Video courtesy of Media Matters

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Rush Limbaugh has some serious issues. I mean, we knew that already, but the anger he uses to mask his blatant fear is quite stunning, and not a little Freudian.

Going after an admiral and counter-terrorism specialist like Joe Sestak? Not so smart, Rushbo:

Following an appearance on Fox News Channel to discuss the federal prosecution of terror suspects, radio host Rush Limbaugh attacked former 3-star Navy Admiral and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Congressman Joe Sestak as a "dangerous left wing radical ideologue."

"Rush Limbaugh's attacks on a Veteran for supporting our American values shows a lack of understanding and respect for the very people who serve our country to defend those values," the campaign said. "Instead of helping to bring about justice for the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, too many on the right seem interested in politicizing the issue of prosecuting terror suspects."

Joe Sestak voiced his support for the Administration as part of his continuing call to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Attorney General Holder announced that five high-value Al Qaeda suspects --including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed-- will be tried in federal court, rather than be held indefinitely or tried via military commission. Current legal procedures are in place to ensure that sensitive information used to support our national security efforts are kept private.

"As an Admiral, I led this Nation's fighting men and women into harm's way in defense of the United States -- in defense not only of American citizens, but of the beliefs that we hold dear and that define us as a nation, Joe" said in his statement on Friday. "I have watched the legal black hole at Gitmo erode our moral standing in the world -- weakening our hand in diplomacy in all corners of the world and providing Al Qaeda and other extremists propaganda for a new generation of terror. The last thing we should do is allow these terrorists to cause us to abandon our American principles."

Sestak points out some statistics for the WATB Republicans: As of December 2008, there were still approximately 250 detainees in custody. Federal courts have convicted 195 terrorists since 2001 in contrast to just three convictions by military commissions. Here's Sestak on The O'Reilly Factor trying to explain why there is nothing to fear from these trials. My suggestion for next time, Congressman, is to use smaller words. That fancy book-learning elitism is as scary to them as dem Islamofascists.

The Justice Department has subpoenaed indymedia.us for its visitor logs for a certain date. While this raises big flags regarding online privacy, something else happened with this action that is very odd. The recipient of the subpoena was told she could not talk about it unless authorized by the Justice Department – an essential gag order.

Of course news like this would send the right into a full frenzy that Obama is trying to silence the media, even a left-leaning site like indymedia. Here’s Hot Air’s take on it:

Did the White House try to open up a two-front war on the media?   Before the Obama administration launched an all-out battle with conservative-leaning Fox News Channel, the Department of Justice demanded the records of all visitor information of left-leaning Indymedia.us in an remarkable subpoena of a media outlet, for one specific day.  No one can recall any precedent for such a wide-ranging probe into the records of a media website, but it may provide a challenge to a national-security law if the DoJ presses hard enough:

But there’s a problem with this “blame Obama” mentality. The original source of the article is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and this is what they say about the subpoena:

On January 30th, 2009, Kristina Clair of Philadelphia, PA — one of the system administrators of the server that hosts the indymedia.us site — received in the mail a grand jury subpoena from the Southern District of Indiana federal court. The FBI had sent an email to Ms. Clair a couple of weeks earlier asking where a subpoena directed at the indymedia.us site should be sent. So, we at EFF were ready and waiting to evaluate the subpoena as soon as it arrived. Yet even we were surprised at what we saw. A PDF of the entire subpoena is available here.

And let’s look at when the actual subpoena was signed:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1451)

PLAYS: (1646)

Holy FSM. Is George Stephanopoulos auditioning for a spot on the Fox News Channel line up? It's the only thing I can account for this ridiculous and intelligence-insulting framing:

STEPHANOPOULOS: One year later, the president's economic plan has passed, but with no Republican votes in the House, only three in the Senate. It sure looks like right now no Republican support, the health care bills, as they are going forward in the Congress.

And our polling shows that this partisan divide persists on issue after issue after issue. Why has that core promise of the president's campaign, healing the divide, gone unfulfilled?

JARRETT: Well, you should ask that question to the Republican Party. I mean, frankly, just listening to the president's words again, it brought back terrific memories, and I think his message was a profound one. And he has stayed true to that message. He has reached out. He has listened. He has reached across the aisle.

Just recently meeting with both the Democrats -- the Republicans and the Democrats in both the House and in the Senate. His effort has been sustained throughout the year. And the fact...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the president bears no responsibility for the failure to get Republican votes?

JARRETT: Well, I think -- I think what we look to the president to do is to lead by example. He has reached out. He has listened. He has included very helpful advice from the Republicans when it has been forthcoming. But the fact...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not their ideas in the legislation..

JARRETT: Well, actually, that's not true. There have been examples of where he has included their ideas. And ultimately whether they vote for a piece of legislation or not, doesn't mean that it hasn't been an open and fruitful process.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the president doesn't feel he needs to change the way he does business at all, to reach out more to Republicans, to get more Republicans buy-in?

JARRETT: Oh, George, listen. He is constantly reaching out to Republicans. Both he and his team. And he will continue to do that. But ultimately it's up to the Republicans to decide if they want to be a constructive force and come to the table and work with us in a positive way.

We want to hear good ideas. The president is known for listening most closely to those with whom he disagrees. So the door is always open.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does that mean, for example, that Speaker Pelosi should give the Republicans a vote on an alternative in health care?

JARRETT: I'm not going to in any way comment on what the speaker should do. She is an extraordinary leader and she is going to continue to do that. And she is going to reach out in a way that she deems appropriate. But your question is what is the president's leadership about it, and hearkening back to the message from last year, and I think he has been consistent not just here, domestically, but also around the world in the way he has reached out.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, to follow through, shouldn't he ask the speaker then to give Republicans a vote?

JARRETT: To give them a vote and give them a voice. It gives them an opportunity to contribute constructively. That doesn't mean that you actually have to change what you think is in the best interests of the American people simply to get a Republican vote. What you do is you reach out, you listen, you collaborate, but ultimately, the president is accountable to the Republican people -- to the American people, sorry.

Head. Bangs. Desk. Normally, I criticize these bobbleheads for not asking follow up questions, but Jeebus, FIVE questions in a row framing the lack of bipartisanship on Obama from Stephanopoulos???? WTF is that?

George, is there something they give you in the Kool-aid you've so obviously been chugging that wipes out your memory? Most Democrats are frustrated by Obama's constant calls for bi-partisanship.

Because as Obama keeps extending his hand to the Republicans, let's look at what the Republicans give back:

Obama gave the WATB Republicans the tax breaks they insisted upon in the stimulus package (even though economists said they would hurt-not help-the stimulus). How many Republicans voted for the stimulus bill? Bupkis.

Obama has also had to deal with Republicans giving us Tea Parties, Obama = Nazi, Marxist, Communist, Stalinist, Socialist, Racist and/or a Totalitarian.

He has been accused of declaring War on the Rich, the Health Care industry, Banking industry, Mortgage industry, and the Auto Manufacturing industry.

He has been accused of being a liar, of having a Kenyan Birth Certificate, of wanting death panels and internment camps.

The Republicans have also put holds on the Surgeon General nominee in the face of the H1N1 pandemic, as well as blocking 19 of 22 appointees to the courts, as well as complaining about Obama not being a sufficient enough cheerleader for American exceptionalism abroad, not moving fast enough on Afghanistan, too fast on health care reform, and most pathetically, the number of pages in the health care reform bill.

So tell me again, George, who exactly is being divisive? Who exactly is smacking down the hand of bipartisanship? Who exactly is responsible for the culture of divisiveness in DC?

I've been sickened by ABC's bizarre attempts at equivalencies before, but this is ridiculous. Stephanopoulos owes Valerie Jarrett and the American people an apology for this series of questions.

OK, cue up the O'Reilly denunciations of the Pew Research Center:

The Fox News Channel is viewed by Americans in more ideological terms than other television news networks. And while the public is evenly divided in its view of hosts of cable news programs having strong political opinions, more Fox News viewers see this as a good thing than as a bad thing.

Nearly half of Americans (47%) say they think of Fox News as “mostly conservative,” 14% say it is “mostly liberal,” and 24% say it is “neither in particular.” Opinion about the ideological orientation of other TV news outlets is more mixed: while many view CNN and the three broadcast networks as mostly liberal, about the same percentages say they are neither in particular. However, somewhat more say MSNBC is mostly liberal than say it is neither in particular, by 36% to 27%.

The perceptions of those who regularly tune into these news networks are similar to those of the public. Nearly half (48%) of regular Fox viewers say the network is mostly conservative. About four-in-ten (41%) regular viewers of CNN describe the network as mostly liberal and 36% of regular MSNBC viewers say the same about that network....read on.

I'm surprised it's not much higher, but that's because I imagine there are many people who don't tune into it enough to really know what's what, and that's part of the reason that it freaked Fox out after the White House called them on it. And who watches Fox Noise and would possibly think it's liberal? My only guesses are militia members and a lot of teabaggers. Do some people really view BillO as a Lib?

The wingnuts do get themselves all worked up, don't they?

The fringey-right are upset at the news that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow attended an off-the-record briefing at the White House:

A day after key White House officials declared the Fox News Channel wasn't a news organization, President Obama met with MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Talk about your delicious hypocrisy.

Fittingly, the news was broken by FNC's Bret Baier during Tuesday's "Special Report" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, relevant section at 1:45, h/t Hot Air via NBer Thomas Stewart):

BRET BAIER, HOST: And finally, during this morning's off-camera White House briefing with reporters, ABC's Jake Tapper asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the ongoing White House attacks on FOX News Channel.

After being asked about the charge that FOX isn't a real news organization, Gibbs answered, quote "We render opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness of that coverage."

Tapper: "That's a sweeping declaration that they're not a news organization. How are they different from say, ABC, MSNBC, Univision?"

Gibbs: "You and I should watch around 9:00 tonight or 5:00 this afternoon."

Tapper: "I'm not talking about the opinion programs or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say?"

Gibbs: "That is our opinion."

Well, the White House's strong opinions about our opinion shows - - Glenn Beck runs at 5:00 p.m. and Sean Hannity at 9:00 p.m. -- apparently do not extend to similar shows on other networks.

A White House official confirms to us that the audience for Monday's off the record briefing with President Obama included MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Hmmm. So the White House thinks Fox isn't a news organization because it has a perspective, and specifically points fingers at Beck and Hannity.

What does the Adminstration think Olbermann and Maddow have?

I guess it's not a problem for a new organization and its members to have a perspective so long as it's one the White House shares.

They seem to miss the big difference between people like Olbermann and Maddow: They attempt to gather and present facts on their shows. Sometimes they slip up, but it's not usually intentional. Get it?

And they're suffering from memory loss again:

The guest list included Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, and Mike Gallagher. (Rush Limbaugh was unable to attend.) Friday’s off-the-record talk, set for 30 minutes, ended up lasting 90 minutes, where Bush told his guests that the war on terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.” He also showed them the pistol Saddam Hussein had when he was captured.

A crack surveillance team has found footage from Fox News Channel's security cameras of Glenn Beck's office after he discovered that ColorOfChange.org's campaign has resulted in ten more sponsors pulling out of advertising on the Crazy One's show, bringing us to a total of 46 advertisers just saying no.

Continue reading »

The boycott of Glenn Beck's show,led by the group Color of Change, has resulted in some 20 advertisers dropping sponsorship of his "show" on the Fox News Channel. Fox is feeling the heat and it now appears that Beck's vacation this week wasn't voluntary:

First on TVNewser: Tipsters inside Fox News tell us Glenn Beck's vacation this week from his Fox News show was not planned. We hear Beck was told to take this week off to let some of the heat surrounding him die down. That heat began July 28 on "Fox & Friends" when Beck said he thought Pres. Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people," adding, "This guy is, I believe, a racist."

A Fox News spokesperson denied our accounts and simply told us, "Glenn Beck will back on Monday." But several sources inside FNC confirm that this is a forced vacation.

Fox is denying Beck was forced to take the week off to let things cool down, but TV Newser is sticking to its story:

Update: Sources close to Beck have contacted TVNewser denying that this was a forced vacation. Beck's personal publicist Matthew Hiltzik forwarded us an email dated July 14th sent by Christopher Balfe, President & COO of Mercury Radio Arts and General Manager of Beck's radio show, addressed to Mercury Radio employees reading:

Glenn will be off of radio & TV the week of August 17th, returning to air August 24th.

Contrary to that, our tipsters tell us it was Beck himself who was telling Fox staffers last week that he was "forced to take the week off." Read on...

If the powers that be at Fox think that hiding Glenn Beck for a week is going to slow down the boycott against him, they are sorely mistaken. We'll be right here when Glenn gets back on Monday.

That irresistible line about the caveman, by the way, came from a reddit commenter. He was probably feeling celebratory over the fact that GEICO pulled all its advertising from Glenn Beck's hateful Fox TV show. And GEICO isn't the only company to have decided that advertising on the show of a vicious hate monger inciting violence and racial hatred is a bad marketing idea. Men's Wearhouse and Sargento are the latest companies to ask Fox to stop running their ads on TV. And today-- Blue America did the same.

Blue America is running a second wave of ads on Arkansas TV explaining Blanche Lincoln's duplicitous role in the health care debate. After looking at the logs of the first wave and noticing that some of our ads in Little Rock and Pine Bluff ran on Beck's show, we instructed the cable networks to not run any more ads on his programs in the towns we are advertising in this week-- the towns where Lincoln is doing her health care forums. Here's the note the Blue America media buyer sent to the Arkansas cable networks:

Blue America PAC has instructed me to tell you to not place any of their advertising within the Glenn Beck program on Fox News Channel for their upcoming flight.

There is a national boycott of his advertisers ongoing. as Mr. Beck has been promoting racism and violence on his program. We do not want to appear to support his efforts in any way, shape or form.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Propps

As for Men's Wearhouse, DailyKos published a letter yesterday from Matt Stringer, the vp of marketing/creative services:

Thank you for contacting Men’s Wearhouse and bringing to our attention your concerns with the Glenn Beck program on Fox News. While we support free speech and do not make advertising decisions based on our own personal ideologies, after reviewing his recent incendiary comments we have decided to remove our advertising from his program. We hope that this decision will allow you to continue to patronize Men’s Wearhouse. I would encourage you to please share our decision with anyone else who may have expressed a similar concern.

And Media Matters published a similar note from Pat Lombardo from the Sargento Consumer Affairs Department:

We deeply appreciate your reaching out to us and sharing your comments and concerns about Sargento ads appearing during The Glenn Beck Show. We sat down with the marketing department to talk about it and I learned that we buy time periods not specific programs. But in any event, they've made the decision to exclude that program from our future ad rotation. Simply stated, Sargento ads won't be airing during that show. Again, thanks for contacting us.

As Color Of Change, the online civil rights group that initiated the boycott, points out, these defections come on the heels of pull outs by LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and SC Johnson.

So what's wrong with Travelocity? Why do they insist on still underwriting the hatred, bigotry and violence? As a reader pointed out on my travel blog this morning, "perhaps someone could clue Travelocity into the fact that racists aren't the biggest travelers..."

CNN has a similar type of problem with their own in house racist sociopath, Lou Dobbs and, according to MediaBistro.com the network is moving away from using Hate Talk Radio commentators on the air from now on, although they still refuse to fire Dobbs (who also hosts a hate talk radio show).

TVNewser has learned, and a CNN spokesperson confirms, that in his morning editorial meeting today, CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein asked his show producers to avoid booking talk radio hosts. "Complex issues require world class reporting," Klein is quoted as saying, adding that talk radio hosts too often add to the noise, and that what they say is "all too predictable."

Yesterday I spent over 4 hours at a town hall meeting hosted by Rep. Adam Schiff in Alhambra. The disruptive clowns who had come to prevent a discussion were shouting slogans straight from the Astro-Turf outfits' talking points and their world views were clearly formed by Hate Talk Radio and Fox "News." These people are hysterically opposed to immigrants' babies getting health care and opposed to the government making it illegal for Insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. What they chant instead is "Tort Reform" and what they mutter is divisive and racist epithets most Americans thought went out of style with Lester Maddox, George Wallace and the cavemen.

UPDATE: Bad News For Teabaggers-- You're Being Played

The teabaggers like to take their thumbs out of their asses and jump up and down in front of the TV cameras claiming how real and genuine their grassroots protests are. I talked to so many of them with long lists of legitimate grievances-- one woman was suing her insurance company and very angry man with strange eyes is suing the gold company Glenn Beck shills for on radio that he claims cheated him-- but their grievances had nothing to do with what they disdainfully call "ObamaCare." How did they get from there to here? It wasn't via Pluto. According to a former Insurance Industry executive, Wendell Potter of CIGNA, the insurance companies are indeed the unseen hand behind the curtain manipulating the righteous-- or self-righteous-- indignation of the angry crowds getting their matching orders from hate-mongers like Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity ,etc.

"The industry is up to the same dirty tricks this year," Potter said at a Capitol news conference after meeting with House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), an avid supporter of the Democrats' plans for a healthcare overhaul.

"When you hear someone complaining about traveling down a 'slippery slope to socialism,' some insurance flack, like I used to be, wrote that," Potter added.

Potter said during his 20 years in the insurance business, the industry would funnel money to large public firms who would create front groups and find friendly voices in conservative media.

In particular, he cited front groups created to fight "Patients' Bill of Rights" legislation in the 1990s, as well as a campaign to discredit the Michael Moore film Sicko, which harshly criticized the industry.

Slaughter joined in the attack, saying "the notion that this is going to be something devilish comes from the people who would lose money on it."

From the New York Times:

It was a media cage fight, televised every weeknight at 8 p.m. But the match was halted when the blood started to spray executives in the high-priced seats.

For years Keith Olbermann of MSNBC had savaged his prime-time nemesis Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel and accused Fox of journalistic malpractice almost nightly. Mr. O’Reilly in turn criticized Mr. Olbermann’s bosses and led an exceptional campaign against General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC.

It was perhaps the fiercest media feud of the decade and by this year, their bosses had had enough. But it took a fellow television personality with a neutral perspective to bring it to an end.

Come to think of it, Keith did announce he was dropping his signature "BillO" voice -- but it's not clear that he's going to play ball:

Mr. Olbermann, who is on vacation, said by e-mail message, “I am party to no deal,” adding that he would not have been included in any conversations between G.E. and the News Corporation. Fox News said it would not comment. Read on...

Here's the conundrum for Keith Olbermann -- Does he obey the corporate bigwigs and ignore O'Reilly, or does he continue to expose and publicly humiliate a lunatic, right wing bully who picks on kidnapped and sick children, and played a very public role in the murder of Dr. George Tiller? Keith...what say you?

(Video - Ed Schultz's take on this story from 7/29)

Only at Fox News.

This afternoon, Bill Shine, SVP of Programming told TVNewser, "During Fox & Friends this morning, Glenn Beck expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions."

Make no mistake, the powers that be at Fox News couldn't care less about Beck's statement. If they did, Beck would have been suspended, or at the very least, reprimanded. This kind of outrageous propaganda permeates their network and they use it daily to hold on to their racist viewers.

Loud noises!

Let there be no doubt that Matt Drudge is the world's biggest douchebag. The gigantic screamer headline above leads us to this ridiculousness, written by Drudge himself:

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Ethical firestorm? How is broadcasting from the White House an ethical firestorm? Even someone as thick as Drudge should know that every major press agency has a reporter INSIDE the White House every day reporting the, you know, news. Many of them -- GASP! Siren Light Animated GIF!!!! -- report live from inside the West Wing press room or on the front lawn.

By the way, remember when Fox News Channel's resident Monchichi Brett Baier did a whole thing from "inside the White House"?

O'Reilly, too. And then there were all of those Bush White House press releases that FOX News Channel aired verbatim.

But since Drudge is making a big pee-pee dance about this, expect all of the press to soon follow -- despite reality.

(Cross posted at Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1713)

PLAYS: (3228)

A pretty good barometer of Republicans' utter desperation these days is just how farflung from reality their attempts to characterize President Obama are getting to be.

Newt Gingrich, who's clearly preparing for a 2012 White House run, was interviewed yesterday on Fox by Greta Van Susteren. Gingrich has been trying desperately to smear Obama as a weak leader, while cozying up to the GOP's tea-bagging populist wing.

So he hit on a way to hit both sweet spots in one swell foop: Smear Obama as an incipient authoritarian.

The subject was Obama's press conference earlier this week. First in the order, of course, he had to blame Obama's popularity on the media: "I think the Washington White House press corps has taken such a pathetic dive with this president that they ought to just be part of his PR firm!"

But then he there was this exchange:

Van Susteren: Well, you know, Fox News Channel got, quote, punished -- Fox News Channel didn't get a question the other night -- Major Garrett, our White House correspondent -- because the Fox broadcast, not the Fox News Channel, but the Fox broadcast decided not to air the press conference.

Gingrich: Right. Which should tell all of you about the abuse of power inherent in this administration. They now control General Motors, they basically control Chrysler, they control Citibank, they control AIG, and they are prepared to punish people.

I think that's very dangerous, to have a president who thinks he should get up in the morning and punish Americans. You know, appease foreigners, bow to the Saudi king, embrace the Venezuelan dictator, and punish Americans? I think that's a very dangerous attitude.

Gingrich is clearly counting on the public to be like Fox News anchors: They have a convenient case amnesia about the previous eight years of wiretapping, screw-the-public Republican rule.

But notice the underlying meme here: Obama is an incipient dictator who will punish his enemies and rule with an iron fist. Which, of course, is exactly what we're hearing from the growing militia contingent.

And then conservatives get all bent out of shape when someone like the DHS accidentally points out the growing similarities between them and right-wing extremists. Huh. Gee, wonder how that could happen.

(photo via Reuters)
I was going to write that this didn't surprise me, but it actually does because it's not the FOX News channel.

The network is turning down the president's request to show his prime-time news conference on Wednesday. The news conference marks Obama's 100th day in office. Instead of the president, Fox viewers will see an episode of the Tim Roth drama "Lie to Me."

It's the first time a broadcast network has refused Obama's request. This will be the third prime-time news conference in Obama's presidency. ABC, CBS and NBC are airing it.

Fox Broadcasting Company issued a statement on their motives:

"The Fox Broadcasting Company will not air the Presidential News Conference," Fox said in a statement. "Fox's sister networks, Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network, will air the press conference in its entirety. Fox will be alerting viewers with an onscreen graphic at the top of the 8:00 PM (ET) hour that the press conference is available on Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network.

If John McCain or George Bush were giving a prime time news conference, FOX would be giving it wall to wall coverage. Being the only network not to broadcast it kind of hits home the right wing bias that Rupert Murdock has brought to television. If Bill O'Reilly or Chris Wallace start whining about President Obama not appearing on their network they can only look at their own behavior, but this is much bigger than that. This is the president giving a speech to the nation at a critical time in our history and FOX just passed.

In the latest Pew Research Poll, FOX News tops all networks by a huge margin as being too critical of the president.

When Americans are asked to assess television news coverage of Barack Obama, Fox News Channel stands out from other networks for being too critical of the president. Nearly three-in-ten (29%) select Fox when asked which of six broadcast and cable news networks have been too critical of the new Democratic president, a far greater share than any other network. In contrast, no one TV network is singled out for being too easy on Obama.

It's good to know that many Americans see right through Roger Ailes and the home network he's developed for the GOP. Obviously the word "critical" has a different meaning to FOX than it does to most of us. We will criticize certain policies the Obama administration proposes, but FOX spreads lies and smears. At least Americans do understand what FOX is up to.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1555)

PLAYS: (1881)

Dick Cheney joined Sean Hannity last night on FOX in one of his "exclusive" interviews with FOX and claimed that President Obama's hand shake with Hugo Chavez along with his other trips out of the country are making him appear like a "weak" President which will lead the world to take advantage of him. Have you ever seen an ex-VP, who was basically booed out of the White House come out so fast and so vicious in the usual "politics of personal destruction?" It truly is embarrassing. Hannity as usual clipped Obama's statements and did his usual character assassinations in keeping with the hackery that he's known for.

Hannity: We have a President who's critical of our economic system, he's apologizing seemingly for our super power status around the world. Apologizing for America in general. It's been described as going on an "apologizing tour" and doesn't seem to like to tell the good story of America...

I guess I've been concerned the way we have been presented overseas..

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that President Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez “was not helpful” and could lead “foes” of the U.S. to “think they’re dealing with a weak president.”

Cheney: I find disturbing is the extent to which he has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth,” “And I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they’re dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America’s interests.

This was a very touching moment for the VICE, him being all worried for President Obama and all.