In an interview with Sky News Australia last week, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News’ parent company, stood by Beck. Though he claimed that Beck probably shouldn’t have said such a thing, Murdoch concluded that “if you actually assess what he was talking about, he was right”:

SPEERS: The Glenn Beck, who you mentioned, has called Barack Obama a racist and he helped organize a protest against him. Others on Fox have likened him to Stalin. Is that defensible?

MURDOCH: No, no, no, not Stalin, I don’t think. I don’t know who that, not one of our people. On the racist thing, that caused a grilling. But he did make a very racist comment. Ahhh…about, you know, blacks and whites and so on, and which he said in his campaign he would be completely above. And um, that was something which perhaps shouldn’t have been said about the President, but if you actually assess what he was talking about, he was right.

Murdoch apparently isn’t very familiar with the content of the network he owns. Numerous Fox News personalities, including Glenn Beck, have compared Obama and members of his administration to Stalin. Watch it (starting around 16:00):

Earlier in the interview, Sky News political editor David Speers asked Murdoch if “people who switch on Fox News know when they’re getting news and when they’re getting opinion.” “Oh, absolutely,” replied Murdoch, pointing to Glenn Beck at 5 p.m. and Sean Hannity, “a pretty academic conservative,” at 9 p.m. as the only examples of the network’s opinion programming. But as Jon Stewart pointed out last month, Fox only considers its programming to be news from “9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays.” “The only people you ever think about when you think about Fox News are not news,” said Stewart. “They’re Fox opiniotainment.”

The root difficulty is Obama’s insistence that the nation can afford a large new social program without raising taxes on anyone who earns less than $250,000 per year. Under his plan, according to a CBO analysis, the government will be spending 24.5 percent of gross domestic product — the total value of the national economy — by 2019 while raising only 19 percent in revenue: a huge, unsustainable gap.

The 24.5% of GDP isn’t a measure of government spending as a result of the House/Obama health care bill. It’s a measure of the outlays of all of the President’s policies in his 2010 budget in 2019 and does not capture the deficit-reducing effects of health care reform or the House bill. The Wonk Room has more.

PALMISANO: If you have a problem, you would just say ‘look I have a financial problem, can you help me’ and doctors will help you. If somebody couldn’t pay, we just send them a note, ‘you haven’t paid, is there a reason you can’t pay?’ All they have to do is give us any reason and we just wrote off the bill, forgot the bill. That’s what doctors do.

Watch it:

DCI Group, in addition to its record of setting up “Smokers’ Rights” fronts for tobacco companies, has worked closely the private health insurance industry in the past to thwart legislation to improve the health care system. Additionally, Palmisano has been working closely with Republican lawmakers, like Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), who are most interested in torpedoing health reform to score political points.

Today on CNN, FreedomWorks head Dick Armey defended the industry’s discriminatory practices by saying that if you have diabetes because you “eat like a pig,” you don’t deserve coverage:

ARMEY: But now, they [government officials] come along and they say, irrespective of the fact they’ve gone 20, 30, 40 years of their adult life without ever having bought insurance prior to getting a liver inflammation due to their excessive drinking habits or diabetes because they eat like a pig, you must now insure them.

But at what point do we allow the government to order people that you must sell your product to this person or that person, irrespective of any good judgment? We saw what happened in housing when they ordered banks to make loans to people who weren’t qualified. Are we now going to have the same destructive influences in health care because we’re going to order doctors to provide services and so forth?

Watch it:

In reality, these pre-existing conditions that can disqualify people from receiving health insurance often have nothing to do with unhealthy lifestyle choices — and they disproportionately target women. Some pre-existing conditions are having a Caesarean-section pregnancy, being a victim of domestic violence, or being a victim of rape. Most individual health insurance markets don’t even cover maternity care. Other pre-existing conditions that insurers have used to either deny people outright or charge exorbitant fees for coverage include being an expectant father, having acne, or being a police officer.

Many Republicans, like Armey, seem unable to grasp that denial based on pre-existing conditions is discriminatory. Last week, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) said that insurers are justified in charging women more than men because we’re “all different.” He then compared a woman to a “smoker” and a man to a “non-smoker” to argue that insurers should be allowed to discriminate.

Armey also recently told the New York Times that the “largest empirical problem we have in health care today is too many people are too overinsured.” (He’s wrong.)

Transcript:

ROBERTS: Back on this idea of mandates that you talk about. Those mandates really are to guarantee certain levels of coverage, are they not? Like, you can’t be denied if you’ve got a pre-existing condition or if you’re pregnant. It also requires minimum standards for such things as mental health care. And there are a lot of mandates across the government on many industries, but that’s never called socialism.

ARMEY: OK. Well, let me just say, if the government said to the insurance company, no matter how many accidents, wrecks, drunken driving convictions they’ve had in the past and whatever is the condition of their record of driving habits, you must insure them, you would say that’s unreasonable.

But now, they come along and they say, irrespective of the fact they’ve gone 20, 30, 40 years of their adult life without ever having bought insurance prior to getting a liver inflammation due to their excessive drinking habits or diabetes because they eat like a pig, you must now insure them.

But at what point do we allow the government to order people that you must sell your product to this person or that person, irrespective of any good judgment? We saw what happened in housing when they ordered banks to make loans to people who weren’t qualified. Are we now going to have the same destructive influences in health care because we’re going to order doctors to provide services and so forth?

And the fact of the matter is, the government running somebody else’s business can very quickly become the diminution of the whole industry. And I promise this, about what the House passed the other night goes through, you will destroy medical innovation in America, you’ll destroy the incentive for it.

We are the nation of discovery, creation, and innovation in health care. The rest of the world copies us. If we don’t do it, it won’t be done, and it won’t be done under this plan.

In the House Rules Committee the Friday before the vote, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who is also the chief recruiter for Republican House campaigns in 2010, justified the practice of insurance companies discriminating against women by comparing gender differences to smokers and non-smokers. The next day — on Saturday morning — Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) and several of his GOP colleagues shouted down congresswomen making 1-minute speeches on the importance of health reform for women. Wasserman Schultz denounced the interruption tactics and Sessions’ comparison of women to smokers as the “Republicans’ back of the hand treatment to women”:

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to express and underscore my concerns of essentially what amounts to the Republicans’ back of the hand treatment to women, issues that are important to women, particularly women’s health. We already have had a clear sense that Republicans were opposed to our efforts to advance women’s health interests. Now we know we know they’re opposed to letting women voice opinions on health care as well. [...] My colleague Pete Sessions actually compared women to smokers and suggested women, like smokers, have to pay more for insurance just by the accident of our ability to get pregnant.

Listen here:

Indeed, asked by a witness why should a woman pay more for a man for health insurance premiums, the supposedly pro-life Sessions scoffed:

SESSION: We’re all different. Why should a smoker pay more than a non-smoker.

Watch it:

Insurance companies employ a variety of discriminatory practices towards women. In many states, insurance companies consider rape, previous pregnancies, a c-section, and domestic violence as preexisting conditions. President Obama’s health reform proposals, including the bill passed by the House on Saturday, will end all denials of care based on preexisting conditions and ban gender discrimination for premiums.

Blankfein dismisses any suggestion that Goldman needed to be bailed out, and, by extension, rejects any notion that the firm is now profiting from public support. Sure, he took $10 billion from Washington’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp). But the bank has since repaid the cash, with healthy interest — 23%. Goldman also benefited from the federal bail-out of the huge US insurance firm AIG. Goldman had bought $20 billion worth of insurance from AIG and received billions of dollars — perhaps as much as $13 billion — when Washington pumped $90 billion into the stricken giant. But Blankfein insists Goldman was “hedged” against any AIG losses, in the best possible way — with cash.

Of course, Goldman’s profits have been driven in large part by its access to cheap federal dollars, and the firm may have gone under were it not for its status as a “too big to fail” firm. But Blankfein told the Times that he is just a banker “doing God’s work.” And evidently God’s work — bonuses and all — cannot be questioned.

Democratic Senators are calling on Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to lift his hold on a veterans’ health bill that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to clear before the chamber adjourns this week for a three-day recess.

Sens. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) will hold a press conference Monday to rally support for the measure. [...]

In a floor statement Friday, Begich called on Coburn to lift his hold. Other Democratic Senators made similar appeals, but Begich took the rare step of naming Coburn on the Senate floor.

“I am disappointed that my Senate colleague does not feel this same sense of duty and responsibility to our nation’s heroes, who have sacrificed so much for our very right to stand in this body and debate this matter,” Begich said. “There is no good reason or rationale for a hold to be placed on this legislation and I call on my colleague to remove his hold.”

Unfortunately, using holds to obstruct progress is nothing new for “Dr. No.” He has previously used holds on legislation such as an HIV/AIDS prevention bill and a public lands bill. VoteVets.org, a leading veterans advocacy group, has put together an online petition to call on Coburn to lift his hold.

“The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party’s chairman, who couldn’t be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.

A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August.

O’Neal compared his party’s role to that of the Conservative Party in New York’s 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the “fusion” rules that has allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.

On Saturday, Dan Semenza, a Lake County Republican Party executive committee member, told the Daily Commercial that the registration of the third party organization meant “that the Tea Party has considerable strength.”

I read the versions of the House [health reform] bill. I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding — if they are able to obtain health care at all. Louisianans needs real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children. [...]

I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents.

The reaction to Cao from the right wing has been swift and fierce, with some comparing the only non-Hispanic minority in the GOP caucus to Mao Tse Tung and calling him racial epithets. Rep. Don Young (R-AK) — who has defended Cao’s vote — had to stand beside him during Saturday’s roll call, “fending off his GOP colleagues who might have twisted Cao’s arms.” Last week, RNC Chairman Michael Steele made clear that moderates who don’t walk the Party line have no place in the GOP:

So candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you’re crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we’ll come after you.

Cao “chuckled” in response to Steele’s comments, pointing out that his vision would essentially lead the party toward a path of political suicide. “He has the right to come after those members who do not conform to party lines,” said Cao, “but I would hope that he would work with us in order to adjust to the needs of the district and to hold a seat that the Republican party would need.”

These far right statements represent a dramatic shift from where the GOP said it was heading just a year ago. After Cao won in his majority-Democratic district, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) sent out a memo reading “The Future is Cao“:

As House Republicans look ahead to the next two years, the Cao victory is a symbol of what can be achieved when we think big, present a positive alternative, and work aggressively to earn the trust of the American people.

The GOP seems to no longer be interested in presenting “positive” alternatives or thinking “big.” Its alternative health care legislation didn’t even bar insurers from denying people based upon pre-existing conditions — a top priority of the American public. Additionally, instead of candidates like Cao, far-right candidates who are the darlings of the Tea Party movement (e.g. Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 special election) are winning out over moderates.

So if the “future is Cao,” when will Republicans follow his lead and put their constituents’ interests over those of Republican leaders and right-wing pundits?

This week, they’re bringing their hateful message to children in Washington, DC, planning pickets at a handful of local schools. This morning, they showed up outside of Sidwell Friends, the school that Sasha and Malia Obama attend. On Twitter, Megan Phelps-Roper — one of Fred Phelps’ grandchildren — posted a picture of the protest:

Washington Post education reporter Michael Birnbaum said that he spent the morning at the protest, and MSNBC host David Shuster wrote, “Hopefully, some of the more rational conservatives/republicans will condemn this stuff today. It was beyond the pale.” ThinkProgress contacted Sidwell for more details on the protest and are awaiting a response.

In the past, extreme anti-choice activist Randall Terry has also targeted the Obama children’s school, saying, “We will continue to show images of aborted babies at high schools, no matter what the cost.”

Shagah Zakerion, one of the organizers of the rally to protest House Bill 1595, said many of her fellow students at the University of Oklahoma were unaware the measure had passed until it drew criticism in the national media.

“We didn’t even know the bill was going through our Legislature let alone that it had already passed,” said Zakerion, a senior from Tulsa, before the rally, which attracted about 100 people. “We need to stop this stuff before it turns into law, and we need to build a coalition of Oklahomans that are not only for reproductive justice but also for progressive issues.

“There are people here, and there are youth here who aren’t going to sit back and let legislation like this get passed again,” she said.

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Oklahoma state Rep. Jeannie McDaniel (D), an outspoken opponent of the legislation, lamented the anti-woman atmosphere in the state legislature. “Each of the successive five years, there has been a bill introduced in the Oklahoma legislature regarding women’s reproductive rights,” she said, adding, “Each year, it creeps a little more toward taking away women’s freedoms, more restrictions between the doctors.”

The historic health care legislation passed by the House over the weekend included an amendment that sharply restricts “the availability of coverage for abortions.” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) said she has collected “more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment — enough to block passage.”

As chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will lead an investigation into the Fort Hood shootings to look for “signs of ‘Islamic extremism.’” Lieberman said on Fox News Sunday that the shootings may be “the most destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11.”

Former Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev said that President Obama should begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan. “I think that what’s needed is not additional forces,” he said, “this is something that we discussed, too, years ago but we decided not to do it. And I think our experience deserves attention.”

President Obama is reportedly nearing a decision to send up to 34,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. “This is not going to be an easy sell [to the American public],” one administration official told McClatchy.

The three biggest banks to exit the government’s TARP program — Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s investment bank — “are set to pay record bonuses this year,” totaling $29.7 billion. “It doesn’t seem as if even political threat, disastrous PR, envy, rising unemployment rates and home repossessions is enough to get any of these people to refuse the bonuses they have ‘earned,’” said Paul Hodgson of Corporate Library.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is urging banks to loosen up credit at a time “of mounting unemployment, rising company bankruptcies and increasing regulatory oversight.” Tight credit is a “serious problem,” Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs says. “This could keep growth significantly weaker.”

“Growing concerned that the Congressional timetable for passing a health care overhaul could slip into next year,” the White House “is stepping up pressure on the Senate for quick action, with President Obama appearing Sunday in the Rose Garden to call on senators to ‘”take up the baton and bring this effort to the finish line.’” For now, the Senate’s bill is “stalled while budget analysts assess its overall costs.”

Over the weekend, the Iraqi parliament approved a crucial election law “by a wide margin after weeks of deadlock, which had raised fears that the parliamentary election might have to be delayed.” Obama said that the agreement advanced the “political progress” to “allow for the orderly and responsible transition of American combat troops out of Iraq by next September.”

President Obama will hold talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today as the Israeli-Palestinian peace effort continues to flounder. One major issue expected to arise is that of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories, which the administration has softened its line on in recent weeks.

And finally: It turns out that the Twitter feed of Levi Johnston is a fake. After actor William Shatner performed a dramatic reading of some of his tweets on Conan O’Brien’s show, the Tonight Show host has apologized for the error, saying, “I’d like to apologize personally to Levi Johnston and his lawyer and publicist for misrepresenting him in any way. Levi is clearly a great American. We wish him the best of luck as he trains for his upcoming naked photo shoot.”

Follow ThinkProgress on Twitter.

Palin had remarks prepared but frequently wandered off-script to make a point, offering audience members a casual “awesome” or “bogus” in discussing otherwise weighty topics.

As in: “It is so bogus that society is sending a message right now and has been for probably the last 40 years that a woman isn’t strong enough or smart enough to be able to pursue an education, a career and her rights and still let her baby live.”

Other Palin touchstones included: praise for the military, jeers for the “the liberal media” and a general manner of speaking that often veered into rhetorical culs-de-sac.

While she drew applause during her remarks, Palin’s extemporaneous and frequently discursive style was such that she never truly roused a true-believing crowd as passionate about the issue at hand as she. Not once during her address did they rise to their feet.

Palin warned on her Facebook page last night that the “death panel” provision is in the health care bill that just passed the House.

Cantor hemmed and hawed in response. “Rush Limbaugh, other personalities…have opinions,” he said, emphasizing that the Republican Party is a “party of inclusion” that has room for voices like Limbaugh. But Cantor — the only Jewish Republican member of the House — clarified that he does not condone the use of Hitler “in any discussion of politics” and such comparisons “are not, I think, very helpful.”

Hunt pressed: “So it was inappropriate for Limbaugh to say that?” Cantor responded:

CANTOR: You know, look Al, I think Rush Limbaugh is a conservative voice for America. A lot of the things he says I agree with.

HUNT: But not that?

CANTOR: Right. I don’t condone the use of the word Hitler.

Watch it:

Steve Benen comments, “I suppose Eric Cantor deserves some credit” for his “mild and indirect rebuke. I’m just not sure if he’ll stick to it.” TPM notes that Cantor’s office is trying to highlight his independence from Rush by pointing reporters to the story.

Last week, Cantor’s spokesman said it was “inappropriate” to display a prominent photograph at a GOP rally comparing health care reform to the Nazi concentration camp in Dachau.

As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well. [...] I worry that again that speculation could cause things that we don’t want to see happen.

On ABC, Casey emphasized that the diversity of our Army and society as a whole “gives us all strength.” Watch it:

Some of the “speculation” that Casey is concerned about has emanated from right-wing circles. For example, the hosts of Fox & Friends suggested that “special debriefings” and “special screenings” of Muslim soldiers should be considered. Also, Allen West — a Republican congressional candidate and Iraq war vet — used the murders to claim the “enemy is infiltrating our military.”

On a trip to the United Arab Emirates, Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said, “Obviously, we object to — and do not believe — that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this.” Speaking with a group of women university students, she said, “This was an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith.”

Earlier this week, right-wing columnist Ralph Peters claimed that “political correctness killed those patriotic Americans” because military officials pander to “America-haters.” Reacting to this common right-wing argument, Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS that Hasan’s “actions do not reflect on the Islamic Muslim faith.” He added, “This man’s actions reflect on him. And if we missed some signals on him that we should have known, great. But let’s don’t take this to a level that we should not.” Graham concluded, “Let’s don’t accuse people for giving him a pass because he’s a Muslim because I don’t think there’s any evidence of that.”

LIEBERMAN: A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I’m convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.

But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt — $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.

WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a “no” vote in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.

Watch it:

Late last month, Lieberman told reporters that he was planning to filibuster a public option. But a few days later, the Hill reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office was confident Lieberman would “vote with Democrats in the necessary procedural vote to end debate, perhaps with intentions to change the bill.” Today, Lieberman made it clear where he stands.

It isn’t really Lieberman’s “conscience” that is driving him to oppose the public option — more likely it’s his ego (since he told reporters that he likes feeling “relevant“). After all, Lieberman opposed the Senate Finance Committee bill even though it didn’t have a public option, and in 1994, his “conscience” told him that the filibuster was “unfair” and shouldn’t be used to block major legislation. He has also asserted that the public option would raise premiums and increase the debt, even though the Congressional Budget Office has disputed those claims. Furthermore, 60 percent of his constituents support a public option, but Lieberman has dismissed them as just being “confused.”

Transcript:

WALLACE: The House passed health care. What do you think of the bill they passed, and do you still intend — if there is a public option and there is this tax on so-called cadillac health plans — will you support a Republican filibuster on final passage in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: Well, there’s some good things in House-passed plan. I think we ought to do health care reform this year to deal with the two great problems that President Obama and others have talked about. There are unsustainable continuing increases in the cost of health care; we’ve got to stop that. And there are millions of Americans who don’t have health insurance.

But I’m afraid our colleagues in the House added a lot onto that that subtract from the genuine purposes of health care reform, and one was to create a public option plan. A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I’m convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.

But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt — $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.

WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a “no” vote in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.

At the “House Call” tea party protest on Capitol Hill this week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) pledged to the right-wing activists: “Be assured not one Republican will vote for this bill.” Cao’s vote must have surprised Cantor.

Cao has previously been touted by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) once as “the future” of the GOP. The White House had reportedly “been in constant contact” with him prior to the vote. “Rahm is going all in to get him,” one aide told Roll Call, referring to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

The House also approved, by a vote of 240-194, an amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), which imposed tighter restrictions on abortion coverage. A GOP substitute failed in a vote of 178-258, with a single Republican, Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL) voting against the legislation.

I think they would be very, very severe critics of the current system. And they would tell us that if we continue to drive God out of public life and we continue to increase power in Washington, we are literally putting our freedom at risk.

Watch it:

Gingrich also dodged a question about who he prefers in the Republican primary in Florida’s Senate race. He said former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio (he initially slipped and called him “Mario”) is “a very aggressive, very articulate conservative,” while Gov. Charlie Crist is “a very solid political figure.” Gingrich also said that, “at the moment,” he’s not thinking about running for President in 2012.

In an effort to delay and derail the proceedings, the Republicans continually talked over the Democratic women for half an hour. They sought to prevent the debate by calling for unnecessary “parliamentary inquiries” and requests for “expanding the debate” by an hour.

After being repeatedly interrupted by Republican shouts, Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH) observed:

Do I not have the right to be able to continue my sentence without objections that are trying to censor my remarks here on the floor that I have a right to make as a member of this House?

Watch a compilation:

The presiding chair of the House, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), tried to assuage the Republican ruckus, without much success. The debate must be conducted with “a measure of comity and grace and decency,” Dingell urged. “There’s no advantage to be achieved by making all this fuss,” he told the Republicans.

Right winger Andrew Breitbart’s “Big Hollywood” blog took on the Sesame Street menace this week proclaiming: “Add one more soldier to the Left’s war on Fox News: Oscar the Grouch”:

If Mom and Dad watch cable news, it’s better than 50/50 they watch “POX News.” So what gives? PBS — a network partially funded with my tax dollars — has the right to tell my kids that their parents watch “trashy” news? The message is clear, I can’t even sit my kids in front of “Sesame Street” without having to worry about the Left attempting to undermine my authority.

Thursday night on Fox News, host Bill O’Reilly picked up on Big Hollywood’s rant and couldn’t resist defending his network against the smear merchants at Sesame Street. “Say it ain’t so. Sesame Street trashing Fox News!” O’Reilly complained. After airing the segment in question, O’Reilly said wryly, “We may have to ambush Oscar.” Watch it:

As Big Hollywood itself acknowledged, Fox News wasn’t the only news organization or media personality Sesame Street spoofed. “Walter Cranky,” “Dan Rather-Not,” “Meredith Beware-a” and “Diane Spoiler,” all made appearances on the show. And of course, Oscar’s employer, the “Grouchy News Network.”

Media Matters’ Simon Maloy notes, “It looks like Andrew Breitbart’s BigHollywood.com is looking to dethrone NewsBusters as the premiere source for asinine right-wing media criticism” by documenting “the absurd liberal bias in an episode of Sesame Street that aired two years ago. Just let that sink in for a moment…”

We wouldn’t put it past O’Reilly hit-man Jesse Watters to be staking out Oscar’s garbage can right now.