Chris Wallace: "Biggest bunch of crybabies in Washington"

Here's a bit of palate cleanser from a well known news anchor who worked at one time for NBC now works for Foxnews describes how he has to deal with a bunch of crybabies at the White House.




Transcript (below) and captioning via Overstream courtesy of Kokonut Pundit.

Wallace:
When I covered Ronald Reagan for NBC in the 80s, you know some days you do a good piece, passive piece, and then you do a tough piece. And then you come in the next day and they always treated you professionally, I think it came from the top down from the old man, Reagan who felt, you know, I'm gonna get a good review today or a bad review tomorrow, nothing personally. These guys everything is personal. I gotta tell you, everything. They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.

*O'Reilly interjects..unclear.

They're constantly on the phone, emailing me complaining. Well, you have this desk. Or, you did this, this thing. I mean, they are working the, um, I think it works with the others but it doesn't work with me.

Hmmm, crybabies? Sounds about right.

UPDATE: Hmm, the "famous" Mike Malloy has a blog piece with a link that connects to my piece here. Let me say "thank you" but I can't let this one go on what's he's said which is loaded with conspiracy theories worthy of 9/11 Truthers' nod.

Gee Chris, I wonder why Obama refuses to join the “fair and balanced” fantasy with you freaks? You questioned the legitimacy of his Presidency and now call him a crybaby? You dangerous idiots set the tone, organizing anti-Obama rallies and tea-bag parties all over the place; you urged parents to keep their children home from school lest they be mesmerized into zombies by Obama’s scary mind-control speech about working hard and studying in school; you encouraged your brain-damaged Fox “News” viewers to arm up and go to battle to fight the Big Evil in the White House. And, those are just the obvious assaults on rationality.

Assault on rationality? Oh, really? Why is it rational that the current running deficit of approximately $2 trillion dollars which is nearly quintuple (that means 5 times) the amount of Bush's own deficit at the end of 2008? But Obama did all this in an amazing, toilet flushing 6 months time, instead.

Why is it rational to add more govt programs and contribute more to the convuluting mess already? And the fact we don't have the money?

Why is it rational to include the extra 12 million (or however many millions we have) of illegal aliens under the auspice of a national health care program by making them "legal aliens" in one fell swoop? Where's the money? Where will the doctors come from? The question comes into play for the 40 million Americans as well.

Why is it rational to not call it a tax but a "fine" on Americans who do not want health care yet when tax is clearly defined as a charge imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

***

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase…

***

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.

Who would rather bet on? Webster or Obama?

Zombies?? Ah, you must mean these guys. Had it been anywhere near that nutty with the current protesters who are for limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense you'd see the MSM having a field day reporting these protesters on getting arrested and hauled off by Secret Service to investigate their threatening signs against a president.

Looks like Chris Wallace is right about the crybaby bit. Don't you know already that ACORN supports pimps, drug-addicts, prostitutes, and commie terrorists?

A "sample of sanity" you say? Seriously, I gotta wonder.