John Stossel has been masquerading as a journalist at ABC for years. We've documented some of his hackery and whining over time and as I fully expected, he's finally making the jump to crazytown where he belongs -- Fox News:

John Stossel is leaving ABC News for Fox, where he'll host a weekly show on Fox Business and host a series of specials for Fox News.

TVNewser reports that the libertarian "20/20" host is expected to sign a multi-year-deal with Fox, where he'll host a two-hour weekly show on Fox Business and make appearances on Fox News in both the daytime and primetime hours.

Stossel's departure comes on the heels of last week's announcement that Charlie Gibson is retiring from ABC News. Read on...

At least at Fox Business he won't have to worry about ratings or being seen by very many people, but his "specials" for Fox News should fit right in with their low-brow, low-information standards. ABC will be a better network for letting him go.

I have avoided using the above wrestling, smack-down clip in past Stossel posts, but the comparison between Fox News and wrasslin' was too precious to pass up!

I could be wrong, but I just don't remember members of the media jumping to include our views when we were the minority party. Then again, this is Charlie Gibson, who's not exactly a flaming liberal:

On the "Nightline" edition of the health care forum, Gibson read the president a letter from Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee expressing concern about the creation of a government-run health care plan.

"At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long-term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice," the senators wrote.

"The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy."

"They're wrong," the president said, arguing that in a Health Insurance Exchange, the public plan would be "one option among multiple options."

The concern, Gibson articulated, is that such a plan wouldn't be offered on a level playing field.

The president rebuffed that, arguing that "we can set up a public option where they're collecting premiums just like any private insurer and doctors can collect rates," but because the public plan will have lower administrative costs "we can keep them [private insurance companies] honest."

Obama said he didn't understand those advocates of the free market who constantly say the private sector can do things better and are yet worried about this plan.

"If that's the case, no one will choose the public option," the president said. He also suggested, however, that the private sector might not necessarily be better, point out that users of Medicare and Veterans Administration hospitals constantly rate "pretty high satisfaction."

The rest was about what you'd expect - umbrage and horror from Charlie and Diane Sawyer who are always so worried on behalf of any of their friends who are mildly uncomfortable with the concept of paying a few of Their Hard-Earned Dollars so that others might live. You can read a more robust version here.

DOWNLOAD (115)

PLAY (198)

One of the things I've always admired about Senator Obama is his almost instinctual pragmatism. Although the right has endlessly tried to paint him as some sort of radical, he's demonstrated time after time throughout his career that he's less of an ideological, knee-jerk ideologue than he is a pragmatic, bipartisan problem-solver. In his interview last night with ABC's Charlie Gibson, Senator Obama spoke about his post-election pre-planning and what the makeup of an Obama cabinet might look like.

ABC:

Obama told ABC News' Charlie Gibson that he didn't have a list of people he wanted to bring into the government but said "I've got some pretty good ideas about the senior Cabinet of government officials that I think could perform very well for the country. ... I have a good idea of who the candidates would be."

Obama said he would reach across the aisle on a range of issues, from energy independence to health care to education.

"On a whole host of these issues, I think we need Republicans, not just as show pieces," Obama told Gibson. "In some cases, Republicans have good ideas. And, you know, I've always been more than happy to steal good ideas from whatever the source."

The genius of Abraham Lincoln was that even after a bruising primary and general election that was rough even by today's Rovian standards, he brought into his cabinet many of his political opponents. Unlike George Bush who insulated himself with "yes men", Lincoln understood the importance of hearing all sides of an issue, even if he disagreed. That's an important quality we should all look for in a President. The ideological blindness with which decision were made under George Bush couldn't prove that point any stronger.

For more on the genius of Lincoln, check out Doris Kearns Goodwin's fabulous book, "Team of Rivals."

DOWNLOAD (95)

PLAY (216)

Barack Obama calls McCain out for not having the guts to smear him in person.

GIBSON: Change the subject for a moment. John McCain has unloaded on you in the last 72, 96 hours as has Sarah Palin. McCain is saying, essentially, we don’t know who Barack Obama is, where he came from. I’m an open book, he’s not.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: Were you surprised, A, that he didn’t bring it up last night at the debate and use that line of attack? And, B, since you must have prepared for it, what were you going to say?

OBAMA: Well, I am surprised that, you know, we’ve been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days that he wasn’t willing to say it to my face.

But I guess we’ve got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that — that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate.

The notion that people don’t know who I am is a little hard to swallow. I’ve been running for president for the last two years. I’ve campaigned in 49 states. Millions of people have heard me speak at length on every topic under the sun. I’ve been involved now in 25 debates, going on my 26th. And I’ve written two books which any — everybody who reads them will say are about as honest a set of reflections by, at least, a politician as are out there.

So, you know, I think that, you know, Senator McCain’s campaign has been focusing on me primarily because they don’t want to focus on the economy. And they’ve said as much. I mean, you’ve had their spokespeople over the last couple of days say if we talk about the economic crisis, we lose.

I mean, you can’t be much more blatant than that. They want to change the subject. And I understand it because the fact is that John McCain has subscribed, for the most part, to the same economic philosophy as George Bush, the same economic philosophy that has governed over the last eight years and has helped to get us in this mess.

To his credit, Charlie Gibson actually did a pretty good job of grilling Sarah Palin in her first interview since accepting the Republican nomination. When asked whether or not she agrees with the Bush Doctrine -- the idea that the United States should be able to reserve the right to launch unprovoked attacks on nations deemed a threat to us -- a visibly confused Palin simply doesn't know how to respond coherently.

Download | play Download | play

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

Cernig wonders: The Most Dangerous Woman In The World?

For more on the Bush Doctrine, see Jon Perr's great series of posts:

The Death of the Bush Doctrine

This Just In From Afghanistan: Bush Doctrine Still Dead

The Myth of the Bush Doctrine

McCain's Media begins its march against Obama. I've been saying they will support McCain in the general all along. Listen to the tone of Gibson's voice as he makes a strong statement against Obama's money advantage over the uninspiring John McCain. Something that never seemed to bother the Villagers before. Heck, Bush 41 and the Saudis look really cool as friends... He feels oh so awful about the fact that McCain is getting trounced in the fundraising department by Obama. The poor little guy who makes sure the media has plenty of doughnuts on his campaign bus. I'm sure that if McCain had the online support that Obama has---the story would be something like. "Will John McCain's excellent fundraising advantage lead him straight to the oval office?" They would be amazed at his fundraising prowess. John McCain: The Internet Maverick!

Download | play Download | play

"Let me ask you a question about basic fairness: People in this country like to believe that people play on a level playing field and that a campaign will be about ideas and personality; if you start with that much more money, is it basically fair?"

As Jeff Cohen notes:

There was real emotion in his voice when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson used Friday night's newscast to stand up for little-guy McCain against online-fundraising powerhouse Barack Obama.

To me, the good news is that a network anchor was giving prominence to the plight of underfinanced candidates.

The bad news is that it's taken years to see an anchor make such a stand. And that Gibson (like other media voices in recent days) is making his stand for "fairness" against a candidate who has attracted 3 million contributions from 1.5 million donors giving an average donation of $91. In other words, against a candidate who is arguably less beholden to big-moneyed interests than McCain.

Thanks to Silent Patriot for the video and screen cap. Full transcript below the fold with a little added tasty treat:

Continue reading »