We talked earlier about the Daily Caller’s massive screw-up yesterday, on an important story about the Environmental Protection Agency. I figured the conservative outlet would grudgingly bury some awkwardly-worded correction and move on. I assumed wrong.

To briefly recap, the Daily Caller reported that the EPA is eyeing new greenhouse gas measures, which would in turn ask American taxpayers “to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.” The piece was quickly embraced by the conservative message machine, with Fox News, National Review, and others trumpeting the story.

The problem, of course, is that the story isn’t true. The EPA, which only has 17,000 employees, is specifically “tailoring” its rule so that it won’t have to hire 230,000 officials. It’s right there in the court filings the Daily Caller relied on to publish its bogus piece.

Instead of backing off its obviously-wrong reporting, though, Daily Caller executive editor David Martosko is doubling down.

“The EPA is well-known for expanding its reach, especially regarding greenhouse gas emissions. What’s ‘comically wrong’ is the idea that half of Washington won’t admit it. The EPA’s own court filing speaks volumes,” Martosko said in an email.

“What’s more likely: that the Obama administration’s EPA wants to limit its own power, or that it’s interested in dramatically increasing its reach and budget? Anyone who has spent more than a few months in Washington knows the answer,” he added. “The suggestion that the EPA — this EPA in particular — is going to court to limit its own growth is the funniest thing I’ve seen since Nancy Grace’s nipple-slip.”

Look, I realize conservative media outlets like to play fast and loose with the facts. I also realize the right’s version of reality is often, shall we say, malleable.

But this is just ridiculous. Martosko is trying to make an argument based on assumptions and evidence-free predictions, and while I’m sure that’s more fun than journalism and abiding by professional ethics, the question here is plainly empirical. The Daily Caller reported — in black and white, and without qualifiers — that the EPA agency is “asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats.” Either that’s true or it’s not. What’s “well known” or perceived as “likely” is irrelevant. The claim is either accurate or it’s inaccurate.

And in this case, what the Daily Caller reported is plainly wrong.

It happens. Media outlets get things wrong. I’ve been a professional writer for a while and I’ve made plenty of embarrassing mistakes. The responsible thing to do is correct the record and try not to do it again.

The conservative media world, though, just doesn’t seem to care. It explains a great deal about why those who rely on outlets like these seem so woefully uninformed about current events.

Update: Martosko tried again, but he’s still ignoring key facts.

I’ve made a point of limiting my Sarah Palin coverage lately, but some lines are hard to overlook.

Last night on Fox News, Greta Van Susteren asked the former half-term governor about political campaign coverage as if Palin were a credible expert on responsible media. Noting the rumors surrounding New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), the host said, “I guess the, sort of, the question is how should we cover these races and the speculation? How much is too much? And how do we know, you know, when we’re not pitting one against the other, and how to develop the issues?”

Palin responded:

“The challenge is in this very quickly changing news cycle world that we are in, you know, there’s a lot of information out there. There’s a lot of white noise out there. And the viewers and readers then really have to be the filter themselves, trying to find out what’s the important information out there.

“I am a proponent, though, of the media providing as much coverage of candidates in order to vet these candidates as possible. We learned our lesson in electing Barack Obama, who was not vetted by the media. The media did not do its job, I believe, the last go-around. So learned a lesson. Now we’re embracing of as much information and vetting of every candidate as possible.

“But again, I do believe that there’s a lot of entertainment value and ratings value involved in this quasi-reality show that is being created through the GOP primary at this point.”

The notion that President Obama wasn’t “vetted” is deeply silly. His presidential campaign lasted a whopping 21 months — one of the longest, if not the longest, in American history. During that time, the media scrutinized every possible angle of his entire life. If there was anyone who sought national office in 2008 who had not been fully vetted, it would be Palin, who had spoken to John McCain for a grand total of about 20 minutes — spanning two conversations — before being invited onto the ticket.

But I especially enjoyed seeing Palin criticizing her party’s presidential nominating contest as a “quasi reality show.” Palin has starred in her own reality show.

The mind reels.

Postscript: By the way, Palin, in the same interview, referred to Herman Cain as “Herb Cain,” three times. Odd.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who seems to be getting worse, appeared on Fox Business this week to insist that President Obama’s American Jobs Act is “the most socialist thing you can imagine.” Why? Because it’s “a government takeover of everything.”

Now, as an objective matter, I suspect most fair-minded observers would agree that Louie Gohmert isn’t terribly bright. That said, in case anyone’s forgotten, the White House plan totals about $450 billion, and roughly $250 billion of the package is made up of tax cuts. The rest includes about $60 billion for unemployment aid and job training, and $140 billion for infrastructure and saving public-sector jobs (teachers, firefighters, police officers).

If that’s “the most socialist thing you can imagine,” you (a) don’t know what “socialism” means; and (b) have a deeply strange imagination.

Indeed, when President Obama stresses the notion that the American Jobs Act is exactly the kind of package that should enjoy bipartisan support, he’s not kidding. To drive the point home, the DNC recently put together this video of Mitt Romney “endorsing” several key provisions in the White House plan.

Obama’s American Jobs Act offers $4,000 tax credits to businesses who hire those who’ve been out of work for six months or more — an idea Romney has explicitly endorsed in the recent past.

Obama’s American Jobs Act would cut payroll taxes in half for every worker and every small business — an idea Romney has also explicitly endorsed in the recent past.

Obama’s American Jobs Act would allow businesses to write off the cost of capital investments they make in 2012 — an idea Romney has also explicitly endorsed in the recent past.

Obama’s American Jobs Act intends to create jobs by investing heavily in infrastructure — an idea, you guessed it, that Romney has also explicitly endorsed in the recent past.

Taken together, it not only appears that Mitt Romney is on board with the Obama plan he claims to reject, but it also appears that Louie Gohmert believes Mitt Romney’s economic ideas are “socialist.”

Remember the House Republican budget plan, as crafted by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)? It caused quite a stir several months ago when it, among other things, tried to end Medicare and replace it with a privatized voucher scheme.

Nearly every GOP lawmaker in the House and Senate voted for the monstrosity, but the American mainstream hated, and Democrats used it to win a special election in Buffalo — flipping a district that Republicans had held for decades.

The expectation was that congressional Republican leaders might push for some of the budget plan’s measure in debt-ceiling talks, but when push came to shove, the GOP didn’t even bother. The proposals were just too unpopular, and the more Republicans pushed them, the more likely it was that they’d put their majority in jeopardy in 2012.

Four months later, Paul Ryan apparently has a very different take on the developments.

In a speech at Stanford University’s conservative Hoover Institution, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) offered a recitation of his controversial, alternative vision for the country’s social safety net.

But despite the backlash Republicans have faced taken since they voted overwhelmingly in the spring to adopt his approach, Ryan says now’s the time for conservatives and GOP candidates to renew their support for that vision, not to walk away from it.

“[W]e took a few dings at first, we survived,” Ryan admitted. “The Democrats’ tried the same old scare tactics for a few months, and in the first special election that took place after our budget passed, we learned a costly lesson. We learned that unless we back up our ideas with courage, and defend them in the face of attacks, we will lose.”

What’s more, in his speech, Ryan proudly boasted that “a funny thing happened” after Republicans started to get their “message out” — namely, “the scare tactics stopped working.”

In no way does this resemble reality.

Democratic criticism of Ryan’s radical budget plan stopped, not because the accurate attacks failed, but because Republicans abandoned the proposal. Indeed, Ryan became a notorious and unpopular public figure for a while, prompting the right-wing Ayn Rand acolyte to take on a much lower public profile.

But if Paul Ryan wants to make the case that his radical vision actually resonates with the American mainstream, I suspect Democrats would be delirious with joy if the Republican Party listened to the right-wing Wisconsinite’s advice. Indeed, if Dems are really lucky, the political world can have this debate all over again.

Let’s have Republican lawmakers re-declare their support for the Ryan plan. Let’s get the Republican presidential candidates on record, yea or nay, on whether the Ryan plan would get their signature.

Paul Ryan wants his party to renew their support for his vision? That sounds like a terrific idea. What do you say, Republicans? How about it, Mitt Romney?

Update: The DCCC appears eager to call Ryan’s bluff. Just a couple of minutes after I posted this, Greg Sargent reported, “I’m told the DCCC plans to go on the offensive in the districts of 50 House Republicans, pressuring them to say whether they agree with Ryan’s latest designs on the health care system.”

And just as aside, Greg noted that GOP officials believe their success in the NY09 special election proves the Ryan plan is no longer a winner for Dems. That might be true if Bob Turner had actually endorsed the Ryan plan, but he didn’t.

A few weeks ago, Dick Morris, the sleazy Republican consultant, wrote an entire print column built around a single observation: the economy lost 30,000 health care jobs in the month of August. There was, however, a small problem: the economy actually gained 30,000 health care jobs in August. Morris’ entire indictment was based on numbers he misunderstood.

This week, it happened again. Here’s the lede in Morris’ new print column, published yesterday.

Behind the president’s whining to the Black Caucus, begging them to “quit grumbling,” is a decline in his personal popularity among African-American voters that could portend catastrophe for his fading reelection chances.

According to a Washington Post/ABC News survey, his favorability rating among African-Americans has dropped off a cliff, plunging from 83 percent five months ago to a mere 58 percent today — a drop of 25 points, a bit more than a point per week!

If the president’s favorability rating among African Americans really had slipped to 58%, that would be a pretty significant development. But once again, Morris based an entire column on numbers he chose not to read carefully enough.

What the poll actually found is that President Obama enjoys an 86% favorability rating among African Americans — 28 points higher than Morris’ column claimed.

How’d he screw this up? The poll found that 58% of African Americans have a “strongly favorable” view of Obama, but that’s only part of the basis of a favorability rating. Morris apparently noticed one number, brushed past the relevant detail, and published a claim that’s plainly not true.

The point here isn’t that the president can ignore some of his key supporters, and win a second term with his current levels of support. Clearly Obama has a lot of work to do. The point is, The Hill keeps publishing Dick Morris claims that are demonstrably wrong. It’s not a matter of opinion — the columnist is making specific arguments about numbers that aren’t connected to reality.

Indeed, Morris said Obama was doing well when his favorability rating among African Americans was 83%. But right now, they’re 86%. By Morris’ reasoning, Obama is doing great with this constituency.

Also note, this wasn’t just some side detail Morris flubbed — just as with the clearly dishonest health care column a few weeks ago, the columnist is building entire print pieces around basic statistics that don’t exist.

Either Dick Morris can’t read or he’s assuming his readers won’t bother to check. Either way, maybe it’s time for The Hill’s editors to start taking a closer look at his pieces.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that won’t necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In a move that’s likely to shake up the presidential nominating calendar considerably, Florida appears likely to move its presidential primary to Jan. 31, 2012. As CNN explained, “If that happens, it would almost certainly force the traditional early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to leapfrog Florida and move their primaries and caucuses into early- to mid-January.”

* In Ohio, a new Quinnipiac poll shows President Obama’s approval rating slipping to the low 40s, but in hypothetical general election match-ups, Obama leads Mitt Romney by two points, and Rick Perry by three points.

* In Pennsylvania, it’s a very similar story. Quinnipiac found the president’s support down to just 43% in the Keystone State, but Pennsylvania voters still give Obama the edge over Romney by two points, and over Perry by six points.

* Speaking of Pennsylvania, by a 12-point margin, voters in the state oppose the Republican scheme to break up Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. In Congress, of the 12 Republican House members from the state, 11 are against the plan as well.

* And in still more Pennsylvania news, Republicans in the state narrowly prefer Romney in the GOP nominating contest. The former Massachusetts governor as 18% support in the new Quinnipiac poll. Perry is a close second with 16%, followed by Rick Santorum with 12%. (Pennsylvania is Santorum’s home state.)

* If campaign donations are any indication, Wall Street absolutely loves Mitt Romney — the former governor has already $2.3 million from the financial sector.

* Michele Bachmann’s flailing campaign has decided that Iowa is a “must-win” contest for the right-wing Minnesotan. She will largely ignore the New Hampshire primary.

* Jon Huntsman’s flailing campaign, meanwhile, is doing the opposite, explaining that the former governor will “focus singularly on New Hampshire.”

* And in Montana, a new attack ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee has mysteriously added fingers to Sen. Jon Tester’s (D) hand.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has an op-ed in the conservative Washington Times this week, making the case against federal loans to clean-energy companies. In the hopes of exploiting the “controversy” surrounding Solyndra’s collapse, DeMint labels the investments themselves, “Venture Socialism.”

Billions … have been wasted by politicians betting on favored companies and making Washington bigger, using the brute force of government to force liberal preferences into the economy. Mr. Obama calls them ‘investments,’ but this is really venture socialism.

I often wish far-right lawmakers would make it more challenging to ridicule them.

The complaints were much the same in the Senate, where DeMint said the Solyndra case exposed the “unintended results when our government tries to pick winners and losers.” That’s a valid criticism, but it would be more valid if DeMint hadn’t been a supporter of the loan-guarantee legislation in 2005. [emphasis added]

By DeMint’s reasoning, he was a “venture socialist” during the Bush era, helping create the same loan program that (a) happens to be a good idea; and (b) gave Solyndra a fairly modest loan that ended up not working.

How does DeMint explain being for “using the brute force of government to force liberal preferences into the economy” before being against it? He doesn’t.

The proliferation of conservative media outlets would be less dejecting if they were just a little better at their jobs.

The Daily Caller told its readers yesterday that the Environmental Protection Agency is eyeing new greenhouse gas measures, which would in turn ask American taxpayers “to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.”

Because of the way conservative media works, the Daily Caller’s piece was immediately picked up by Fox News, National Review, and others.

Now, just at face value, one would like to think conservatives would have some critical thinking skills. The EPA only has 17,000 employees. If a proposal were on the table to grow the agency by more than 10 times, just to implement one new set of regulations, one might stop and think, “That doesn’t seem quite right.”

But even putting aside common sense, the even bigger problem here is that the Daily Caller and the conservative outlets that trumpeted its piece simply got the story backwards. Kate Sheppard explained:

[T]he story actually managed to pull that [230,000] number from a court filing about what the EPA is trying to avoid. In the court filing, the EPA is defending its rule that would only limit emissions from the largest sources of greenhouse gases. The so-called “tailoring rule” is designed to reduce the regulatory burden that setting rules for all emission sources could create, the EPA argues.

Got that? The EPA is “tailoring” its rule, phasing it in over time, so it won’t be necessary to do what the right fears.

Ironically, polluters have filed suit to block the EPA’s “tailoring rule,” claiming the agency doesn’t have the authority. Sheppard added:

If the challengers are successful in getting the court to throw out the tailoring rule, the EPA would have to start going after all sources of emissions — creating exactly the kind of unmanageable regulatory burden that the EPA’s brief warns of. Only then would the Daily Caller and Fox News have the crazy bureaucratic nightmare that they’re currently (and falsely) ginning up fears about.

Even for conservative media, this is just egregious. It keeps getting easier to understand why so many on the right seem so confused about so many issues — they’re relying on news organizations that give them wildly wrong information.

I’m beginning to think self-awareness isn’t the House Majority Leader’s strongpoint.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, is pushing for information on the status of Gov. Bob McDonnell’s request for federal disaster assistance for Louisa County residents in the wake of an earthquake there last month.

On Friday, Cantor held a conference call with Federal Emergency Management Agency and Louisa County officials. A readout of the call provided by Cantor’s office indicates that he asked FEMA officials about the timeline and process for determining whether the agency would grant federal assistance. […]

Cantor also spoke with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, asking for additional information and a better sense of timing, according to his office.

Is that so. Now Cantor is interested in FEMA’s timetable.

How convenient. The one congressional leader who was most interested in holding disaster aid hostage — the one congressional leader who fought harder than any other to make sure FEMA has fewer short-term resources — now wants to ask the emergency-response agency, “So, what’s the hold up in my home state?”

Making matters slightly worse, as Brian Beutler explained, Cantor appears concerned about a delayed response that he helped create: “If he’d just said nothing — never insisted for emergency supplemental funds for disaster relief be offset — then disaster aid wouldn’t have gotten mired in a budget fight, and the funds might have been easier to come by.”

Jesse Ferguson, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), added, “The only thing worse than Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s outrageous plan to hold disaster relief hostage to his push for radical cuts in job creation is his brazen hypocrisy in trying to convince his constituents back home that he stood with them in the first place.”

It’s a good thing that Elizabeth Warren video went viral; it’s starting to have an impact on the national discourse.

In the now-famous clip, Warren explained to a group of voters, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.” In our society, success tends to be the result of cooperative action — private-sector leaders move products on public roads, they hire workers educated in public* schools, their enterprises were secure thanks to public services like police and firefighters, etc.

On Monday, President Obama spoke at a LinkedIn town-hall meeting, and sounded a similar note. By yesterday, the argument worked its way into a speech Obama delivered in Denver touting the American Jobs Act. Consider this rhetoric:

“This is the Land of Opportunity. What’s great about this country is that any of these young people here, if they’ve got a good idea, if they go out there and they’re willing to work hard, they can start a business, they can create value, great products, great services. They can make millions, make billions. That’s great. That’s what America is all about. Anybody can make it if they try.

“But what’s also a quintessentially American idea is that those of us who’ve done well should pay our fair share to contribute to the upkeep of the nation that made our success possible because nobody did well on their own.

“A teacher somewhere helped to give you the skills to succeed. Firefighters and police officers are protecting your property. You’re moving your goods and products and services on roads that somebody built. That’s how we all do well together. We got here because somebody else invested in us, and we’ve got to make sure this generation of students can go to college on student aid or scholarships like I did. We’ve got to make sure that we keep investing in the kind of government research that helped to create the Internet, which countless private sector companies then used to create tens of millions of jobs.”

Responding to Republican attacks, Obama declared himself “a warrior for the working class,” adding, “I will wear that charge as a badge of honor. The only ‘warfare’ I’ve seen is the battle that’s been waged against middle-class families in this country for a decade now.”

I had a chance to check this rhetoric against the speech as it was written, and most of this was ad-libbed. (Contrary to GOP rhetoric, the president rarely sticks to what appears on a teleprompter.)

The larger point, though, is that Obama’s rhetoric is echoing Warren’s rhetoric in fairly obvious ways. The president, in explicit ways we haven’t heard before, is linking his vision of government activism to a meaningful social contract.

For those who enjoyed Warren’s comments in the video, this is a very positive development.

* corrected

Almost immediately after President Obama unveiled the American Jobs Act, some of its biggest fans were economists and economic forecasters. Moody’s Analytics estimated that the plan would boost economic growth by 2 percentage points and create 2 million jobs. Macroeconomic Advisers wasn’t quite as optimistic, but its analysis projected that the White House plan “would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.”

Three weeks later, support for the American Jobs Act continues to be much stronger among economists than members of Congress. Indeed, I suspect the White House will be awfully pleased with this Bloomberg News headline this morning: “Obama Jobs Plan May Prevent 2012 Recession.”

President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan would help avoid a return to recession by maintaining growth and pushing down the unemployment rate next year, according to economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.

In fairness, the economists surveyed had widely divergent estimates, and some were far more optimistic about the proposal’s impact than others. But the overall consensus among the experts is that the Americans Jobs Act would create hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs, and boost economic growth. Some projected a pretty significant boost: “Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimated the plan would add 1.5 percent to the economy, while Macroeconomic Advisers LLC said 1.3 percent and UniCredit Research, up to 2 percent.”

Reactions to the Republican approach were far less kind.

A reduction in government spending, the end of the payroll- tax holiday and an expiration of extended unemployment benefits would cut GDP by 1.7 percent in 2012, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. chief U.S. economist Michael Feroli in New York.

Feroli doesn’t expect big results from the White House proposal, but he nevertheless makes clear the Republican policy would quickly push the economy backwards.

As a practical matter, I don’t imagine this will make much of a difference to Congress. Republicans, after all, “do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities,” even though they occasionally claim “every economist” agrees with the GOP agenda.

But the Bloomberg report once again brings the debate into focus. The economy is struggling, there are fears it may start to shrink, and the nation needs Washington to act. The president has presented a credible plan that, according to knowledgeable experts who get paid to answer these questions correctly, would give the economy a much-needed boost at an important time.

The choice for Congress seems to down to recovery and jobs vs. negligence and ignorance.

It seems the big overnight political story was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) speech in California, and the breathless speculation about his possible national ambitions. The conjecture varies by media outlet — the governor opened the door to running for president, closed the door to running for president, or dodged the question altogether.

In fairness to the political reporters struggling to read the tea leaves, Christie didn’t exactly make an effort to clarify his intentions. At one point, the governor seemed to deny any interest in running, only to say in the next breath that it would be arrogant of him to ignore those urging him to run. Yeah, that ought to clear things up.

That said, while the political world obsesses over every Christie-related rumor, what I found far more interesting last night was the governor’s speech itself. Most notably, this portion of the pre-written remarks stood out:

“A lot is being said in this election season about American exceptionalism. Implicit in such statements is that we are different and, yes, better, in the sense that our democracy, our economy and our people have delivered. But for American exceptionalism to truly deliver hope and a sterling example to the rest of the world, it must be demonstrated, not just asserted….

“Without the authority that comes from that exceptionalism — earned American exceptionalism — we cannot do good for other countries, we cannot continue to be a beacon of hope for the world to aspire to for their future generations.”

After having listened to the right for a long while, I’m pretty familiar with their preoccupation with “American exceptionalism.” I have no idea, however, what “earned American exceptionalism” is.

The response to Christie’s speech among conservatives was apparently quite positive, but since when does the right believe that American exceptionalism is anything less than self-evident?

I certainly can’t speak for conservatives on this, but my sense is that as far as the right is concerned, the United States has already earned our exceptional status. We did so, the argument goes, over the course of more than two centuries of historic, inspirational greatness.

To hear Christie tell it, American exceptionalism is hollow — indeed, it may not even exist — unless the nation, to his satisfaction, has “demonstrated” and “earned” it. I’m fairly certain this isn’t close to what the right has in mind.

Put it this way: what do you suppose the reaction would be if President Obama declared that the United States still has to “earn” American exceptionalism? I suspect the right would be apoplectic; his Republican rivals would speak of nothing else, and the White House would never hear the end of it.

So why are conservatives silent on Christie’s apparent ideological heresy?

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* Greece: “Greek leaders frantically tried to steer their country away from default on Tuesday by passing a deeply unpopular new property tax. Greece has said it will run out of money to pay its many bills by mid-October if it does not receive more aid before then. But the country’s European creditors have questioned whether politicians were serious about meeting fiscal targets set as part of a $150 billion rescue package approved in 2010.”

* Related news out of Germany: “Faced with the prospect of humiliation by her own party, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, on Tuesday showed some of the passion for saving the euro that her critics complain had been missing, beseeching German legislators and voters to support aid to Greece for their own good.”

* A possible nightmare in Libya: “U.S. officials had once thought there was little chance that terrorists could get their hands on many of the portable surface-to-air missiles that can bring down a commercial jet liner. But now that calculation is out the window, with officials at a recent secret White House meeting reporting that thousands of them have gone missing in Libya.”

* Fighting continues: “Libyan revolutionary forces battled their way into the eastern outskirts of Moammar Gadhafi’s hometown of Sirte on Tuesday, trying to link up with anti-Gadhafi fighters besieging the city from the west, commanders said.”

* In case there are any lingering doubts, there won’t be a shutdown this week: “A Cantor spokeswoman, Laena Fallon, told The Hill that the House would approve a one-week stopgap measure by unanimous consent on Thursday.”

* Leading White House officials, including Vice President Biden, continue to slam Republicans over booing a gay U.S. Army soldier serving in Iraq.

* The “Occupy Wall Street” protests lead to questions about excessive force from local law enforcement.

* Bill O’Reilly hates NPR … unless it’s helping him promote his book.

* Another one? “Despite vanishing interest and non-existent results from his previous three hearings, House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-NY) is planning a fourth investigation into the Muslim community for some time in late October.”

* Andy Rooney will end his lengthy career on “60 Minutes” this week, and will make the formal announcement in his 1097th essay at the end of the broadcast.

* Rush Limbaugh, who seems to have a serious problem regarding race, believes President Obama “talks honky around white people.”

* And speaking of ugly intolerance, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was asked this week “why” he is “racist against Latinos.” Arpaio responded, “Well, I’m not going to get into my personal life.”

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

We talked a couple of weeks ago about a Ford Motor Company television ad that the right just loves. It shows a customer explaining that he bought a Ford because “I wasn’t going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government.”

There are, however, two minor details the spot doesn’t mention: (1) Ford was a strong backer of the Obama administration’s auto industry rescue; and (2) that rescue saved the industry from collapse.

In any case, a bunch of conservative media personalities are arguing today that Ford yanked this ad under pressure from the White House. If true, that would be quite a story. Unfortunately for the right, it doesn’t seem to have any basis in reality.

A Detroit News opinion columnist alleged today that Ford pulled the ad after “individuals inside the White House” raised questions about it. The columnist, Daniel Howes, backs this up by citing nothing, not even anonymous sources. He merely states that it’s “evidently” true.

The usual suspects got worked up and raised ominous questions, but as Greg Sargent explained, there’s simply no evidence to support the claim, and “Ford and the White House are both denying the tale.”

“The Detroit News story is not true,” communications director Dan Pfeiffer emails. Ford happens to agree. The company Tweeted: “we did not pull the ad due to pressure. the ad ran 4 weeks which is what the campaign called for.”

Odder still: The original Detroit News story doesn’t even allege pressure. Way down in the story an “industry source” is quoted claiming: “There was not any pressure to take down the ad.” The piece then goes on to hint that Ford might have felt some kind of pressure, but doesn’t quote anyone claiming that this was the case.

A Ford spokesperson later told Greg, “The ad was replaced with another ad, which is our usual practice when an ad runs its course. There was no pressure from the White House or the administration. This is Ford’s decision, and part of our usual practice.”

Conservatives will someday hopefully learn the story of the boy who cried wolf. Every time the right screams, “Scandal!” when the news is actually quite mundane, it reinforces the perception that conservatives are a little too desperate to latch onto nonsense.

After a while, it’s just easier to roll one’s eyes than take their latest cries seriously.