Apparently, an ex-Comedy Central entertainer is just what this show needs since the show is not a "hard news show" but comparable to The Daily Show.

"The folks in charge of Fox News need a vacation. They seem to think that the MSNBC news hound's Countdown show is hard news when it is actually the cable network's version of Jon Stewart's The Daily Show on Comedy Central."

http://www.tv-now.com/daily/news.htm

The difference being the Daily Show is funny.

Does anyone else find it more than a coincidence that Keith is always away on vacation for a week immediately after he stirs up an indefensible controversy? At the beginning of summer, personal emails from Keith to writers were leaked to the press in which Keith used such diplomatic, professional language such as "go f*** your mother." The story broke on the weekend, and, conveniently, Keith had Brian Unger stand in for him that follwoing week. When Keith returned a week later, he had nothing to say of the controversy, let alone nominate himself for the Worst Person in the World for telling someone to go 'f*** their mother.'
Now, Keith stands in front of national cameras and dons a mask of O'reilly and does a Nazi salute. And once again, the story/incident breaks on the weekend, and once again, conveniently, Keith is off for that immediately-following week for vacation, having Brian Unger stand in once again. Anyone want to make a bet that when Keith returns, not only will he not mention the controversy sourounding his latest, indefensible antics, but that he won't even bother to nominate himself for Worst Person in the World, let alone the 'Worse' or 'Worser'? I mean, afterall, how many times has Keith named the 'Worst','Worser', or the 'Worse Person' soley because they compared someone to a Nazi/Hitler. Yet, when Keith does it himself, not only does he not nominate himself, not only does he not even bring it up in his program to his audience like his compitition would, but he literally runs off on vacation, hoping when he returns everyone would have forgotten about it. For comparrison, whenever O'reilly is involved in controversy, he talks to his audience about it the very next day (and week) in his 'talking points.' I.E: the most recent example I can think of is when O'reilly was involved in that whole "terrorists should bomb San Francisco" controversy. Practically every night, O'reilly spent his talking points explaining himself to his audience why he said what he said and why he stood by his comments.
Will Keith, likewise, address his audience (whenever he decides to return) and explain why he portrayed his rival as a Nazi and why he stands by his decision to do so? Um, nevermind...that is really just more of a rhetorical question.

Does anyone else find it more than a coincidence that Keith is always away on vacation for a week immediately after he stirs up an indefensible controversy? At the beginning of summer, personal emails from Keith to writers were leaked to the press in which Keith used such diplomatic, professional language such as "go f*** your mother." The story broke on the weekend, and, conveniently, Keith had Brian Unger stand in for him that follwoing week. When Keith returned a week later, he had nothing to say of the controversy, let alone nominate himself for the Worst Person in the World for telling someone to go 'f*** their mother.'
Now, Keith stands in front of national cameras and dons a mask of O'reilly and does a Nazi salute. And once again, the story/incident breaks on the weekend, and once again, conveniently, Keith is off for that immediately-following week for vacation, having Brian Unger stand in once again. Anyone want to make a bet that when Keith returns, not only will he not mention the controversy sourounding his latest, indefensible antics, but that he won't even bother to nominate himself for Worst Person in the World, let alone the 'Worse' or 'Worser'? I mean, afterall, how many times has Keith named the 'Worst','Worser', or the 'Worse Person' soley because they compared someone to a Nazi/Hitler. Yet, when Keith does it himself, not only does he not nominate himself, not only does he not even bring it up in his program to his audience like his compitition would, but he literally runs off on vacation, hoping when he returns everyone would have forgotten about it. For comparrison, whenever O'reilly is involved in controversy, he talks to his audience about it the very next day (and week) in his 'talking points.' I.E: the most recent example I can think of is when O'reilly was involved in that whole "terrorists should bomb San Francisco" controversy. Practically every night, O'reilly spent his talking points explaining himself to his audience why he said what he said and why he stood by his comments.
Will Keith, likewise, address his audience (whenever he decides to return) and explain why he portrayed his rival as a Nazi and why he stands by his decision to do so? Um, nevermind...that is really just more of a rhetorical question.

Funny how an obnoxious old reactionary relic such as Pat Buchanan is now respectable amongst the left. That's what America hatred, Isarael hatred can do for you.

I'd be curious to hear Johnny's response to this.

The American Bar Association claims President Bush has violated that oath by issuing hundreds of "signing statements" to disregard selected provisions of the laws that Congress passed and he signed.

A bipartisan, 11-member panel of the ABA found that President Bush is not only disregarding laws but using such signing statements far more than any president in history. In fact, Bush has used signing statements to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.