A modest proposal: let's just refer to "Republican Fox News."

"It seems to me that any pretense that [Chris Wallace] remains a journalist must now be retired."

Wallace lost all pretense of journalism when he interviewed Bill Clinton just prior to the '06 elections and asked him why he didn't do more to prevent the terrorism that occurred while President George W. Bush was vacationing in Texas.

I still think the FOX news folks would look terrific in uniforms... something brown-shirted, or maybe -- for that exotic mediterranean look, a solid black uniform. super-cool...

It's freakin obvious to everyone by now. Chris Wallace is a tool and a sneaky little shit. He is one of the few who understands how pretenses can further his goals. And his goals are one with Murdoch's oligarchy.

Liz Cheney's Dover comments will be a blip on the history Radar, but I think that will be when even the military turns on the 27% Loon party.

They are done.

Also, what was the prupose of CBS Radio making Limbaugh's attack on the president a feature of the hourly national news round-up. It wasn't even news. News would have been if Limbaugh had endorsed health care reform.

It's obvious that with the GOP's move to eliminate moderates from the party (see NY, Hoffman) they are doing the exact same with their PR arm.
"Let's pull this thing even further right, arrrr," says Capt. Murdock

I believe Fox is giving Slimeball a test run to see how many viewers he pulls in. Prepare for simulcasts of the radio show on FOX.

I listened to parts of the interview on CSPAN's radio replays of the Sunday shows. It would have been more appropriate if the interview had been conducted in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport.

Here's hoping Stewart mea culpas on his kissing Wallace's ass on the next Daily Show.

You write: Best of all, after the program, Wallace praised Limbaugh as "very nice, very sweet."

WTF? I've heard a lot of guys say this about a lot of girls. Even in that context, the words are not necessarily a compliment. But in response to Rush... WTF?

Maybe Wallace was referring to that anal cyst that allowed Rush to avoid serving his country. In the chicken-hawk Repub Party of Dick ("other priorities" = five deferments) Cheney, Rush is a true role-model.

Chris Wallace has been riding on his daddy's coattails since day one."My daddy is a respected journalist therefore I'm one too"

Doesn't Chris Wallace know it's not really journalism when you interview someone you are dating? Or was this "interview" their first date?

I just have to ask... Is there a more despicable person in this country than Rush Limbaugh? Now that Jeff Dahmer and Ted Bundy are no longer among the living, I mean.

Even Chris Wallace's own father thinks he's a jerkoff.

@hells littlest angel

Do you have a link or two for that? I've been wondering for a few years now what the Legendary Mike Wallace thinks about his son's foxy career. I've been hoping that Mike wasn't proud of Chris...

I really don't need Andrew "Fifth Column" Sullivan to be lecturing us on who is or isn't a journalist - or anything else for that matter. It's long past time for him to go back to England and stay the hell out of our business.

Chris Wallace is simply a monkey dressed in a bellhops uniform, complete with the little hat, tethered to a hand held organ playing wurlizter music, and dancing to the tune being churned out by the corporate hand that is playing it ...

So basically it's down to Shep Smith, and that's it.

NOW retired? As usual, Sullivan is way behind the curve. Wallace threw away the last fig-leaf of pretense to be a journalist when Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with him that she "prays every day for our troops," and he demanded, with prosecutorial zeal, "To win?"

I still think the FOX news folks would look terrific in uniforms

Well, Wallace and Limbaugh certainly did dress alike for the interview.

Will read the rest of the comments later, but I just have to be one of the doubtlessly many among you wondering exactly when the hell when Wallace was anything but a factually challenged, hard right, Republican hack.

For years, I time-shifted so I could watch all the broadcast Sunday bobblehead shows. I would be flabbergasted to meet a progressive who actually thought Wallace was anything like reasonable. It may be that it has been so long since we have seen any reason from conservatives that we have come to believe that it simply isn't possible to be reasonable and conservative.

That isn't actually the case.

Bill Buckley was as hard right as they come; I vehemently disagreed with almost his every verbose pronouncement - but he had some class and the courage of his convictions. He generally had his facts straight and was careful to get the most articulate and intelligent liberals (we didn't run from the term then) to appear on his program. I rememeber debates in which he had himself and the likes of Milton Friedman on his side and George McGovern and J.K Galbraith on the other. I am talking real debates here, not scream fests. One side makes it's point and shuts up, so the other can have it's say.

I don't know how much of "Firing Line" is still available; if you never saw it, I recommend that you check it out. I do know that Youtube has a real classic: Chomsky completely annihilated him re Vietnam. That's fun to watch, but it wasn't one of Buckley's better days.

Wallace is a tool; always has been. I always cringe when some liberal searches through the dungheap of unreason from some wingnut and touts the rare occasion of sanity as the excuse for tossing the SOB a bone. Because of his position as the designated Fox Sunday-morning bobblehead, he has to make some attempt to sound reasonable, so Fox isn't a complete laughingstock, but he is the designated attack dog, he never cedes any point to reason.

Honestly, Steve, I don't know how you could have even watched the thing. Much less, blog about it. I can think of nothing more distasteful than spending a half hour listening to that cretin.

But does no one have a problem with the White House so blatantly waging war against one particular news outlet? Is is it really the place for the president and his staff to be attacking a news station? Why the vehemence on the part of the Obama administration against Fox in particular? Don't you have other things to do like governing our country for example! We're involved in a war for goodness sakes! Let the news media do its job the way it wants to and let the viewers decide with their ratings whether or not they like the station. This is not a White House problem and it never should have been.

arabelle37 @2:14,

Where were you when the Bush administration and the GOP were (and are) "waging war", as you call it, against MSNBC and the New York Times? Mute, I suspect.

Despite, this media meme, there is no "attack"; there is no "war". Obama has reasonable reasons for refusing to appear on the GOP propaganda channel. Not appearing on their channel is not "waging war." The media asks questions about Fox, and then Obama and members of his administration answer those questions truthfully. Answering questions truthfully is not "waging war."

Maybe you should learn to think for yourself rather than allowing the corporate noise machine to do it for you.

Actually, Arabelle, by calling out FOX News on its obviously biased "news" judgment is exactly what the president said they'd do during his healthcare speech to congress.

He said: But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution.

Sounds to me like he meant it. And he's just following through on a promise.

If I call myself a giraffe, arabelle, does it make my neck grow longer?

"News" is objective fact. Media outfits can legitimately call themselves "News" if they can be relied upon to report on it (even with a serious slant) and to adhere to certain minimal journalistic standards which Fox "News" has never bothered to do.

I would refer you to http://www.alternet.org/media/143541/30_reasons_fox_news_is_not_legit/ or any other number of Media Matters articles. Legitimate news organizations don't have to go to court to protect their right to make shit up and call it news as Fox actually did in Florida!

If real news organizations make a mistake, they correct it and apologize - which Fox rarely, if ever, does. They don't defend it as a constitutional right.

"What was the point of the interview"?

It was a childlike FU to all their critics. It was in equal measure a wink-and-grin to all those in the media who rallied to their defense with such spirit during the past few weeks.

And yeah, I'm looking at you, Helen Thomas.