Chris Wallace had a chance to prove to America that he actually has journalistic integrity and is not part of the Fox Sphere of phony reporting when he interviewed Rush Limbaugh on Fox News Sunday. What we got was FOX News #1, fair and balanced reporter acting like a bowl of jelly for Limbaugh's rants. During his post mortem of FNS, he topped his uninformative and ridiculous interview of Limbaugh thus way:

I just want to give you my reaction. First of all I had never met him. Very nice, very sweet and I've have to say vulnerable guy and if you watch the interview you'll see because he talks very candidly about drug rehab...

Wow, is Wallace this dimwitted? Rush is doing a major interview with FNS and he's shocked, shocked I tell you that he's such a sweet guy. Did Wallace want to date him or interview him? I couldn't tell, could you?

Chris Wallace has been a very vocal critic of the Obama administration and has even gone so far as to say that the White House is a big bunch of crybabies. Did you ever hear him ever say anything like that before of another administration?

When Anita Dunn called Fox News an arm of the Republican Party on CNN, that didn't make Wallace happy either.

On Bill O'Reilly's program he said that his show is a truly fair and balanced program:

WALLACE: ...That’s exactly my position: I think Fox News Sunday is a truly fair and balanced show.

O’REILLY: You’re not an ideological show at all.

WALLACE: No. And it’s like they refuse to take “yes” for an answer. There’s a kind of childishness or pettiness about them…

Really? Then where was Wallace's "balance" with Rush? If you're operating as a real interviewer, then Wallace would have had a handful of tough questions that would ask him some other than his opinions. Rush Limbaugh rarely goes on TV except for Fox, and would never do a political talk show where an anchor could actually have a week to prepare at least some moderately difficult questions for him.

So when Rush decided to go on Wallace's show, it was a chance for him to ask questions that would typically be skeptical of his positions. Instead, Wallace acted like a fashion reporter talking about a new line of footwear and stood there listening to typical Limbaugh rants without no fact checking or follow questions.

He could have at least made some sort of effort. After Limbaugh made the outrageous statement that President Obama didn't care about Afghanistan, the best Wallace could do was grin and say, you don't really believe that?

And when his question came up about Limbaugh being rejected by the NFL, couldn't Wallace have at least read some of Limbaugh's comments back to him and make him defend his racist comments about African Americans? All he did was give Rush a platform to whine about a "conspiracy" against him.

The news media that so quickly supported Fox News against the White House should now turn their sights on Chris Wallace and ask themselves if he isn't playing his part perfectly for Roger Ailes.

This interview was an embarrassment and Wallace should be held accountable by his media peers. If Jake Tapper of ABC or any other media entity wants to defend Fox, then they need to hold those who make a mockery out of the profession accountable.

From Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol is hoping that people will see the lines for H1N1 vaccines and come to the conclusion that the government can't run anything properly. As Juan Williams points out, that's what happens when you have Republicans who don't believe in government running things and don't want government to work as we saw in George's Bush's complete indifference to the plight of the victims were during Hurricane Katrina. Williams should have also pointed out to him that Republicans managed to make sure FEMA worked pretty well when it benefited them politically in Florida.

As Williams also noted, these are private companies working with the government that failed to deliver the vaccines in the time frame promised. Fox News and much of the rest of the media seem to have a problem deciding on whether to fear monger about whether vaccines are safe or not and people being forced to get them as Jon Stewart pointed out not long ago on The Daily Show and complaining about them not being delivered fast enough. Now we've got Kristol conflating receiving vaccinations to the government being capable of administering health insurance.

Wallace: Bill you’ve never liked the Democratic health care plan in its various iterations and you especially don’t like this version. In fact you say it combines the most unpopular Democratic and Republican proposals in the last generation.

Kristol: Right, it’s got the Medicare cuts that almost doomed the Gingrich revolution in 1995, the Pelosi Medicare cuts dwarf the Gingrich Medicare cuts of 1995 and it’s got tax hikes—the tax hikes which the Clintons and the Democratic Congress passed on a party line vote in 1993 that cost them the Congress in 1994. And Nancy Pelosi has pulled off a great feat; you called it a compromised vote. It’s like a compromise between awful and horrendous you know. She’s combined tax hikes and Medicare cuts in the same bill in a bill that does nothing to improve the average Americans’ health care or to improve the cost of the average Americans’ health insurance. It’s an amazing feat that she’s done and now she’s pushing this bill, this huge government take over of the health care system at the moment when we have an experiment, an ongoing experiment in government health care—the swine flu epidemic—an emergency the president called it.

If you like how the government’s run swine flu with lines and cues and promises that haven’t come through in terms of having the vaccines available—if you like the government’s swine flu program, you’ll love Pelosi-Care.

Continue reading »

The nation's most "fair and balanced" network gave up over 20 minutes of its premiere Sunday "news" show to nation's loudest conservative voice. With little resistance, Fox News' Chris Wallace allowed Rush Limbaugh to continually attack President Barack Obama. Limbaugh called Obama "the man-child president," accused him of visiting the families of fallen troops for a photo op and said the president doesn't care about the war in Afghanistan.

"You suggest that he is taking all of this time to decide what to do in Afghanistan to keep his left wing base on board for health care reform," suggested Wallace.

"Well, it's partly that, but I also don't think he cares much about it," replied Limbaugh. "See, this is -- I know this is going to sound controversial, but i don't think he cares."

Limbaugh went on to call health care reform an "attack on liberty" and an "attack on freedom."

"We've never seen this kind of radical leader at such a high level of power in this county," said Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh isn't endorsing Sarah Palin for president in 2012 but he says she's ready for the job now.

"One thing I do not do is follow conventional wisdom, and the conventional wisdom of Sarah Palin is "She's not smart enough. She needs to bone up on the issues. She's a little unsophisticated. Alaska, Where's that?, [She] doesn't have the pedigree,'" Limbaugh told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "She's the only thing that provided a spark for the Republican Party. This is not an endorsement, but i do have profound respect for Sarah Palin. There are not very many politicians who have been through what she's been put through and still able to smile and be ebullient and upbeat. This woman, I think, is tough," he said.

Droopy Dog -- The Chump Champ

I used to love these Saturday cartoons, but I gotta admit, Droopy Dog is forever ruined for me because of that traitor Joe Lieberman. And guess what, boys and girls? The most craven politico of them all, Joe "Screw my constituency, it's all about me" Lieberman will be on Face the Nation this week, disgustingly unrepentant about his complete 180 on health care reform. But perhaps in response, the White House is sending out a bunch of spokespeople to make sure that that needy, attention-whore sell-out isn't the only one setting the dialog, with Valerie Jarrett on This Week, David Axelrod on Face the Nation and David Plouffe on Meet the Press. But the ultimate cartoon, the completely shameless fact-free zone has to be awarded to Fox News Sunday, because their sole guest this week is none other than Rush Limbaugh. Excuse me while I lose my breakfast.

ABC's "This Week" - White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - White House senior adviser David Axelrod; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner; David Plouffe, former Obama presidential campaign manager; author Jon Krakauer.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Katty Kay, Howard Fineman, Mark Whitaker, Mary Jordan. Topics: Afghanistan and Health Care and How They Will Determine Obama's Legacy. One Year Later: Why Isn't Obama's White House as Brilliant as His Campaign? Meter Questions: Will Afghanistan define President Obama's legacy more than health care? YES: 6 NO: 6; Is the Far Right more likely than the White House to have its hardball tactics backfire? YES: 7 No: 5.

CNN's "State of the Union" - House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio; Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Matthew Hoh, the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, gives Fareed one of his first interviews since resigning. Plus, we have a superb discussion on the economy with two great minds -- Martin Wolf of the Financial Times and Robert Schiller, the economist who accurately predicted the financial crisis and the stock market collapse of 2000.

CNN's "Amanpour" - Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan & UN; Tom Ricks, author of Fiasco, and Tahera Shairzay of Women for Afghan Women.

"Fox News Sunday" - Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio talk show host.

What's catching your eye this morning?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has gone too far with his latest attack against President Barack Obama, according to Sen. Carl Levin. "The comments of the former vice president were totally out of bounds. I don't think he has any credibility left with the American people," Levin told Fox News' Chris Wallace.

Cheney accused Obama of "dithering" on making a decision to send more troops to Afghanistan during a speech in D.C. Wednesday. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs rejected that criticism Thursday.

"What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously."

President Barack Obama accused Fox News as operating in a talk radio format. Fox News only strengthened that argument Sunday as they allowed only White House detractors to comment on the situation. Chris Wallace went so far as to suggest the White House was using mob tactics in it's "war against Fox News." Of course, Fox couldn't find any White House defenders to appear on the Sunday talk show.

It's "what some people are calling the administration's Chicago way of doing business," said Wallace referring to a scene from the classic mobster movie "The Untouchables." Wallace's comparison follows other commentary by the right wing echo chamber. The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel was one of the first:

A White House set on kneecapping its opponents isn't, of course, entirely new. (See: Nixon) What is a little novel is the public and bare-knuckle way in which the Obama team is waging these campaigns against the other side.

Glenn Beck followed the script with a rant about the White House "beatdown" of its enemies the following day.

That's the Chicago way and now we have it in Washington with Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama.

What was it that Obama promised on the campaign trail? Oh yeah, a "new kind of politics." America didn't think the "new" politics would be even worse than the "old" politics.

Agree with the administration? Fantastic. Dare to stand in the way of "reform"? Uh-oh.

No longer is it a gentlemen's disagreement that can be debated. No, you are going to play ball or get a beatdown.

Media Matters put together some examples of how Fox opinion bleeds into Fox "News."

Chris Wallace claiming to "fact check" Anita Dunn for daring to say that Fox News hasn't covered the John Ensign scandal. This didn't look like much of a "fact checking" to me. While I have seen some scant coverage of the Ensign scandal on Fox by the likes of Shep Smith, this has hardly been a leading story on Fox News.

So what example does Wallace decide to use to prove they're covered the Ensign scandal? Wallace asking Eric Cantor one question about John Ensign. That's it. No other clips to support that anyone else on his network has covered the story. Just one clip of him asking Eric Cantor--one question.

I hate to break it to you Chris, but that's not covering the John Ensign story. This is covering the John Ensign story.

TPM's Coverage.

This is covering the John Ensign story.

The Rachel Maddow Show: John Ensign's Deepening Hole

This is covering the John Ensign story.

The Rachel Maddow Show: Tom Coburn Caught Lying About His Role in Ensign Affair

This is covering the John Ensign story.

Ensign Claims He Complied with Senate Ethics Rules, Says He'll Cooperate With Investigations

This is covering the John Ensign story.

Rachel Maddow: John Ensign Did Have Contact With Doug Hampton on Lobbying Matters

I'd also like for Chris Wallace to explain to us why Fox News sat on the story for five days after this happened: Husband Of Ensign's Girlfriend To Fox's Kelly: Help Me Expose Senator's "Relentless Pursuit Of My Wife" and allowed the Las Vegas Sun to report it instead. We're all shocked Wallace didn't bother to bring that up, right?

How about C-Street? Has Fox News covered the C-Street story? If you're ignoring the C-Street house scandal Chris Wallace, you're not covering the John Ensign scandal as well.

The Rachel Maddow Show: C-Street Part II

Here's Rachel's coverage of the C-Street house from back in June. Fox News was all over this story...right Chris?? Note to Chris Wallace, this is what something called journalism looks like. Not asking Eric Cantor one question about a scandal you haven't covered.

White House communications director Anita Dunn has said Fox News "often operates as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party." Karl Rove, former senior advisor to George W. Bush, responded by saying "the White House is engaging in its own version of [Nixon's] media enemies list" Sunday.

Sen. Arlen Specter told Fox News' Chris Wallace that the Republican Party was the party of "no, no, no" when it comes to passing meaningful health care reform. While Specter believes the public option is "gaining momentum" within the Democratic Party, the GOP is the "party of obstructionism," said Specter.

UPDATE: Joe Sestak and Ned Lamont will be on C&L live chatting with us tomorrow, Monday Oct. 19th at 3pm PST/6pm EST so don't miss it.

I suppose Bill Kristol fancies himself the "grown up" during this argument on Fox News Sunday. While discussing whether President Obama should be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan or not, Juan Williams points out that President Obama already gave Gen. McChrystal 21,000 additional troops this year, and the result has been nothing but increased casualties. Later in the segment Kristol responds.

Wallace: I know there are political pressures but I would like to think that this President—I do think that this President is trying to make the right decision. There is no guarantee if you give McChrystal the 60,000 troops that it’s going to work…(crosstalk) …particularly given the nature of the government that is in control in Afghanistan.

Kristol: Look, what is better about giving him, “giving him”—I like that—why do we have to use that formulation?—The President is sending as many troops as he thinks he should send, as many troops as he thinks best to accomplish the mission—unless he wants to abandon the mission. But he doesn’t want to abandon the mission. What argument… what serious grown up argument is there that sending 15,000 is any better than sending 40,000 troops when the generals, Gen. McChrystal and Gen. Petraeus think 40,000 is what we need to adequately resource the counter-insurgency.

Maybe we shouldn’t send so many bullets either—we shouldn’t send too many vehicles. They’re very expensive. I mean this notion that we’re sending—that we’re going to have more casualties is ridiculous Juan. Short term of course when you engage the enemy you might have more casualties. Ask any soldier or marine over there, “Would you prefer to have 110,000 of you or 70,000 of you?”—that we are stretched too thin. If we’re going to fight, let’s fight the war.

So when are you signing up to go over there Bill? Liz? Both of you ready to suit up and go put your lives on the line over there? I think if you asked those soldiers what they'd rather be doing, most of them would rather be home. Not on their third, fourth and fifth tours of duty.

Liz Cheney told Fox News' Chris Wallace that President Barack Obama should not travel to Oslo in December to accept the Nobel Prize. Cheney called the prize a "farce" that could only be legitimized if family of U.S. military accepted it.

"I think the president himself understands he didn't earn this prize and therefore the notion that this white house has said he would go to Oslo to accept the prize would add to the farce," said Cheney.

She offered the following proposal: "I think what he ought to do, frankly, is send the mother of a fallen American soldier to accept the prize on behalf of the U.S. military. Frankly, to send the message to remind the Nobel committee that each one of them sleeps soundly at night because the U.S. armed forces, because the U.S. military is the greatest peacekeeping force in the world today."

It should come as no surprise that neoconservative columnist Bill Kristol disagrees with the Nobel committee. He responded to the award with sarcasm. "It's hard for me to be objective about this because I'm so disappointed personally. I was up early Friday morning. I thought the phone might ring, you know. Pundits for peace. I deserve it pretty much. President Obama and I have done about the same amount to bring about world peace, I think," said Kristol.

Gee, who could have seen this one coming? I know, Paul Krugman.

Stimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important):

Bit by bit we’re getting information on the Obama stimulus plan, enough to start making back-of-the-envelope estimates of impact. The bottom line is this: we’re probably looking at a plan that will shave less than 2 percentage points off the average unemployment rate for the next two years, and possibly quite a lot less. This raises real concerns about whether the incoming administration is lowballing its plans in an attempt to get bipartisan consensus.

[....]

I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”

Let’s hope I’ve got this wrong.

Looks like Paul was right. It's not Mitch McConnell but Kristol and Hume are basically saying the same thing. And for the record, since Bill Kristol seems to think that it was a terrible thing for the economy for the minimum wage to be increased, I'd like to see him try to live off of it for a year.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

Fox News' Bret Baier asked Sen. Lindsey Graham to elaborate on his opinion that Glenn Beck is a "cynic" Sunday.

"What I am saying, he doesn't represent the Republican Party," said Graham.

"But at the end of the day, when a person says he represents conservatism and that the country's better off with Barack Obama than John McCain," Graham continued. "That sort of ends the debate for me as to how much more I'm going to listen."

Lindsey Graham uses the news that eight American troops were just killed by the Taliban in a remote outpost to try and make it seem like President Obama doesn't support the troops if he doesn't bow down to Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan on FOX News Sunday.

GRAHAM: Well, the one thing I can tell you for sure, without reinforcing our troops, you’re going to hear more of what happened today. General McChrystal said without reinforcements we cannot change the momentum that the Taliban has achieved, and the insurgency cannot be defeated in a year if something doesn’t change.

We had this very dilemma in Iraq. We didn’t have enough troops. Everybody thought Maliki was a sectarian prime minister. The country wasn’t governing itself. The security environment became terrible.

The one thing I can tell you, if we don’t add more troops, you’re going to see more of what happened yesterday. The security situation’s going to get worse. And any hope of better governance is lost, and the Taliban will re-emerge.

If you send troops in, we’ll have a second chance at governance. You need to put Karzai’s feet to the fire, or the next government’s feet to the fire, to do a better job. But it’s impossible to bring about better governance without security.

American troops have been getting killed in Afghanistan for a long time and Graham never made that claim before. Are their lives any less meaningful before McChrystal's request? And the troops were stationed in a position that would not be occupied by McChrystal's plan so Goober Graham is wrong on that front too if I understand the strategy correctly.

Eight U.S. troops died in tribal militia attacks on two remote American outposts in eastern Afghanistan Saturday, military officials said.

The attacks, which also killed two Afghan security officers, were the deadliest in months for American troops, The New York Times reported Sunday.

The coordinated attacks by tribal militia occurred in the Nuristan province, along the Pakistan border, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said in a statement.

The tribal fighters mounted the attacks from a mosque and a village in the Kamdish district in the eastern part of the province, and American forces "effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties," the U.S .military said.

U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal has outlined a new strategy to close down many of the remote outposts like those that came under attack.

And you'll never hear a FOX host or a republican talk about Iraq with any real honesty. A major reason why the violence went down in Iraq was because we paid off a whole lot of Sunni leaders with big bucks so they would stop the violence.

Now we put up a 100,000 Sunni militia on the American payroll, people who used to be shooting at the United States who are now on our payroll.

A google search helps me find this from a blog called Political Impressions:

In an April 2008 report, The Christian Science Monitor stated,

He (Abu Abdullah of the Islamic Army of Iraq) also maintains that while the US has succeeded in driving a wedge between AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) and Sunnis in Anbar Province, many of the tribesmen there who are now on the American payroll are still aiding IAI and other insurgent groups.

Members of these US-backed militias now number almost 91,000 and are paid a total of $16 million a month in salaries by the US. They are often lauded by President Bush in his speeches on Iraq.

Who do we pay in Afghanistan? Can the Taliban be bribed in different regions? I don't think so. The two countries are completely different in every way and so the comparisons of a surge between the two are absurd.
Don't forget abput Blue America's Afghanistn action called "No Means No!"