>> what do you think of when you see a tree? a treatment for cancer? alternative fuel for our cars? do you think of hope for the environment, or food, clothing, shelter? we do. weyerhaeuser, growing ideas. >> so i didn't give him the full force of what i could do. >> this week on "inside washington," shirley sherrod, the new media, and the rush to judgment. next time, all by checking the facts? >> the facts are coming out and

that is good. >> charlie rangel try to the ethics violations. the president signs finance reform into law. >> republicans say you must pay for unemployment insurance but not for tax cuts for the wealthy. >> 8 "washington post was what investigation reveals the multimillion-dollar world of intelligence gone haywire. and a key party in congress. -- tea party in congress. >> we will invite people in and get a great ideas out. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> some of you may remember the good old days of newspapers and tv and radio news where you had hours to work on your story and your editors and producers had plenty of time to go through stuff for accuracy.

if you remember that, you are a dinosaur pit welcome to be blogosphere, the 24-hour instant deadline. which brings me to the story of ousted agriculture department official shirley sherrod, who was let go on the basis of a single piece of the internet video that was edited out of context, posted on a conservative website, picked up on fox news and bought lock, stock, and erroll by the obama administration. >> to have people think that i was a racist, someone who has worked against racism all of my life, really hurt. >> a good woman has gone through a very difficult period. i will have to live with that for a long time. >> tom vilsack apologizes. at the white house, robert gibbs apologizes. on fox, bill o'reilly apologizes. finally, the president calls shirley to apologize. colby, what do you make of all this?

>> it is a sad reflection of where we are as a country. if you listen to the speech, it was a good speech, that made the exact opposite points that the right wing try to make out of it. the way everybody reacted to it was bad, up and down the line, including the president. i wrote a piece that said that this shows the administration's true colors, and that in this case is yellow. >> charles? >> speaking of apologies, maybe you ought to apologize for saying that fox news had on the air before the bush administration fired her. she was fired in the late afternoon and her story appeared on fox news later. the next day, at a time when she remained fired, the secretary of agriculture repeated his intention to have her fired, and then made news show at 6:00 -- and the main issue at 6:00, i called for an apology and her restitution and reinstatement,

as did the entire fox news panel. if we talk about context, it ought to be universal. >> nina? >> nobody mentioned that the naacp called for firing, and that speech was to a chapter of the naacp. there are a lot of lessons here and we keep relearning these lessons. it is frequently about race but not always. we are in a madcap race to get our points in. i am not going to point fingers at the right or the left. i thought the apologies were genuine, because it was a moment where everybody went, "oh, my god." >> mark? >> it is a comment on the press and the country more than race in the country but i know that the story was carried and pushed on by fox news. it was bill o'reilly who did call for her resignation, sean hannity who did trumpet it. to shepard smith's credit, he

said they did not run it on his show because "we do not believe the source." but you put it in the opening, it is this rush for eyeballs. you forget fact checking, you forget sources, all the things that you learn about reporting a story. it is getting it on there and making controversy and getting it into the system and making people talk about it. boy, it is a terrible and sad commentary. shirley sherrod's speech -- colby's point is valid on this one -- the speech was about the difference between us is class, not race. it is the powerful versus the powerless. it is a great speech, it really is. it is a good message. >> why did the obama administration respond almost immediately to this thing without anybody getting hurt to process? > -- giving her due process? >> they are hypersensitive to

the charge that they are soft on black people. look, there is no moral equivalency when you talk about those involved. andrew breitbart, who pushed the tape -- >> biggovernment blog. >> did not apologize, sees no reason to apologize. he knew exactly what he was going to do. it was mean-spirited, ugly, and he knew exactly what he was trying to achieve by putting that out there. >> the only reason this is a story is because the obama administration, a democratic administration, canned her immediately. as she set herself in the interview, she was told on the telephone that it was going to be on "glenn beck" this afternoon. in fact, he did not have the story and was not intending to. it was the paranoia, and the naacp -- >> no, that is absolutely -- >> attacked her without checking

the tape -- >> absolutely wrong. the culprit is andrew breitbart, who put out that droctored tape. >> you are absolving the administration for its action? you are absolving the naacp for attacking -- >> i can be critical of the naacp --' >> then why aren't you? >> because i don't have to in this case. what really matters is how this thing got started. >> this was a big lie. >> this was a big lie in big smear. let the record show that colby already said the administration is yellow. that is as tough as you can be, and they were. they caved because of van jones, the black panther charged in philadelphia and voter

intimidation. but this only when viral because of andrew breitbart and because of a fox news. did the administration cower before fox news? yes, it did. was it all fox news? no. >> didn't the naacp also condemned the remarks? >> they did. but i also watched on fox news, sean hannity with the blonde woman who was the darling of the right -- >> ann coulter? >> ann coulter, who said that andrew breitbart was set up. she is making in the victim. -- him the victim. it is beyond comprehension on that side. >> talk about selective editing. the main news show on fox is at 6:00 with bret baier. i am a commentator on that every night and i know what happened.

we did not touch the story then because we had no background. we touched at the store on tuesday, and the day before, the deputy chief of staff commending, according to a store in "politico.com" his staff's quick action in canning corporate be called for an apology and restitution and reinstatement. if you want the full record, you ought to show the full record. >> the full record is that what you did is also what bill riley did and what john kennedy did -- wjla.com -- and what sean hannity did -- >> this is not a fox news story, it is an naacp store in the shirley sherrod story. >> this is a big ally, and i don't think you should be paranoid about socks or anything like that.

the real story is that a bit -- yoi know that you should be paranoid about fox or anything like that. the real story is that -- >> in the uterus of my colleagues here, the root of all evil is -- in the universe of my colleagues here, the root of all evil is fox. the administration acted first. >> charlie rangel in big trouble to the delight of republicans and dread of democrats. >> this could not happen and a better time because it gives me an opportunity to talk to my friends and constituents who have supported me for close to 40 years. >> i guess that puts the best light on it. former house ways and means committee chairman charlie rangel is touched with a number of ethics violations, among them a failure to report income. how bad is this for the democrats? >> it is very bad potentially.

i like and admire charlie rangel. i want to believe the best here. but it is starting to echo 2006. not only is the wind at the republicans back and the democrats face, but you recall that year was with the scandals of mark foley and duke cunningham. they have been at remarkably scandal-free since then and the timing cannot be worse. >> nancy pelosi said she was going to clean the joint out and they will have more work with this. > -- hammer her with this. >> it is sad to see this with somebody who has contributed so much and is from a different era, that does not excuse what he did if he did to them. the democrats to get him to step down as chairman of the ways and means committee. it would be better for him at his age and definitely better for the democrats if he retired

and i imagine that there will be a big push for him to do that. >> will he do that, colby? >> he has a choice. he has made the decision to take it public. he should have accepted the deal with the committee. instead, he wanted to go public and out on a shield, and that is what will happen. >> charles? >> remember at the beginning of this administration there was this meme of fire official -- hired officials, tim geithner, tom daschle, who had tax issues, did not pay what they should have, and these guys were potentially going to be involved in deciding everybody else's taxes charlie rangel is the epitome of that, having been in charge of the tax-writing committee. he has tax problems. in part it is because the

democrats held off on this. it did not have to be now read it could have been last year, but it is now. i think there will be tremendous pressure from the leadership and from colleagues to take himself and the story of the front pages. -- off the front pages. >> the president signed financial reform this week, and with the help of cargo went of west virginia they were able to break the republican filibuster -- carte goodwin of west virginia they were able to break the republican filibuster on unemployment benefits. mitch mcconnell says they want to know where the funding is coming from. where is it coming from? >> we are in a recession still. we have two wars going on. to be talking about continuing tax benefits for people who have a lot is kind of crazy. >> the other issue is the tax

cuts. are they going to extend them? >> bernanke had an interesting thing to say on capitol hill this week. he said that even though you obviously have to get the long- term budget in control, he would be against spending cuts or tax increases right now. it is sort of where the president is. i think it will put pressure on democrats as the year ends to extend perhaps the bush cuts at least for a year or two. >> there are democratic senators who agree. >> charles is wrong on this. tim geithner said that there is no way in the world that the tax breaks for the richest -- those over $250,000 -- will be extended. that is number one. the second is that you talk about or the money is coming from, we are talking about the cost of the george bush tax cuts

to the treasury. quite frankly, that is the cost of health care and the bailout. you are really talking about doing something about fiscal sanity, and i would point out that alan greenspan, the enabler of the bush tax cuts, has called for their total repeal. >> i did not say tim geithner was in favor of it. he is with the president. the head of the federal reserve -- by saying he is against increases in taxes, he is implicitly supporting an extension of the bush tax cuts. >> what is important in this debate is to hear the secretary of the treasury on this, and he is not for extending the tax cuts. i think republicans have a hard case to make against unemployment benefits and doing what they can to keep those tax cuts for the rich still on the box. >> the out-of-control world of intelligence gathering. >> out of 850,000 americans with

top-secret clearances, 260,000 of them are actually contractors. what happened after 9/11, because they wanted to increase the capabilities so quickly, the bush administration and congress allowed a funding to go to contractors but not to increase the federal workforce. >> that is pulitzer prize- winning reporter dana priest, who with william arkin has written a blockbuster series of stories about intelligence gathering. billions and billions of dollars spent, but according to them, the system is so big and bloated and redundant that lines of responsibility are hopelessly blurred. there was information out there about the underwear bomber, but he was not tackled by the cia type. he was tackled by a passenger on the airplane. >> it is a three-part series and the first one was what i thought was most interesting, the growth

of the agencies and a lot of redundancy. some redundancy is good, a way of cross checking. but it has apparently reached a point where it is out of hand. remember, though, intelligence- gathering is just that. you are taking a lot of information from a lot of different sources and a big challenge is the analysis side. >> but how do you get it under control? >> one of the fatal errors is that the superstructure, the director of national intelligence, who was supposed to have control over everything and rationalize it, was given no power of the purse. it basically has no control over the 17 other elements. that means is simply another lawyer added, which increases confusion. in the 9/11 report, there was a recommendation that it have budgetary authority, and that is

one of the reasons that it is a sprawling, out of control bureaucracy which leads to, as you say, a huge errors, as in the case of the underwear bomber. >> charles is right about this. if you don't have budgetary power, you don't control anything. it is a headless horseman in a way. i do want to say one thing about contractors. contractors, by the way, where the huge growth is, are more expensive than employees by 25%, and they i just draining good people from the government and costing more. >> there are only two dozen private companies with contracts in 10,000 different locations -- only 2000 private companies with contracts and 10,000 of the locations around the country. with the top secret security clearances, i'd feel kind of deprived that don't have one of them -- that i don't have one of them. it is nice to know that we can

spend not just for a liberal cause but for a conservative caucus. >> at the state department, everybody gets cleared for top- secret. everyone. >> by the way, dana priest and william parkin it spent two years on this story, in the age of instant communication. >> this caucuses opening up at the doors as members of congress and letting real people with real stories and real lives, in to speak to us about their real concerns. >> that is minnesota republican michelle bachmann about the formation of the tea party caucus in the house. she says they will sit down with ordinary americans who wanted to country back. from whom do they want to take the country back? >> let me explain to people watching for the first time that this is our weekly palin section -- >> no, that was michelle bachmann. >> i understand, but she is on

vacation. michelle bachmann is the substitute. this is the weekly sound bite of sarah palin. at this wanted to explain. -- i just wanted to explain. >> stanley greenberg, the pollster, did a definitive survey of who these folks are. he exploded a couple of myths that are cherished by congresswoman michelle bachmann and other supporters. over 90% of the tea party members in view president obama as a socialist. 92% of them to approve them, 89% disapprove -- 92% of them disapprove of him, 89% disapprove strongly. this is not a populist group. by a three-one margin, they think favorably of a big corporations like bp and aig.

this is a republican group and they are 1/2 of the republican party and it will be an enormous impact republicans to win in november. >> we have talked about the tea party before and i have written about the tea party, to their chagrin. . not nice people. they are not nice people. they are mean spirited people. they fly under the flag of a fiscal responsibility, but really, there is a lot of animosity there, particularly towards the president of the united states for reasons that i think are pretty obvious. >> if it were not a year with the republicans have been at the back, i think this would give ou -- devour the republican party. i am in favor of a two-party system and i'm afraid of what will do to the republican party for awhile. >> i accept the deep sympathies

of my colleagues here and i know how concerned they are about the future of conservatism and republicans, i accept their sincerity. come on, this is rubbish. this is a very important element of the republican resurgence. it was entirely spontaneous, completely driven by opposition to the expansion of the role of government, again with this at administration with great legislation instituting that, and it's a npush back and it is extremely healthy for democracy to have that. >> we are all for healthy democracy, colby. >> yes, we are, but let's go back to where these people are coming from. about a year ago, the president had a simple idea, to speak to the american schoolchildren about going to school.

there was a hue and cry from that side of the political spectrum saying, "we know what the president -- we don't want the president to speak to our kids because he is a marxist." this was before health care was enacted, but for financial reform will -- before a natural for was enacted. they did not like barack obama for reasons we all know so well. >> when richard nixon left office, a 25% of the population still supported him. there is 25% of the population that will support any crazy idea. >> last year at this was after the stimulus, the biggest spending bill in the history of the american republic. that began the tea party reaction, that when you spend that much money, you will have

to raise taxes. i know a lot of people in the movement and they are not who colby say they are. other people on the fringe -- are there people on the fringe? absolutely. but to say they are racist, as you are implying -- >> the item that moved the country from one side to the other against obama -- >> i did not cite health care. >> it has been decided before by you, and health care bill comes up over and over again. this movement against barack obama was before the health care bill, but for financial reform -- >> it was after -- >> they did not like barack obama from the day he took office. >> it came after the enactment of the stimulus bill -- i am trying to explain to you where the movement began. this is a president who gave the

speech, after his inauguration where he said he wanted to essentially -- a month after his inauguration where he said he wanted to essentially take over and expand the role of government in education and health care and pass the stimulus. >> we have had one successful conservative leader in this country since teddy roosevelt, ronald reagan. ronald reagan was the antithesis of the tea party. he called it, conspired, cooperated with tip o'neill, the democratic leader, to save social security in 1983. in 1982, after he saw what happened with the tax cuts in 1981, he initiated and signed the largest tax increase in history because he was worried about the budget deficit. the cardinal principle of the tea party, according to stanley greenberg and his survey, is that any cooperation with the other side is viewed as treason. this is not good for democracy. this is unhealthy for democracy. >> i admire your retroactive

admiration for ronald reagan. i will remind you that he was a guy so conservative that he opposed the return of the panama canal, for god's sakes. this idea that somehow he was a closet -- >> he did not and do it, either. >> he was so right wing in 1980 that even conservatives were worried about his election. to paint him as a kind of moderate is completely wrong. >> you are not addressing the point that mark made. >> last word. see you next week. for a transcript of this broadcast, log on to insidewashington.tv. vo:geico, committed to providing service to

its auto insurance customers for over 70 years. more information on auto insurance at geico.com or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night.