romney’s 60.

Those figures add up to 193 percent. An accompanying graphic tried to squeeze the numbers into one pie chart:

In fact, the poll Harlan referred to did not ask Republican respondents to pick their favorite candidate. The numbers he cited merely represent favorable ratings among Republicans surveyed for each individual. Watch Harlan’s report:

(HT: Twitter user Kevinthepang)

Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors. Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews. So we now face a great opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately, Newsroom is going to “zero base” our newscast production. That means we will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and manageable elements. To share a key quote from today’s meeting: “It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on.” We may then build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again. Please know that jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough.

After the Palin footage mishap, The Swamp reported that it was “highly like[ly] that serious disciplinary action will be taken for those responsible behind the scenes in the control room.”

Mr. Moyers said he had been planning for some time to retire the program on Dec. 25, but was asked by PBS to raise the funds to continue through April, which he did.

“I am 75 years old,” he said of the decision to end the series, which began in April 2007. The program has recently been having a “good run of it,” he added in a telephone interview on Friday, “so I feel it’s time.” He said he was not quitting television work, although he has no new projects planned.

“Bill Moyers Journal” originally aired in 1972, and after a few breaks, returned on-air in its current form in 2007, with the critically acclaimed documentary “Buying the War.” The film highlighted how, “in the rage that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the media abandoned their role as watchdog and became a lapdog instead.”

MILLER: Listen, Sarah, I have to ask you. This Newsweek cover. First off, I have two thoughts on this. To me it seems blatantly sexist and secondly I’m just glad they didn’t decide to do it with Hillary during the primaries. But your thoughts on it. You a little POed at this? I mean this was for another magazine, right?

PALIN: Yeah, yeah, it was for a health and fitness profile where I could tout the great outdoors of Alaska in Runner’s World months ago. And yeah, Newsweek. That was really snarky and cheesy and quite indicative though too, Dennis, of the state of journalism today. I think it stinks.

Listen here:

As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, it is conventional wisdom on the right that conservative women get harsher treatment than liberal women. But Miller’s hypocritical comments and Palin’s lack of concern with them, give weight to those who argue that Palin and her conservative followers have a selective perception of social bias.

“Also, 61 percent of you feel that governor Sarah Palin, former governor, has been treated unfairly by the mainstream media,” commented Steve Doocy. Co-host Gretchen Carlson suggested that Pelosi’s numbers are low even though she doesn’t get much “scrutiny” because “if you’re a conservative woman, you get more attacks“:

CARLSON: It’s interesting because even though that number shows that Pelosi has a much higher unfavorable rating, you don’t, you don’t at least hear as much about the scrutiny of Nancy Pelosi as you did about Sarah Palin. And that may go back to that whole age old argument that if you’re a conservative woman, you get more attacks than if you have liberal points of view.

Watch it:

The contention that the media treats conservative women worse than liberal women is conventional wisdom on the right. But Carlson’s claim that scrutiny of Nancy Pelosi is under the radar is surprising considering her own network’s often times downright mean treatment of the first female speaker of the House:

– On the November 10 edition of Fox and Friends, for instance, radio host Laura Ingraham said that “Pelosi basically did everything except sell her own body” to pass health care reform.

– On Nov. 4 on the O’Reilly Factor, Dennis Miller said Pelosi had a “sub-reptilian intellect” and likened her face to a “lizard laying on a hot rock.”

– On October 30, Fox and Friends laughingly re-enacted protesters calling for Pelosi to “burn in hell.”

– On October 21, Bill O’Reilly mocked Pelosi, saying, “If there wan’t Botox involved, with all due respect, there might have been more expression” on her face.

– On August 6, Glenn Beck joked about putting poison in Pelosi’s wine.

– On May 20, Hannity guest Jay Thomas said, “I think if you waterboarded Nancy Pelosi, she wouldn’t admit to plastic surgery.”

– On May 19, Dennis Miller called her a “train wreck” and a “shrieking harridan magpie.”

On Fox, a progressive woman like Pelosi doesn’t just get “scrutiny,” she gets insults.

MMFA: Mr. Murdoch, can you be more specific about what racist comments the President allegedly made?

MURDOCH: I denied that absolutely. I don’t believe he’s a racist.

“But you said that he made racist statements,” the staffer noted as Murdoch walked away. Watch it:

In the tease before the segment — the tease to commercial — we told you how those people were already lining up to meet Palin. The problem is, we didn’t actually show you the video we were referencing. Instead, we mistakenly aired what’s called file tape of Sarah Palin. We didn’t mean to mislead anybody in that tease. It was a mistake. And for that, we apologize.

Watch it:

The Swamp reported earlier that Fox News may take “serious disciplinary action” against control room staffers over the incident. The on-air apology made no reference to such action.

“This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn’t alert the control room to update the video,” Michael Clemente, senior vice president of news at FOX, sad this evening. “There will be an on-air explanation during Happening Now on Thursday.”

Citing unnamed sources, The Swamp reports Fox is planning to take “serious disciplinary action” against those “responsible behind the scenes in the control room.”

But last night on Fox, the network’s top legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano — who has been known to disagree with Fox’s right-wing narratives on legal issues — disputed that view, citing the constitutional right to be tried in the place where the crime has been committed. “I don’t care about the Constitution!” host Bill O’Reilly responded. The debate continued:

O’REILLY: So why is he entitled to come to New York City to be tried in the civilian criminal court if he’s arrested in Pakistan?

NAPOLITANO: Because the document you don’t want me to talk about says when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused.

Later in the program, Fox analyst Brit Hume said he’d “been scouring the columns of various people opining about this to see if somebody makes a good argument for doing it,” adding, “And I really haven’t heard one.” Hume then noted Napolitano’s opinion and said, “I’m not certain I agree with that.” Watch it:

Holder’s “bold and principled” decision was “a victory for the rule of law and the American system of justice,” the Center for American Progress’ Ken Gude said.

“If you are accused, you get to know what you know what you are accused of, you get to face your accusers, and you get to defend yourself in court, and then you face a trial and a conviction. This is who we are as a system,” said Tom Andrews, director of the National Campaign to Close Guantanamo. “The Taliban? You can get a trial and a beheading in a few hours. That’s not our system of justice.”

Read more about Holder’s decision in today’s Progress Report.

But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy ’60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to “hope” for “change.” It’s no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of “the 57 states” is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.

Pruden has a history of writing racially-charged items. In 2005, he wrote a column criticizing the Senate for passing a resolution that apologized for never enacting an anti-lynching law. As Media Matters noted at the time, Pruden had previously made numerous “sympathetic statements about the Confederacy” and employed “a neo-Confederate activist in the Times newsroom.”

But in her interview with Oprah Winfrey, which aired yesterday, Palin claimed that she only “went rogue” on the Michigan message because she “didn’t know we pulled out of Michigan”:

WINFREY: Didn’t several times they say to you when actually you mentioned, when you were talking about pulling out of Michigan and you said I wished we’d stayed in Michigan. Weren’t you told then, Sarah just stay on script?

PALIN: Right, told after wards and that, that was always puzzling to me because if I were to respond to a reporter’s questions very candidly, honestly, for instance, they say, “what do you think about the campaign pulling out of Michigan” and I think, “darn I wish we weren’t. Every vote matters, I can’t wait to get back to Michigan” and then told afterwards that, “oh, you screwed up. You went rogue on us Sarah, you’re not supposed to be.” And my reminder to the campaign was, I didn’t know we pulled out of Michigan. My entire VP team, we didn’t know that we had pulled out. I’m sorry, I apologize, but speaking candidly to a reporter.

Watch it:

Clearly, if Palin told Cameron that she had sent an e-mail to the McCain high command disagreeing with the move, she knew that the decision had been made. Additionally, in their reported book on Sarah Palin, former Fox News embed Shushannah Walshe and CBS News digital journalist Scott Conroy reveal that Palin knew she had made a mistake in her interview with Cameron:

The e-mail that Palin sent was, in fact, essentially how she described it to Cameron. She wrote to her traveling staff and top McCain advisers, “If there’s any time, Todd and I would love a quick return to Michigan-we’d tour the plants, etc. . . . If it does McC any good. I know you have a plan, but I hate to see us leave Michigan. We’ll do whatever we had [sic] to do there to give it a 2nd effort.”

A senior aide replied, “Michigan is out of reach unless something drastic happens. We must win oh and hopefully pa.”

Palin replied that she “got it,” but her subsequent interview with Cameron had shown that she hadn’t. She acknowledged as much in a post-interview e-mail to senior staff, writing, “Oops-I mentioned something about that to Carl Cameron and it’s now recorded that I’d love to give Michigan the ol’ college try.” Later in the day, she tried once more. “It’s a cheap 4hr drive from WI. I’ll pay for the gas,” she wrote.

This isn’t the first claim that Palin has made in her book and during her promotional tour that has been contradicted by campaign e-mails. In her book, Palin wrote that “from the beginning” she liked the idea of appearing on Saturday Night Live. But in an e-mail thread from the campaign that was provided to the Huffington Post, Palin said she was “not thrilled” about the idea of going on the show because “these folks are whack.”

In an interview with Walshe and Conroy, The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder noted that their book chronicles “fairly persuasively, a large number of what seem to be fairly egregious distortions” by Palin. “Sarah Palin is quick to cast aside people who cross her in even minor ways, and her unwillingness to tolerate much dissent often leads to an infallibility syndrome,” replied the authors, who later added that she has a “tendency to wildly exaggerate the truth.”

Since reports emerged last month that top commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal asked President Obama for upwards of 40,000 additional troops to continue the war there, the right wing has been attacking the President for taking time to make a decision on his new strategy. “It is absolutely unconscionable,” Liz Cheney said yesterday on Fox News, that Obama “is denying our troops on the ground in Afghanistan the resources that they need to prevail to win that war.”

Also during that time, Obama has made reflective gestures to those who have fallen in the wars he is now running, paying tribute to returning war dead at Dover Air Force Base and making an impromptu visit to Section 60 at Arlington Cemetery on Veterans Day to commemorate Iraq and Afghanistan war casualties. Yesterday on Inside Washington, during a discussion of Obama’s upcoming decision on Afghanistan, syndicated columnist Mark Shields scoffed at Obama’s demeanor, wishing instead for a “manly man” in the White House:

SHIELDS: We have a president of real intellectual horse power who is cool, detached and analytical and if anything you can watch the emotional side of him emerge in this whole process. … There’s an emotional aspect, the comforter in chief as well as the commander in chief. Both roles. And I think it makes me nostalgic for those days when we had a manly man in the White House who could say, “Let’s kick some tail and ask questions afterwards” you know? That’s what we really need instead of any reflection.

Watch it:

Shields’ rhetoric is eerily reminiscent of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s justification for the war in Iraq, who in May 2003 argued that after 9/11, the U.S. had to invade in order to “burst” the terrorism bubble:

FRIEDMAN: And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying, “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand? You don’t think, you know we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck on this, okay?” That Charlie is what this war [in Iraq] is about. We could of hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. Could of hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.

Of course Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and after nearly 4,400 U.S soldiers dead, 32,000 wounded and nearly $1 trillion spent, the U.S. still has well over 100,000 troops stationed in Iraq.

The network is set to announce that Dobbs will be a guest on Monday night’s edition of Bill O’Reilly’s show, DailyFinance has learned. Warm feelings between the two men goes back to last summer, when O’Reilly publicly defended Dobbs against critics who wanted him fired for repeatedly showcasting the claims of “birthers” who allege President Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. Dobbs offered to be interviewed on The O’Reilly Factor then, but quickly backed out, prompting speculation that CNN had ordered him not to appear on a competing network.

Monday’s appearance could be a make-good for that…or it could be a not-so-subtle signal that Dobbs is inclined to sign on with Rupert Murdoch’s legions, as many believe he will. (On his radio show today, callers were reportedly urging Dobbs to do just that.)

As Bercovici notes, O’Reilly has defended Dobbs on the air multiple times. Dobbs has replied by calling him “a stand up guy.”

GQ: That was my next question. Have you heard from the administration?

LD: Of course I have. Sure. Without question. They are coordinating with a number of groups, including the Center for American Progress. The usual suspects. To carry out constant and absolutely insidious and sordid attacks on me. And the reason they’re doing so, I’m the leading independent voice, and I am critical on their policies and intent, on unconditional amnesty, and leaving the borders and ports unsecure. They cannot, they’re. . .

GQ: They’re afraid of that point of view? They don’t think their point of view will carry against…

LD: Apparently not. Otherwise why would you do such a thing? But I will not be intimidated, and I understand that. Therefore they’re trying to intimidate my network and my owners.

For the record, neither ThinkProgress nor its parent organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, collaborated with the White House on our Dobbs coverage. However, Dobbs’ paranoid remarks did come around the same time ThinkProgress began promoting the efforts of progressive activists who were leading the Drop Dobbs, Tell CNN Enough Is Enough, and Basta Dobbs campaigns aimed at pressuring CNN to hold Dobbs to journalistic standards.

ThinkProgress has always focused on media accountability. Throughout the years, Dobbs has repeatedly left himself wide-open to legitimate criticism, not baseless attacks. Some recent examples:

– This summer, ThinkProgress reported that Dobbs had joined the birther movement and claimed President Obama might be an undocumented immigrant.

– The Wonk Room reported that the Lou Dobbs Show was promoting the myth that “people who break immigration laws” will be “rewarded” with free health care coverage.

– Shortly after we noted that Fox News’ John Stossel and Glenn Beck openly criticized Dobbs’ anti-immigrant “rants,” Dobbs proceeded to rip Stossel as a “self-important ass” with his “own brand of myopic idiocy.”

– ThinkProgress documented Dobbs slamming the “vile stupidity and ignorance” of “annoying” Geraldo Rivera, who had also denounced Dobbs’ immigration tirades.

– Most recently, Dobbs claimed that “ethnocentric interest groups” and Rivera himself were to blame for gun shots fired at his house. ThinkProgress called up the New Jersey State Police and broke the news that the shooting more likely involved a hunter’s stray bullet.

The efforts to get Dobbs off the air were not one-sided. Scott Stanzel, who used to work in President Bush’s communications shop, applauded the decision today in a statement to Politico: “I will not miss Lou Dobbs, his show or his ‘advocacy journalism.’ In recent years, the blurring of the lines between opinion and news reporting has damaged the credibility of mainstream reporters and news organizations. It’s refreshing to see CNN make a decision to fill the Dobbs slot with a respected and accomplished hard news journalist like John King. Maybe there is hope for the news business after all.”

Media Decoder’s Bill Carter notes that “Hannity did not address specifically how the mistake came to be made.”