2. The quality of people Obama appoints make people vey suspicious of the whole process and its legality...
---------------------------------------------------------------
because GW's appointees were beyond reproach... *-)

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. For example, today some leftist Limbo haters put a false accusation of him on Wiki. Limbaugh is sending every single commentator or politician ( like Al Sharpton) who cited that wiki reference a letter, demanding the proof of facts. And the second letter demanding an apology or retrieval of the accusation.
And after that -libel lawsuit? I hope he succeeds with those creeps. Thank God he has enough $$$ to beat the crap out of those liars.

the point was NOT who has mot tsars.. probably Obama will have more by the end of the term..
the point was to show that people like Beck are not fair and balanced..
Not that there is anything wrong with it..

4.Always a good thing to question your government and their action...kinda slows them down...))maybe....
Especially when Republicans are in power. Then Fox News is the ultimate place that questions the government. :-)

Democrats in Congress who never questioned Bush's czars are now worried about Obama's...are they not fair and balanced?
Beck WAS very harsh on Bush and his bailout and spendings (don't remember about czars)...
Bush had EIGHT years to appoint various czars (some positions lasted only a year or two)...the reason it worries so many people IS because it's not about to stop and they want check and balances (oversight of the Congress)...otherwise, those czars have unlimited power because most of them report only to the president...
remember very well people like Savage was mumbling on the Radio about Bush's czars....

Алексей, republicans were very harsh on Bush too...it's just people with your views would not see it because they issues that worries them are vastlt different - conservatives brought Bush's immigration reform down, were very much against all bailouts, stimulus...
they did, however, supported him on the war on terror issues...

Svetlana, how do you know what my views are? Do you even know if I vote Democrat or Republican?
Yes, Beck was critical of Bush. :-) I remember him defending Bush's handouts to oil companies: "...this helped companies. Oil companies are companies. Deal with that" [very close to actual text. Google it to see what he said exactly]. It was very nice to see him to attack Obama's handouts to car companies with the same vigor. It makes him a very unbiased and well-balanced journalist.

what handouts to the oil companies? show me the link...:-)
aren't you a liberal?
and conservatives also were critical of Bush's Supreme Court nominee, so she took her name down...so they don't support whatever Bush does 100%...

A couple of formulas:
1. BBC + NPR + CNNHeadlineNews - FoxNews - MSNBC = good reporting.
2. Glen Beck = Keith Olbermann
Unfortunately, there is not a single unbiased news outlet. Only the aggregate source + some personal "unbullsh#ting" would give you a somewhat unbiased news.

FOX was never really harsh on Bush, even when he was fucking up.
They are very harsh on Obama, does not matter what he does.
But, i assume, most people watch FOX with understanding this is
what they would do.
The same reason people read NYT or watch MSNBC because they wanna see more left commentary.