Video: Chris Wallace vs. a very Pale-looking David Axelrod

In this exchange between a very pale-looking David Axelrod, senior adviser to Barack Obama, and Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Axelrod is asked to respond to Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter's remarks that the Benghazi attack is such a big story is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Expectedly, Axelrod doubles down and charges that Romney has politicized the attack and points to an interview Ambassador Chris Stevens' father gave to Bloomberg in which the senior Stevens denounced the politicization of his son's murder.

Axelrod then implies that anyone who discusses the attack isn't honoring the wishes of Stevens' father by saying everyone should wait until the investigation into the attack is completed. Forget the fact that the administration, at minimum, has a conflict of interest when leading any such investigation because it's shaping up to be a major scandal. Simply leaving it in the hands of people who answer to the administration is not acceptable.

Wallace, who was visibly agitated at the insinuation, stops him and points out that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told five different Sunday talk shows on September 16th that the attack was in response to a video, which proved to be demonstrably false.



h/t Free Beacon

Video: Jon Stewart Tells Fox News Sunday Host Chris Wallace he is 'Insane'

Once Chris Wallace and Comedy Central's Jon Stewart get the niceties out of the way, this interview begins its trek into the absurd rather quickly when Stewart actually asserts that he doesn't believe the likes of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other mainstream media outlets do not have a liberal agenda. Yes, he said that. He excuses MSNBC by saying that it is attempting the Fox News Channel model for programming. In other words, MSNBC is 'attempting' to push a liberal agenda because Fox is making them do it.

It goes even further downhill after Stewart tells Wallace the latter is 'insane.' One note before watching. During the interview, Stewart cites unnamed 'polls' that show Fox News consistently has the most misinformed viewers. Unfortunately for Stewart, George Soros is behind at least one of those polls.

Via Fox News:

VIDEO: JUAN WILLIAMS DOES IT AGAIN - REVEALS TRUE SELF

The phenomenon that is Juan Williams just continues to un-mask itself. The arguments this guy has been putting up lately are so literally absurd, objective viewers are left with only one conclusion - conflict of interest. The conflict is the fact that Juan Williams is paid with taxpayer dollars, as an employee of NPR.

At issue in his debate with Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday is the revealing of emails belonging to a Goldman Sachs CEO. Kristol makes the point that Michigan Senator Carl Levin (D) has no right to make such an email public. Williams then compares Levin to a boss who has every right to access an employee's email.

Justifiably, Kristol goes on offense, reminding Williams that a Senator is not the boss of any businessman. Instead of conceding the point, Williams deflects by making some lame argument about stockholders and investors. Williams is increasingly revealing himself as a Big Government hack who is defending the entity he thinks is his boss (Big Government) without realizing who really is - the U.S. tax payer.

This is another amazing un-masking of Juan WIlliams.

via MediaITE

VIDEO: KARL ROVE RIPS WHITE HOUSE WAR ON FOX

The passion is obvious. Rove is not simply making a point. He's unhappy as he does it. To be fair, as a Fox News contributor, Rove is also defending an employer but he's also right. After watching this short clip of the exchange between he and Terry McAuliffe, I was curious about McAuliffe's responses so I checked out the entire segment.

No need to do so. McAuliffe's points were very lame and his spin was very weak but it didn't stop him from trying. He knew he was on the wrong side of the debate but had to defend the White House stance on Fox News.



Nonetheless, if you're a glutton for the punishment of watching McAuliffe defend a completely untenable position, have at it.



Part 2