[Anderson Cooper, Cnn Anchor:] Thanks for watching, everyone. Tonight: Sarah Palin attacking a "Wall Street Journal" reporter for not having his facts. The problem is, it's Palin who doesn't have her facts. We're "Keeping Them Honest." Also tonight: bracing for a blizzard of subpoenas, Republican Congressman Darrell Issa promising to hold hundreds of hearings to investigate the White House when the Republicans take control of the House. Now he seems to be scaling back his tough talk from the campaign. Is he flip-flopping? We're "Keeping Them Honest." And later, "Crime & Punishment": a horrific murder that shook a New Hampshire town to its core. Prosecutors called it a thrill kill, and today the killer was convicted and sentenced. The judge says he belongs in a cage. Find out where he will be sent. We will take you inside the trial. We begin, as always, "Keeping Them Honest," with a politician who has made a mistake, but, instead of just admitting it, has chosen to attack the reporter who dared point it out to her. We're talking about Sarah Palin, who lashed out at a "Wall Street Journal" reporter after he correctly pointed out a factually incorrect statement she had made in a speech. Now, on the face of it, you would think it's not a big deal. After all, everyone makes mistakes. But, rather than just admit her mistake, Palin doubled down, using her Facebook page to attack the reporter. Let's go over to the wall now and show you just how all of this began. Yesterday, in a speech Palin made in Phoenix, she blasted the Federal Reserve's recent decision to buy $600 billion in long-term U.S. Treasury bonds over the next eight months to help jump-start the economy. It's known as quantitative easing. It's also called priming the pump. Palin said that it deeply concerns her, and she went on to say: "Everyone whoever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher." Now, "Wall Street Journal" economics blogger Sudeep Reddy posted an article titled "Sarah Palin's QE2 Criticism Includes Inflation Hyperbole." Reddy wrote in that article: "Grocery prices haven't risen all that significantly, in fact. The consumer prices the consumer price index's measure of food and beverages for the first nine months of this year showed average annual inflation of less than 0.6 percent, the slowest pace on record since the Labor Department started keeping this measure back in 1968." So, not a big deal, right? I mean, he pointed out a mistake. But confronted with Reddy's facts, Palin chose to attack, firing back on Facebook and Twitter, saying about the reporter this is what Sarah Palin wrote "Mr. Reddy takes aim at this. He writes, "Grocery prices haven't risen all that significantly, in fact.'" Sarah Palin says: "Really? That's odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy's own 'Wall Street Journal'titled 'Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.'" Sarah Palin goes on, saying: "The article noted that an inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America's supermarkets and restaurants... Prices of staples, including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar, have risen sharply in recent months." She goes on to say: "Now, I realize I'm just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I'm surprised a prestigious reporter from 'The Wall Street Journal" doesn't." Now, it's the kind of attack on the so-called "lamestream" media that Sarah Palin relishes and that her supporters love. The problem is the "Wall Street Journal" article that Palin mentions by name in this posting actually supports Reddy's take, not Palin. And Palin actually must have known that, because see the ellipses that she added? Come over here. Just take a look at these ellipses that she added into this sentence, the dot-dot-dot there. She intentionally cut out part of the sentence that proves she's wrong. The actual sentence from "The Wall Street Journal" reads let's take a look "An inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America's supermarkets and restaurants, threatening to end the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades." This is the part that she cut out and added the ellipsis, "the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades." Palin's original statement, remember, was that the grocery quote "prices have risen significantly over the past year or so." Now, Mr. Reddy responded to Palin's attack by simply pointing out where she was wrong, saying the article that she referenced quote "does indeed report that supermarkets and restaurants are facing cost pressures that could push their retail prices higher, but it hasn't happened yet on a large scale." So, "Keeping Them Honest," you would think, after mocking this reporter, saying he doesn't read his own paper and is wrong, and being incorrect about it, then Ms. Palin would, if not apologize, at least just admit her mistake, correct herself. She hasn't. And, see, there's a pattern here. Often, when a reporter challenges a statement Ms. Palin makes or writes something she doesn't like, she lashes back, attacking the messenger, attacking the reporter, the lamestream media giving them advice on how to do their jobs. It is kind of a constant refrain.
[Sarah Palin , Former Alaska Governor:] Don't get sucked into the lamestream media's lies. This B.S. coming from the lamestream media lately.
[Cooper:] Now, supporters of Sarah Palin will say this story is nitpicking, much ado about nothing, a gotcha attack by both "The Wall Street Journal" and I guess now by me. It is a small matter in the grand scheme of things, but all the more reason to just admit the mistake. And as for not being worth reporting on, well, politicians' words do matter. Fact do matter. There are good arguments to be made against what Fed Chairman Bernanke is doing, but you don't need to base them on a mistaken fact. We all make mistakes. The difference between the so-called lamestream media and politicians, however, is that responsible media outlets have an obligation to correct their mistakes. Responsible politicians should do the same thing as well. Joining me now, senior political analyst David Gergen, and also Dana Loesch, editor of BigJournalism.com and radio host at KFTK 97.1 FM. David, is this much ado about nothing?
[David Gergen, Cnn Senior Political Analyst:] Well, Anderson, I'm very torn on this. I think your whole series about "Keeping Them Honest" is extremely important to journalism. It's been very effective. On this particular one, I have to say, she was the one who was attacked by "The Wall Street Journal" first. And she responded.
[Cooper:] But attacked by he pointed out a mistake.
[Gergen:] Well, he said well, he said, you know, she made a mistake.
[Cooper:] Right.
[Gergen:] And, as you read the article, I think it did say that inflation was coming back.
[Cooper:] Right.
[Gergen:] So that she wasn't entirely incorrect in saying that there was higher inflation in groceries on groceries.
[Cooper:] She had been saying that food prices had been going up the last several years...
[Gergen:] Yes.
[Cooper:] ... which is not correct.
[Gergen:] I think that's where she was incorrect.
[Cooper:] Right.
[Gergen:] I think it was partially correct and partially incorrect.
[Cooper:] Right.
[Gergen:] And, you know, in in all honesty, she should have just sort of said I don't think she should have taken the bait and gone after him. And I think it would have been better to go ahead and admit it. And, you know, there was a fellow named Dickerson today from "Slate" went on on her Facebook page and pointed out the in corrections. And they wiped him out. Twice, they wiped him out. And I think that's sort of silly. But I have to say, I I have a hard time getting really excited about this. I do think that the larger significance is that Sarah Palin has gone after the Federal Reserve. I mean, a lot of her critics would say she doesn't know what the Federal Reserve is, and yet she's been willing to take on this thing. And she's gotten favorable in "The Wall Street Journal," she got a favorable editorial today, saying she was right on something that was fairly sophisticated. And I found that very, very interesting. It will be interesting to see what kind of how she answers questions when she doesn't have a script in front of her.
[Cooper:] Dana, I'm pretty sure you also think this is probably much ado about nothing or nitpicking?
[Dana Loesch, Organizer, St. Louis Tea Party Coalition:] Well, it is, yes and no. I think that the larger point is is being missed, Anderson. And thanks for having me back. And I also have to echo what what David said as well. "The Wall Street Journal," also, the editorial board came out with a column sort of affirming some of the things that that Palin was saying. And it seems to me that it's kind of an argument between, well, which adjective was the best one to use, significantly or moderate? All the while, everyone is ignoring the bigger problem, the bigger thing that needs to be addressed, the fact that the Fed wants to print more money, and she's calling them out. So, I think it the whole the whole point got lost in semantics.
[Cooper:] I do find it interesting, though, that she, like a lot of politicians and it's not just her, and it's Republicans and Democrats people don't admit when they make a mistake. And I don't get I think I think, frankly, people, the voting public, would like it if somebody just said, well, look, yes, look, I OK, I made an error, we all make errors, rather than attacking the messenger.
[Loesch:] Well, right. And we see that from our our government almost daily, especially with some of the the stimulus estimates. But this I mean, this this whole situation with with Palin calling out the Federal Reserve, calling out Ben Bernanke, that, to me, is supremely important. And it got completely lost. And whether or not she should have said moderate or significant, the bottom line is and I think that this is relayed as well in "The Wall Street Journal" article that she criticized is that food prices have been increasing. But I think she was more or less talking about the fact that you're talking about increasing deliberate inflation from the Fed, which is going to have an effect on consumers, who are already hanging on to their dollars, and it's already giving grocers headaches and making everyone scared. So, I think the bigger point was missed.
[Gergen:] I on that, I disagree. I Dana made some very good points. But Ben Bernanke is not and he's not really trying to lift the inflation rate very high. What he's trying to do is to get this economy moving. He's trying to get long-term interest rates down. And he's trying to get the value of stocks up, sort of asset prices, as they're called, in order to give people more confidence both to buy long-term and to borrow long-term, as well as people give more confidence in the consumer. So, I you know, there is a legitimate argument about what he's doing, but I don't think it's fair to say and I don't think Sarah Palin would be fair to say he's deliberately trying to sort of inflate our way out of this.
[Cooper:] Dana, do you do...
[Loesch:] Right. Well, I...
[Cooper:] Go ahead.
[Loesch:] I disagree with his approach. I was just going to say, I disagree with Bernanke's approach on this, because I think it it further contributes to the environment, the the economic environment that we are currently in, where businesses are terrified, investors are terrified. Thus, we see growth stunted.
[Gergen:] Yes. And I want to go back to your fundamental point, Anderson. There there is in this country a very deep reluctance on the part of politicians to admit error. And that's because they somehow think, if they admit it, it's going to be they're going to get killed. You know, their opponents will run ads about it, one thing and another.
[Cooper:] And which is a fair argument. They will probably will. I mean, their opponents probably would run...
[Gergen:] Yes. And I think we have gotten to the point where you can't the the public increasingly doesn't think people are telling the truth. And when they don't tell the truth, they won't admit they're not telling the truth.
[Cooper:] Do you think Sarah Palin, if she was running for president, is too thin-skinned? There are those who say, well, look, she she goes after the media every time. And Politico writes an article with with you know, unnamed sources and she attacks the Politico...
[Gergen:] I think backing-and-forthing like this in a presidential campaign would would really hurt her campaign a lot. I think it's just it would to go to Dana's point, it took the focus tonight off her argument. And we got off into this sort of you know, this this side thing, which is actually you know, it's sort of fun and interesting, but it took the focus off her more substantive point. Yes. And I do think, if she's going to run for president, she's going to have to have a much thicker skin and she's going to have let some of this stuff go. I found it interesting that she would make a speech about the Fed, because, for the first time, I thought maybe she is running for president. To give a speech like this, I thought, wow. You don't give a speech like this, you don't wander into this terrain, which is very complicated stuff, unless you are getting you want to grab get more gravitas. She's been accused of not having gravitas.
[Cooper:] Yes. Dana, do you think she's running?
[Loesch:] I don't know. I don't know if she's running or sort of solidifying her position as a kingmaker, because she's sort of batting.900 right now in terms of her endorsements and the people who won on November 2. But it is very I mean, it's a very interesting criticism that she had, because she sort of went above normally what she what she typically goes after. But I also agree with the fact that I don't believe in fighting down.
[Gergen:] Yes.
[Loesch:] And I think that what she demonstrated in this particular instance was fighting down. And it sort of gave leverage and gave greater importance and distracted from her whole criticism of going after Bernanke, going after the Fed.
[Gergen:] That's that's a good way to put it. Fighting down is exactly the right way to put it.
[Cooper:] David Gergen, Dana Loesch, appreciate you being on. Thanks very much. Let us know what you think. Join the live chat right now at AC360.com. Still ahead: Republican Congressman Darrell Issa has promised to hold hearings, hundreds of hearings, targeting the White House. But just how tough does he intend to be when he takes over a powerful House committee? Some say he's sending mixed messages. We're "Keeping Them Honest." Also ahead: President Obama delivering a big speech to the Islamic world tonight, as he wraps up his trip to Indonesia his message to Muslims ahead.