I spoke about this issue this morning on the Allman & Smash Morning Show. The news cycle used to take an entire day - with one morning newspaper and an evening newscast that would try to pack the entire day’s events into a single issue or episode. But with technology comes the nearly real-time news cycle, where we are informed of events within minutes of their occurence. It began with CNN’s coverage of the first Gulf War and grew exponentially with the rise of internet use. It’s interesting on a busy news day to watch as events unfold before your eyes… but not everyday is a busy news day, and the for-profit “news” organizations have to find ways to fill in the dead air. So it’s no wonder they’ve mastered the art of “creating the news”.

We have two key examples today:

Washington Post and ABC News have released new poll numbers saying President Bush’s approval rating is near Nixon levels… on the day he’s scheduled to give the State of the Union. This is designed to do one thing and one thing only… cast a shadow of doubt over the President’s speech tonight.

Then, right on cue, ABC News releases a hit piece meant to be complimentary to their poll number story with the headline: “Did President Bush Keep Promises From 2006 State of the Union Address?”

The article claims President Bush made a number of “concrete promises” and that “only one-third of them had been kept”. But look at the “concrete promises” ABC News claims Bush made:

Promise Not Kept: Making Bush’s First-Term Tax Cuts Permanent

In an effort to push the Republican-led Congress to pass legislation making his first-term tax cuts permanent, Bush said in the 2006 State of the Union speech, “We need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent.”

Bush’s first-term tax cuts expire by the year 2011. While Democrats have said they won’t seek to repeal Bush’s major first-term cuts, they oppose legislation making the tax cuts permanent.

First, this isn’t President Bush making a “concrete promise”, it’s a request that Congress “act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent.” In fact, the Democrats actively oppose it. So how is that a broken promise of Bush’s?

Promise Not Kept: Passing the Line-Item Veto

In last year’s speech, Bush said, “I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special-interest projects. And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto.”

Supporters of the presidential line-item veto power argue that it would serve to cut down on the process of slipping earmarks into spending bills. However, opponents argue the line-item veto would give the executive branch far-reaching powers over legislation created by elected representatives.

The House of Representatives passed legislation (H.R. 4890) on June 22, 2006, that would have given Bush a six-year line-item veto, and would have allowed him to strike spending and tax provisions from legislation without vetoing the bill.

However, a bipartisan group of senators opposed the measure, and the Senate never took up the House bill.

Again, Bush doesn’t “promise” anything, he just says the problem can be tackled if Congress passes the line-item veto… which Congress failed to do.

Promise Not Kept: Medical Liability Reform Legislation

Arguing that medical malpractice lawsuits drove good doctors out of business, President Bush urged Congress to pass medical liability reform.

The House passed a bill (H.R. 5) that would limit medical malpractice awards, setting a $250,000 limit. The House passed similar bills twice in the 108th Congress, but the measure repeatedly failed in the Senate to draw the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture or limit debate.

In 2006, Senate Republicans offered a new proposal capping liability damages at $750,000. They hoped that it would win them more support than previous bills. However, the measure failed in a vote in the Senate on May 8, 2006.

Again, no “promise” from Bush, just an urging of Congress to pass the reform. And again, a failure of Congress to pass the reform.

So what is the purpose of this “broken promises” article? To impugn the credibility of the President as he enters the chamber tonight to give the State of the Union speech. And thus, the MSM the story they wanted to cover.