RELATED: A Rankled Ron Paul Grapples With Radio Caller’s Newsletter Questions

“I don’t know how you can change science,” Paul responded. “Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by sexual activity. That’s been known for some 400 or 500 years, how these diseases are spread. If a fault comes with people because of their personal behavior, and in a free society people do dumb things, but it isn’t to be placed as a burden on other people, innocent people. Why should they have to pay for the consequences? That’s a sort of a nationalistic or socialistic attitude.”

“Do you think someone with AIDS should not be entitled to health insurance as opposed to someone who has a heterosexually transmitted disease?” Wallace interjected.

“No, I never said that,” Paul retorted.

Wallace continued pressing the Congressman on the statements in the book.

“There shouldn’t be a law that says they’re denied that,” Paul answered, but defended his assertion that people’s personal lives should play a factor in determining insurance. “The markets should handle this…If people are smokers, don’t they have to pay more? Sometimes you get your insurance cheaper if you are a nonsmoker. Let the market sort this out but not have dictates by the government saying thou must do this and your behavior doesn’t matter. If you drink too much you suffer the consequences. Same way with health matters. You don’t have the right to demand someone else take care of you because of your habits.”

Wallace also brought up another passage from the book in which Paul wrote “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.”

“You have to have a better definition of harassment, if it’s because someone told the joke and someone was offend happened they don’t have a right for the policeman to come in and put penalties on the individual,” Paul explained. “If there’s any violence involved, you still don’t need a federal law against harassment, you just need to call a policeman and say there’s been an assault! But (because) people are insulted by rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case about it, people should deal with it at home.”

Watch Wallace grill Paul over passages from his 1987 book below via Fox News:

As if pissing off the Ronulans wasn’t enough, Huckabee denounced his party’s candidates for being too mean to President Obama, whom he called a “decent, patriotic American.”

Wallace began by trying to suck Huckabee into his own feud with Ron Paul fans, asking if a win by the Texas congressman would discredit the Iowa Caucuses. The former Arkansas Governor obliged Wallace, flatly declaring that Ron Paul “is not going to be elected president.”

“His views on foreign policy,” Huckabee said, “are so much an anathema to Republicans and Democrats and what I call middle of the road people. He has a core of fanatical believers, and they don’t represent mainstream Americans. It is not okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Unless I missed something, though, Ron Paul didn’t say it was “okay” for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. There are fair arguments to be had over what Paul actually did say, which was that the US shouldn’t use military force to preempt Iran’s acquisition of such a weapon, but Huckabee’s remarks were an unfair distortion of Paul’s position.

Asked whether he second-guessed himself over his decision not to run for president, Huckabee really went for it. “Republicans can’t decide what they want to be when they grow up,” he said, adding, “I know they want to beat Obama, but in the process, they want to tear each other up so much, they want to savage each other so much that it will be difficult to beat Obama.”

“If I ran,” Huckabee continued, “it would be because I wanted to bring some ideas to the race, but I realize that will not be the focus. It is how mean can a person be.

“I don’t want to savage Barack Obama,” he said, later adding, “I think he’s a decent, patriotic American. He loves america different than me, but I don’t doubt he loves America.”

It should be noted that Huckabee wasn’t always on such a high road where President Obama is concerned. I guess it’s easier to be nice from the sidelines.

Here’s the clip, from Fox News Sunday:

This year’s Republican primary race has been marked by foreign policy positions that are a hotter mess than microwave barf, but at least Romney’s rivals have been consistent with the crazy. In his performance on FNS, the former Massachusetts Governor boldly went nowhere. Asked by Chris Wallace if, “looking back and hindsight is always 20/20,” the US should have invaded Iraq, Romney responded with a Saladworks-worthy response.

Gov. Romney began by helpfully restating the question. “Going back and trying to say given what we know now, what will we have done? Would we have invaded or not?” Romney said. “At the time, we didn’t have the knowledge that we have now.”

“At the time, Saddam Hussein was hiding. He was not letting the inspectors from the United Nations into the various places that they wanted to go. The IAEA was blocked from going into the palaces and so forth. And the intelligence in our nation and other nations was that this tyrant had weapons of mass destruction. And in the light of that — that belief, we took action which was appropriate at the time.”

In hindsight, then, Mitt Romney thinks the US should have…well, he doesn’t say, but in explaining the lessons learned, he doesn’t address the intelligence failures that led us to war. The logical conclusion is that a President Romney will not have benefited from that bit of historical wisdom, the same missing wisdom that has GOP sabers rattling at Iran.

Romney also parted ways with the conservative mythos surrounding that infamous “Mission Accomplished” photo-op, saying “I think there was a sense that when, on the ship it said Mission Accomplished, that the mission had been accomplished. Turns out it was just getting started and we had to pursue a surge very late in the process.”

But it was on the issue of the Iraq War’s end that Romney really dazzled. “Fortunately,” Romney said, “we’ve now been able to pull our troops out. We’re, of course, very happy to see our troops come out.”

He then turns right around and says “We should have left 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 personnel there to help transition to the Iraqis’ own military capabilities. I’m very concerned in this setting.”

So, Mitt Romney is very happy the war is over, but he wishes the war wasn’t over? It’s “fortunate,” but also a disaster? Well, at least President Romney would set things right. Right?

“As president, would you send u.s. troops back into Iraq?” Wallace asked.

“I think the decision to send US troops into a combat setting is a — is a very high threshold decision. This is not something you do easily. You don’t send our troops around the world every time there’s something that goes off an untoward way.”

After some attempted followup from Wallace, Romney clarified. “I’m not going to say where I would send troops or not send troops.”

Romney often seems to be looking past his primary challengers, and campaigning to the general electorate. Saying everything and nothing is a tried-and-true political modus operandi, but it’s usually a good idea to take a breath now and then.

Here’s the clip, from Fox News Sunday:

On Friday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough revealed to his viewers that “Chris Wallace has never made a secret of the fact that he loathes Mitt Romney — has never liked him.” For good measure he then added “Wallace, of course, will deny it, and then throw an insult around because that’s what he’s done in the past.”

During an appearance on Fox and Friends this past Sunday, Wallace was asked what he made of Scarborough’s comments, to which the Fox News Sunday host made good on Scarborough’s prediction by saying:

Some people say, and I will take this advice, don’t punch down. Don’t respond to folks that are silly and aren’t worthy of a response. It isn’t true. I suspect he knows it isn’t true. I think he’s trying to get to Fox with a network that gets higher ratings than he does. I’ll leave it at that.

So for those playing at home you’ll notice that Scarborough predicted that Wallace would deny loathing Mitt Romney and then throw an insult around. Wallace actually opened with the insult before denying any bias in his coverage of Romney. He also effectively used two time tested devices in cable news feuds: passive aggressive commentary and self-aggrandizement, all in the space of about 10 seconds.

Watch the clip below, courtesy of Fox News (H/T Johnny Dollar):

RELATED: Rick Perry Can’t Remember Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, Flubs Number Of Supreme Court Justices

Despite his multiple flubs, Perry thought voters would overlook his flaws and see that the Texas governor is someone they could trust on issues of moral values.

“[Voters] aren’t looking for a robot,” Perry contended. “Or someone who’s gonna be perfect in every way. They’re looking for someone who’s got values…They’re looking for somebody who’s got values that are based with a deep rudder in the water.”

Watch Perry defend himself on Fox News Sunday below:

RELATED: Chris Wallace Zings Romney For Not Appearing On Any Sunday Talk Shows Since March 2010

Wallace mentioned in late October that Romney had not sat down with him for an interview in months.

“We have now interviewed all the major Republican candidates in our 2012 ‘One on One’ series — except Mitt Romney,” Wallace noted, guilt-tripping the former Massachusetts Governor.

The interview will be Romney’s first Sunday talk show interview since March of 2010, The New York Times notes.

Watch Scarborough’s foreboding advice for Romney below via MSNBC:

(h/t HuffPo via Politico)

RELATED: Jon Huntsman Warns The GOP: ‘You Cannot Run Away From Mainstream Science’

The conversation with Wallace went all over his politics, which he insisted he was not going to change to curry favor with the base. “I’m not going to contort myself into a pretzel into something I’m not,” he told Wallace, despite the polls. He did express optimism that “people are saying, ‘Who is this Huntsman guy who puts country first?’” echoing the McCain/Palin 2008 slogan– whether intentionally or not, it is unclear.

Wallace and Huntsman had a difficult exchange on immigrant, as Wallace pointed out that the positions Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry took calling for more understanding about the twelve million illegal immigrants currently in America were very similar to Huntsman’s. “We’ve got to be honest about the first step we have to take,” Huntsman replied, “…and that is securing the border.” Sensing that Huntsman was trying to shirk the question off, noted that “a record is a record” and as governor of Utah Huntsman had supported helping the children of illegal immigrants with college tuition. “I’m not running from that at all,” he responded, confirming his record but adding that it was only after securing the border that those policies should come into conversation.

RELATED: Jon Huntsman Shows Up On SNL To Talk About How Much He Loves New Hampshire

Wallace later asked whether he has been in contact with a group considering running an independent candidate against both President Obama and the Republican nominee. Huntsman denied being in contact with them, leading Wallace to a follow-up: “Can you flatly state right now that you will support the Republican nominee and you will not run as an independent?” “I’m running as a Republican, that’s where I am,” Huntsman responded, which Wallace noted was “not a denial.” Huntsman did eventually confirm he would support the Republican nominee after the second prodding, however, but his hesitation may be a red flag for those who suspect he may be dissatisfied with what his party has to offer.

The immigration discussion and, later, Wallace’s question on an independent bid via Fox News below:

RELATED: Fox News Sunday Panel Joins In The Newt- Bashing: ‘Poster Child Of Republican Excess’

On the economy and tax debate, Williams argued that the Democrats “get the better side of that argument, it’s not even close” in a general presidential election, given that Republicans refused to raise a single dollar in taxes, which Williams considered bad optics, particular given the political climate. There was, Williams argued, an “overwhelming impact on the presidential campaign for Republicans in this time of Occupy Wall Street,” and they are now “the protectors of the super rich.”

“I don’t think we should talk about Occupy Wall Street as a plus anymore,” Wallace retorted, “with all the violence in the streets.” Williams immediately replied that Wallace was “getting distracted by people who are crazy people,” and that the message was resounding in mainstream America. “The fact is, when you ask most people ‘is Wall Street out of control?’; ‘is there inequality in terms of income in this country?’ people say yes.”

RELATED: GOP And Democratic Super-Committee Chairs Spin Negotiation Meltdown On Sunday Talk Shows

Wallace then didn’t let him finish a point, citing the show’s time constraints and the need to “play fair” with the other panelists. “You’re not playing fair, but go ahead,” snapped Williams.

The segment via Fox News below:

RELATED: George Will Dismisses Newt Gingrich, Scoffs At Idea That He Is A ‘Historian’

Hume took the first word on the panel, noting that Gingrich was now in the most danger since his campaign started: “he now occupies the single most dangerous place to be in American politics, which is the non-Romney leader of the Republican field.” He noted all his predecessors in that position had fallen with fewer vulnerabilities, expressing little hope that he could survive. Host Chris Wallace then turned to the Freddie Mac situation, asking whether that would be the damaging reveal for Gingrich. To A.B. Stoddard, it was another indication that Gingrich was, in some ways, “Romney light,” but Kristol disagreed.

RELATED: Not An Onion Spoof: Newt Gingrich’s Education Plan Is To Fire Janitors And Replace Them With Kids

“He was a leader of the conservative movement for 25 years… for all his problems, all of his deficiencies,” something Romney could not say for certain, Kristol argued. This added to the “rallying to Newt by conservatives against Romney.” Williams did not similarly come to Kristol’s defense, instead noting that, while “lots of people think hes the smartest guy in the room,” to Democrats, he was like a float heading “down Central Park for Thanksgiving… any one of those trees could poke it, and the balloon explodes.” “Even his record as Speaker is checkered,” Wallace added, to which Hume piled on. “He was nearly ousted in a mutiny by his own troops,” Hume recalled, “he became during that period a kind of poster child of Republican excess, a favorite whipping boy,” and that was still the current concern for Republicans.

The segment via Fox News below:

On Fox News Sunday, Rep. Hensarling all but confirmed that the super-committee’s work would amount to nothing. “No one wants to give up hope… reality to some extent is starting to overtake hope,” he told a skeptical Chris Wallace. The latter asked several times whether this was a confirmed failure (“we’re not going to give up hope,” Rep. Hensarling repeated), and noted the clear point that this was a “missed opportunity” that rang particularly unpleasant for the American people. Wallace also asked Rep. Hensarling whether it was “all the Democrats’ fault,” a bait that Rep. Hensarling didn’t entirely take.

RELATED: Nancy Pelosi’s Suggestion For Reducing The Debt: Put Super Committee Negotiations On TV

“It’s not about assigning blame,” he responded, “but we are not aware of any Democratic offer that did not include several millions in tax increases.” Most telling, perhaps, Rep. Hensarling answered a question about a future meeting not with an outright “no,” but indicated he would not be interested in a future meeting in this nature. He added that he could not see an agreement on health care, either, unless “you fundamentally figure out as a nation how we’re going to get quality healthcare opportunities at a price that doesn’t bankrupt our children.” He refrained from predicting how the stock market would react. Rep. Hensarling on Fox News this morning below:

Meanwhile, over on CNN, Candy Crowley asked Sen. Murray to comment on the mess. The Democratic chair stuck to her “shared sacrifice” talking point guns, being somewhat more optimistic than Rep. Hensarling in that she noted there were some points of agreement. That said, “there is one sticking divide,” she noted: the “shared sacrifice” issue, “where everyone contributes in a very challenging time for our country.” While she also didn’t see much to be optimistic about, she told Crowley that she would “be at the table willing to talk to any Republican… all night long; we have a few hours left.”

RELATED: President Obama: Next Chapter Of Deficit Reduction Will Include New Tax Revenue

She added that she believed it was a problem that would need to be solved at some point no matter what, with the super committee or not. When asked specifically why the negotiations had failed, she cited no Congressman in particular, but anti-tax personality Grover Norquist, and argued that Republicans were too faithful to a pledge he had made them sign against taxes. Her comments on the matter via CNN below:

While there are still a few hours left before the super committee is officially declared a failure, neither chair appeared particularly enthused about the chances of a deal, adding yet one more reason atop the many Americans already have for having given this Congress its lowest approval rating ever. Who is to blame and which chair has a better argument will likely fall upon party lines– though in his interview, at least Rep. Hensarling seemed to blame Democrats in Congress who were actually on the super committee and not marginal characters like Norquist– though watching both interviews, it is hard to see the American people mustering up any sympathy for any of their super-committee representatives at all.

Graham also beat the familiar drum that “Israel has been thrown under the bus” by the administration, falsely claiming that the President’s “standing in the state of Israel is very low,” despite the fact that 81% of Israelis approve of his policies.

Wallace pushed back against Graham’s criticisms of the President’s foreign policy, asking, “What about the argument that, in the last six months, bin Laden is gone, Awlaki is gone, and now Gaddafi is gone?”

Graham conceded that the killings of bin Laden and al-Awlaki were “Well done,” but accused the President of failing to “close the deal” in Iraq. Graham insisted that it “was not clear” that the Iraqis wanted the US out, but couldn’t explain why they refused to grant US troops immunity in Iraqi courts. “The Iraqis were, in my view, open minded to this. This was a failure by the Obama administration to close the deal.”

Wallace also asked Graham about his criticism of the President’s actions in Libya. He told Graham that the administration points out they ousted Gaddafi “without the loss of a single american soldier, and it cost about a billion dollars, as opposed to the $805 billion in Iraq. Was the President right, and critics like yourself wrong?”

Predictably, Graham responded that the President should have acted sooner, as if unilateral action by the US would have ever been politically viable, or strategically desirable. Republican critics of the President keep saying he should have “acted sooner,” but they don’t really explain what that action should have been. Are they suggesting that entangling a US ground force in another Mideast quagmire would have been the right thing to do?

Graham’s suggestion that the President’s foreign policy is somehow guided by electoral politics is absurd on its face. If there was any way to make the 2012 election about national security, President Obama would win in a cakewalk, but that’s not going to happen. With the economy at numbers one through ten on Americans’ list of priorities, fixing foreign policy around a reelection bid would be foolish, and fruitless. As we saw after the killing of Osama bin Laden, all Republicans can do with the President’s foreign policy successes is to try and soften them.

Here’s the clip, from Fox News Sunday:

RELATED: Rep. Bachmann Stuns Fox’s Chris Wallace By Claiming NATO Missile Strikes Killed 30,000 Overnight In Libya

“Look where we’re at today,” Bachmann added. “Remember again, Barack Obama said we were going into Libya for humanitarian purposes. It wasn’t humanitarian purposes, it was regime change and what’s the result? We don’t know who the next leaders will be…it could be a radical element. It could be the Muslim Brotherhood. It could be elements affiliated with al Qaeda. We don’t know yet who that regime will be. But worse we’ve seen the MANPADS go missing and those shoulder fired rockets that are very dangerous that could fit in the trunk of a car. … This is a very bad decision and it’s created more instability in the region, not less.”

Watch Bachmann’s interview below via Fox News:

According to Cain, his surge in popularity is proof that “the voice of the people is much more powerful than the voice of the media” — despite the media’s attempt to make it seem as if the GOP race is, ultimately, a contest solely between two people — and that “message is more powerful than money.”

Of course, any interview with a candidate would be sorely lacking if the interview neglected to bring up the mounting hype surrounding New Jersey Governor Chris Christie — a man the media has painted as a symbol of the GOP’s overall dissatisfaction with the current field. Cain doesn’t seem to concerned about the possibility of competition from Christie, opining that, once conservative voters are made aware of his record (for example, his support for same-sex civil unions and his stance that being in his country without documentation “is not a crime”). “Is he too liberal?” asked Wallace. Cain answer was simple and to the point:

Yes. I believe that a lot of conservatives, once they know his position on those things that you delineated, they’re going to not be able to support him. I think that that is absolutely a liability for him — if he gets in the race.

Watch the full segment below, courtesy of Fox News:

“From what he hear originally,” shared Ryan, “it looks like it’s just more price controls and reimbursement cuts to doctors and other health care providers, which simply leads to restricted access and denied care to seniors.” Ryan was also, perhaps unsurprisingly, wary of the President’s likely tax increase for the wealthy:

Permanent tax increases on job creators doesn’t work to grow the economy; it’s actually fueling the uncertainty that is hurting job growth right now. And don’t forget the fact that most small businesses file their taxes as individuals, so when you’re raising these top tax rates, you’re raising taxes on these job creators where more than half of Americans get their jobs from in this country.

So what we want to see are pro-growth economics, even the President’s fiscal commission is saying — with Democrats on there — lower tax rates, broaden the tax base for economic growth, and just more nickel and dime reimbursement cuts to health care providers will simply lead to less access to care for senior citizens.

While Rep. Ryan remains one of the few refreshingly civil, even-keeled politicians on either side of the aisle, he seems to have grown slightly more wary of the President’s plan than he did during last week’s appearance on Morning Joe.

Have a look at the full interview, courtesy of Fox News:

Burton responded “The difference is the republicans won the House,”since that time they have done nothing to produce jobs, and put nothing forward to partner with the president to create jobs and move this economy in the right direction.”

Baier, citing his 10 to 1 debate question, asked Rove if Democrats might have a point about ideological rigidity. Rove started out by knocking the question as one “that had a predictable answer to it,” and accused Baier of not offering them a chance “to give a nuanced answer.”

Baier pushed back, saying, “Wait a minute, hold on, we gave them the opportunity, Karl…”

“With all due respect, Bret,” Rove began, respectfully, “it was a lousy question for a debate. If you wanted to get a better answer, ask that question of the candidates individually.”

Rove’s comment drew an incredulous smile from Baier, and chuckles from an off-camera Burton, who interjected, “These guys are running for President of the United States, and they can’t talk to Bret Baier about what their vision is for how to deal with the economy?”

Rove then explained that the GOP was rubber, while President Obama was glue, because the President, in 2009, had responded to another set of unreasonable Republican demands by reminding Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) “I won” during negotiations over a stimulus package that contained 40% tax cuts.

Burton then lit into Rove over his role in the current economic conditions, saying, “I appreciate that you have an opinion on this, Karl, but as someone who was a leader in a White House that turned a record surplus into a deficit, that got us involved in a war we never should’ve been in, and turned the floor of the New York Stock Exchange into a casino, I don’t think the American people are quite ready to hear a lecture from you on good governance.”

Baier tried to rein in the discussion a bit, asking Burton what the President has done to create jobs, and Burton responded by ticking off things, like the payroll tax, the infrastructure bank, and trade deals, that could be done if Congress would act. Baier pointed out that the White House recently said it had not yet sent over the trade deals to Congress.

Burton then accused Republican leaders of wanting “the economy to do poorly so that they can score political points,” to which Rove responded, “With all due respect, Bill, do not question the motivations and the integrity of the people on the other side.”

Burton pointed out that statements from leaders like Mitch McConnell didn’t leave many questions about their motivation.

Rove did make a good point that some Democrats are opposed to the infrastructure bank, a symptom of the lack of unanimity that allows a lockstep minority to get so much done.

Here’s the clip, from Fox News Sunday:

Ryan offered his interpretation of S&P’s action:

“It’s because Washington has not got it’s fiscal house in order. And to me, this is just more vindication of our actions. We passed a budget which according to somebody from S&P yesterday would have prevented this downgrade from happening in the first place.”

Wallace shot back, “isn’t that a little like the doctor saying I did the operation perfectly but the patient died?” Ryan laughed, but Wallace continued and reminded Ryan that a major consideration factoring into S&P’s conclusion was the “the failure to compromise” in Washington. Ryan did admit both parties are to blame, but argued that ultimately Democrats are still more to blame since they are the ones “unwilling to reform the programs that are the cause of our future debt problems.”

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

With CBS’ Face the Nation and CNN’s State of the Union not featuring a regular roundtable panel, that means only the three remaining Sunday shows can be judged and will be awarded medals accordingly. The bronze medal goes to NBC’s Meet the Press, the silver to Fox News Sunday and the gold to ABC’s This Week. The main thrust here is to compare the vast quality differential between the efforts of This Week and Meet the Press. Chris Wallace on Fox consistently presides over an informative and interesting discussion, but This Week narrowly edges it out for the gold with unique guests and a frequently more laid-back atmosphere that allows for a little more fun banter between the panelists.

“Fun” is one word however that would never come to mind of viewers of the Meet the Press roundtable. David Gregory regularly leads a discussion with the same NBC regulars like Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, Eugene Robinson or esteemed newspaper columnists for an “intellectual” deliberation of the events in the week that was. There are subtle differences that often make Gregory’s roundtable sleep-inducing, including the apparently well-known rule that Gregory’s guests rarely engage one another, instead making their case directly to Gregory, and the probably intentional decision to avoid overly partisan guests in favor of centrists and reporters who can participate in more peaceful discussions. The problem however is then viewers are forced to hear frequent guest historian Doris Kearns Goodwin continually talk about how great a president Teddy Roosevelt was, or hear idealistic centrists (today former Senator Chuck Hagel, in the past usually Harold Ford Jr.) complain about how partisanship is ruining Washington and preventing anything from getting accomplished.

Several months ago I thought Christiane Amanpour was the wrong choice for This Week, primarily because she made the roundtable a more serious and boring segment than what it had been under her predecessor Jake Tapper. Today however, Amanpour has come a long way, and with her bookers, producers and This Week regular panelist George Will, deserves much credit as it seems she has not only metaphorically let her hair down to enjoy these segments more, but her show now often features more than just one roundtable per show amassing varied experts for different debates. Such a decision often results, as it did today, in exciting and buzz-worthy news (see here and here). Meanwhile the Meet the Press panelists long for the days of yesterday when the opposing political parties weren’t so mean to each other and possibly when Meet the Press was the show regularly making the headlines.

Continuing to sound the alarm, Geithner warned Wallace, “we do not have the ability, Chris, to protect the American people from the consequences of Congress not” raising the debt ceiling. And he reiterated that as the country writes 80 millions checks a month, “there are millions and millions of Americans that depend on those checks coming on time.”

Wallace understood the urgency, yet still was curious whether any decisions had been made regarding which types of government payouts will be prioritized, just in case? Geithner successfully kept his answers as vague, and somewhat distressing, as possible, with the cryptic conclusion, “we will do everything we can to mitigate the damage.”

Watch the clip from Fox below:

Wallace first defended Bachmann and her extraordinarily vigorous campaign, as Imus launched this humorous assault:

“Michele Bachmann addressing that bus wreck going on in her head every morning, that thirty car pile-up. These migraines. She’s got a bunch of ideas, like Bob Dylan, she’s got a bunch of ideas in her head that are driving her insane, doesn’t she?”

Yet Imus got slightly more serious wondering if anyone in News Corp. told Wallace not to cover the hacking controversy on his show. Wallace denied ever getting such a directive, but did admit he didn’t think his show was the best place to talk about the story:

“We didn’t talk about it on Fox News Sunday last week, it was – no reason other than, I’m not sure there’s a lot to discuss on a Sunday morning talk show. . . . Generally there needs to be two sides to the argument for it to be effective, but we’re not shying away from it and Special Report has covered it in depth.”

Imus accepted Wallace’s argument here, yet when Wallace also praised the performance of Rupert Murdoch and cautioned “I’m not saying that to be a toady,” Imus couldn’t help but chuckle.

Watch the clip from Fox Business below:

“Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state,” Cain argued, as host Chris Wallace maintained that separation of church and state permits mosques to exist in any community. To Cain, however, the problem was not Islam as a religion, but Islam as a set of laws. “American laws in American courts,” he repeated, a mantra he used in the latest Republican primary debate. “It is not just a mosque for religious purposes.”

Wallace argued that he did not quite understand what was wrong with Murfreesboro that would prevent a mosque from existing there without controversy– “this isn’t Ground Zero in New York City, it’s not hallowed ground. Don’t Americans have a right, of any religion, under a Constitution which you speak so much about…”

Cain retorted that “to the people of Murfreesboro, it is hallowed ground” and that he agreed with them in their objection to “the intentions of trying to get Sharia Law.” “They’re objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws,” Cain continued. So Wallace asked the inevitable question: does any community have the right to ban mosques? “Yes, they have a right to do that,” Cain replied, without skipping a beat. He later added that, while he is not willing to discriminate based on religion, “I’d rather err on the side of caution.”

The segment via Fox News below:

McConnell elaborated slightly explaining that it is still his goal to prevent Obama’s re-election, but for the rest of this year something else takes priority:

“Well that is true, [making Obama a one-term President is] my single most important political goal along with every active Republican in the country. But that’s in 2012. Our biggest goal for this year is to get this country straightened out, and you can’t get this country straightened out if we don’t do something about spending, about deficit, about debt and get this economy moving again. So, our goal is to have a robust vibrant economy that will benefit all Americans, and that’s why I think this debate that we’re having right now is so important to our country’s future.”

If Obama thinks making a deal with Republicans is difficult now, when McConnell isn’t prioritizing the end of Obama’s political future, just imagine how hard (or impossible) it might be for both sides as the 2012 election draws even nearer.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Baier, filling in for Chris Wallace, pressed McConnell on what would happen if no deal could be worked out and whether he was concerned with the consequences of what might happen if the debt ceiling is not raised. McConnell confidently responded, “nobody is talking about not raising the debt ceiling. I haven’t heard that discussed by anybody.” Yet Baier informed him that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, among others, have explicitly said just that. Baier even quoted Bachmann saying “don’t let them fool you that the economy is going to collapse” if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.

McConnell however apparently didn’t want to address such comments and preferred to stay focused on his opinion of how serious it is to actually raising the debt ceiling. Maybe the fact that some Republicans in Congress actually are determined not to raise the debt ceiling was news to McConnell, but if he doesn’t want to acknowledge the views of some of his colleagues then he might want to avoid making broad pronouncements about them in future interviews.

Watch the clip from Fox below:

Fox News contributor Nina Easton suggested Obama is “un-Clintonian” given his history that makes anyone unlikely to want to reach a compromise with him:

“This President has this M.O. in which he’s always scolding people. So we go back to he was scolding Supreme Court Justices at the State of the Union. He was scolding his own colleagues as ‘sanctimonious’ when they didn’t like extending the tax breaks. He invited Republicans to that speech earlier this Spring about the budget and scolded them right to their face after extending an invitation. And then this week, we hear him scold them because they’re not like his daughters, they’re not able to complete their homework assignment on time.”

Bill Kristol also doubted a big deal would be reached on the budget, but actually thought that might be a good thing. He argued, why not save the big issues of what the size and scope of government should be for the election of 2012? And given that Obama and Republican leaders are now digging in with their positions, it seems like both sides might be in agreement that the next election should ultimately decide in which direction big changes should be made.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Stewart’s wrath was triggered by Wallace jabbing once again at the Daily Show host, who corrected himself from having told Stewart Fox News tells “the other side of the story” vis-a-vis MSNBC. “I wish I would’ve said ‘the full story,’” he said on Sunday. Stewart seems to have been incensed by Fox “playing the victim” to him when he expected Wallace “begin the work of apologizing for all of Fox News’ misstatements.” Instead, Wallace gave the preceding apology, which Stewart interpreted as “I accidentally told the truth and wish I could take it back.”

He then went through another series of what he considered to be Fox News falsehoods– this time in a large three-ring binder– only to come back to the interview and make a political point: “that narrative of conservative victimization is the true genius of what Fox News accomplishes,” explaining that Wallace thinks Stewart is an activist because “I make fun of liberals or Democrats because I want to maintain enough credibility to make fun of conservatives and Republicans.” He concluded with Wallace’s own words, redirecting them at Fox: “the biggest bunch of crybabies I have seen in my 30 years in Washington.”

Perhaps Stewart ran the segment because it’s the end of June, and the summer news cycle is as cruel and dry as any desert drought. But a third segment with the same “joke” of reading things he interpreted as Fox News falsehoods, followed by his “joke” of explaining how he has been defined by the network, is getting pretty close to “thou doth protest too much” territory, or at least the “Please stop talking about Donald Trump, Lawrence O’Donnell” realm. One more attack straight at Fox News, and it’s time to reconsider what the difference between a “comedian” and an “activist” is.

The segment via Comedy Central below:

The question caused quite a stir over the weekend, as Rep. Bachmann took great offense to not being taken seriously as a candidate, and Rep. Bachmann later appeared hesitant to accept the public apology Wallace gave her in a video. On Hannity tonight, she explained why she gave the initial apology a frigid response. “I had not heard from him until suppertime today when he called,” she told Hannity, noting that as soon as she heard from him, she accepted the apology. “He did apologize, and I am happy to accept his apology, and we are moving on.”

Hannity stood up for Wallace to a certain extent, admitting that his question was a gaffe, but gaffes are commonly made in the industry. “I know Chris, he doesn’t have a mean bone in his body,” he noted, and argued that, perhaps, “we are trying to play this gotcha game a little too much.” Rep. Bachmann agreed, adding that it was partly due to “the immediacy of the information when it comes out.”

She also gave another explanation for why the comment seem to touch her so deeply– “the whole point of that interchange is that I am a serious person and a serious candidate for the presidency of the United States,” repeating some of her experience and concluding that she has “a titanium spine” and is “not part of the Old Boys’ Club.”

The segment via Fox News below:

Wallace acknowledged that Bachmann seemed perturbed by the question and then addressed his viewers:

“A lot of you were more than perturbed, you were upset and felt that I had been rude to her. And since in the end it’s really all about the answers and not about the questions. I messed up, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean any disrespect.”

Wallace concluded it’s always a learning process, and apparently he’s learned that asking someone if they are a “flake” has undesirable results. Well it still made for an interesting and awkward television moment regardless.

Watch the clip from the Fox News website:

Wallace explained to Bachmann, “the rap on you here in Washington is that you have a history of questionable statements, some would say gaffes . . . are you a flake?” Bachmann retorted “well I think that would be insulting to say something like that because I’m a serious person.” Bachmann demonstrated her seriousness by reciting her long resume of accomplishments and by not a cracking a smile during the uncomfortable questioning.

Wallace did try to make it clear to Bachmann that the perception of some is that she is a flake, and not that anyone was actually calling her that. He also asked whether she was aware that “you have to be careful and not say what some regard as flaky things.” Bachmann did seem to avoid “flakiness” in her interview, but looked less than thrilled with the overall exchange.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Wallace did want to clarify one moment from the interview:

“Jon seemed to think that was a big deal, that I said ‘we tell the other side of the story.’ Well I wish I had said “the full story.”

Wallace defended Fox’s “fair and balanced” approach to suggest Fox doesn’t go easy on Republicans (as sufficiently demonstrated in his earlier interview with Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann) and doesn’t hesitate to provide the full story on issues unlike others in the mainstream media.

Finally, Wallace highlights much statistical evidence to suggest that in many polls, despite Stewart’s own claim that Fox News viewers are misinformed, it’s actually the viewers of Stewart’s show who aren’t knowledgeable about the news. Wallace launches one final critique of Stewart saying “so folks, all that talk about you’re the most consistently misinformed viewers, I guess the joke is on Jon Stewart.”

Watch the clip from Fox below:

Stewart maintained that besides possibly MSNBC, no media organization is in any way close to being as agenda-driven as Fox News. Despite multiple attempts by Wallace to convince Stewart of a liberal bias in the mainstream media, Stewart argued the “bias of the mainstream media is towards sensationalism, conflict and laziness.” And as proof of a lack of partisanship, Stewart suggested the media “jumped into the Weiner pool with such delight and such relish.”

The conversation got a bit more personal as Stewart and Wallace shared thoughts on how they viewed each other. Wallace declared “I think you want to be a political player.” Stewart responded “dead wrong” and reiterated that he is a comedian first. And then he admitted himself, “the embarrassment is that I’m given credibility in this world because of the disappointment that the public has in what the news media does.”

Stewart returned fire at Fox News, but by complimenting Wallace in the process:

“You are here, in some respects, to bring a credibility and an integrity to an organization that might not otherwise have it without your presence. You are here as a counterweight to [Sean] Hannity let’s say or you are here as a counterweight to Glenn Beck. Because otherwise it’s just pure talk radio and it doesn’t establish the type of political play that it wants to be.”

We also learned from the interview that Stewart is disappointed with President Obama and that he even voted for President George Bush in 1988. Yet the most surprising moment may have been when Stewart got uncharacteristically really angry, declaring that viewers of Fox News are the “most consistently misinformed.” During the interview Stewart praised Wallace as being a tough and fair interviewer, and from this exchange, both Wallace and Stewart deserve praise for being able to engage in an honest and enlightening conversation.

(Update) Full Unedited Version released by Fox below:

Edited Version that played on Fox Below:

Wallace wondered if Palin had a theory why the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper made a story about her their headline (along with the rest of the media), while Romney didn’t get as much attention. Palin responded:

“I think there’s a curiosity factor there still that’s in play. I don’t know. But I apologize if I stepped on any of that PR that Mitt Romney needed or wanted that day. I do sincerely apologize. We didn’t mean to step on anybody’s toes.”

Wallace laughed since many people think she actually did enjoy crowding him out of the spotlight. However, she insisted instead of Romney, she only wants to step on the toes of “people who keep screwing up.” Later in the day, on Fox News Channel, anchor Greg Jarrett showed a bit of skepticism with Palin’s response here, doubting that Palin didn’t know exactly what she was doing when she chose to arrive in New Hampshire on that date. Jarrett joked, “I’m sure it was an accident, I think perhaps her driver just hit the wrong Mapquest button.”

Watch both clips of Palin and Jarrett from Fox below: