Op Ed pages are just that: opinions. FOX is exactly the same. It's simply not a news outlet; it's an Op Ed outlet. Essentially, it's a well funded blog. It's veracity and ethics are so poor that it's a complete waste of time for anyone who actually wants decent information. For people who want to be entertained by being fed what they already believe, FOX is great.
The premise of the article, poorly written and innaccurate as it is, seems to be to say "Hey, Obama broke some promises, so he sucks". Gross innaccuracies in the claims aside, there is no weighting given to the magnitude of the promise or whether it was politically necessary as part of getting the job done. From a different perspective, Obama's kept virtually all of his civil rights promises; something I was very concerned about. On time and on budget. Impressive. I'm not fully behind his whole program, but his actions in the ethical area get high marks from me.
Oh, and Rush's modus operandi when confronted with what he's said is to claim that it's been somehow taken out of context. Coulter and O'Reilly both employ the same trick. It's bullshit, of course, but it gets them through the interview process; something they can't avoid given their media exposure.