MSNBC Guest: People Oppose Abortion Because "Their Sex Lives Are So Miserable"

RELATED: Coulter Rips MSNBC’s Conservatives, Praises Fox’s ‘Not Stupid’ Liberals: ‘It’s a Real Fight on Fox’

Will Lawrence O’Donnell Have to Answer for Anti-Christie Ad Like Fox & Friends Did for Anti-Obama Ad?

Mediaite.com:

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell proudly announced on Wednesday night that he “wrote” a hard-hitting, campaign-style political advertisement attacking Chris Christie. The ad, which he broadcast on his program, The Last Word, uses the New Jersey governor’s own words against him — a common practice in campaign ads. “Don’t let Christie embarrass and humiliate America,” the ad’s narrator urges the audience.


What’s more, O’Donnell closed his program with instructions for his audience on how to produce similar anti-Christie ads on their own. He even provided them with some helpful clips which could facilitate the creation of those ads. 

Harmless, right? Not so much. 

In May of 2012, Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends found themselves in hot water when the program produced and aired their own campaign-style ad targeting President Barack Obama. The 4-minute commercial was roundly criticized by media observers and prompted Fox News Channel’s Executive Vice President of Programming, Bill Shine, to issue a statement insisting that the ad was “was created by an associate producer and was not authorized at the senior executive level of the network.”

The ad prompted commentary and news reports from outlets like CBS News, ABC News, The Hollywood Reporter, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, Salon, and Mediaite asking whether Fox had crossed a line when they aired what many legitimately considered a pro-Republican attack ad. 

Conservative media critics like HotAir’s Ed Morrissey and The Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik came out strongly against the move by Fox. Zurawik said the video package “resembled propaganda films from 1930s Europe more than it did responsible TV politics of today.”

Even the White House got involved. “White House spokesman Jay Carney had a stern conversation with Michael Clemente, a top executive at Fox News, about the video,” The Huffington Post reported.

“Carney said that ‘Fox and Friends’ had gone much too far.”

Following a firestorm of controversy, Fox announced that the associate producer responsible for the ad was leaving for CNN. 

Forgetting the lessons of that incident, O’Donnell fell into a similar trap. But without the tempo of a political campaign to inspire a backlash against the host’s decision to, by his own admission, write and air an anti-Christie ad, will this move result in any consequences for MSNBC and O’Donnell? 

RELATED:  Inevitable: MSNBC shows now producing their own anti-Christie ads

Sarah Palin: Chris Christie’s Scandal is Nothing Compared to Obama’s Scandals

HotAir.com:

She doesn’t give him a pass on it — as you’ll see, the word “atrocious” is mentioned — but contextualizing Bridgegate vis-a-vis the NSA and Benghazi (and the IRS, and Bob Gates’s accusations, etc) does Christie a big favor. Given the bad blood between them, she could have been much harsher. 

Has any all-star tea partier really unloaded on Christie yet, by the way? It’s strange that after three days of punishing media coverage, the Republican who’s taken the biggest swing at him is … this guy. 

RELATED: Rush Limbaugh Chides Fox News for Defending Christie

Barack Obama Still Denies Being A Liberal Terrorist

HotAir.com:

This is longstanding Obama shtick but feels more anachronistic by the day. Being seen as post-partisan and “pragmatic” was key to his 2008 Hopenchange message, reassuring centrists and libertarians that their fears of electing a liberal were overblown. Then he got elected, rammed through a giant stimulus, passed a landmark redistributionist health-care boondoggle, ran trillion-dollar deficits, demanded tax hikes on the rich, blocked Keystone as a favor to environmentalists, inevitably “evolved” on gay marriage, and of course remained a stalwart defender of the right to abortion. He didn’t even bother, really, with the “pragmatist” crap last year, concluding that he was better off turning out his base and trying to hold centrists by demonizing Romney than pushing more post-partisanship BS that no one would believe. Good call, as it turned out. He got reelected — and then began his second term with a big gun-control campaign followed by a call for action from Congress on legalizing illegals. Right down the middle, our Barry.

I don’t know why he’s come back to this now, five years in. Maybe, as the walls close in from the ObamaCare debacle, Democrats feel some atavistic impulse to return to what worked in the past. The “extremist Republicans” narrative was a sterling success for them in 2012. Think it’ll help with someone who’s now paying an extra $200 a month in health-insurance premiums?

Despite those problems, the White House expressed optimism on Sunday that Democrats could regain control of the House of Representatives, which has blocked many of Obama’s top policy priorities – on ideological grounds, Democrats would say.

The president called that chamber a barrier to progress in his remarks and said there would be broad consensus on issues such as immigration reform if politics were stripped away.
“I’m not a particularly ideological person,” he said, saying pragmatism was necessary to advance the values that were important to him.

Says Jonah Goldberg drily of Obama’s self-styled pragmatism, “Saying he only cares about ‘what works’ at this point in his presidency is more of a problem given that his signature achievement, you know, doesn’t.”

Simple question: Don’t liberals consider Reagan an ideological conservative even though he deviated from conservative orthodoxy in certain ways? Obama’s been surprisingly hawkish on drone strikes and NSA surveillance despite his liberal pedigree; Reagan, depicted as a crazed warmonger by some of his lefty critics, stuck to diplomacy with the Soviet Union and withdrew from Lebanon not long after the barracks bombing. He also signed the most permissive amnesty for illegal aliens in modern American history and gave up on abolishing the Department of Education despite running on it in 1980. The entitlement state weathered eight years of his presidency (and 12 years of Bushes) to deliver the fiscal crisis that threatens the country now. In fact, one of the left’s favorite ways to needle tea partiers is to claim that their hero, the Gipper, governed too moderately to be nominated by the GOP today. Does that mean Reagan wasn’t really an ideological conservative?

Of course not. No one, Obama included, disputes that he was. He split from doctrinaire conservatism when political realities of the moment forced him to, but his vision was one of smaller government, lower taxes, and robust defense spending to counter communism. It’s also political reality that tends to force O’s deviations to the center. If he had refused to use Bush’s counterterrorism tools and the country had suffered a major terrorist attack, the political fallout for Democrats would have been brutal. He could have crafted his own entitlement reform deal with Democrats in 2009 when they controlled Congress, but he made no serious gestures towards it until the GOP reclaimed the House and Boehner gave him a reason to discuss it. Even his signature boondoggle, which the left now likes to remind people is a public/private hybrid, is a hybrid of necessity: Not only would it have been a bridge too far politically for a few centrist Democrats in Congress to pass single-payer, it would have been enormously disruptive to health coverage in America, needless to say. Obama himself has said in the past that he’d prefer single-payer if we were starting from scratch — pretty ideological! — but that economic reality is what it is, leaving a hybrid system the only option. ObamaCare’s not his preference, it’s just the best he can do. That’s not “ideological”?

RELATED:  The Five: If Obama’s Not a ‘Real Socialist,’ Does That Make Him a ‘Fake’ One?

Idiot Black Liberal W. Kamau Bell Celebrates "Transgender Awareness Week"

Black unemployment remains double that of the national rate. Black teenage unemployment rate is approaching 50%. Crime, drugs, poverty, teenage motherhood and lack of education (esp. amongst black males) remain as huge problems in the urban, black community...and has gotten much worse since a half-black President made it into office 5 years ago. And yet, this fool, an obvious puppet for Godless, white, social liberals, is concerned about a confused white boy having the "right" to use the girls bathroom:

After Totally Biased host W. Kamau Bell saw how Fox & Friends covered a recent story about transgender rights, he decided to celebrate Transgender Awareness Week by teaching the show a lesson on what it means to be one sex but identify as a different gender. So, for the Fox hosts’ benefit, he presented a new segment called “Human Sexuality: 1-0-Huh?” 

“Because this story’s about denying people’s rights, Fox & Friends wanted to weigh in,” Bell said, before playing a clip of former host Gretchen Carlson wondering if kids will pretend to be “transgender for the moment” just to use a different bathroom at school. “Sure, like when I watch Fox & Friends and I become an idiot for an hour,” Bell said. 

The host proceeded to use imagery of bananas and peaches to explain that some people are both with penises, others are both with vaginas and and some could be born with a combination of both. “All that determines your sex,” he said. “Male, female or peach-nana.” 

RELATED:  Transgender rights make Fox News hosts really, really mad!

Politiks As Usual: In The News 10/13/13

Senate Rejects Plan For Debt Limit Deal

Gawker Writer Mocked and Excoriated For Trolling Mommy Blog

Left's New Crusade: Adult-Kid Sex

Francis Spufford Says Athiests Put Religion to All the Wrong Tests

Paul Ryan Is Not The Problem 

Obamacare: Mind-Boggling Incompetence

Judge Sued After Sending Teen Back to Home Where She Was Then Raped 

MSNBC President Wants 'Investigation' Into Fox News' 'Impossible' Ratings Gain

Documentary Tells Faith Story of NBA Star

Hail to the Redskins: Try as They Might… President, PC Media Will Never Get Team Name Changed

Ann Coulter Discusses New Book With NewsBusters: Evidence Suggests Liberals Can’t Learn

Fox News Shutdown! Jay Carney Won't Call on Ed Henry, So He Walks Out of Briefing

The Redskins, Liberalism and Public Opinion: The Way We Live Now

Jesse Watters Confronts Judge G. Todd Baugh Over Short Rape Sentence: ‘What If That Had Been Your Daughter?’

Mediaite.com:

On Tuesday night, O’Reilly Factor producer Jesse Watters traveled to Montana to confront a judge who sentenced a child rapist to a mere 30 days in prison. Judge G. Todd Baugh garnered quite a bit of national outrage for the sentence, as well as some controversial comments he made about the rape victim being partly to blame.

Bill O’Reilly said that Baugh has been “running from the press,” and Watters managed to track him down, but not before speaking to Montanans who were clearly outraged at the sentence. The victim, Cherice Moralez, tragically committed suicide after being raped, and many people found the judge’s comments about her to be in extremely bad taste.

Watters finally confronted the judge at his home. The judge barely spoke to Watters, and when Watters asked, “What if that had been your daughter?” he angrily shoved Watters and stormed inside.

The one piece of good news here is that the sentence might not even be legal, and now the state is appealing for a new sentence, which could take a while. And in the meantime, the rapist will be free.

RELATED: No excuses: Judge Baugh should resign

Fox News Host Gregg Jarrett Fox News Host Defiantly Refers to Chelsea Manning as ‘Bradley’

Just because you "feel" that you're not the gender that God made you or purchase hormones to undergo a "sex change" doesn't change the natural selection process, much less move a 'Y' chromosone to an 'X' or vice versa. And screw the traitor Bradley Manning for demanding that anyone listen to him:

On Fox News’ American Newsroom today, host Gregg Jarrett invited former prosecutor Annemarie McAvoy on to discuss the possibility that Chelsea Manning might sue the federal government if not provided access to hormone therapy. Jarrett continued to refer to Manning, who announced yesterday that she would be living as a female, as “Bradley” and used the masculine pronoun “he.”
After the segment, Jarrett defended this usage:

People out there, don’t send me angry emails that I refered to him as Bradley and not Chelsea and him instead of her. I don’t do what Bradley Manning wants me to do. So thanks very much.

RELATED: 'When Did Chelsea Manning Become Chelsea Manning?' Time Asks in All Seriousness

Elisabeth Hasselbeck Leaving "The View" To Co-Host "Fox & Friends"

Smart decision esp. considering the rumors that slutty wench and serial liar Jenny McCarthy is close to joining "The View":

View co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck is making the jump from network to cable, with the announcement today that she will be leaving ABC’s The View to co-host Fox & Friends.

In Fox’s press release, Hasselbeck says, “I have been a long-time fan of Fox & Friends and am excited to be joining their team in September as it is an honor to call the FOX News Channel my new television home.”

The press release also includes Ailes welcoming Hasselbeck and praising her for her “warm and engaging personality,” and a statement from Barbara Walters saying, “We will miss her and wish her everything good.”

There were rumors back in March that Hasselbeck would be leaving The View this year. Walters denied that Hasselbeck was being pushed out for her conservative views, or at all, for that matter, only to be rebutted by a report a week later saying that Hasselbeck is “toast.” Another rumor sprung up that CNN head Jeff Zucker was interested in bringing Hasselbeck on CNN right after leaving ABC. Hasselbeck will officially start on the couch with Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade in mid-September.

Meanwhile, current Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson will be leaving the morning show to anchor her own daytime program, debuting sometime this fall.

RELATED:  Elisabeth Hasselbeck's Last Day on The View Is Wednesday

NBC Reports Eric Holder Signed Off On Search Of Fox Reporter James Rosen’s Private Emails

Mediaite.com:

According to a report by NBC News investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on the order to issue a warrant on Fox News reporter James Rosen’s communications records. The warrant allowed federal investigators to subpoena Rosen’s private emails as well as to look into his telephone records and those of his family members. 

Rosen, who has not been charged in the case, was nonetheless the target of a search warrant that enabled Justice Department investigators to secretly seized his private emails after an FBI agent said he had “asked, solicited and encouraged … (a source) to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information.”  

“It was approved at the highest levels– and I mean the highest,” said one anonymous law enforcement official. 

“Justice officials have since said they do not intend to criminally charge Rosen, but media groups have condemned the issuance of the search warrant itself,” Isikoff writes. 

Isikoff says that his requests for comments from the Department of Justice have not been returned. 

RELATED:  What About When The President Is Republican? Why Liberals Shouldn’t Dismiss The DOJ And IRS Scandals

Obama Department of Justice Secretly Monitored and Criminalized Three Fox News Reporters

Silencing the only news network that dares to challenge him, that seems to be the objective here:

Earlier today the Washington Post reported that Fox News' James Rosen had been secretly monitored by the Department of Justice. DOJ monitored his work and personal emails, read his work and personal emails, monitored his phones, monitored his movements and even named him as a criminal conspirator. Now, we know Rosen wasn't the only Fox News reporter targeted. Reporter William LaJeunesse, who extensively covered Operation Fast and Furious and national-security senior producer Mike Levine.

Fox News executive Michael Clemente is vowing to stand by reporters and slammed the administration for their intimidation tactics and assault on the First Amendment.

“We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter. In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to comment on the secret monitoring of Fox News reporters and continued to say President Obama believes in a balance between free speech and national security during his press briefing Monday.

"I can't address an ongoing criminal investigation," Carney said. "The president believes strongly in the need for reporters to pursue investigative journalism."

The Department of Justice is justifying its actions and saying the Department followed the law and all regulations in relation to tapping communications of the press.

RELATED: Fox News Responds To ‘Downright Chilling’ Gov’t Snooping On James Rosen

Emergence of Whistleblowers Proves That Charges Of A Benghazi Cover-Up No Longer ‘Fox-Induced Hysteria’

Mediaite.com:

The emergence of a number of whistleblowers who have come forward to refute the claims made by some members of President Barack Obama’s administration relating to the September 11, 2012, attack on an American consulate in Benghazi does not directly implicate the White House in a cover-up. They do, however, demolish the politically-motivated allegations by a slew of commentators on the left who asserted that those reporters doggedly investigating the American response to the attack were onto something. Those left-of-center commentators who dismissed the investigation into the Benghazi attack as a right-wing delusion animated by a personal hatred of the president have never looked more vacuous.


An interim report from the House investigation into the administration’s response to Benghazi released in April is particularly damning. The report found that the decision to withdraw security assets from the region is likely to have come from the highest levels of the State Department. The report also found State’s talking points relating to the attack were altered to remove references to Al Qaeda’s involvement. These edits are unlikely to have been made to protect classified information, and may have been made to support the White House’s election year claim that the terror group had been effectively neutralized.

Some of the claims made by the Benghazi whistleblowers support the interim House report’s assertions.
According to a report in Fox News, one anonymous source and deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, Mark I. Thompson, both allege that Sec. Hillary Clinton tried to get the anti-terror agency “out of the chain of reporting and decision-making” on the night of the Benghazi attack. This claim directly contradicts the testimony Sec. Clinton delivered before the House in January of this year. 

“What happens when a lie goes astray?” Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman asked on November 5, 2012. “You may recall the right wing’s hysteria last week over the way that events had supposedly played out in Benghazi, Libya. Stoked by inflammatory, deeply irresponsible misreporting on Fox News, they insisted that this scandal was bigger than Watergate, and that for his cowardice President Obama would be disgraced as commander in chief and impeached and removed from office should he win a second term.”

On November 27, Bookman continued to celebrate the “utter collapse of the Fox narrative” regarding the Benghazi attack. “For more than two months, the network and those in Washington who follow its lead tried to create a firestorm of controversy regarding Benghazi, but time and again, as facts came to light, each right-wing claim about Benghazi was exposed as false and inflammatory,” Bookman wrote.

“Benghazi has entered the realm of churning, right-wing myth making,” declared Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert in The Huffington Post on November 2, 2012. “The story has become completely detached from reality, and the twisted narrative feeds off itself with constant misinformation that’s repeatedly presented as ‘fact.’ This process is powered by Fox News and the burning desire within the GOP Noise Machine to portray Obama as a monster who is at war with the United States.”

Obama’s supposedly shameful role in the Benghazi story only confirms everything right-wing voices have hated, and warned followers, about Obama for the last four years: He’s foreign. He’s an other. He’s not like the rest of us.

In this way, Boehlert, and much of the MMFA apparatus, linked the ultimately credible claims about inaction on Benghazi with fevered and baseless attacks on Obama’s heritage levied by fringe and unserious actors on the periphery of legitimate political discourse. 

“[T]he latest right-wing allegations about Benghazi have reached the realm of lurid conservative conspiracy porn,” wrote Salon’s Joan Walsh on October 15, 2012, in reaction to an Examiner.com story which noted that Sec. Clinton had and suggested that the White House, not the State Department, were the source of the confused blaming of the attack on an anti-Islamic YouTube video.

Of course, those invested in the narrative that charges of a cover-up relating to the response to the Benghazi attack are meritless are not backing off that insistence just yet. Mother Jones columnist Kevin Drum charges that the Benghazi whistleblowers may not be honest brokers because Obama himself has said he is not aware of their charges. Furthermore, the fact that the whistleblowers are represented by known conservatives is reason to be suspicious of their claims.

One of the State Department whistleblowers is represented by Victoria Toensing, a longtime Republican operative whose name you might recall from both the Monica Lewinsky and Valerie Plame affairs. Ed Henry of Fox News asked Obama about all this at his press conference on Tuesday, but apparently even the vast apparatus of the West Wing can’t keep up with the latest Republican conspiracy theories on Benghazi. Obama had no idea what he was talking about.

Drum cites author Tom Ricks, who made waves after accusing Fox News of hyping the Benghazi story on a Fox News program, who has taken to the pages of his Foreign Policy Magazine column to refute one whistleblower who insists that American air assets could have responded to the second attack on a Benghazi safe house on the night of the attack. Ricks also insisted in his infamous Fox News appearance that the claims of a cover-up in the Benghazi story “aren’t going to stop [U.N. Ambassador] Susan Rice from being Secretary of State.” While Toensing conflict of interest raises red flags for Drum, Ricks’ political allegiances and obvious motive to save face do not appear to serve as reason for Drum to be skeptical of him. 

Beyond Ricks’ own conflict of interest, CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson‘s reporting has indicated that “The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.”

Make no mistake, the narrative that clears the Obama administration from culpability in the failure to save American lives in Benghazi is collapsing.

RELATED:  Benghazi witness: US military response could have ‘scared’ off attackers, prevented mortar strike

Politiks As Usual: In The News 5/6/13

When Christians Become A 'Hated Minority'

Clinton Sought End-Run Around Counter-Terrorism Bureau on Night of Benghazi Attack, Witness Will Say

NBA's Jason Collins: 'Gay' Superhero!

Obama's Commerce Pick Funded Fox News Enemy

Obama: Americans 'Are Root Cause of Violence That's Been Happening Here in Mexico'

Obama's Deficit Promises Never Added Up

So. Carolina Dem Chair: Send Nikki Haley ‘Back To Wherever The Hell She Came From’

Planned Parenthood Targets Black Women

Israeli Raids in Syria Highlight Arab Conundrum

Referee Punched in Face by Teen Player Dies

Lawrence O’Donnell: Obama’s Tax Rate ‘In the High Twenties’; Nope! Try 18.4%

Study Says MSNBC Coverage Almost Entirely Opinionated, While Fox News Includes More Factual Reporting

Branding everything Republican with a "racist" boogeyman, pushing through the anti-God, morally-bankrupt, white, liberal agenda and making sure blacks and Hispanics forever stay on the Democrat plantation...that's MSNBC in a nutshell:

True to its motto, MSNBC has been leaning forward. To the point that its opinionated programming far outweighs its “factual reporting,” according to a new Pew study. While Fox News, too, had more opinionated programming, the network had a much smaller discrepancy between opinion and straight reporting.

The study — which came as part of Pew Research Center’s annual “State of the Media” report — states that opinionated programming comprised 85 percent of MSNBC’s airtime (versus 15 percent of “factual reporting”). Meanwhile, Fox News had opinion 55 percent of the time, with 45 percent straight news.

Of the three cable networks, CNN was the only one where reporting dominated commentary, with 54 percent straight coverage. Since 2007, the study notes that while the networks used to rely “on significantly distinct formats five years ago, the three rivals now look strikingly similar.” 

To compile the report, Pew looked at a half-hour of weekday daytime programming for the first five months of 2007 and 2012, and the first 30 minutes of “general-news focused” evening programs. They “analyzed 6,472 stories over the course of 267 hours of cable programming.”

RELATED:  More Opinions, Better Ratings: Maddow, MSNBC Shouldn’t Be Ashamed Of What The Network Has Become

Bill O’Reilly vs. Alan Colmes Family Spat Shows Why There’s Fox News…And There’s Everyone Else

Mediaite.com:

George W. Bush wins the 2000 Presidential Election by (in essence) 537 votes; Fox News goes to #1 in the cable news race a few months later. 

Bush narrowly beats John Kerry in 2004. Not surprisingly, Fox is still #1, and by a wider margin. 

Barack Obama soundly defeats John McCain in 2008; Fox is still #1 by a Secretariat-esque margin. 

Mr. Obama decisively beats Mitt Romney four months ago; Regardless of which party holds executive power, Fox is still decimating the competition, albeit by a slightly smaller-than-usual margin. Sure, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell are periodically beating Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren in the demo, but for 22 other hours out of the day, it’s not even a fair fight. 

So why does this keep happening? 

Why, for the better part of 12 years, can’t anyone seriously challenge Fox News? 

The country IS becoming more socially progressive, whether it be gay rights, legal pot or its attitude toward illegal immigrants. 

So why isn’t the country—of which 51.1 percent of its registered voters went for Mr. Obama last fall—moving away from a network that many of its critics call an extension of the Republican Party? 

The answer played itself out again this week starting on Tuesday’s night O’Reilly Factor: Bill O’Reilly is speaking with his usual Tuesday night guests in the form of Monica Crowley (conservative) and Alan Colmes (liberal). This is a segment that has existed for years. Colmes is married to Crowley’s sister, bringing a Carville-Matalin element (sort of) to the show. The topic is sequester, who’s to blame, and particularly if the President has any inclination to ever cut anything given his record over his first 50 months in office. 

Part I: O’Reilly claims that Mr. Obama has no inclination to reduce spending, wants Colmes to specifically list what the President is willing to eliminate. 

Part II: Colmes claims that Mr. Obama has been receptive to Medicare and other entitlement cuts, but is speaking in general terms and therefore isn’t as specific as O’Reilly wants…

Part III: O’Reilly (clearly frustrated), calls Colmes a liar, and comes close to dropping an s-bomb on the air, characterizing Colmes’ argument is “bull-blank” and “jack”. The 63-year-old host proceeds to point his finger at his longtime co-worker no less than a half-dozen times, but later apologizes for calling Colmes a liar (while still maintaining he wasn’t being specific in terms of exact cuts). 

But it doesn’t end there on Tuesday’s show: John Stossel, longtime ABC News reporter now Fox News libertarian, doesn’t stick with the original segment topic he was invited on The Factor to talk about. Instead, he tells O’Reilly to his face that he was “obnoxious” and “out of line.” 

The next day, there is no memorandum from Roger Ailes or Bill Shine (Senior VP of Programming) stating that no one else at the network should talk about the incidents. Instead, the other opinion shows—knowing that they’ve got a hot story—use that freedom to run with it, give it legs. 

The hosts of The Five predictably support O’Reilly in his argument that the President doesn’t have the ability or courage to cut spending. Juan Williams, filling in for the show’s lone liberal, Bob Beckel, gamely defends Colmes. 

Three hours later, Kirsten Powers—the “female Colmes” who progressives loathe for actually having the audacity to occasionally go against the usual talking points of her party—confronts O’Reilly directly on his show, says he’s “100 percent wrong” in his argument against the President. She goes on to detail $400 billion in cuts toward federal healthcare spending Mr. Obama proposed, even tweeting out the PDF she used after the segment to drive home her point. 

Remember, O’Reilly is the LeBron James at Fox News: He’s the network’s highest-paid, most influential, most revered player on the team. He’s authored multiple best-sellers, he’s host of a program that destroys everything in the ratings and has since 2001, and is such an influential personality that he receives regular guest invites on CBS, NBC, ABC, The View, Letterman and Leno. 

Yet here’s Kirsten Powers, a liberal contributor, a fellow employee at Fox News who gets infinite crap on a daily basis from fellow liberals for sleeping with the enemy, telling him he’s full of it on his own program. 

You want to know why Fox is #1? 

Let me answer a question with a question: Could you ever picture this scenario happening at MSNBC or CNN? 

Let’s use MSNBC as an example since it’s more opinion-based (hell, it’s ALL opinion-based now): 

Rachel Maddow invites Michael Steele (former head of the RNC and current MSNBC contributor) on her program. They get into an argument over whatever, things get heated. Maddow calls Steele a liar, saying his perspective is complete BS. 

Could you ever, EVER, see O’Donnell calling out Maddow for her treatment of Steele? How about The Cycle? Would S.E. Cupp rush to Steele’s defense while Touré mocked him while defending Maddow? 

Would, say, Steve Schmidt (MSNBC contributor, former McCain campaign manager) come on Maddow’s show the next night and say to her face that she was totally out of line?

The answer, from what we’ve seen, is no. Sure, there is disagreement between guests, small-time players on the network…but not to this degree, not to this level of candor.

Hardball has its share of yelling (mainly from the host) but does that disagreement carry into other shows?

Not on your life. 

Note: This isn’t a moral argument based on good behavior or a better code of ethics. Rather, it is simply one that focuses on which network is more compelling in terms of its personalities and the manner by which they interact with each other. 

And that’s why there’s Fox, and there’s everyone else. It is much like the dynamic of the Howard Stern Show: A mix of characters all willing to take on Howard and each other, and in the most honest of ways.

There simply is no filter on Howard’s show, and the audience revels in being able to witness a family fight on an almost-daily basis. Most importantly, none of the fights are planned or scripted. 

It just happens, just like it does in homes every day across the country. People can relate and therefore can appreciate what they’re hearing. 

Lawrence O’Donnell sat in judgment of the O’Reilly-Colmes brawl just hours after it happened, mocking the former for losing his cool. 

What O’Donnell doesn’t get, what his network will never understand, is that this is the kind of stuff that makes O’Reilly and Fox untouchable: They’re willing to attack each other based on their opinions and principles, all while his brethren at MSNBC wouldn’t dare call out its own in a similar situation. 

Debate and strong opinions are what cable news is all about, even when those opinions are directed at those you may run into at the company cafeteria. 

Fox News gets that. 

Everyone else…well…just look at the numbers.

RELATED:  Unintended Consequences: Cable News Taunting Good For Ego, Not Good For Business

Liberal Professor Bans Students From Using Fox News As A Source: It ‘Makes Me Cringe’

Indoctrinate them when they're young, naive and basically don't know any better: it's the liberal way:

While it’s not shocking that a journalism professor would ban students from citing news sources that are not credible, it is eyebrow-raising that one of those sources would be Fox News. In a copy of a syllabus obtained by Fox, Stephanie Wolfe, a visiting professor of journalism at West Liberty University in West Virginia, banned her students from citing Fox because she finds it cringe-worthy.

In the syllabus, the Wolfe banned The Onion and Fox News. “Please do not subject me to this biased news station,” Wolfe wrote. “I would almost rather you print off an article from The Onion.”

The university’s president, Robin Capehart, did not appear to agree with Wolfe’s decision when asked for comment. 

“One of our values at West Liberty is to encourage students to go out and inquire and gather information and look at as many different sources as possible on any side, before you reach your opinion,” Capehart told a local West Virginia news outlet. “Any attempt to limit the breadth of a student’s ability to investigate is obviously something at which we have a concern.”

RELATED:  Dunn And Dumber: Reports Of Fox’s Death Are Greatly Exaggerated

Jon Stewart Summed Up: Liberal Hypocrite, FOX News Hater and Race Baiter

Mediaite.com:

The true rise of the artist formerly known as Jon Stuart Leibowitz came not during his roommate role in Adam Sandler’s Big Daddy or taking over for Craig Kilborn on The Daily Show in the late 90s. Instead it was a 2004 appearance on the soon-to-be-doomed CNN Crossfire with Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson. 

Watch the clip (below) to witness one guest (a non-controversial comedian at the time, no less) single-handedly destroy a highly-successful cable program in the span of ten minutes. Stewart’s unfiltered perspective, along his unique ability to capture that palpable feeling everybody is thinking but nobody actually talks about, completely disarmed the hosts (particularly Carlson). The show would be abruptly canceled within a year. 

Stewart’s mantra throughout the TKO was pithy and pointed:
“Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America,” he pleaded repeatedly, later adding: “You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.”

Stewart would proceed to label the Crossfire hosts as “political hacks,” and equated both to professional wrestlers: “You’re doing theatre when you should be doing debate.” 

The hosts never saw it coming. 

Carlson: “You need to get a job at a journalism school…”

Stewart: “You need to go to one.”

Game, set, match…

Over 5.3 million YouTube hits later, Stewart was elevated to a broadcast pantheon few in political media have ascended to in terms of respect, admiration and power. As a result, the daily routine for every cable network producer is to assign an associate producer or intern to watch Stewart’s program to find the best clips to insert into a program. If you miss the Daily Show on any given night, no worries…best-of replays are seen all morning on cable news (the target that is Fox News notwithstanding). 

Beloved by Democrats and feared by Republicans for his awesome influence on young voters, AskMen even named the 50-year-old the country’s Most Influential Man of 2010. 

In the end, when talking about dominance in political programing and the hosts who get it — who truly understand what audiences want and how to do a show right — the roster is made up of two people: 

Jon Stewart. 

Bill O’Reilly. 

And that’s it. 

So that’s why it is regrettable to declare that Mr. Stewart has dubiously earned receiving the same lecture given to Carlson and Begala nine years ago:

Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America, Jon. 

This plea comes after Stewart crossed over the line this week during a segment on President Obama and guns. In it, Stewart rightly called out the media for questioning whether the President fabricated a story around his recently revealed affection for skeet shooting. 

The silly season continues for conspiracy theorists choosing to attack the president on this, as the White House has since released a photo of Obama as part-Terminator/part-Matrix-Laurence Fishburne (the protective shades are unquestionably badass) while doing the skeet thing out at Camp David. 

The exercise once again proves certain media members need to be more selective in terms of where to burn their calories when criticizing this president…because when these kind of small-time charges are disproven, it only continues to diminish their already-struggling credibility. 

But regardless of how things turned out here, it was a question Stewart asked on his show that only helps push a toxic racial narrative we’re seeing way too often on cable news. 

Stewart on Thursday’s Daily Show: “Why won’t the black man half the country lives in fear of release a picture of himself holding a gun?” 

With statements like this, it is Stewart who is now hurting the country.

And before applying the same “I’m-just-a-comedian-don’t-take-anything-I-say-seriously-defense” Stewart invariably resorts to when called out in situations like this, keep in mind that he lost that get-out-of-jail-free card when he decided to become as serious as a heart attack on Crossfire on the importance of responsible public discourse. 

Here’s my beef: By automatically believing half the country (OK, 47 percent) only voted against the president because he’s black, because they fear him, it is an affront to the tens of millions who voted for the GOP candidate for reasons other than skin color. 

Maybe, just maybe, it was a listless economy, high unemployment, spiraling debt, the creation of unaffordable entitlements, and a different philosophy on taxes that compelled voting for the other guy…at least that’s what the exit polls showed. 

And by the way, included in the final tally for the Republican ticket were 2.4 million votes by African Americans. So, are they afraid of one of their own…the black guy with the gun? 

Remember when we heard that the only way Obama could lose would be because of closet racism and code words the Romney campaign was subtly imbedding in its talking points like “golf,” “Chicago,” and “lazy”? 

Well, it should be noted that the president received more white votes in 2012 than any Democratic candidate since FDR. And it’s not like he had the tailwinds of a great, or good (or even average) economy at his back.

So much for all that rampant racism derailing the president’s path to a second term…

But Stewart continues to push a racial narrative only thought to exist on a cable news network he rarely criticizes. 

Of course, this is the same host who once did an awkward Amos ‘n Andy imitation of Herman Cain. In this week’s “could you imagine if?” segment, could you imagine if O’Reilly put on black face and did his best impression of Barack Obama? 

Is Jon Stewart a racist? 

Of course not…

But does he play the race card when it comes to painting all conservatives with the same brush? 

Absolutely. 

Apparently over 60 million people in this country fear President Obama as if he was a gun-toting African-American member of a Chicago gang. 

At least that’s the implication. 

Please Jon…

Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting the country.

RELATED: Jon Stewart To Al Gore On Current TV Sale To Al Jazeera: 'I Thought It Was An Odd Move' (VIDEO)

Kirsten Powers: Obama Doesn’t Call On Fox News At Pressers ‘Because He Doesn’t Want To Be Embarrassed’

Speaking truth to power:

Kirsten Powers slammed President Obama Saturday in a roundtable discussion on why Fox News reporters never get called on at the president’s solo press conferences. It’s “because he doesn’t want to be embarrassed,” Powers said. She added that questions from Fox News would be “tenacious” and on subjects “he doesn’t want to get asked about.” 

“He wants softballs,” Powers said. 

Host Jon Scott noted that in a recent study, it was shown that Fox News gets called on at “less than half of the rates” of the other top outlets. ABC reporters get chosen the most frequently, followed by CBS, the AP, NBC and Fox News comes in at ninth place. 

When Obama is asked a question by Fox News, Powers said, it’s similar to when Jay Carney “ends up looking stupid because he doesn’t know how to answer.” 

The rests of the panelists agreed with Powers and said it was “brave” to challenge the “liberal mainstream media.” 

RELATED: Creepy? CNN Reporter Writes Letter To Obama EVERY SINGLE DAY

Kirsten Powers Slams Obama’s ‘Petulant’ Presser: If You ‘Don’t Go His Way,’ He Claims You ‘Starve Children’

Mediaite.com:

Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers slammed President Obama‘s press conference earlier today when she told Bret Baier that his tone was “petulant” and he was “acting annoyed that people were asking him questions.”

Regarding the impending debt ceiling debate, Powers said Obama “didn’t do a great job of explaining the situation” because although a default would be “disruptive,” he “didn’t need to exaggerate it.”

Baier noted that “default is really not an option for the country.” Powers agreed and responded that Obama “could have been straightforward about that.”

Obama saying that Social Security and veteran’s benefits may be delayed, Powers continued, is a “scare tactic.” The GOP has a “fair position,” she added, and Obama is setting it up to appear that “if you don’t go his way, you like to starve children.”

RELATED: Obama Blames Media ‘Preferred By Republican Constituencies’ For Unfriendliness In D.C.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 12/10/12

Obama, Boehner Meet About Fiscal Cliff and Agree -- Not To Say Much

Sandy Victim Accuses FEMA Representative of Discrimination

Supreme Court to Review Gay Marriage

‘Study’ Claims Fox News Viewers Have Average IQ of 80

Newt Gingrich: Yeah, If Hillary Runs in 2016 Republicans Will Lose

Murder, the Chicago Way

CBO: Feds Borrowing $4.8 billion Per Day in FY 2013, So Far

Gay Mafia Objects to Reparative Therapy Proponent on Dr. Oz Show

Honest Barry? Media Hype Comparisons of Obama to Lincoln

George Will: 'Opposition To Gay Marriage Is Dying - It's Old People' 

The 'Polyamorous' Pour Out 'Polyoutrage' on Dan Savage

What's The Truth About the Unemployment Numbers?

Religiously Unaffiliated’ Voting Bloc Helped Propel Obama To Victory