cross-objection

Frank Rich, in the Times, agrees with O'Reilly's complaint against CNN: Crossfire should take Carville and Begala off Crossfire. O'Reilly and Rich think CNN's inclusion of these newly and lightly Kerry advisors reveils liberal bias.

Review this argument: the inclusion of liberals on a show that pits liberal vs. conservative hosts reveals bias.

I, obviously, am missing something. This is the strangest (b/c I don't get it) or stupidest argument I've heard in some time. What did O'Reilly think Carville and Begala were previous to Kerry advisors?

Here is my best attempt at understanding: because Carville and Begala work on the campaign, their presence on a media program might unfairly use the media to work for their candidate. Basically, the called foul is free media...indeed, adverts for which employees of the campaign get paid.

Make a legal argument then. If we return to common sense, and remember the show's premise, calling foul on a partisan opinion show for having blatent partisanship is, to say the least, idiodic.