Shit is so bad in Trump's White House that even Fox News cannot bother to cover for them anymore.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

“Let’s just go through it,” Wallace said, before laying out a shockingly lucid analysis of Trump’s troubles. 

1. “Hope Hicks has quit. She’s the person closest to the president in the White House.” 

2. “The president hates his attorney general.” 

3. The deputy attorney general now has to defend the hated attorney general “from the attack by the president.” 

4. Trump’s top economic advisor is threatening to quit because of proposed tariffs, which he wasn’t consulted about. 

5. “The president reportedly wants to oust his national security advisor,” the respected H.R. McMaster. 

6. “Somebody is trying to get Jared Kushner.” 

7. Trump wants to be rid of Kushner, his son-in-law, but doesn’t want to do it himself and so he’s also asked his Chief of Staff, John Kelly, to “help me Kushner and Ivanka out of here.” 

“Other than that, it’s sweetness, light, puppies and unicorns here in D.C.,” Wallace said, wryly. 

“Wow—that’s a nice clip for whoever picks up clips,” Smith said.

That's what I thought, which is why I picked this clip.

Of course there are still those on Fox News who will never criticize Donald Trump, no matter what, but clearly those with at least an ounce of integrity simply cannot continue to defend the indefensible. 

Even Fox News cannot buy that Secretary of Homeland Security, who was in the room when Trump made that "sh*thole" comment, can't remember it.

DHS Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen was in the room, but says can't recall whether Trump made "shithole countries" remark pic.twitter.com/lLbijwmlep

— Axios (@axios) January 14, 2018

What kind of language was being bandied about in that room for "shithole" to not catch your attention, and sear itself into your memory?

This is the person responsible for responding to actionable intelligence that suggests a terrorist attack.

You would think that somebody like this would constantly pay close attention to conversations happening around her, in all circumstances.

Well perhaps her hearing and memory fail when it has anything to do with controversial comments made by her boss.

Or maybe since she is part of Trump's Administration she is simply following the "Lie About Everything" rule book. 

Bristol Palin's ghostwriter attempts to jump on the #MeToo train, misses and rolls into a ditch of stupidity instead.

The #MeToo campaign has taken down predators from both the Right and the Left, from both Hollywood and Washington DC, and both famous and infamous journalists as well.

However while Sarah Palin has been all too willing to jump onto stories about liberal Hollywood or media figures, she has been largely silent when it came to allegations concerning predators on the Right.

Now yesterday we had her ghostwriting stand in for Bristol attempt to attract a little of that sweet #MeToo attention their way by writing up a sad little blog post suggesting that the Palin family has also been the longtime victims of sexual harassment.

This of course is nothing new as the Palin family has been blowing their rape whistles virtually from the moment that they burst onto the scene.

Bristol even had a book written for her that suggested Levi raped her in a tent. (I actually asked him about that directly, and let's just say her version in no way matches what really took place.)

In that post yesterday Bristol's paid ghostwriter went to some rather amazing lengths to prove that the Palins are long suffering victims.

For instance she wrote that this comment by Chris Wallace, in which he was asked by Don Imus if Sarah Palin would be sitting on this lap during their first interview, was an example of sexual harassment. As you can see Wallace was called out for making a somewhat sexist remark by other Fox New hosts, and of course the interview that took place was purely professional, so to use this as an example of sexual harassment seems incredibly weak.

The Bristol ghostwriter then goes on to use the Letterman joke as a further example.

The actual joke, if you remember, was "Sarah Palin went to a Yankees game yesterday. There was one awkward moment during the seven minute stretch when her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

Of course Dave thought that the daughter she brought was the previously pregnant Bristol, and not Willow who was actually accompanying her mother and father to New York.

The joke may have been in poor taste (Made me laugh however.), but it was not a pro-rape joke which was the accusation made by the Palin family.

The next examples are Azeala Banks, who made some rather indefensible remarks about black men "running a train" on Sarah, and Mike Tyson suggesting that she needed a black man like Dennis Rodman to "push her guts up into her head," after learning that she had bedded the very gentlemanly Glen Rice.

Now yes it could be argued that these are tasteless comments, but this ghostwriter needs to remember that tasteless comments are constantly being made about public figures, and since they were not made directly to her that it is still a stretch to think of them as the same type of sexual harassment suffered by the victims of Matt Lauer, Bill O'Reilly, or Roy Moore.

However it is the last example that is truly remarkable in it tone deafness.

In this example Bristol's ghostwriter feigns outrage over the fact that former Fox and Friends couch warmer, Alisyn Camerota, asked Palin if she had had breast surgery after this photo started making the rounds.

 Since everybody by this time had come to realize that Palin was essentially flat as a board up on top, as illustrated by this photo,...

...this was not really such an outlandish question.

After all Palin had clearly wanted to draw attention to her chest which is why she wore what we now suspect was a water bra, with a tight white top.

And then when somebody noticed, and asked her about it, they are suddenly sexually harassing her?

At the end of this pathetic post the ghostwriter suggests that there is a double standard, and that liberal women's accusations are taken more seriously than those made by conservative women.

To that I would respond with the fact that the Roy Moore accusers have stated that they are lifelong conservatives, and some even admitted to voting for Trump. (Al Franken accuser Leann Tweeden has also been identified as a conservative.)

No this is NOT a partisan issue, and all accusers should be treated equally.

However if they, like Bristol's ghostwriter, are going to try and compare the terrible experiences of those who have suffered actual trauma to incidences like those listed above, they are likely going to find that they are laughed at and dismissed as simple attention seekers.

When even Fox News cannot swallow the idea that there is nothing to the Russia story, that is pretty much game over.

Courtesy of WaPo: 

Between its “Fox and Friends” morning show and Sean Hannity at night, Fox News has become a haven for those who think this whole Russia thing is nonsense. On Friday morning, Steve Doocy even declared that “the Russia story is starting to fall apart.” 

But on Friday afternoon, a Fox host went off on the Trump administration's handling of Russia in a way we've rarely seen. 

Here's the transcript: 

"We’re still not clean on this, Chris [Wallace]. If there’s nothing there — and that’s what they tell us, they tell us there’s nothing to this and nothing came of it, there’s a nothingburger, it wasn’t even memorable, didn’t write it down, didn’t tell you about it, because it wasn’t anything so I didn’t even remember it — with a Russian interpreter in the room at Trump Tower? If all of that, why all these lies? Why is it lie after lie after lie? If you clean, come on clean, you know? My grandmother used to say when first we practice to — Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. The deception, Chris, is mind-boggling. And there are still people who are out there who believe we’re making it up. And one day they’re gonna realize we’re not and look around and go, Where are we, and why are we getting told all these lies?"

Now to be fair Shep Smith is like an oasis of responsible journalism in a desert of Right Wing talking points over at Fox, but Chris Wallace is right there with him.

And they are not alone.

Here is Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer, courtesy of CNN: 

In a column published Thursday night, Krauthammer said that the "Russian scandal has entered a new phase, and there's no going back." 

Krauthammer, a Fox News contributor, wrote that he has long been a skeptic of charges of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but that he was "open to empirical evidence." 

Following a revelation this week about emails between Donald Trump Jr. and a business associate who helped arrange a meeting with a Kremlin-connected lawyer, Krauthammer wrote that the "evidence is now shown." 

"This is not hearsay, not fake news, not unsourced leaks," Krauthammer wrote. "This is an email chain released by Donald Trump Jr. himself."

Now Sean Hannity, Steve Doocy, and those airheads on Fox and Friends are simply NEVER going to admit that this president is a liar and that he colluded with the Russian government to steal an election, but for a growing segment of Fox News viewers those facts are starting to become unavoidable.

Chris Wallace to Reince Priebus: "Barack Obama whined about Fox News all the time, but I gotta say he never said we were an enemy of the people."

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

The Fox News Sunday host, who earlier attacked Trump over referring to the media as “the enemy of the people,” went after Priebus early, at one time lecturing him, “You don’t get to tell us what to do any more than Barack Obama did. Barack Obama whined about Fox News all the time, but I gotta say, he never said we were an enemy of the people.” 

Addressing a New York Times report that claimed that top Trump operatives were in contact with the Russians prior to the election, Priebus complained about the media using “anonymous sources,” before calling it “fake news.” 

“I can assure you, and I’ve been to say this, that the top levels of the intelligence community have assured me that that that story is not only inaccurate, but it’s grossly overstated and it’s wrong and there’s nothing to it,” Priebus asserted. “If I can say that to the American people, then what does it say about the story?” 

“I get the fact that you don’t like some stories,” Wallace replied. “You say, because you weren’t part of the campaign before so that you can’t speak to that, you say that the intelligence community says that there were no contacts between anyone in the Trump campaign, no associates of Mr. Trump and anybody involved as a Russian agent, as to the campaign and collusion in the campaign.” 

“They made it very clear that that story in the New York Times is complete garbage,” Priebus replied. “Quite frankly they used different words than that, okay?”

To his credit Wallace pointed that Priebus, who had just complained about "anonymous sources," just did the same exact thing to argue that those news stories were incorrect.

It is interesting that Reince "once and " Priebus planted this flag so firmly in this absolute certainty that the intelligence agencies are not going to reveal that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Especially since these investigations are ongoing, and nowhere near completion yet.

That is unless Priebus knows the fix is in and that with Trump's new people in place there is simply no way that anything untoward will be revealed.

Things that make you go "Hmmm."

The moderator for the presidential debates on Fox News says he will allow candidates to lie. Color me unsurprised.

Look I only play a journalist on Fox News, why would I be interested in the truth?

Courtesy of Think Progress:

For the first time, Fox News has been selected to moderate a presidential debate. The Presidential Debate Commission selected Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, to moderate the third presidential debate, scheduled for October 19 in Las Vegas. 

Wallace appeared on Fox News’ Media Buzz to discuss what his selection meant to him personally and “what it means to Fox News.” 

The host of the program, Howard Kurtz, asked Wallace, “What do you do if they make assertions that you know to be untrue?” 

“That’s not my job,” Wallace replied, without skipping a beat. “It’s not my job to be a truth squad.”

I would assume that this is why the Republicans pushed so hard for a debate on Fox News.

Trump is going to get hammered during these debates and he wanted at least one place where he could lie with impunity and not be called on it. And after all isn't that why Fox News exists in the first place?

Let's face it the Fox News debate is probably the only one that the conservatives will bother to watch, so when they go to the polls in November their heads will be filled with Donald Trump lies and concerns over why Hillary Clinton looked so irritated by all of those Benghazi questions from Chris Wallace.

“Chris, please don’t interrupt me.” Even Fox News is not buying Ted Cruz's BS.

This was the exchange after Chris Wallace listed off all of the dirty tricks perpetrated by the Cruz campaign: 

“Every accusation you raised there is incorrect,” Cruz replied. “I appreciate your reading the Donald Trump attack file on that.” 

WALLACE: “Oh, come on, sir. Wait a minute, sir. You personally apologized to Ben Carson on a debate stage.” 

CRUZ: “Chris, don’t interrupt me.” 

WALLACE: “You fired your communications director.” 

CRUZ: “Chris, don’t interrupt me.” 

WALLACE: “Don’t say this in an oppo file on our part, sir.” 

CRUZ: “Chris, please don’t interrupt me.” 

WALLACE: “Please don’t accuse me of something I didn’t do.” 

CRUZ: “Let me know when I’m allowed to answer.” 

WALLACE: “Well, don’t accuse me of doing something I didn’t do. Two of those things, you apologized for one and you fired your communications director. Don’t say this is the oppo file.”

I am always amazed by the people who think that Ted Cruz has a chance in hell of winning the general election. 

I mean if he cannot even win over Fox News, which helped to create him, than what chance does have in convincing the voters that he is not a slippery pile of human excrement?

Which of course those of us NOT watching Fox News already know that he is.

I think my new favorite thing is watching Fox News bitch that Hillary Clinton will not talk to them.

Courtesy of Politicususa: 

This was not the first time that Wallace has whined on the air about being frozen out. In May of 2015, Wallace unleashed a pouty barrage on the air and admitted that President Obama won’t let people from the White House go on Fox News Sunday. 

President Obama and former Sec. of State Clinton have been subjected to relentless attacks by Fox News. There is no way that Clinton is going to give Fox or any of its shows the time of day unless it is on her terms. The message that the Clinton campaign is sending is that Fox News is going to pay for their years of lies about the former Sec. of State.

How unreasonable of Hillary Clinton not to grant an interview with the cable news outlet that has been attacking her, and her husband, non-stop since the day they first went on the air. 

I hope that after she wins the election she NEVER goes on Fox and they just shrivel up with jealousy that every other news outlet gets access except for them.

To his credit President Obama has agreed to interviews on Fox and they have been incredibly disrespectful hack jobs that in a REAL news agency would see the interviewers fired immediately.

So fuck Fox News.

Ted Cruz gets called out for false claims about Obamacare by Fox News.

Courtesy of Mediaite:  

Cruz has claimed that Obamacare is a huge job killer, but Wallace brought up how millions of jobs have been created in the past few years and millions now have health insurance. Cruz responded by calling the media fact checkers “not fair and impartial.” 

Wallace said there’s no question millions of people now have jobs and health insurance. Cruz said, “Yes, there is question.” He argued that growth has been very small all of Obama’s years in office. 

As they kept going back and forth, a testy Cruz said, “Chris, don’t interrupt me.” Wallace stepped in and called him out for “changing the subject.”

I swear Cruz must have taken lying classes from Sarah Palin. He does it so naturally.

However just because Cruz is a clown does not mean we can ignore him.

In fact Cruz represents one of the MOST dangerous member of the GOP goon squad this election cycle.

For example here is how Cruz responded to a question about his plans for the Supreme Court: 

“I have spent my entire adult life fighting judicial activism, fighting to defend the Constitution, fighting to defend the Bill of Rights,” Cruz said. “Unlike the very fine individuals on that debate stage, I will be willing to spend whatever political capital is necessary, and sir I give you my word, every justice I put on that court will be a principled constitutionalist jurist with a proven record who will be faithful to the law and will not legislate from the bench.” 

The concept of creating a more conservative Supreme Court is not new for Cruz. He regularly devotes part of his campaign speeches to the idea, repeating the same point: Republicans of the past have been too scared of political fights to appoint very right-wing justices. If he’s elected, he says, that will change. 

“Many of the most liberal justices in this country — Earl Warren, Bill Brennan, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Harry Blackman, the author of Roe v. Wade — all of those were Republican appointees,” Cruz said. “And the reason is simple. Over and over again we keep electing Republican presidents for whom the court is not a priority. And when it comes to a nomination, they take the easy road out.”

Yeah if that did not send a cold chill up your back then you might want to check your pulse to be sure your still among the living. 

I have to say that as much as I despise many of the candidates on the Republican side, virtually ALL of them would be preferable to having Ted Cruz win the nomination.

It's really not because I have no confidence that Hillary can kick his ass, she can without even mussing her hair, it's just that I don't want that sleazy mound of pond scum to even get that close to the White House.

Chris Wallace of Fox News pissed that White House has shunned him for the second week in a row. Aww!

Courtesy of Mediaite:  

Last week, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace was peeved that National Security Advisor Susan Rice appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, but not on his show — perhaps, he suggested, due to the fact that he would have asked her the “tough questions” about Benghazi. 

This week, it was John Kerry who left Wallace hanging, as the Secretary of State appeared on Meet the Press, This Week With George Stephanopoulos, and Face the Nation to discuss Russia’s invasion of the Crimean peninsula — but skipped Wallace’s show. 

“For the record, we invited Secretary of State Kerry to join us today,” Wallace said, “but although the White House put him out on all the other Sunday shows*, they declined to make him available to us, or you.” 

Wallace then pivoted right to House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa (R-CA), who spent the entire next segment discussing last summer’s IRS investigation.

So first Wallace bitches that he can't get the White House to take he and his network seriously, and the next he engages in a conversation with a well known Republican attack dog about a made up controversy.

Yeah I have NO sympathy for this guy. None.

Sarah Palin appears on Fox News to play the victim over comments by MSNBC's Martin Bashir, to attack Obamacare, and to convince somebody to buy her damn book!

Click one of the protruding knobs to see video.

Chris Wallace starts off asking Palin about Obamacare. (Spoiler alert: She hates it!)

"Well certainly the roll out itself, and a malfunctioning website isn't the problem. The problem is Obamacare itself is the problem, you know a road toward socialized medicine that is unaffordable, and unasked for, and unpopular, is not workable, that's the problem. People want Obamacare scrapped, I think at this point Chris we don't even care if the website gets up and running, it's just going to prove to be an invitation find out..uh..more problems as to Obamacare as a whole....

At this point the tape kind of skips and you see Wallace posing the next question, as if somebody decided Palin had rambled enough and were trying to keep the craziness to a minimum.

Wallace then asked Wonder Boobies if she thought Obamcare was the tipping point that undermined the President's entire approach to government

"I do, Thank goodness people are awakened from their slumber, thinking that it's okay for government to deceive us in thinking that they can, they can give us free stuff. Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and people have opened their eyes now, understanding that 'oh Tea Party patriots they were right' when they said that this big government policy crammed down our throat called Obama-pare (I swear that is what she said.) its not good for America. And people have awakened and realized that the Tea Party was right, and hmm they may be right on a couple of other issues too. So yeah that's a tipping point, people are awake now."

Wallace then suggests that it is a problem for Republicans that Obamacare will eventually cover 30 million uninsured Americans whereas the most recent GOP plan would only cover 3 million. And asks Palin if she does not agree that the Republicans need to do better.

"Oh, I am one to question, I am one to question those numbers. 30 million more people will receive health care coverage under Obamacare? I question it, one I don't believe a doggone thing coming out of Washington D.C. anymore and isn't that a sad state of affairs when a normal American has to be so cynical of what government (Normal American?), and government reports, are telling us. Even if it is a nonpartisan report. Chris no, once that employer mandate kicks in, after the new year begins, next year..employer mandate..that's going to kick more and more people off private sector health care coverage that they had, at least up til now, been able to enjoy, and been able to afford. There will be fewer people being covered under a sensible, doctor-patient relationship centered health care program under Obamacare than what we see today I guarantee you that." (So in a nutshell, Palin is saying, "Facts, I don't need no stinking facts! I know what I know when I know it.")


Wallace simply lets that huge truckload of BS sit there as he moves onto another topic, essentially destroying any credibility he has a journalist, and asks her about the new Senate rule change. (The "Nuclear Option.") Essentially asking her if she thinks that any President should have the right to name their team, unless a candidate is "wildly outside the mainstream?"

"Well there are a lot of wildly outside the mainstream nominees and pals of Barack Obama that he wants to see help him usher in an agenda to transform America, so that's one thing that Congress has done right. And that is to oppose some of these nominees.

(Really? So this is okay?)

Replaced previous graphic identifying nominees to this one. More accurate.

(I bet she wouldn't say that if this were a Republican. Or a white guy.)

As for this rule, change that some people are calling the nuclear option, I guarantee this week, Thanksgiving dinner, people sitting around their tables, we're not going to be talking about the president's blessing, the thwarting of a balance of power in Congress with new Senate rules called the nuclear option.People are going to be talking about our failed big government policies that will bankrupt this country. So this distraction, this new talking point in the media and with Congress, with senators and with the president blessing this action, it's a distraction and it's a lot of, you know, double standard and Democrat hypocrisy because just a few years ago, they were so anti, anti-nuclear option. They were against any thought of Republicans ever considering changing these rules. And yet now, you know, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. So American people, they don't care about distractions like that. They're not in that inside baseball Senate rule stuff. They want government to be back on our side. They want it to get out of our lives and in order to do that we need those who will not fundamentally transform America but will fundamentally restore what's right about America. We do that by having good judicial nominees and nominees in these regulatory agencies and elsewhere. So, this new rule change, it stinks." (I'm sorry, what?)


This is when Wallace finally broaches the subject of Bahir's comments on MSNBC.

"That's funny, because Bashir has invoked the analogy of slavery also. The definition of slavery is to be beholden to a master. And we will be beholden when that note is due, when we have taken from our children and our grandchildren and borrowed from China and other foreign countries in order to pay for our wants today. So we will be beholden to another master at some point here when that note's due. As for the -- you know ,the networks condoning those types of statements, because there's been no punishment of the fella who said these words, that's hypocrisy. That's a given, though, when a conservative woman says something that they're -- they take offense, they usually just kind of pooh-pooh it, laugh it off; it's no big deal. But as for personally taking shots like that, Chris, everybody in life takes shots. You have a decision to make when you take a shot. Are you going to become bitter or better? In a case like this, you know, I don't have to accept his words, his vile, evil comments, so they don't have to affect me. I move on. And I charge forth. (Oh yeah, she is known for that.) However, if Mr. Bashir or anybody else in this media elite bubble that they put themselves in were to attack someone who is defenseless, like a vulnerable child, who does not have that podium, that microphone that God has blessed me to be able to express my opinion, if they don't have that type of platform to defend themselves -- well, if you want to see a mama grizzly get riled up and slap that person down, then you come after a vulnerable child. In this case, he didn't come after a vulnerable child. I can defend myself and, you know, I can take it" ( I assume she is daring somebody to attack Trig so that she can defend him and garner more sympathy. What an odd thing to interject into this statement.)

Wallace then plays Bashir's apology and asks the Wonder Twins if she accepts it.

"Well, that's the executive hypocrisy that is so prevalent in that media elite bubble, where it depends on the target of the vile rants that it doesn't depend on what their rant itself actually is. And conservative women are a target of them. As for the apologies, well, obviously, you know, who am I to not accept an apology? Everyone must humble themselves and accept that offer to, you know, of apology. (This part really makes me wish that Bashir had not caved in and apologized to the skank.) But as for the apologies, too, next time that they want to say such a thing and then get the attention that they were seeking after they've said it, and then they want to call and apologize to me in private, I'd like them to go through, say, Todd first or one of my children first. Leave the message with them. Hear what they have to say about it and then they can come to me." (So she wants to have her apologies screened before accepting them? What is she afraid of?)


This is the point where apparently Wallace is contractually obligated to let  the "Ghost of Christmas suck ass" to pimp her book.

Wallace: " Governor, you say there is a link between faith and freedom. Explain what you mean." (Why do these idiots continue to call this quitter "Governor?")

"It's an inherent link, and our Founders knew that. They said that our government is -- our Constitution for our government is written for a religious and world people, meaning you have to have a strong foundation of faith, believing in something greater than self and not be so selfish. Otherwise, our Constitution isn't going to do any good. There's no need to follow a Constitution or a rule of law if you don't have that foundation. (Actually you do, it's called avoiding prison and it is a MUCH bigger deterrent to criminal behavior than the idea of hell or heaven.) So, it's very, very important that we protect the heart of Christmas, which then will protect the heart of America. And it's been a wonderful book tour; 21 cities thus far. (And each one resulting in the book falling further and further down the Amazon list of best sellers. As of this post it is now down to 358. If this keeps up it will be in the dollar bin before the last stop of her book tour.) And it is all about good tidings and great joy and amazing, amazing, inspiring, energetic people we've met along the trail, love them. And it's a good book."

Wallace then asks what is wrong with  businesses wishing people "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas?"

"Well, there's not a doggone thing that's wrong with saying "Happy Holidays." It's like I say before Christmas, "Happy Hanukkah." After Christmas, you can say "Happy Kwanzaa." But as for Christmas itself, Jesus is the reason for the season. And Christ is the foundation of Christmas. So, to have a double standard, try to be applied to say, well, you just can't say "Merry Christmas" or invoke God or Bethlehem or an angel when anything spiritual when it comes to actually that day, December 25th, Christmas, otherwise somebody may take offense, it's a double standard, more hypocrisy, more nonsense, and I'm just saying no, we're going to protect the heart of Christmas because Christ is what it's all about."

"Well, there's not a doggone thing that's wrong with saying "Happy Holidays." I'm sorry, I'm confused.  Is she saying that there is NOTHING wrong with saying "Happy Holidays" or is she insisting that the only appropriate greeting is "Merry Christmas?" 

Or is she saying that there should be no rule prohibiting shopkeepers from saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" which of course has never been anything of the sort? Does anybody else's head hurt?

You know if you are going to have an entire book ghostwritten for you on the subject, perhaps you should actually know just what in the hell you are talking about.

Oh right, this is a Sarah Palin book.

My bad.

After Fox news receives questions from "Top Republicans" to be used to "hammer" interview subject Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin tweets a demand that they reveal who sent the comments. Seriously?

Courtesy of Media Matters:  

Fox News contributor Sarah Palin attacked Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace,demanding he release the names of Republicans who attempted to "trash" Senator Ted Cruz. 

On Fox News Sunday, Wallace revealed that "I got unsolicited research, and questions" from "top Republicans" in order to "hammer" Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) who appeared on the program to promote his effort to defund Obamacare. 

After Wallace's comments aired, Fox contributor Sarah Palin sent out a tweet calling on Fox News Sunday to "Keep it TRULY fair & balanced" and "Release the GOP names encouraging you to trash @SenTedCruz. No more anonymous sources."

 Can we see this so called "Journalism degree" you're supposed to have you idiot?

Revealing your sources, is something even too ignorant for Fox News to do.

What a complete and utter moron!

By the way somebody must have clued her in to the fact that she had just stuck her foot down her throat, because the tweet has now been removed.

Too late stupid. Nothing is ever erased for good off of the internet.

Political pundit Juan Williams speaks the truth to Fox News panel on Benghazi: “It’s gone, baby. It’s in your head. That’s about the only place.”

So as we get closer to the one year anniversary of the Benghazi attack many on the Right Wing are doing a full court press to resurrect the Benghazi "scandal." This includes Ted Cruz, among others.

And of course Fox News is serving as the main stage for this tired old rerun.

So yesterday on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace had as his panel, Karl Rove, Brit Hume, Howard Kurtz, Karl Rove, and token liberal Juan Williams.

However this time Williams decided to provide a little more than simply token resistance to the Right Wing conspirators.

Here is a breakdown courtesy of Raw Story: 

Williams pointed out that there was “not one shred of evidence that the White House knew about this beforehand, they covered up anything.” 

“To make a scandal out of this, really — you say this is not going away, let me tell you, this is gone away,” William said, turning to Rove. 

“No, no. No, it hasn’t,” Rove replied. “The American people were lied to. Somebody concocted a deliberate lie that this was not a terrorist attack, that this was a spontaneous response to video that no one saw. The American people were having [the] legitimate question, why were efforts not undertaken to save our people.” 

“Efforts were made,” Williams pointed out. 

At that point, Rove lost his cool. 

“No, they weren’t!” for former Bush senior adviser shouted. “The death of four Americans and why they were allowed to die and no one went to their aid is not in the weeds, with all due respect, Juan! It’s not in the weeds!” 

“What’s in the weeds is that you continue to prosecute this like there’s some huge crime,” Williams remarked. “Karl, stop living in the past and trying to get after Susan Rice and whoever. This has nothing to do with Ambassador Stevens [Christopher] Stevens.” 

“We don’t who is responsible for lying to the American people!” Rove yelled. “You may be comfortable with the American people being told a deliberate lie by the administration, but I’m not. And I think we need to get to the bottom of it.” 

“Karl, you can continue to raise your voice, but it does not speak to the heart of the issue,” Williams said, rolling his eyes. 

“One more thing, think of the list of — going around this table here — the list of questions that remain unanswered to this day are what make this still a legitimate topic,” Hume opined. “And, Juan, I’m sorry to say that this is simply not over.” 

“It’s gone, baby,” Williams quipped. “It’s in your head. That’s about the only place.”

My favorite part was the uncomfortable chuckling after that last statement.

I don't often give Williams much credit for being the voice of reason on Fox, because to be honest I think most of the time it is an orchestrated charade, but THIS one really seemed to leave a mark.  So good for Juan Williams, and let's see if they invite him back for further discussions on Benghazi.

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre gets an unexpected grilling on Fox news. Is no place safe for the head gun nut anymore?

Courtesy of Business Insider:

 Here's the most contentious exchange: 

LAPIERRE: The President's kids are safe, and we're all thankful for that. 

WALLACE: They also face a threat that most people do not face. 

LAPIERRE: Tell that to the people in Newtown! Tell that to the people in Newtown. 

WALLACE: Do you really think that the President's children are the same kind of target as every schoolchild in America? I think that's ridiculous, and you know it, sir. 

Wallace pressed LaPierre on whether he believes every schoolchild is entitled to armed protection. He also challenged the NRA chief on the gaps in that theory: How they're not protected at the movie theater, the mall, and other places after they leave school. 

LaPierre stumbled, saying, "Which is why we need to do everything else I'm talking about." 

The last contentious exchange came when Wallace disputed LaPierre's logic that only "elite, out of touch" politicians have armed protection next to them. Wallace pointed out that LaPierre also traveled with armed guards to his appearance on "Fox News Sunday." 

"Does that make you an elite, and out-of-touch elite, because you have security?" Wallace said.

Wow! You know if you can't even expect soft ball questions at Fox News, that is when you KNOW the country has turned against you on this issue.

My hat is off to Chris Wallace for holding this douchebag's feet to the fire.

Even Fox News is tired of Romney's bullshit.

Click Ed Gillespie's disbelieving look to play video.

Here is a portion of the text courtesy of Politicususa:

WALLACE: Ryan is saying, we don’t want to get hemmed in. Let’s leave it to negotiations with congress to get into the details. Here’s my question. Why is it all right to tell voters about the candy – hey, everybody is going to get a 20% tax cut, cut in their tax rates, but let’s not tell them about the spinach, which is you’re going to lose some deductions? 

GILLESPIE: We have talked about losing deductions… 

WALLACE: But you haven’t given specifics. 

GILLESPIE: Well, because Chris, in a campaign environment, to start negotiating in a campaign environment you’re going to lock in republicans, you’re going to lock in democrats… 

WALLACE: But you locked them in on the 20% tax rate. 

GILLESPIE: I think people understand that that is a broad principle, that that tax rate needs to come down and we need to broaden the base. That is the principle, the principle is also that we are not going to change the share of taxes paid by upper income earners, and we’re going to give tax relief to the middle class and it’s going to be deficit neutral. You can do all of those things and have people understand that this election was about this and we need this kind of pro-growth tax reform agenda. And, then work out the details in the same way, by the way, Ronald Reagan did with Tip O’Neill with working across the aisle. Governor Romney has a proven record of being able to work across this aisle. 

WALLACE: But you’re not explaining – because there are a lot of question from independent people – how do you pay for it? And you refuse say how you’re going to pay for it. 

GILLESPIE: What we have said is that we are going to pay for it with these, by limiting deductions and loopholes – and, by the way, making sure for the middle class, that protecting the home mortgage deduction and other important deductions for them, but at the high end you would eliminate deductions and, you know, a lot of special interest loopholes that would allow you to bring down the rate 20%. Six different studies have said this is entirely doable. 

WALLACE: Those are questionable, some of them are blogs, some of them are from the AEI, which is hardly an independent group. 

GILLESPIE: These are very credible sources… 

WALLACE: One of them is from a guy who is – from a blog from a guy who was a top advisor to George W. Bush. These are hardly nonpartisan studies.

Did Wallace actually call Romney out for relying on Right Wing propaganda? What the hell does he think Fox News is?

Still if Romney manages to be such a poor excuse for a candidate that he loses the support of Fox News, he is dead in the water.

I don't actually think that is entirely possible, their corporate overlords won't allow it, but it IS possible that they start to demonstrate their frustration on camera with the lies and obfuscation that the Romney campaign provides in lieu of  actual policy details. And THAT might to lead to a few of the Fox News zombie-like viewers finally coming to the realization that their candidate is a lying sack of shit.

A year ago this month Jon Stewart went into the belly of the beast to confront Fox News over their biased coverage and defend his brand of comedy.

Considering the anti-Obama garbage that Fox is producing now, and their attempts to help the Republican party destroy democracy in this country, that this was a relevant interview to see today.

Watch how Stewart remains perfectly reasonable while he carefully explains the difference between a satirist and a humorist, as opposed to a journalist or propagandist.

P.S. There are some good shots at Palin in this interview as well, for those of you who only come here for that kind of thing.

Rick Santorum goes out of his way to earn the anger that gay Americans feel towards him.

Courtesy of Huffington Post:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum doubled down on his recent comments opposing allowing gay soldiers to serve in the U.S. military, invoking the image of soldiers showering together to explain his support for reinstating the discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" policy. 

"The problem is that sexual activity with people who you are in close quarters with who happen to be of the same sex is different than being open about your sexuality," Santorum said on "Fox News Sunday." 

Fox host Chris Wallace pushed back, asking Santorum if he was suggesting gay soldiers would "go after" their colleagues. 

 "They're in close quarters, they live with people, they obviously shower with people," Santorum said, saying the presence of gay soldiers could have an adverse "effect on retention and recruitment."


You know having been the victim of a "Google bomb" myself I would usually cry foul when it is used against others.  But I have to say that Santorum deserves for people to learn that he is "a frothy mixture of lube and fecal mater that is sometimes the result of anal sex."

Oh, did you not have have breakfast yet? Sorry.

By the way I am NOT in the habit of giving compliments to Fox News hosts, but I was king of impressed by how aggressively Chris Wallace went after Santorum on this topic.

Almost sounded like actual journalism.

Chris Wallace to Michele Bachmann: "Are you a flake?" Can I answer that?

Oooh, I do NOT think that Bachmann enjoyed that question!

"Well I think that would be insulting, to say something like that."

Really? Because Wallace JUST said something like that.  So if she were to be insulted you would think THIS would be the time. I don't believe she is completely connected to reality.

(H/T to Political Carnival.)

Chris Wallace tries to convince Jon Stewart that Fox is not a propaganda tool for the Republican party. Anybody want to bet on how that goes?

Jon Stewart to Chris Wallace: "You're insane!"

Conan O'Brien on Sarah Palin's Paul Revere kerfuffle.