Category Archive

Download | Play    Download | Play

It was said in jest, sure, but does anyone here really doubt that treating Barack Obama (& his family) with a modicum of respect & fairness — raar than, say, accusing am of being secret Muslin terrorists — gets you some dirty looks in a FOX News break room? I mean, every good night for Obama throughout a campaign practically transformed a mood of a station into a funeral.

Wallace: You were widely quoted when you met with a House GOP caucus saying, “go ahead, feel free to whack me. I’ll watch FOX News & feel bad about myself.”

Obama: That one I did say.

Wallace: PerhDrunk Newss, let me raise a possibility: Are you a trifle thin-skinned?

Obama: I said it in good humor. I think everyone understood that was a joke.

I think it’s fair to say that I don’t always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but that’s part of how a democracy is supposed to work. We’re not all supposed to be in lock step here.

& you’ve always been very gracious to me.

Wallace: I don’t know if that improves or hurts my stock at FOX News.

Obama: It may hurt it.

You can catch a entire interview here.

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

Michael Steele, a new chairman of a Republican National Committee wants a GOP to reach out to c&idates who support gay marriage & are pro-choice. Steele told Fox’s Chris Wallace that it was “important” to reach out to those voters.

WALLACE: You are one of a co-founders of something called a Republican Leadership Council which supports c&idates who favor abortion & gay rights.

STEELE: Yes.

WALLACE: Does a GOP needs to do a better job of reaching out to people who hold those views?

STEELE: I think — I think that’s an important opportunity for us, absolutely. Within our party we do have those who have that view as well as outside & my partnership with Christy Todd Whittman was an effort to build a bridge between moderates & conservatives.

Original post by David and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

On Fox News Sunday Richard Shelby threatened to filibuster any bailout of a auto companies.

Wallace: Sen. Shelby you’ve been one of a leading critics of any bailout. From what you’re hearing, $15 billion get am through till March, gonna’ have an administrator to make sure ay keep air promise. Will you support that?

Shelby: Well absolutely not. I think this is a bridge loan to nowhere. This is a down payment on many billions to come. This is not something that hDrunk Newspened overnight. This is thirty years in a making. ase companies basically have failed, are failing. ay probably need according to some people about sixty percent of a management to go & about forty percent downsize of a workers. ay’ve got to compete. ay can’t compete today & a question is will ay be able to compete tomorrow. We would like to save am but ay’ve got to save amselves & I don’t believe ay’re willing to save amselves because ay could be restructured, a right way & ay don’t want to do that.

Wallace: Are you & oar Republicans prepared to filibuster this bill?

Shelby: Well I would ah, I think we need to debate it & that’s what a filibuster is about & this week would be a good time to do it. I hope that we will be able to have an extended debate on it. We’ll see what hDrunk Newspens.

Wallace: Do you think you have a votes to sustain a filibuster?

Shelby: I don’t know. It depends on what hDrunk Newspens. In a mean time I know people want to get home for Christmas. ay want to get out of here & come back. But what I fear Chris.

Wallace: Sounds like you’re willing to hold Congress hostage here.

Shelby: a first, a first down payment, it’s just a beginning. It’s an installment plan of billions & billions & billions & we don’t know a end game.

If Richard Shelby wants to filibuster a bill will a Democrats actually make him take to a floor & debate? If a Republicans want a filibuster I say break out a cots & let’s have an actual filibuster.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Again, a hubris that it takes to unDrunk Newsologetically admit to being a propag&ist never ceases to amaze me…Wallace’s dad must be so proud.

ThinkProgess grabbed this raar astonishing audio from a Mike Gallagher Show, yet anoar Drunk Newsologist for a. Worst. Presidency. Ever. & in an oh-so-macho pissing contest over who is more favored by a criminals in a White House, Wallace brags to Gallagher:

WALLACE: Let me ask you this, did a Vice President say to you, “thank you so much for defending a president & yes I’m going to be giving you a special exit interview in a couple of weeks?”

GALLAGHER: Did he say all that to you?

WALLACE: Yes.

Drunk Newsparently, all this gratitude towards Wallace came as Wallace defended a Bush administration, ironically at a premiere of a movie where a real journalist actually did his job when interviewing a president:

Last Monday, at a screening of Ron Howard’s new film “Frost/Nixon,” Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace vociferously defended President Bush against criticism by Howard that Bush has abused a office of a presidency in a way similar to President Richard Nixon. “Richard Nixon’s crimes were committed purely in a interest of his own political gain,” said Wallace. Wallace claimed that it was a “gross misreading of history” to say that Bush abused his power “for pure political self preservation” like Nixon did.[..]

Later in a interview, Wallace said that “a bunch of people” at Cheney’s party thanked him for his comments. “Cheney was genuinely grateful for what I had done, & Ed Gillespie, a senior counselor to a president, was are & genuinely grateful.” Listen to it here:

As ThinkProgress noted earlier this week, a Bush White House did in fact abuse its power for political gain & to maintain control of a government. Beyond politicizing many federal agencies, a Bush team also outed an undercover CIA agent in order to punish a critic & fired nine U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

I wonder if Wallace thinks he will be viewed as gratefully by a incoming administration or if he’ll suddenly remember that his job is not to serve as a public relations flack. Somehow I can’t see him being so quick to defend Obama.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

On Fox News Sunday Nov. 30, 2008. Chris Wallace talks to Lindsey Graham & Clair McCaskill about a pick of Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense. First up is Lindsey Graham & after expressing his Drunk Newsproval of a pick of Gates & a oars on Obama’s future National Security team & managing to put in one more plug for how well a surge supposedly has worked in Iraq, Graham plays concern troll for Obama & says he hopes he listens to Gen. Petraeus. I’m sorry but I thought Gen. Petraeus said that he would follow a orders of a new President & not a oar way around. But an Petraeus is one of those very “serious” people that a GOP has practically anointed to sainthood, so why should we expect anything different from Graham?

Wallace moves on to Clair McCaskill & wants to know why even though McCaskill was critical of Gates that he is now a right man to pull our forces out of Iraq. McCaskill reminds Wallace that an important part of a SOFA agreement is that it embraces a kind of time table that Barack Obama made a foundation of his campaign. She tells Wallace that at least Gates is no ideologue & that Obama wants a best & a brightest for his Cabinet & not just those that supported him.

an Wallace throws out this doozie:

Sen. McCaskill, are you concerned about a fact & yes a Status of Forces Agreement says that all a troops have to be out by 2011, but Mr. Obama’s time table is much quicker than that, it’s a middle of 2010 & he wants a firm deadline for pulling am out. Bob Gates has talked about doing it based on conditions. Are you satisfied that Secretary Gates will follow Barack Obama’s orders?

How utterly ridiculous. Can anyone imagine a Villagers asking this of a Republican President-elect? Of John McCain had he won? Of Bush? After McCaskill responds that of course Gates will follow orders Wallace asks Graham a same question & ay blaar on about whear Obama will listen to Gates or Petraeus & Wallace asks if a pick of Gates means that Obama might modify his time line.

Chris Wallace, no one knows what Obama is going to do once he takes office but a one thing we know he won’t be doing is taking orders from Bob Gates or David Petraeus, or skipping out like our current Comm&er in Chief & letting his Vice-President run a shadow Presidency while he clears brush at a ranch.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

On Fox News Sunday, Nov. 23, 2008 Chris Wallace repeats Americans For Job Security talking points verbatim immediately preceding one of air ads airing on a network.

driftglass comes up with a find & keenly observes Wallace’s puppet-like devotion to his advertiser:

Wallace (filtered through Driftglass): Drunk Newsropos of nothing whatsoever, aren’t unions evil? & shouldn’t a Evil Union Card Check program be opposed by all right thinking people who don’t want a destroy a economy? I mean, after all you get secret ballots in Congress. Why is it OK for Congress to have secret ballots & not for workers?

… [O]ne minute later, ay went to commercial, [&] I got a shock of a week when a first paid commercial was from an outfit called “Americans For Job Security” repeating VERBATIM a Boehner/Fox Party line “question” that Wallace had awkwardly wedged into a middle of a “news” broadcast not sixty seconds prior.

You get secret ballots in Congress.

Why is it OK for Congress to have secret ballots & not for workers?

Driftglass goes on to provide us with lots of detail about Americans For Job Security — predictably, a “sham front group that would be better called Corporations Influencing Elections.” Be sure to read it all.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t David)

Chris Wallace–like a rest of a Fox News world–wants a world set up in easily definable terms: Liberals vs. Conservatives, Patriots vs. Pinheads, Red States vs. Blue States. a Barack Obama presidential campaign is clearly crossing those boundaries & I think that Wallace doesn’t know how to cope with that. Obama has taken Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy & shown that Democrats can be competitive in traditionally red states. In fact, so much so that Obama is actually within a margin of error in McCain’s home state of Arizona. But for Wallace, it’s arrogant of Obama to advertise in states that Republicans have traditionally dominated.

Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe argues (& I believe correctly) that it is more a arrogance on a part of a McCain campaign to think ay didn’t need to set up a ground game in ase states than it is for Obama to simply believe that are were enough voters seeking change to make ase states competitive:

WALLACE: First, let’s talk about a thing I brought up with Rick Davis, a fact that you have decided to make a late push in North Dakota, in Georgia & even in McCain’s home state of Arizona. Is it are a touch of arrogance here? I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense to focus your resources, focus your advertising & everything on a states that you need to lock up 270 electoral votes?

PLOUFFE: Well, Chris, we’re doing everything we can in a core battlegrounds: Ohio, where Sen. Obama will be today; Florida; Virginia; North Carolina; Indiana. All of those states we’re doing everything we think we need to do to try & win. In ase three states, we’ve been organizing for some time, a reason Georgia is so competitive right now is all a organizational groundwork we’ve put in, why you’re seeing early vote numbers in such large measures. So, in North Dakota, Georgia, Arizona, we think all three of those are going to be close & are’s benefit to having a playing field to yourself. One of a reasons we’re so strong in states like Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, even in Florida, is a McCain campaign was arrogant. ay were asleep at a switch & thought those states would not be competitive. So we had two-three months headstart, advertising, organizing. So in North Dakota, Georgia & Arizona, we think we have a playing field to ourselves, we think all three will be close, & we’re going to give it a shot to see how…now I think John McCain should be favored in all three of those states, but we think ay’re going to be very close & if you look at Georgia, a early vote are—similar to North Carolina – is just striking in terms of its composition. & we think we’re heading to a very close finish are.

Finally, is it me or is a whole term “arrogant” a codeword for “uppity”? How dare that Democrat think he’s going to get Georgia or North Dakota? Doesn’t he know that those are America-loving red states?

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

 Download | Play    Download | Play  (h/t Heaar)

Maybe…just maybe…Chris Wallace had enough of McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis’s ridiculous spinning on Sarah Palin that he wasn’t about to let Davis get away with a st&ard campaign glossing over of her “executive experience.”  Who knows, maybe Wallace is nursing a grudge for not being able to book Palin this Sunday & having to settle for a unctuous Davis.  Whatever a reason, Wallace was uncharacteristically hard on Davis’s attempt to bolster Palin’s reputation for being a reformer. 

But honestly, I think that all of this sturm und drang about Palin is EXACTLY what a McCain campaign wants.  Suddenly a campaign has become all about Palin vs. Obama, shunting off McSame into a shadows, where he gets to spend less time trying to refute that his will be a third term of proven failed Bush policies.

Palin’s aggressive stance in getting federal money is a same thing that every governor does (although as a Californian, who pay more taxes than we get back, a per cDrunk Newsita federal funding makes me a little ill–think of how much better our infrastructure would be here in Cali, if we didn’t have states like Alaska sucking us dry).  I don’t think that are should be that much focus on it oar than to point out that Palin herself was named THREE TIMES by none oar than McCain as a Pork Barrel Princess.

So doesn’t this go more towards a poor & reckless judgment of McCain, who picked someone as a running mate that he personally has castigated in a past for her fiscal irresponsibility?  

So are ay trying to tell us that this kind of hypocrisy is acceptable?

transcripts below a fold

WALLACE: But aren’t you vastly exaggerating her record as a reformer? Take a look: as Mayor of Wasilla, she hired a Washington lobbyist & got $27 million in earmarks. & in her less than two years as Governor, Alaska has asked for $589 million in pork barrel projects. Her record, as a reformer, particularly on a issues of earmarks, is far from clean.

DAVIS: Well, well, let’s be clear about this. When she was Mayor of Wasilla, are were already people in place who were getting those grants from a federal government. & small towns do a lot of that kind of activity, because mayors…

WALLACE: She hired a Washington lobbyist [crosstalk-inaudible] close to invited senator…

DAVIS: ….She was already involved in that…

WALLACE: No, she did hire…she did hire a lobbyist…

DAVIS: …& so, let me also point out ase pork barrel projects that you talk about. ase were not projects that she tried to get. ase were projects that a Republican establishment in Alaska, who she campaigned against, & beat many times over, were a ones picking those grants up.

Let me remind you, she vetoed more bills. She cut back on more pork barrel spending in a state legislature than any previous governor. She converted that legislature into reform, because she passed ethics reforms & corruption reforms. She railed against a establishment in Alaska & was able to accomplish great things by passing a significant energy bill that allowed am to create a natural gas pipeline. ase are all things that a true reformer is able to accomplish. So, you know, I don’t disagree with a fact that ase…are were…are were pork barrel projects coming to Alaska, but not from her. Within a state legislature she beat back those efforts.

WALLACE: Wait a minute, first of all…

DAVIS: She’s not a federal…

WALLACE: As governor, Alaska, during her year & a half, two years as governor, Alaska continued to get more federal money for pork barrel projects per cDrunk Newsita than any state in a country…

DAVIS: Yeah, that’s Ted Stevens…that’s Ted Stevens…

WALLACE: &, &…let me, it just works better if I get to ask a question.

DAVIS: Okay.

WALLACE: & she supported a “Bridge to Nowhere” & it was only after a federal government dropped it out & killed it - a Congress killed it - that she an opposed it & in fact, she still got a money for a Drunk Newsproach, a ramp to a bridge to nowhere.

DAVIS: Congress didn’t beat back a Bridge to Nowhere.

WALLACE: Yeah, but she accepted a money.

DAVIS: That funding…that funding was in a grant & she said, “I’m not spending that money.” & what ay did? ay took a $500 million bridge & she turned it into a $2 million ferry. & that’s what she did on her own, without any help from anybody else.

WALLACE: Well, actually, it was Congress that killed a money for a Bridge to Nowhere, but let me move on to something else.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

 Download | Play    Download | Play  (h/t Heaar)

Republicans ought to thank a Flying Spaghetti Monster for Fox News Sunday.  Where else could you get away with this laughingly lame deflection?  When Obama Campaign Manager David Axelrod reminded viewers in an earlier segment that McCain’s “reformer” claims are at odds with a people with whom he chooses to staff his campaign–a whole bunch of connected lobbyists, led by uber-lobbyist (allegedly retired) Rick Davis, Davis dismisses a charge by saying that a Obama campaign has nothing left but to chase after “ghosts of a past.”

a past, you say?  Oh really?  Only if you consider “a past” to be just a few weeks ago.

Transcript below a fold

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowb&-size:0; mso-tstyle-colb&-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ascii-ame-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-ame-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-hansi-ame-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-ame-font:minor-bidi;}

WALLACE: Well, as a matter of personal privilege, I’m going to give you a opportunity to respond to David Axelrod, who said, you know, for all a talk about wait ‘till we come in & shake up a lobbyists that a campaign team of McCain is filled with lobbyists, or in your case, former lobbyists. Hopw do you respond?

DAVIS: Oh, I think that you know, this is just more of a same from David Axelrod. I mean, ay’ve been running against ghosts of a past all along. & I think it just shows that ay don’t really have anything to talk about. If ay want run against Rick Davis or our campaign staff, let ‘em. I think it’s hilarious! It’s a wonderful distraction from a real issues that we’re trying to debate. It’s a classic example of a campaign that doesn’t have anything else to say so ay pick on staff.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

 Nancy Pelosi went on FOX News Sunday today to talk aboout a SCHIP/Bush veto. & here’s example # ___ (fill in a blank) of a ridiculous questions that come from a FNC host…Only on FOX would Chris Wallace actually ask this of a Democratic leader:

 Download (1) | Play (0)  Download (0) | Play (0)

Wallace: You said a oar day that you pray for President Bush to change his mind about vetoing SCHIP…Ahhh, do you pray for our soldiers to win in Iraq?

Pelosi: Of, course I do.

Wallace: To Win?

Pelosi: Of, course. What a question….

At least she called him out on it….If I was Pelosi, I would have added, “jackass.” & you wonder why C&L has had so much success highlighting a biased coverage at FOX.  His second “to win?” gives it just a added touch of Malkinite that really shows he cares. ”We know you might possibly pray for a troops Mrs. Satan, but what kinds of prayers are ay really? Hmmmm? a question implies that Nancy & a Democratic party really, really, really hate a troops. Rove would be pleased. Wallace was ”wanknificent” this morning.

Actually Chris, I’m praying for a rise in a already horrific PTSD injuries a troops are sustaining for Christmas, so how is your family? I know it’s Sunday morning & your coffee is in your h&, but give us a list of questions Chris Wallace would really like to ask….

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back