What I find hilarious is how rabidly hateful conservatives are towards Gore and any perceived profits from his environmentalism yet they have no problem with Cheney and his friends using the war in Iraq as a source of massive profits.

When somebody has told so many lies, and has spread so much BS, and has helped with so much evil as anybody who works for the Bush administration has, I find claims that they never claimed to be objective to be unsatisfying.

And, of course, you may have forgotten, but George pledged to 'restore honor and dignity to the White House'. I guess that that's no longer operative, as they said during the Watergate cover-up.

Going on a cruise without Mapes et al: PRICELESS

Here's the wikipedia article on the mayor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson

Seriously though, the minute you include Mary Mapes as a headliner you have destroyed any claim to objectivity.

It is specifically marketed to progressives. Where does it claim to be non partisan?

Tony Snow did not support the Bush Administration when he was on Fox News in hopes of getting his current job. However, the fact he supported the Administration must have played into the fact he was on the final list - they weren't going to hire Dan Rather.

The fact remains that he was no more objective than Mapes or Hume.

And don’t forget, you can buy carbon offsets and make Al Gore richer at an additional cost.

As the later quote states the carbon offsets are organized through EcoLogic, a non-profit that is not associated with Gore. You no doubt knew this but couldn't resist the cheap shot. Their work in in Latin America is coordinated with local ,often indigenous, community environmental groups (Ulew Che Ja and PAF-Maya in Guatemala). Like most non-profits they rely heavily on volunteer help.
They are a non-profit doing good work in cooperation with local community groups. Why the cheap shot?

But in the case of Mary Mapes and 60 Minutes, they claim to be reporting stuff free of political ties. By her actions she proved that was not the case, and my opinion is that she was justly fired.

Others see her as a saint for daring to stand up to the evil President Bush. I don't. I see her as a lying propagandist. I have nothing against propaganda, it is relabeled PR, but to pretend you are objective then complain when your lies are uncovered I will not accept.

I also refuse to believe the various conspiracy theories out here. Tony Snow did not support the Bush Administration when he was on Fox News in hopes of getting his current job. However, the fact he supported the Administration must have played into the fact he was on the final list - they weren't going to hire Dan Rather.

Seriously though, the minute you include Mary Mapes as a headliner you have destroyed any claim to objectivity

Objective... You mean like Tony Sonw?