I was taken aback with this Best of the Web entry from the WSJ. The first line forthrightly states: (Bolding mine.) The article the Journal links to is a piece from the conservative National Review which states: So, the WSJ admits it leans towards Rudy, the WSJ's owner puffs him, and now Accuracy in Media states: (Bolding mine.) (Bolding mine.) Does it strike anyone as odd that Fox News, by default, is officially a "client" of Giuliani? Plus, we also have Sean Hannity raising thousands in cash for Giuliani here. And as the New York Times notes "In Fox News, Giuliani Finds a Friendly Stage": And even more telling: (Bolding mine.) This becomes even more meaningful because: The scenario becomes even more scandalous when Fox carried water with "John McCain Wins First GOP Debate, but MSNBC Shows Anti-Giuliani Bias.". And it isn't just we Paulites that perceive the deck stacked against us: Mitt bloggers note: "Honestly watching Fox news alot, it has come clear to me that they are bias for Rudy." A Huckabee blogger notes: "Fox News Shows Bias Against Mike Huckabee." And there are numerous Thompson people on line making the same allegation that Fox is biased. Shouldn't Fox (in the interest of objectivity) relieve itself of hosting any more debates?