Bill O’Reilly Unhappy Because Voters ‘Want Stuff’

Via Raw Story.

Last night on the Faux News Channel, Bill O’Reilly explained that President Obama won re-election because “the voters — many of them — feel that this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff.” Does O’Reilly consider this some kind of profound analysis? It’s how democracy is supposed to work all the time.

It’s true. We voters want a lot. We want a government in Washington that represents the people. We want peace, and prosperity for everyone (not just the rich). We want clean air and water, energy conservation, and a livable planet. We want an end to unconstitutional government surveillance, and policies that permit U.S. citizens to be assassinated and imprisoned without due process of law. We want torturers and Wall Street fraudsters to be convicted of their crimes in federal court. We want to take good care of our military veterans who have sacrificed so much for this country. We want the Social Security and Medicare benefits we earned through a lifetime of work, even if it means the rich have to pay more taxes. We want everyone’s constitutional rights to be respected, particularly women and minorities. We want immigrants to be treated fairly, and not exploited or persecuted.

But wait just one minute, O’Reilly. Do you believe the millionaires and billionaires who financed the most expensive election in American history didn’t demand anything in return for their contributions? It’s not just the 99 Percent who want stuff. The 1 Percent are trying to increase their wealth at our expense, using the power of government policy.

UPDATE: Steve Benen wonders how Karl Rove’s day is going today.

I imagine there are some fascinating behind-the-scenes conversations taking place in the political world this morning, but the chats I’d especially like to hear are the ones between the most generous Republican donors and the party officials who didn’t deliver.

Precise estimates vary, but by all accounts, Republican casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, for example, invested tens of millions of dollars in the 2012 cycle, including writing several large checks to Rove’s Crossroads attack operation. Rove effectively told Adelson and other hyper-wealthy donors, “Give me your money and I’ll deliver the election results you want.”

The checks came. The victories didn’t.

UPDATE: You can count on Glenn Greenwald to rain on the progressive parade:

It is widely expected – including by liberals – that Obama intends (again) to pursue a so-called “Grand Bargain” with the GOP: a deficit- and debt-cutting agreement whereby the GOP agrees to some very modest tax increases on the rich in exchange for substantial cuts to entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare, the crown legislative jewels of American liberalism.

…With last night’s results, one can choose to see things two ways: (1) emboldened by their success and the obvious movement of the electorate in their direction, liberals will resolve that this time things will be different, that their willingness to be Good Partisan Soldiers depends upon their core values not being ignored and stomped on, or (2) inebriated with love and gratitude for Obama for having vanquished the evil Republican villains, they will follow their beloved superhero wherever he goes with even more loyalty than before. One does not need to be Nate Silver to be able to use the available historical data to see which of those two courses is the far more likely one.

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. #1 by Richard Warnick on November 7, 2012 - 9:42 am

    Yeah, it’s amazing that the most expensive U.S. election ever resulted in the same President, and essentially the same Congress we started with.

    Votes are still being counted, but President Obama clearly won the popular vote by at least 2.6 million.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on November 7, 2012 - 4:04 pm

    Michael Moore: “To my fellow Americans, I think you’ll agree: it was nice to wake up this morning in the United States of America.”

    But I remember when Moore said Romney would win.

  3. #3 by cav on November 7, 2012 - 5:39 pm

    From your Up-Date I would definitely pick #1.

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan on November 7, 2012 - 7:09 pm

    O’reilly says in the video that Americans react to pictures, not bloviators.

    I just don’t know how to react to that statement.

  5. #5 by Larry Bergan on November 7, 2012 - 7:21 pm

    Nice post Richard. The number one irony we’re left with after this election is: why didn’t all that money win it? They – television pundits – have been telling us that the candidates with the most money are always the ones who win. Seems like a turning point.

    Karl Rove has been called a genius and even “Frontline” did a program on that subject, but Karl must be getting tired. Why would he embarrass Mitt Romney and himself by trying to call a recount in Ohio, when it was obviously a loosing battle.

    Man, I hope somebody was watching that state closely enough to finally bring some prosecutions down.

    And yes: it’s the wealthy who want ALL the stuff!

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on November 8, 2012 - 7:39 am

    I watched Chuck Todd this morning talking to Jonathan Collegio of Crossroads super PAC, and he said that the “ground game” was up to the campaign– their job as a PAC was only to run ads. Also, they expected the Romney campaign to defend their candidate against criticism of his record at Bain Capital, so Crossroads didn’t do that.

    This was a billion-dollar campaign, but it uncovered the limits of unlimited “dark money.”

  7. #7 by Richard Warnick on November 8, 2012 - 11:13 am

    OTOH maybe the billionaire bucks weren’t completely wasted…

    Canada confident Obama will approve Keystone XL pipeline

  8. #8 by Larry Bergan on November 8, 2012 - 5:08 pm

    Their are reports out there that Karl Rove’s job as Republican election master is in jeopardy. There is no way the GOP is going to fire somebody as untouchable as Karl. Who else in this country could not even show up when subpoenaed and get away with it.

    He makes Al Capone look like a sissy.

(will not be published)