This is actually a classic Laura Ingraham tactic. She concocted the entire segment as a way to bash through her pre-set hypothesis. The only reason for the guest to be there was to be mocked and ridiculed on the air. Any attempt by him to correct her statements was simply talked over, or laughed at. It’s pretty nasty work when it happens.

“Marv Goble” is invited to provide evidence of even a SINGLE protestor holding up a “Kill Bush” sign. Just a single one. I saw plenty of images of protestors saying to IMPEACH Bush, which was merited. But not to do violence to the man. On the other hand, as has been exhaustively documented here, Fox Nation is full of posts of people threatening violence against the current President and using every racial slur in the book.

As far as insults thrown at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, I haven’t heard them being threatened with bodily harm in the manner that right wingers have gone after President Obama. I would agree that there have been multiple cases of outrageous insults against them. But not threats of violence.

The right wing does not get to rewrite history just because right wingers are embarrassed by their current behavior.

The simplest conclusion I can draw is that Kelly knows she lost the debate, particularly after she lost her temper repeatedly and began shouting incoherently. Dr. Emanuel very patiently tried to explain where she was going wrong, but she apparently preferred to continue yelling at him rather than listen.

And while I wish guests of Fox News could have some recourse to protect them, the sad fact is that a whole lot of them could sue the network for selectively editing their remarks. And that’s not to mention the people who have been defamed in videos aired by Fox without correction, such as the people James O’Keefe and Andrew Breitbart have smeared. Or the union guy in Michigan that Steven Crowder assaulted before editing the video to make it look like the guy was assaulting Crowder.

Stewart is of course correct. Those guys aren’t on Fox News for medical expertise. They’re on Fox News to attack President Obama and to provide any talking points they can to support those attacks.

As Bill O’Reilly admitted multiple times during the shutdown, the goal now is to find any possible way to attack the ACA and the Dems and hopefully make some hay out of that in 2014. Except that this assumes that the American people are completely blind to what the GOP has been doing for the past five years. I wouldn’t make that assumption. Of course, the GOP could just shut the government down again during 2014 and see if that helps their chances in the midterms. But I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes after they attempt such an approach…

I believe Cecelia is demonstrating the advanced skill of ironic humor.

Megyn Kelly did not need to shout at anyone. She was simply being rude to a guest on her show. And she was doing so because he knew what he was talking about and was easily disproving her opinions. Yelling a debunked talking point does not suddenly make it true again, but Kelly seemed oblivious to that idea.

As for what the ACA is or isn’t, it’s quite clear that the GOP and Fox News desperately WANTS it to fail. Just as they desperately wanted President Obama to fail, as Rush Limbaugh angrily announced before Obama was even inaugurated in 2009. But that doesn’t mean that it’s already failed. It just means that the GOP wishes it would.

It’s interesting that Cecelia mentions the “Washington DC bubble” needing to “get a clue”. I would agree at a certain level – Fox News certainly has misled many viewers as to what is happening in the country. Such as when Fox News and right wing media insisted that MItt Romney was going to win the 2012 election in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

As for the “plan” from Ted Cruz, it’s clear that he doesn’t have one. He just wants to attack the ACA again. Now, will he try to get his friends to shut the government down again in January and February? During an election year? If he really thinks that’s a good idea, he should try it and see what happens to the GOP in 2014. Fox News likes to cite lower approval numbers for President Obama, but forgets to note that the GOP House has MUCH lower numbers in the same polls. Such as getting down to 9 percent. Which tells you that Americans may be upset with the way their government is dysfunctional these days, but they’re a lot clearer about where the problem is than Fox News is willing to admit. Fox News also doesn’t want to acknowledge that given the polarization of the country (which they’ve eagerly fomented), it’s unlikely you’ll see any President get much above a 50 percent approval rating other than for a few extreme moments, like the day after an election. Otherwise, you have a 50/50 split, and if some of the Dems are irritated at the moment, you’ll see the approval rating dip. Of course, the current spell is nothing like the cratering of George W. Bush’s approval rating as the economy tanked under his “leadership”. But Fox News didn’t want to discuss that when it happened in 2008. So why is the number important now? Is it because they just don’t like this particular President?

Phil, I’m not sure why you’re trying to defend Peter Schiff’s prank any more than you would defend James O’Keefe’s pranks. These are actions taken not out of an intent to help others, but out of an intention to embarrass people on camera. Schiff isn’t honestly presenting himself to these people or offering them a real question. He’s posing as a non-existent outfit, in an attempt to ridicule people with whom he disagrees. And along the way, he’s harassing and embarrassing people who shop at Walmart. Given his actions, it’s fairly clear this stems from what looks like a deep-seated anger, and meanness.

BTW your idea that Walmart will have to sharply raise their prices if they pay their employees a decent wag, is not completely accurate. Walmart enjoys massive profits each year, while many of its employees earn so little that they need to make use of public assistance. You can’t possibly be defending that as a sustainable or defensible business practice. There are many ways Walmart could adjust to paying a proper wage to its employees. Walmart could accept a slightly smaller profit margin, something closer to the reality of the values they are providing. They could perhaps not reward their executives with quite as generous bonus packages. They could raise their prices, but at a much smaller amount than you’re insisting would be necessary, and people would accept that.

Your premise – that Walmart would have no choice but to skyrocket their prices and punish everyone – is simply not the case.

And none of this changes the fact that James O’Keefe’s videos are misleading and unreliable. And they’re just as mean-spirited as the nasty stunt Peter Schiff pulled here.

Frankly, it’s now clear that Fox News is combining two ideas at once.

First, they’re following the GOP playbook of trying to loudly announce any possible consumers who don’t like the ACA as a way of smearing both it and the Dems for 2014 and 2016. This was Bill O’Reilly’s “sage” advice during the shutdown – let the ACA go into effect (obstructing it at every turn) and then scream about all the problems so that the Dems lose the Senate in the next election, after which the GOP would then immediately repeal the ACA. This seems to be most of what we’ve been seeing on Kelly’s program over the past two weeks without a pause.

And the second idea is the same one the GOP and Fox News have been following since they lost the 2012 election: A massive temper tantrum.

This is simply one more example of O’Reilly disingenuously doing exactly what he says he isn’t doing. He’s trying to play as though he were the temperate, calm, reasoned voice just trying to get everyone on both sides to compromise.

Except that O’Reilly has never been offering a compromise – he’s been hacking away at the ACA and at Obama since the beginning. The point of his “reasonable” alternative would be to effectively kill the ACA by pushing it off for a year to make it possible for a new GOP majority to repeal it assuming that all goes according to the Fox News playbook. Best case for them, the GOP wins big in the midterms as they normally do and then they can instantly repeal the whole thing and override any veto from President Obama. But that won’t really work if the ACA continues to bring people into the exchanges over the next year. And O’Reilly isn’t thinking particularly realistically. The more likely scenario next year is that the GOP loses ground due to all the extreme hard right members refusing to work with anyone else. Meaning that they don’t get the Senate and may lose even more ground in the House. If they inflict another shutdown in January or February, they could even wind up handing the House back to the Dems.

(As a sidenote, that might be an actual thought on the part of the higher-ups in the GOP – to give the hardliners enough rope to hang themselves, and then have the clout with voters to sweep them out of the way. Of course, that assumes that an increasingly angry and frantic hard right GOP base will understand the reason why they are losing elections. So far, they don’t seem to have been getting the message…)

Getting back to O’Reilly, his wild accusation about Single Payer doesn’t hold water for the most basic of reasons. President Obama and the Dems specifically gave up on the Public Option as part of their many gives to the GOP while the ACA was moving through Congress. Most people in the US support a Single Payer system, as it would obviously be the cheapest and simplest way to go. But the GOP rabidly opposes it, as this would both eliminate the insurance industry from what’s been a lucrative market for them and it would create another government program that the GOP would be unable to touch. So the Dems and President Obama only included a weaker Public Option in the original version of the ACA along with all the GOP ideas about “individual mandate” and so on. When the GOP congresspeople screamed about the Public Option, the Dems took it out, among other things, thinking that would help get the GOP to start actually trying to work on the bill with them. Instead, the GOP folded their arms, stomped their feet and refused to participate, other than to repeatedly try to use parliamentary tactics to kill the ACA before it could get out of committee or either house.

This wasn’t a bill passed “in the dead of night” although it did wind up passing without GOP votes. It was passed in broad daylight, with the GOP actively refusing to participate in the process. The GOP wasn’t ignored. They were repeatedly encouraged to help. The Dems caved multiple times on multiple aspects of the bill, and it was never enough for the GOP. Because the goal of the GOP was for the bill to not go anywhere. They wanted a repeat of what they did to Hillary Clinton in the 1990s, when they sandbagged her attempt at health care reform at that time. The idea here was to block everything President Obama did, and then campaign on the notion that he was a “failure” who couldn’t get anything done. When they themselves failed at this strategy, they responded with a series of temper tantrums and further attempts at obstruction. Part of this took the form of the GOP insisting that states be able to regulate the ACA individually rather than having everything done at the federal level. After the Dems caved on this, the GOP responded by having nearly every GOP governor and state house refuse to do anything to support the ACA – which was a backdoor way of not funding it, among other levels of obstruction. Many of those same GOP state officials also filed suit, in an attempt to get a conservative Supreme Court to throw the ACA out – and had this idea worked, it would have timed out to deliver President Obama a crushing defeat right before the 2012 election. Instead, the Supreme Court upheld the law and President Obama handily won reelection, leaving the GOP angrier than they were before, if this was even possible. So now the GOP has tried to shut down the whole government in an attempt to defund the program, and they’ve failed even at that. So what do they have left to do now? Carp about the program, trot out any example of problems with it, and generally grouse about every detail that they can.

I don’t know that there’s a “secret plan” at work here, but there’s definitely a GOP strategy being employed. It’s no secret that they hate this President, and it’s no secret that they will do whatever they can to undermine him. But for all their wishful thinking, he’s going to be in office for the next three years and there’s really nothing they can do about that. Except throw the tantrums we are now regularly seeing on Fox News.

Steve Spence, your comments don’t make sense. First you say that there are no subsidies. Then you say they “will go away”. How can they go away if you just said that they didn’t exist?

Further, you seem not to have actually read the HHS reports that connect to your link. If you actually took the time to do so – just going from the 2014 report, you’ll find that your numbers are misleading in one part and completely false in another.

You say that the percentage of US citizens dependent on welfare is over 23%. That’s not what the HHS report shows. What it actually says is that 23% is the number for US citizens who have participated at ANY amount with any welfare program. That could be as little as a single food stamp, so to speak. (And by the way, in several states, there are employees of companies like Walmart who need food stamps to supplement their wages as they are so low) If you want to talk about dependency, the HHS report defines that as where you get more than half your income from welfare. In that case, the proper number would be 5.2% of US citizens.

You then go on to note that blue states somehow have 50% of their populations dependent on welfare. That’s not indicated anywhere in the HHS reports. But in another 2013 chart compiled from USDA data, I find the following top twelve states for participation in SNAP (food stamps) alone:

Mississippi – 21%
Oregon – 20%
New Mexico – 20%
Tennessee – 20%
Michigan – 20%
Louisiana – 20%
Alabama – 19%
Kentucky – 19%
West Virginia – 19%
Maine – 19%
Georgia – 18%
South Carolina – 18%

This does not line up with your contention of either the 50% number or the idea that the blue states somehow have greater amounts of their populations dependent on these programs. And just thinking logically, we’d all be amazed to hear that half of California and New York were all dependent on Welfare…

This was a particularly noxious interview. Kelly could not tolerate the fact that Colmes was pointing out facts that were inconvenient to her opinion.

But there was one inadvertently funny moment: When Colmes made the comment that conservatives would prefer to hear “I resign”, the other guest happily nodded his agreement.

This may be one of the most unintentionally hilarious suggestions to come from O’Reilly in a while.

Let me see if I understand him correctly. He wants to shut down as much of the ACA as possible and essentially keep it unfunded for another year, with maybe a small number of people signing up here and there. And then, pray tell, what might happen in 2014, when it comes up again. That’s right, there’s a midterm election. An election that O’Reilly is banking on the GOP doing better than expected in, so that they somehow get a majority in the Senate. And then, what do you know? This new hypothetical GOP congress votes to REPEAL the entire ACA, laughing all the way as they do so.

This is why you have to watch what these guys say very closely. O’Reilly has been cannily playing both sides of the fence here, but his true bias has been showing through much more strongly than I think he realizes.

O’Reilly keeps trying to play the reasoned, middle of the road approach for GOP pundits: Let’s just put the brakes on, let’s try to find a compromise solution here. Except that he’s also been hectoring as loud as he could that the law is already “NOT WORKING!” and “a FAILURE!” and “it’s HURTING THE FOLKS, CAN’T YOU SEE THAT???!!!”. So if you follow his narrative, you’d conclude that the ACA is just a disaster, but very reasonable, sage O’Reilly would have you just give it another year to get worked out. And of course, next year, O’Reilly will then argue that “Look, it didn’t work out, nobody wants it, Congress should do the right thing and REPEAL it. And that’s the memo.”

And we should keep in mind that O’Reilly cloaks the whole discussion in heavily anti-Obama sentiments. He suggests that Obama should be impeached for not parsing his words overly carefully about what plans people could keep. (Of course, if Obama had actually given all the caveats for people who had flimsy plans or about craven insurers playing games, O’Reilly would have been the first to seize on that and scream that “the folks” wouldn’t want something that needs so much explanation.) He presents a false narrative about what happened with Syria, presuming that the diplomatic success there was some kind of failure, he repeatedly tries to allege false things about the IRS matter, and when all else fails, he goes running back to the myths about the attack on the Benghazi consulate. All of which fits directly in with the Fox News meme of trying to establish a historical record of President Obama as being some kind of a failure.

And we shouldn’t forget O’Reilly’s enraged rant about how Americans should have voted for Mitt Romney and that they’re getting what they deserved in re-electing President Obama. (Which fits in with Hannity’s statements about how Mitt Romney is the man who SHOULD have been elected in 2012.) That actually ties in with the predictions that O’Reilly was making for more than a year before the 2012 election – that Obama could not and should not be re-elected. Like the rest of Fox News, O’Reilly was furious to see the actual results as they happened. He and the rest of the right wing pundits effectively blamed the electorate (“the low information voters”, “people who want free stuff”, etc) for not letting the right wing have their way. It seems that they’re not done with this idea yet, as futile as it’s been for them.

A final note – Fox News regularly focuses on dropping approval ratings for President Obama, which is to be expected given all the brouhaha about the ACA and all the consistently negative coverage from right wing media. But they also consistently ignore a few basic facts while they are doing so. First, they ignore that the Congressional approval numbers are horrifying, and should be causing the GOP to be a lot more worried than they are willing to publicly admit. Second, they ignore that with the polarization of this country, it’s unlikely you’ll see President Obama get over 50 percent approval at any time – the GOP responders will always give him a “NO!” when asked – which means what you’re really looking at is whether a smaller fraction of Dems and independents are unhappy with this or that latest issue. And those numbers go up and down all the time. Third, it’s interesting that the GOP once again turns to Gallup for the lowest number they could find. Except that they forget to note that Gallup, along with Rasmussen, predicted a Mitt Romney victory when the facts were plainly going the other way last year. I would take their numbers with a grain of salt before believing them – at least for another few election cycles, to give them time to re-establish some credibility. If anyone wants to look at REAL low approval ratings, check out the really scary ones that George W. Bush had before he left office and left the country’s economy in wreckage in 2008. But I don’t recall Fox News trumpeting those numbers – I seem to remember the Fox pundits challenging anyone who presented them. I wonder what the difference is now. Isn’t Fox News supposed to be “Fair and Balanced”?

The right wing’s newest attempt to foment impeachment of President Obama smacks not just of temper tantrums but of desperation on their part. Fox News clearly has no idea how to deal with a fractured GOP and is extremely frustrated that they can’t seem to make life any more difficult for the Obama Administration.

The real problem they’re facing looks like it’s the war between the “business of America is business” Republicans and the more radical right wingers who just want to say no to anything that Democrats and Obama present. Fox News has alternately embraced each of these positions, sometimes within the same hour of programming. At one minute, they’re extolling the virtues of Chris Christie. The next, they’re condemning him for not keeping President Obama out of New Jersey last year after Sandy. One minute they’re openly embracing the radical right and passively endorsing their wildest charges. The next minute, someone like Karl Rove or Mike Huckabee is up there castigating the radicals for making it impossible to govern the country. This is a serious, serious problem for both the GOP and for Fox News, and it bodes ill for them in the long term.

In the short term, the only thing they all agree on is that they hate President Obama and they wish to obstruct him at every possible turn. The multiple attempts to find a “Watergate” in his Administration are just examples of Fox News trying to create a story out of thin air and get their base fired up about something that will never happen. We’ve already heard this song from them multiple times. Remember when Joe Sestak was going to be the downfall of President Obama? Hannity was convinced that impeachment was just around the corner then. How about when Benghazi was going to lead to impeachment? Or maybe the invented IRS “scandal”? None of these went anywhere because they were hot air.

The idea that the GOP wants to portray President Obama’s statements about the ACA as the biggest scandal to tarnish the presidency in 50 years is beyond ridiculous. President Obama made statements that were generally true regarding how the policy would work. He and his advisors chose not to get into minute detail because that would have simply confused everyone. What president would have made this statement: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it – unless it’s one of those really cheap underfunded plans that don’t really cover anything in the first place”? And it’s not true that the Democrats passed the ACA in the dead of night at all. The Democrats and President Obama tried for a year to work with the GOP to find a compromise in the creation of the ACA. The Democrats caved on multiple issues – they based the plan on a GOP template, they folded multiple times on any number of levels, and they even gave up the public option, which was the only reason to come up with this plan in the first place. The GOP’s response was to continue to obstruct and delay, in the hopes they could repeat their success of blocking the Clinton-era attempt via intransigence. At that point, with the GOP clearly having no interest in participating, the Dems went ahead and passed the bill with the majority they had. The GOP then campaigned on having voted NO, just as they had pledged to do with all Obama policies before he was even inaugurated.

And now we have the spectacle of the right wing blaming the heavy demand on federal websites and access points on the Democrats, when it was GOP governors who pointedly refused to involve their states in the process, in the hopes of causing this result. In another caving move, the Dems conceded that the exchanges for the ACA could be operated and directed by the individual states, since the GOP was so adamant in that area. And what did GOP state governors and legislators do? Refuse to do anything, thus fobbing the whole thing back to the federal government – the very thing they said they weren’t going to allow. Which of course caused an overload of demand to the federal sites – the very same overload that the GOP is trying to cite as an example of the ACA’s “failure”.

If I were to guess, I’d think that inside the walls of Fox News, there is grave concern about how they’re going to mount successful congressional campaigns next year and how they’re going to unite their party again before the next Presidential election. All the rest is a pretty large smokescreen.

And the funniest part of the whole thing is the GOP spin that Ken Cucinelli’s embarrassing defeat in Virginia is somehow a “warning” to Dems in other states about the ACA. It isn’t. It just means that even in a low turnout election where the GOP hardliners would normally overwhelm the Dems, Cucinelli was unable to pull out what should have been an easy win. GOP pundits point to Macauliffe outspending Cucinelli, and that’s true – but they’re leaving out that the relative numbers are a heck of a lot smaller than you’ll see in 2014 or 2016. This was an off-year election with a low voter turnout, as expected. The fact that the GOP could not turn out any more of their rabid base (who all hate the Dems and the ACA already) under these circumstances is likely a far greater “warning” – and it isn’t one that any Democrat is concerned that much about.

This was a bizarre evening of what looked like a constant stream of fairly angry attacks on President Obama and anyone in his Administration they could find tape on.

It’s interesting to me that Fox News has declared the ACA a “scandal” and a “failure” already, and that they’ve clearly directed their on-air talent to play this up as much as possible. On the other hand, it isn’t surprising, given that they declared President Obama a failure from the moment he took the oath of office in 2009.

It’s also interesting that you have Megyn Kelly desperately trying to drum up anti-Obama sentiment in her pieces while you have Bill O’Reilly clearly pushing for an impeachment of President Obama over what he knew about how the ACA would be implemented and when. Which is frankly ridiculous.

It seems as if Fox News has decreed that all their hosts need to stay on overdrive attack mode, even if there’s nothing for them to attack about.

Bill O’Reilly may have put himself on the map for this week with an outrageous “Memo” at the top of his show last night. He went off on a rant about how people get what they deserve, and how “low information voters” re-elected President Obama when in O’Reilly’s opinion, that re-election wasn’t deserved. O’Reilly sounded genuinely angry during this rant, which indicates we may see some interesting interviews along these lines over the coming months…

Interesting that “Ken” does not seem to be aware of the reports of Fox News having their employees set up multiple dummy accounts in order to disrupt websites like this one. If “Ken” were to take five seconds to enter a google search of “Fox News” and “sock puppet”, he might learn something new. But I think he already knows that. Not sure where he’s getting this idea that “paid protesters and commenters are from the left”. This may simply be yet another example of Fox News and its supporters engaging in projection.

I’m glad to see that “Ken” has realized that Charles Grodin’s last name is indeed spelled with an “I” and not with an “e”. Interesting that he quotes the exchange without the context. Interesting that he doesn’t note the tone as I did. Interesting that he is unable to answer the basic points I made. Again, Hannity was being challenged on the fact that Erich “Mancow” Muller had just done a very public stunt of having himself waterboarded to prove that it wasn’t torture. After just a few seconds, Mancow begged for mercy and publicly admitted it was torture. Charles Grodin knew this, and Sean Hannity absolutely knew this. Grodin was challenging Hannity to do the same thing. Hannity said he would do so for charity. He then joked that he would let Grodin do it. Grodin made the point that he wouldn’t do it – which was consistent with the point that Grodin was making about waterboarding being torture. Meaning that Grodin wouldn’t engage in it, but Hannity was agreeing to undergo it since Ollie North had told him it wasn’t really torture. Just because Charles Grodin didn’t wish to personally torture Sean Hannity doesn’t change the fact that Hannity made a wild offer here – that he would agree to be waterboarded for charity to prove to everyone once and for all that it wasn’t torture. (Or at least as far as Grodin was putting it to him.) Years later, Hannity has still not fulfilled that offer, nor has he offered any explanation to justify his cowardice in this matter. We’re still waiting, and making excuses for him will not change that fact.

This was a pretty desperate interview in a pretty desperate show. Hannity seems to be flailing now. He keeps repeating debunked talking points and cutting off anyone that tries to educate him.

Watching the footage from the Town Council, it’s clear that Watters had no interest in listening to the members or in getting any information. Instead, he came in with a preset agenda of trying to embarrass the Council and get a few quick soundbites to play on O’Reilly’s show. The longer footage shows that the Council members tried to provide him with real world answers to the cheap shots he was throwing.

It should be noted that not only does Bar Harbor already have a veteran’s memorial in their town square, but they actually voted funds to upgrade and improve it while dropping the more recent one. The more recent one appears to have been a gambit to provoke confrontations just like this one. Council members noted that it was flimsy, that it was so poorly built that it actually did a disservice to the veterans it purportedly honored, and that there was resistance to the idea of attaching any one specific religion to the sacrifice made by so many veterans. So this wasn’t a matter of a town voting against veterans or religion. It was a matter of a town dealing with the reality of a flimsy “memorial” that could potentially present a hazard, among other problems.

The last part of the council’s video is instructive. After enduring nearly 15 minutes of Watters’ attempt to monopolize their meeting with gotcha questions and soundbites, the chairperson asked if there was anyone else who wanted to discuss this matter, while regular townspeople made gestures that indicate they’d had enough of Watters too. Watters apparently kept at it for a couple minutes further before the chairperson was forced to remind Watters that they had other business to attend to. Watters attempted to get another gotcha shot in but saw it batted away and dismissed. His final attempt to flail with “Merry Christmas” was also batted away for what it was – another cheap shot. I’m not sure how anyone could portray this interaction as anything but humiliating for Watters.

Let me see if I’ve got this right. Bill O’Reilly goes off on a rant the SAME NIGHT wherein he slyly attacks and smears President Obama while pretending that the right wing is just “concerned about the future of the country”, and Greta Van Susteren on the same network can’t think of any insults going toward liberals? And we should note that O’Reilly was being particularly sneaky. He was attempting to make it sound like President Obama is somehow taking all the GOP and “Tea Party” attacks too personally and is now on a vendetta to “destroy” them, while the right wing is responding by dislike of the President “because they are genuinely concerned about the future of the country.” See how he did that? He just accused the President of being tempermental and childish while presenting right wing attackers as defenders of the country’s future. Riiight. How about the truth? That the right wing attackers have been viciously going after Barack Obama in every manner possible, including personal swipes at his wife and children, for over 6 years now. And understandably, President Obama is frustrated that these guys are being so petulant and tantrumish, since their behavior makes it nearly impossible for the government to operate. Not to mention that they seem to be gleeful about actually shutting the entire institution down and hurting the economy in the process. But that’s a story for another day.

How about Sean Hannity’s regular insults and attacks on liberals and Democrats on his program? How about Rush Limbaugh’s regular insults and attacks? Of course, I’m just naming pundits here. We could discuss the attacks leveled against Wendy Davis in Texas. We could discuss the comments made by Louie Gohmert and friends on Hannity’s show on a regular basis about Democrats. We could discuss the multiple attacks made on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

It’s really an interesting historical document to see Fox News literally trying to convince its viewers that day is night and night is day.