RELATED: Newt Gingrich Rips John King And CNN For Opening Debate Question

“I think it was the elephant in the room, if you will, everybody was talking about it, it was the one big news development since the previous Fox debate on Monday. I might have phrased it differently than John King but I thought it was fine to ask,” Wallace continued. “And look, it didn’t either help or hurt asking the question, the fact is that Newt Gingrich gave a very strong answer, the crowd cheered him and in fact, after the debate, Newt Gingrich himself said that he thought John King had done a good job. Our job as the moderators is not to be popular and not to win praise from the crowd but to ask the questions that are going to make news and that one did.”

Watch Wallace defend King below via CNN:

“Now you are toting the line of the Hollywood…” Willis began to answer.

“I am saying if i create dinner and you want it, you have to pay, and i say you have to pay for it you do!” Smith exclaimed. “You cannot just take it. Isn’t the concept the same?”

Rupert Murdoch Weighs In On SOPA Over Twitter: Obama Siding With Pirates, Google Is ‘Piracy Leader’

Legal correspondent Randy Zelin complimented Smith on his dinner analogy.

“What you said before — people don’t mind stealing intellectual property, and that is the very root of this,” Zelin added. “It used to be protected and it is so watered down with the internet age that people really don’t care they stealing somebody’s intellectual property.”

“…My boss says it is a risk making movies,” Smith added. “It costs a lot of money to make movies. If I make movies, I want to sell the movies that is why i made them, but if you take them and give them to people I would have sold them to, you really have stolen what I paid to create.”

Zelin contended that Congress was moving too swiftly with anti-piracy legislation. “We are reacting too quickly,” he claimed. “It is a knee-jerk reaction.”

“Forgive me when I laugh at you and you end up in jail because these artists created this stuff and they make their living off selling this stuff, if you steal this stuff and I pay for it, I will laugh when you find your butt in jail.”

“Going after Google and Verizon, that is the problem,” Zelin interjected. “You are targeting the wrong problem here.”

Watch Smith argue SOPA with his legal panelists below via Fox News:

RELATED: Shep Smith Is Not Having Chris Wallace’s Teasing Of Ole Miss Football

“Do not go to a casino with him,” Smith advised. “Do you know, do you know,” he then began to ask, “I’ve been gone for, what? Three work days? Two work days, I guess, really. We went on Saturday to New Hampshire and then got back… You know how they have these little marks, here, where your bellybutton goes? It tells you where you sit. Somebody took my mark away! So I don’t know even where to sit anymore!”

“Do you think they’re trying to tell me something?” he asked of the panel. “This has a Geraldo mark.”

Someone, for the love of all that is good and holy and televised, please let Shep know where to put his bellybutton.

Have a look, from Fox News:

RELATED: Shep Smith Flips Out On Legal Guests Over Baby Lisa: ‘You’re Both Full Of It!’

Holt was discussing Santorum’s campaign in general with Smith, commenting that his retail politics in Iowa “reminded me of the old Rick Santorum” and that he “got his [surge] at exactly the right time, and if he does well in New Hampshire I see this, it’s possible, but it’s the money and it’s the time.” Smith agreed except for his reservation that Santorum’s extreme views would not go over well with many voters. “It’s going to be talked about eventually that Rick Santorum is, among other things, a man that equated homosexual sex to bestiality,” Smith remarked, adding that “his list of things that are not going to appeal to any moderate is long.”

Holt agreed but considered that, compared to other candidates, Santorum didn’t have as big of a problem, to which Smith countered, “I don’t think all social conservatives consider gay love similar to bestiality.” “That’s true,” Holt replied, but added that “these candidates have had their share of gaffes” and that Santorum “he has more of a story to tell than just a few odd statements.”

The segment via Fox News below:

The study found that, in the past 25 years, the net worth of regular Americans has gone down while that of the people who are supposed to represent them more than doubled. Fox News’ Trace Gallagher put numbers on the screen showing that the average Congressman was making 50 times that of the average American and asked how they could possibly be able to relate to the rest of us.

Political analyst James Kotecki pointed out that it probably wasn’t that rich people were “gaming the system” to get into Congress. Rather that, with campaign finance reform desperately needed and campaigns so incredibly expensive, we’ve now reached a point where it’s basically impossible for anyone aside from the super rich to run for office.

Oh, great. We’ve created a ruling class that’s impossible to break into. Doesn’t that sound American.

Now, I could start bitching that there’s a seeming hypocrisy where, if you complain about businessmen and bankers using their money and power control the country in a way none of us ever could, you’re mocked on The Five,* but, if you talk about the politicians doing the same thing, Fox News will jump on board. That’d be a waste though. This could so easily turn into a Right vs. Left thing (reading some of our comments, it seems like anything can) when, in actuality it’s one of those fabled issues where the Occupy folks and the Tea Partiers all agree; there’s something seriously wrong here.

*To be fair, after this post was written, The Five did a segment on this study and was fairly split in those that were upset by the numbers and those that, same with their reaction to OWS, thought the Congressmen should be respected for their success.

So, whether you’ve got a tri-corner hat on your head, a drum in your hand, or none of the above, lets all look at these awful, awful figures and realize that something needs to be done.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

RELATED: Karl Rove Has Had It With The Donald Trump Debate: ‘This Is Not A Newsman’

“It’s your sense though that that debate will not happen?” questioned Smith.

While Rollins didn’t exactly come out and say that he didn’t expect the debate to be canceled, it was clear from his derisive tone that he had low expectations that a Donald Trump moderated GOP debate would be a fully attended or seriously considered political affair.

“What I hear is Perry, Romney, Mrs. Bachmann, the only one who has accepted as this point is Gingrich at this point in time,” Rollins replied.

Watch Rollins dismissive take on Trump’s debate below via Fox News:

Early in the segment Smith recalled a previous episode where he was evading an open container law. “John Brady and I were down in New York City and cops were coming and we had a beer and you are not supposed to have a beer open on the street and we took off running,” Smith explained. “Run. run. run. run. Now they are angry, now they say ‘we know you stole something! Admit it!’ I didn’t do anything like that, come on! That is how cops approach things, don’t they?”

“And that’s exactly the problem,” Zelin replied. “Why that a problem!?” Smith boomed. “It’s a huge problem,” Zelin responded. “Why is it a problem!?” Smith repeated. “Because it’s not about justice,” began Zelin. “It’s about making an arrest and closing a file. This target wouldn’t be on her head if she kept her mouth shut we would not be speculating. ‘Ah she’s drunk, timeline doesn’t work, this doesn’t work, that doesn’t work…”

Zelin attempted to answer Smith’s question, only to be shot down by the Fox News host. “Come on, Randy! That’s asinine!” rebuked Smith. “No! Randy, Randy, Randy! You’re wrong, stop!” The argument continued through the segment, with Smith continuing to curiously spar aggressively with his guests.

“To the police officers, in small towns across America, I sincerely apologize to you for what’s been said on this set today. Most of us, thank you for what you do, we do not distrust you and we believe when a child is missing, you are looking for a missing child not trying to close a case. I think you’re both full of it!”

Watch the exchange below via Fox News:

(Incidentally, it was far out that Shep admitted breaking the law earlier in the segment, what’s going on at Fox News today, is it Admit Your Past Crimes Day?)

The author of the piece, Manuel Roig-Franzia, notes that the Rubios not only arrived in America in 1956, but that the Senator’s mother returned to Cuba for “at least four short trips” post-1959, the longest being “a month-long stay in February and March 1961.” The smoking gun are the Senator’s parents’ passports, which the Washington Post obtained. His parents weren’t gusanos (“maggots”, the Revolution’s term of art for exiles) because their departure preceded the Revolution, and to claim so would cause strife for Sen. Rubio in the Cuban-American community. Its principal assumption—that Cuba was a free and capitalist society where decent families could live in peace before midnight on New Year’s Eve, 1959– is woefully myopic at best, and maliciously disingenuous at worst.

RELATED: Four GOP Candidates To Boycott Univisión Debate Over Alleged Sen. Marco Rubio Blackmail

While the article declares its objective to be to highlight how a politician bent the truth to be a more endearing candidate to the America right, Roig-Franzia gives away his true point in one sentence towards the top of his piece:

The real story of his parents’ migration appears to be a more conventional immigrant narrative, a couple who came to the United States seeking a better life. In the year they arrived in Florida, the future Marxist dictator was in Mexico plotting a quixotic return to Cuba.

In case that line didn’t make the purpose of the piece clear enough, below is Roig-Franzia’s appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball last night, where he argued the Senator’s family only came to America “looking for economic improvement” (Chris Matthews’ claiming Sen. Rubio was “bragging” about his parents’ trauma in a “ruse to make him look like a real anti-commie” deserves dishonorable mention):

Senator Rubio isn’t an exile, Roig-Franzia argues– he is a Hispanic immigrant no different than, say, the twelve million illegal aliens Sen. Rubio contends should not be allowed to cut in line to get into this country. This is clear because, during the time of their departure, Castro was floundering around Mexico on a glorified raft called the Granma with a couple of Marxist hatemonger pals, a threat to no one. This is simply historical fiction.

Fidel Castro first rose to national fame in 1953, after being part of an ambush massacre of Cuban soldiers in the Moncada barracks. The 26th of July is still the most exalted of holidays in Communist Cuba, and his closing arguments as his own attorney after being arrested, now known as the “history will absolve me speech,” made him somewhat of a national celebrity. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison along with several other revolutionaries, who were then freed by Fulgencio Batista in 1955. They fled to Mexico.

In the interim, Castro’s revolution was not the only show in town. The Revolutionary Directorate, a group of college students led by José Antonio Echeverría, attempted to assassinate Batista in March 1957, reaching the second floor of the presidential palace before being shot and killed, and before reaching Batista. Meanwhile, a burgeoning 26th of July movement was being led by revolutionary Frank País, who had taken the mantle in Santiago (the biggest city on the eastern tip of the island) in 1955 while Castro and friends were taking cover in Mexico, and, later, living in the low-populated mountainous region of the island. He too was shot and killed in 1957, just in time for Castro’s now-infamous glowing profile in the New York Times. It would take another two years of armed struggled for Castro to assume power.

Roig-Franzia would have us believe that Cuba’s political climate was hospitable for the average family at the time, and that the Rubios had no way of knowing in 1956 that their country as they knew it was gone forever.

Next Page: Sen. Rubio has not let the story slide.

As part of a larger campaign to observe 15 years on air, Fox News Channel will be hitting the road, sending many of their top on-air talent to numerous locations around the nation to report live and broadcast their shows. Starting out from Orlando on September 19th, the tour will hit six cities across the country, airings special episodes of key shows from each stop.

Following is the announced schedule:

9/19 – Orlando − FOX & Friends

9/27 – Las Vegas − Studio B & The FOX Report with Shepard Smith

10/3 – Chicago − Your World with Neil Cavuto

10/6 – Atlanta − Hannity

10/11 – Boston − The O’Reilly Factor

10/20 – Phoenix − On the Record with Greta Van Susteren

For another take on anonymous commenting, check out our own Alex Alvarez’s column on the subject from Monday here. Oh, and, in case you’re wondering, the ruling only affects Indiana. Mediaite’s headquartered in New York. Y’all are safe.

Check out the clip from Fox News below:

Frequent Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano weighed in on the ruling, telling Smith he saw it as an “affirmance of Free Speech” protecting even the most brash and hateful of speech, no matter what person or institution is at the receiving end of such speech. He added that the concept of “free speech zones” such as those near the Maryland military funeral in question can be a dangerous one because it insinuates that areas outside of those zones do not allow for such freedom of speech. Free speech zones, he warns, can give the impression that the Court approves of states suppressing free speech by confining it to certain areas.

Watch the segment for yourselves, via Fox News:

It didn’t end there. As Smith attempted to shift gears, Harper’s audio could still be heard. The instant the dreaded language entered Smith’s gentile and Mississippi-bred ears, he quickly ordered it be turned off. He later offered an apology to the Prime Minister, explaining that “French is great for you in canada but it messes things up for us here.” The whole thing was pretty darn hilarious, reminding of us why Shep’s often so enjoyable to watch.

Clearly there’s no love lost between the host of Studio B and the language of love.

Check out the clip from Fox News below:

Smith’s reporting on this story has been nothing less than a tour de force, picking up the baton in a relay started by Jon Stewart last Thursday (in which he dedicated nearly an entire episode of The Daily Show to this issue. Smith followed up the next day asking Senator’s “how do they sleep at night,” then following up with critical commentary towards Republicans who had opposed the bill and calling out Senator Tom Coburn by name.

Smith’s coverage was so strong that it even earned the rarest of rarities in the hyper-partisan rivalries of cable news: praise from another network. Last night Rachel Maddow gave a specific shout to Shep Smith in a way that gives one hope for the future. Could the harmonic convergence finally be upon us!

Shep also wondered why the media has focused more on the messenger of the news, instead of the actual information being disclosed.  Hall explained the fascination with the story due to the “healthy amount of skepticism towards government right now” and since “people aren’t comfortable with the government holding secrets.”  What Shep fails to realize though is that if the media did not focus on the messenger, then he would be deprived of the opportunity to have fun elongating the pronunciation of “Assange” in his uniquely humorous way.

Watch the clip from FOX News Channel’s Studio B below:

That’s right – the greatest Shepard Smith transition of all time took place this afternoon.

There was a brief moment where Shep was talking junk-touching while video of the chase played. “I feel badly for the TSA agents who showed up at work on a Monday who found out all of a sudden they were going to have to start touching people all over their bodies,” he said.

Then it was onto the chase: “Something we can agree on. Car chases are interesting and they are bad.”

As it turns out, it wasn’t much of a chase (while it was a chopper chase I guess). The police cut it short, the guy pulled into a parking space, strolled out of the car and entered a building. There was some confusion. We found out later it was probably just a case of shop-lifting, so the police abandoned the chase. But Shep and the chopper didn’t! You want some context? Said Shep:

I’ve been sitting here watching these things for a long time. As long as Fox News channel has been on the air. I have never…seen…this.

“Was this a police chase or were we just following a guy on his way to work in a hurry?” And scene.

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

But how did she do it? Caitlin Burke explained her Wheel of Fortune strategy to Shepard Smith today.

So here’s the $10,000 question (or something): how did she do it?

I just looked at it, and um, I don’t know, that’s what came to me immediately. I thought it was “I’ve got a funny feeling” but when “funny” didn’t fit I was a little rattled and “good” came to me and I knew that’s what it was.

Also she wants to be clear that she “knew it before the ‘L’ was up there”… in other words, she didn’t need any letters, all you one-letter losers. Sadly Shep didn’t put her through a Slumdog Millionaire-style interrogation.

Check out the moment, and the interview below (from FNC):

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

McCain was understandably unprepared to throw his support behind candidate Palin, particularly since a) she’s not even announced her plans and b) that’s a pretty heavy arrow in his political quiver, and his support of the a future candid is not to be thrown around lightly (else it lessens any future political leverage he can eventually extract for said endorsement.)

However, some cynics might see the following video clip and ask how Mr. McCain could so comfortably put Ms. Palin on his presidential ticket in 2008 — just one heartbeat away from the most powerful seat in the free world — and yet not be able to throw his potential endorsement her way in this interview.

The balance of the interview focuses on specific cuts to the budget that McCain would suggest, and the senior senator from Arizona acquits himself quite well with a spry and pointed response of specific targets and goals that he would like to see in the coming fiscal year.

To start, though, they discussed last night’s Daily Show. While many have argued the wisdom of Obama appearing on a comedy show, Hall pointed out that Obama needed “a win” and to be “in a room with a lot of fans” and that that’s just what he got. Smith then played a number of the more contentious moments from the interview and they judged how well the president handled Jon Stewart’s sharper questions.

After that (and a glorious segue featuring a loving shot of our beautifully designed home page), the conversation moved to Behar vs. Angle. Smith reminded viewers that he was actually there for the incident and that Behar wasn’t angry (which was one of Megyn Kelly’s arguments yesterday) but was “laughing like a hyena.” A hyena? If there was ever a statement that would satisfy both Behar fans and haters, it’s the one above.

Smith then wondered “who got to” Behar in causing her to make today’s apology. Perhaps, as Hall alluded to, she realized how much she was helping, not hurting, the woman she was throwing “terms of endearment” at.

Check out the clip from Fox News below.

The interview is a great get for the highest rated cable news network, especially considering its timing—Ahmadinejad just made headlines this afternoon when he suggested to the UN’s General Assembly that 9/11 may have been an inside job.

In the video below, MIT international security expert Jim Walsh discusses Iran and Ahmadinejad with Smith, who notes that in interviews with the president, “You don’t always learn a lot, except, as you mentioned, in the nuance—how did he not answer that question?”

While Smith’s tone was pretty hostile from the beginning, it seemed that it was Smith’s invocation of the infamous “Mission Accomplished” slogan from the Bush years that really got to Browner. Interestingly, in a press conference earlier, Robert Gibbs also strove to stay away from the phrase.

Here’s Smith’s comments:

“And I know you would forgive the good people in the Gulf South who feel like they’ve been lied to for so long that they can’t stand any more lies. Five years ago, ‘Help is on the way. Water’s around the corner.’ Now, there’s 205 million gallons of oil in the water but, ‘poof,’ it’s gone. They don’t believe the dispersant talk in large part. They don’t believe that the oil has evaporated. They believe that, if microbes are eating up the oil, that’s causing other problems. It almost feels like, in a political season, the administration is saying, ‘Move along,’ ‘Check mark,’ ‘Mission accomplished’ even. ‘Away we go.’”

This led into an impassioned speech from Browner about how she and the administration know that there is still work to be done and that they will be helping the Gulf for a long, long time. Eventually, tensions between Browner and Smith seemed to clear up but it was pretty heated there for a moment.

al-Megrahi was convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people (189 of them Americans). He was released from prison last year after doctors diagnosed him as only having three months to live. Rumors have recently been surfacing that he actually could live for many years and now is living in the lap of luxury with the decision to release him based on oil. Smith explained that BP has admitted that they talked to the British government about getting al-Megrahi released more quickly but just for business relations with Libya. The senators want to investigate to see what exactly was BP’s involvement.

Menendez said this about the evidence so far:

“It seems to me that when you add the fact that the Libyans reached out to the doctors that made the determination that he only had three months to live- al-Megrahi, the Pan Am 103 bomber who was convicted and was in custody by the Scottish government. Now we hear those doctors saying that basically they were on the Libyan payroll. Ultimately now they say he can live 10 years. Then you look at BP’s written transactions with Jack Straw, the Secretary of Justice for the United Kingdom in which they said that the lack of a transfer of this individual could impede the deal that we are striking with the Libyans to drill oil off the Libyan coast. And then you see Jack Straw write to the Scottish government and basically say, y’know, we’re going to include this individual. At the end of the day, when you look at all of that, I think it is plenty- while it’s circumstantial, it is plenty of circumstantial evidence to raise the questions and to have the hearing and to ultimately get our State Department to pursue the British because, otherwise, we send the message to terrorists in the world that, even after you’re caught and convicted of a terrorist act, killing 189 Americans, 38 from my home state of New Jersey, that then you can live in the lap of luxury in Libya and be celebrated.”

Smith was in complete agreement.

Somewhere, in the BP public relations department, someone is sobbing. Meanwhile, the satirical BP PR on Twitter had some strong (and very crude, no pun intended) words on the subject.

Today Shep interviewed the woman accusing Greene of this – and now this whole thing has just become creepy.

Camille McCoy was the 19-year-old accusing Greene of the crime. According to Smith, this took place in October in a college computer lab. “Dude comes up and says do you like football,” said Shep, and showed her a picture. “When you looked at the pictures what did he show you?” asked Smith.

McCoy: It was porn.
Smith: What do you mean it was porn? Help us understand specifically without skeeving us out.
McCoy: It was woman on man porn. You know pretty much sex I guess. So, I wasn’t really looking…

“I could not believe that this man was running, and won,” said McCoy (the AP contacted her after Greene’s victory).

Obviously, Greene is innocent until proven guilty. So, there’s that. Also – everything else. Good luck, South Carolina.

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Shepard Smith

Crowley began to explain that the State Department understood and shared the concerns of those in Gaza and the Palestinian officials, but that they were also aware of legitimate security concerns on Israel’s part and did not have complete information to take a side. After his explanation, Smith plainly asked, “Nine people are dead, Israel is at a crossroads, and the position of the United States on this incident officially is what?” and quickly interrupted Crowley when he began to respond with a similar answer, going off about the US’s neutrality:

“I know, but see, that’s the problem PJ, and you keep repeating it because we don’t have an official position yet. The rest of the world has an official position. Almost every country on planet earth has spoken out with an official position. Where is the United States’ position on this matter? I know it’s not for you to come up with a position, but clearly there isn’t one yet.”

He reiterated that a complete set of information was necessary to take a side, and that the US was most interested in ending violence on both sides. Then Smith gave him a difficult hypothetical: if Turkey chooses to engage in military action against Israel, isn’t the US then compelled to attack Israel also since Turkey is a NATO member? Crowley called the conclusion “dead wrong,” noting that Turkey has a very close relationship with Israel and a military conflict between those countries is unlikely.

Video below:

Covering the latest Justice Department press conference with Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge, Smith repeatedly emphasized that the bomb was faulty, police were notified of the suspicious vehicle only after the bomb’s detonator had failed. In his opinion, Attorney General Eric Holder was giving too much credit to the civilian who notified the authorities as the bomb had already “gone off” when he called the police. Holder had stated that the alert bystander “helped save lives, and thwarted a potentially devastating attack,” to which Smith replied: “this bomb was not thwarted– this bomb failed.” Smith’s issue was not with the civilian, who he praised, but with the federal authorities, which he speculated wanted to be able to use the instance as proof of their successes in the future:

“I can think of a lot of different reasons that they would want this. For instance, down the road, next time something happens, they can say ‘we thwarted Christmas Day’ and ‘we thwarted Times Square,’ but that wouldn’t be the case. And part of our job, I think, is to not allow revisionist history to take over.”

It’s worth noting that Smith also reserve praise for the Justice department – and Holder – for the successful efforts to apprehend the individual alleged to have tried to blow-up an S.U.V. in Times Square. But he made very clear that, in his eyes, this was not a thwarted effort, but a failed one.

Watch the clip from Studio B below:

Jackson detailed his morning, which included a visit to FBI headquarters…and a call from the President.

Jackson had been on “that corner for 13 years,” and when he saw smoke coming from the car he was one of the first to alert police. Today he went to FBI headquarters because they told him they “wanted me to look at some pictures.”

Instead, there was a call for him from Pres. Barack Obama:

He said, ‘Thank you very much, I appreciate what you did, the whole country does, and New Yorkers. Thank you for your diligence in acting so fast and being a good American.’

Here’s the full interview:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Napolitano’s argument is that asking for personal information like ethnic background is unconstitutional, in the sense that the Founding Fathers didn’t give the federal government the power to ask that specific question. Not only does Shepard Smith vehemently agree, he thinks the other side knows it, too, and gets a little too colorful in describing their criticisms. Loyal fans and cable news junkies will remember this isn’t the first time Shep involuntarily says something crass, and hilarious, on air.

Credit to Fox News for knowing its audience well enough to upload the video to their website under the headline “Are Some Census Questions Illegal?” (which is technically impossible since the census only asks two questions: vital stats and ethnicity).

Watch the clip below:

The major part of the disagreement stemmed from the use of the word “Armageddon” by Steele – but Shep also put Steele on the spot with his plan to fire Nancy Pelosi.

Smith asked Steele about David Frum‘s “Waterloo” column today, and Steele brought the conversation to firing Nancy Pelosi (a new website he touted several times). “This is my message: I’m asking Americans to join me across this country in firing Nancy Pelosi,” he said, to which Shep eventually interrupted: “I heard this talking point last night and I want to move forward.”

More from Shep:

I want to know how people are supposed to help you fire Nancy Pelosi. And specifically, would it be the people who had a pre-exisitng condition and couldn’t get insurance but after the President signs it tomorrow can, would it be the child who had a disease but couldn’t get treated because they didn’t have any money, who would be able to be treated for that tomorrow, or who would it be who would want to be firing Nancy Pelosi?

Tough question to answer, of course. “The people who want to be able to make those decisions without the government sitting between them and their doctor,” started Steele.

Then Shep turned to rhetoric. He fired these questions while Steele tried to answer each: “Is this Armageddon, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, Armageddon? Seriously? Armageddon, Mr. Chairman, would you like a definition?”

The conversation continued after the commercial break, with Shep sticking to his line of questioning calmly, but pointedly – and Steele stayed on message.

Here’s the interview:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Kurtz asked Smith about his recent apology on-air for having a non-fair and balanced moment during an interview with then-candidate for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. “I came off looking condescending,” said Smith. “I handled it poorly.”

Smith’s boss, SVP of news Michael Clemente, praised the anchor. “He sort of wakes up with the curiosity to find out what’s going on and brings that energy home to the viewer,” he said. “He gets very excited about car chases…He happens to be a nice-looking guy as well — good pipes, he’s got the whole tool kit.”

Of course, he’s got something else as well – the ability to go off script, or make a mistake and joke about it candidly. You never know what you’ll get – especially during his 3pmET hour.

But while Smith is objective, he doesn’t hold back with commenting occasionally on topics (especially during breaking news situations). And his comments have drawn heat from regular conservative FNC viewers, while those on the left often bash the network as a whole. Smith puts it to a sports analogy:

Smith, whose office is festooned with Ole Miss pennants and paraphernalia, draws an analogy involving his alma mater and its rival, Louisiana State University. “Because I love Ole Miss, I hate LSU,” he says. “I want them to lose every game in every sport until the day I die. I might say in a fit of passion I hope it burns to the ground — but that doesn’t mean anything.

“That’s how people are with Fox. They decide that Fox is the thing they love or the thing they hate.”

But besides the hard news focus, Smith’s lighter side – an appearance on The View, a new site on Foxnews.com – has been on display recently as well. It does seem that there have been a lot of Shepard Smith profiles of late, and there’s been a noted push to get him out in the media as an alternative face for Fox News. It serves the network well to point to Smith – who has the charisma of its opinion hosts but maintains the objectivity – while others, like the White House, are unhappy with Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

Here’s the latest behind-the-scenes video from Shep’s site:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

He apologized to the viewers after a segment on the New Jersey Governor race he felt didn’t give both sides a fair shake.

Gawker reports Smith was introducing a report from correspondent Shannon Bream, and it appeared he was expecting it to be a sole reporter segment. Instead, Bream was at GOP candidate Chris Christie‘s rally, and he was there for a quick, impromptu interview.

Smith didn’t like the surprise. “When will you be interviewing Jon Corzine?” he asked after the interview. “We have multiple requests, and when it comes through, we’ll let you know,” said Bream.

Later, here’s classic Shep Smith: “Wow, I didn’t know that was about to happen. My apologies for the lack of balance there. If I had had control, it wouldn’t have happened.”

Christie has been around Fox News quite a bit as the race heats up, including an interview last night with Sean Hannity. And if Corzine has really been declining interviews, it’s certainly not FNC’s fault.

But the moment gets added to the long list of exchanges that make up the “fair and balanced,” renegade-like resume of Shepard Smith.

> Update on Wednesday: Today on Studio B, Smith said: “Yesterday Shannon Bream interviewed live the republican candidate for governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie. She offered the same opportunity to the democrat, Jon Corzine. That offer still stands.”

Here’s the clip, before the interview and after. (h/t J$):

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter