Archive for category Bill O’Reilly
Via Media Matters. They watch Faux News so we don’t have to.
This is incredible, a perfect example of the right-wing’s alternate universe. Bill O’Reilly claims Americans who vote for Democratic Party candidates are emotional, selfish and just interested in “what you can get from the government.” He doesn’t believe they have the best interest of the nation in mind. Plus, he wants to scare everybody with Ebola [Note: Americans are much more likely to be the victim of a police shooting than to contract Ebola].
Meanwhile in reality, the Tea-GOP is doing everything they can think of to put our economy into a tailspin. They have staged a government shutdown and a near-default on the National Debt. They have enforced austerity budgeting (“sequestration” in Washington-speak) that has cost us 1.6 million jobs and 1.2 percent of GDP. And they think they can blame everything on President Obama – why not, it has worked before.
How The Press Is Doing The GOP’s Ebola Bidding
Fear is the Tea-GOP’s midterm election theme. Message: Panic looms. We stand exposed. Nobody’s in charge. It’s worse than you think.
Media Matters offers a four and a half minute compilation of how right-wing media have been trying to spread unfounded hysteria and conspiracy theories about Ebola. Apparently it’s just part of the GOTV operation to make sure all the wingers show up at the polls on November 4. It’s hyper-partisan politics as usual, and the good of our nation and the world is not even a consideration.
Sure, FOX news gets away with blatant racism and nobody bats an eye because it’s just part of their act, but they are not alone in their uncompassionate reporting on the thousands of people currently suffering from Ebola.
…We speculate endlessly over the fictionalized and sensationalized prospects of an epidemic that will never become a legitimate threat within the US, but no one finds the time to even mention the horror that must face the individuals, the families, the health care workers and the citizens of an impoverished country who are slowly watching this unspeakably devastating disease spread within their midst. For the moment, we are too busy asking ourselves, “What does this Ebola outbreak mean for me and my life?” instead of the questions we should be asking, such as “How can we as a global community best act to stop this terrible disease everywhere?”
So whether anchors are talking about travel bans for everyone and anyone coming from West Africa, or discussing the domestic “Ebola epidemic” in regards to the few cases we’ve had in the U.S., it is important to realize that it is all just well-disguised racism and Western exceptionalism being paraded around under the banner of “national security.”…
The Ebola Truthers Have Arrived and Their Conspiracy Theories Are Completely Insane
POLITICO poll: Democrats in danger over Ebola
Poll: Majority Of Americans Worried About U.S. Ebola Outbreak
Gallup: One-Fifth of Americans Worry About Getting Ebola (Those would be the regular Faux News Channel viewers)
Politicians Who Say ‘I’m Not A Scientist’ On Climate Offer Their Advice On Ebola There is a method to the madness: Tea-GOPers always reject science when it runs counter to their political interests of the moment.
h/t The Raw Story (Click on the X to make the ad go away)
Faux News host Bill O’Reilly chided his colleague Megyn Kelly on Thursday for saying income inequality might be a potent issue for Democrats in 2016, and predicted that Elizabeth Warren wouldn’t run for President because “all she wants to do is sell her dopey book.”
“You’re buying into this fraud, Kelly, and I’m very disappointed, so listen to the master,” O’Reilly told Kelly. “You worked your way up. Was there any war on you? Did anybody declare war on you?”
“I just destroyed this inequality myth,” O’Reilly concluded.
We didn’t really need more proof that Faux News inhabits an alternate universe, but here it is anyway.
Certainly part of the reason why today’s Conservative Republicans come off as so stupid is due in large part to Bill O’Reilly’s bullshit “Talking Points Memo.” Recently Bill said:
Bill O’Reilly: Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, now Cypress, all broke. And other European nations are close. Why? Because they are nanny states. And there are not enough workers to support all the entitlements these progressive paradises are handing out.
Economics professor Richard Wolff punished Bill O’Reilly. Here’s his smackdown on Democracy Now on Monday.
Economic Professor Richard Wolff: You know he gets away with saying things which no undergraduate in the United States with a responsible economic professor could ever get away with. If you want to refer to things as nanny states, then the place you go to in Europe is not the southern tier, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. The places you go are Germany and Scandinavia, because they provide more social services to their people than anybody else.
And guess what, not only are they not in trouble economically, they are the winners of the current situation. The unemployment rate in Germany is now below five percent. Ours is pushing between seven and eight percent.
So, ah, please get your facts right Mr. O’Reilly. The nanny state you call it; the program of countries like Germany and Scandinavia who tax their people heavily by all means, but who provide them with social services that would be the envy of the United States, a national health program that takes care of you whether you are employed or not and gives you proper healthcare.
In France for example the law says when you go to work you get five weeks paid vacation. That’s not an option, that’s the law. You get support when you are a new parent, childcare and so forth.
They provide services and they are successful in Germany and Scandinavia, much more than we are in the United States; and much more than those countries in the south.
So they are not broke in the south because they are nanny states, since the nanny states par excellence are doing better than everyone. The actual truth of Mr. O’Reilly is the opposite of what he says. The more you do nanny state, the better off you are during a crisis, and to minimize the cost of the crisis. That’s what the European economic situation actually teaches. He is just making it up as he goes along to conform to an ideological position that is harder and harder for folks like him to sustain so he has to reach further and further into fantasy.
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.
Via Media Matters: Billo bloviates about about “craziness” in the media without ever mentioning his own network, which is the worst offender. Instead, he took on a recent exchange between Chris Matthews and Michael Steele on MSNBC – which was far from the one-sided right-wing propaganda Faux News Channel specializes in.
Matthews pointed out that Willard (“Mitt”) Romney is going to be the nominee of a party that believes there’s no such thing as science, and asked, “How does this guy go from hard right, severely conservative to this new regular mainstream character he’s portraying himself as?” Steele responded forcefully. Video here. [MSNBC, “Hardball,” April 23]
O’REILLY: The problem for American voters is that anything goes these days. The Internet is full of unbelievable nonsense, as well as gross defamation. And now on some national news programs, we’re getting the same craziness. So if you’re uninformed, how can you possibly know what’s true and what’s not true?
And the problem is not exclusively on the left.
How many times have we heard that Barack Obama was not born in America, that he’s a Muslim, a Manchurian candidate, a plant from outer space? Whatever madness the anti-Obama forces can think up.
We live in an age where truth really doesn’t matter anymore. Greedy news executives and the net have obliterated it. Journalistic standards have collapsed — the Trayvon Martin case proves that.
You can pretty much do anything you want in the media, and the courts don’t care. It’s almost impossible for a well-known person to win a judgment of defamation.
But Talking Points has had enough. So every time I see craziness in the national media during the campaign, I’m going to show it to you. And I hope you will vote with the clicker. That’s the only solution to the problem. [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 4/24/12]
It will be interesting to see if O’Reilly and other commentators on his network go along with Romney’s Etch-A-Sketch campaign, or if they try to hold him accountable for the hard-right positions he declared during the primaries. I suspect Faux News will say whatever Karl Rove and other GOP operatives tell them to say, and Billo will call any other analysis “crazy.”
For the record, Romney never abandoned the theory of evolution (as Steele pointed out to correct Matthews’s mistake), but he did ditch science on the issue of climate change.
UPDATE: I never watch O’Reilly, so I didn’t pick up right away on his self–pitying. When he said. “It’s almost impossible for a well-known person to win a judgment of defamation,” he was probably thinking about the loofah/falafel thing on the Andrea Mackris phone sex tapes.
I think I’ve just eye-witnessed the spontaneous birth of a new political party and in the most unlikely of places – Utah.
But, hey. Why not Utah? Are we not the home of political mavericks?
Did we Utahns not replace a senior, sitting senator at convention (Bennett R-UT) with an insane, tea-party nobody? Did we not also deliver the only sane GOP candidate for president (Jon Huntsman)?
That’s right. So no one should be surprised widely popular, 2-term, Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson is running for President. And its about time. Even if this time around is just a warm up, it will be fun.
Here’s why: How many progressive, red-state mayors can say they handed Bill O’Reilly his ass on O’Reilly’s own show …/anderson-spanks-bill-oreilly/, or provoked Sean Hannity into to a live debate televised on Fox News! (…that one turned into a professional wrestling match. Make some popcorn its a 2-hour brawl.)
That was two Wednesday’s ago. The next day, folks began to gather at Rocky’s house in Salt Lake. Paul Zieitz came out from Washington and a nascent steering committee kicked into high gear. The first state committee was tele-formed and a plan to get on the ballot in all fifty states was hatched around a dining room table and a speaker phone. (If you would like to form a committee in your state, contact Paul (end of press release)
This is not at all how I expected a third party to form. I always thought it would be a well funded, meticulously-planned, institutionally sponsored effort. Instead, it just happened. And like the Occupy Movement, no one owns it and it has no platform…yet.
The founding and interim steering committee are made up of the most unlikely characters: more women than men, all busy and passionate, but otherwise ‘unremarkable.’
The first, monumental task ahead is to get on the ballot in California. That means 103,000 Justice party registrations or approx 200K signatures BY JAN 2…two weeks? If that miracle happens, the other 49 states should be a cinch. Stranger things have happened.
Hey, people are winter camping in public parks in every major city in the world and one of the major American political parties seems about to crash and burn along with its media arm (Murdoch). A political vacuum is forming.
Its crazy. Everything is crazy. The rules are changing. A Dkos recommend can change the world. But it feels right and it feels unstoppable.
As the climate denial hysterics begin to fade into history and take their place beside witch burning, Jim Crow, McCarthyism and other embarrassments in American history, I pause to ponder the emotional scars wrought upon the children of climate denier fathers.
Throughout history, children have been victims, by accident of birth to men who stood proudly and loudly on the wrong side of history. Consider the shame and humiliation of the children of white supremacists and racists, Neocons and Talibans, Nazis and Red-baiters, polygamists, homophobes and child-molesters.
Do the climate deniers ever consider the effect of their intellectual and moral short-comings on their children?
Never mind for a moment the life-long scars of the adult children of these backwater ignoramuses. What about the innocent school age children, forced in their own homes to witnesses in silent humiliation, the hysterics of a parent blogging about sun spots and global cooling and publicly airing deluded fantasies about world-wide conspiracies and global collusion between evil environmentalist, greedy scientists, media and governments and their polar bear accomplices?
What about these beautiful children who go to school each day to learn science and things like sustainability, energy conservation and correct principles of stewardship of the Earth with other children from sane homes with intellectually honest, responsible and moral parents?
What could be worse than being ashamed of your own parents, of harboring such an embarrassing secret, of growing into adulthood while shoving the family skeleton further into the closet with each passing year as global warming devastates the planet and entire populations of people and species disappear?
I cringe at the thought of older children, returning home to say Sanpete, Clinton and St. George Utah, for the holidays, year after year, to endure yet again the troubled, painful silence at the family dinner table, like a slowly metastasizing cancer, eased only by the promise of it’s abrupt end just in time for father’s quotidian intellectual nourishment and sole, sustaining validation at the hands of false prophets; Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly on the boob tube. “Fox time is family time” becomes the unutterable truth and the family shame.
It cannot be easy to grow up resenting a father who loved you with everything he had. It cannot be fun to rue the thought of holidays at home, to invent excuses not to go and to consider using them. What is the cost of the sin of a lie that would spare you the predictably painful, surreal, albeit blessedly temporary visit to your parents and your ancestral home of shame?
What is the psychological cost to a child of not being able to share and celebrate with your parents the joy of your new life, a full happy, exciting one on your own terms, one surrounded by intellectually curious friends and the freedom to appreciate abstract art or a career in science, or the freedom to actually care about species extinction and your carbon foot print, and the freedom to love people you would never bring home for fear of embarrassment?
What must it be like to build a new life as an adult only to realize that the father who was to be your role model, whom you WANTED to be your role model, has become instead a manifestation of everything wrong in the world, an archetype that informs what you will explicitly reject as you build a new life and family without children because the earth has become a cruel place that can no longer guarantee a full life or natural death.
And what of the inescapable realization of the price your mother has paid, the suffering SHE has endured for the mistake of marrying a man whose ignorance and insecurity is exceeded only by his stubbornness?
And what, what of a life, a life condemned to be remembered with hurt, big hurt for a father, proud and loving man whose entire life was betrayed by a false righteousness, born, bought, paid for and at the ongoing mercy of a few cruel charlatans in the persons of Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Murdoch and people like them?
And what of the injustice of when happy childhood memories which in adulthood become sad and soul crushing reminders of a family poisoned by a father’s life squandered in righteous ignorance?
How does one integrate once fond memories of sitting on the front porch, perched on a father’s lap, bathing in his warmth and the security of his strong arms listening to him reminisce for the one-hundredth time, as if it were the first time, about how he and his siblings used to skate on the frozen pond at the edge of the field by the river before it stopped flooding and freezing or they would dance in the moonlight to the chorus of chirping bullfrogs on hot summer nights, before they disappeared along with the insects they used to feed on?
What of a son or daughter remembering as a child, how everyone would laugh when Dad would get so enraged by the deep-throated guy on the radio, that he would get up and shake his fist at a Volvo driving by, or how proud he was of you when you screamed “damned environmentalists” with such innocent indignation in front of all the neighbors at meeting about Scofield Reservoir? How sickening it must be to realize your childhood was a string of empty misconceived bonding moments with your Father?
I mourn for the injustice of the children and grandchildren of such selfish fathers, like the one in this video.
Via Think Progress:
Last night on Faux News, the network’s top legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano explained the system of justice laid down by the U.S. Constitution– and how it applies to trials of accused terrorists. Host Bill O’Reilly then rejected the Constitution in favor of military tribunals.
Napolitano: There was no declaration of war.
O’Reilly: Because there is no declaration of war, you say that any terrorist act — and surely 9/11 fits that bill, right? …
Napolitano: But it’s not I who is saying it, it’s the Constitution that is saying it.
O’Reilly: I don’t care about the Constitution! The Constitution isn’t here — you’re here. Don’t be a pinhead.
In 2005 President Bush got testy during a discussion of the unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act:
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Remember this the next time a right-winger starts ranting about the Constitution. Where were they from 2001 to 2008? Are they prepared to condemn O’Reilly and Bush? Do they think the Constitution contains exceptions that allow warrantless surveillance, torture, military tribunals and the denial of habeas corpus as long as there’s a threat of terrorism (i.e. forever)?
To my great relief, some conservatives are now coming to the defense of the rule of law. Yesterday, 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, American Conservative Union founder David Keene and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist released a letter advocating long-delayed criminal trials.
“The scaremongering about these issues should stop,” Barr, Keene and Norquist wrote.
“Civilian federal courts are the proper forum for terrorism cases,” they wrote. “Civilian prisons are the safe, cost effective and appropriate venue to hold persons in federal courts.”
Steven G. Calabresi, professor at Northwestern University Law School and a co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society:
“…The constitutional way to punish the 9/11 terrorists is the same way we would use to punish military interrogators who violated the law against torture. No Article III court or jury – no constitutional power to punish. It is a simple question of the separation of powers – something I had thought conservatives believed in passionately.”
I think it’s fair to say that the goal of al-Qaeda is to discredit and humiliate the United States in the eyes of the world, expose our ideals as hypocritical and get us to violate our own laws and principles.
And it’s fair to ask: who is helping them?
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald has a superb post on why our value system is still the best defense against al Qaeda. Even though the Bush administration worked hard for years to subvert the rule of law and respect for human rights.
UPDATE: Sadly, Greenwald also points out that the Obama administration’s multi-tiered system of trials for some, military tribunals for others, and indefinite detention without charges for the rest is designed to obstruct justice.
See continuation for the video from “The O’Reilly Factor.”
Read the rest of this entry »
1. depraved, villainous, or base.
2. Archaic. holding a false or unorthodox religious belief; heretical.
3. a vicious or depraved person; villain.
4. Archaic. a heretic or infidel.
The White House “attack” on Fox is being derided as bad politics, as ineffective and as a distraction from more important issues — all of which may be true. But doesn’t it kind of matter that, when it comes to the substance of what Anita Dunn, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, and now even Obama himself have said, they’re exactly right?
Anybody remember when Bush freaked out about this interview?
Disclaimer: If you are subject to nightmares or offended by the obscenity of criminal stupidity or blatant liars, DO NOT WATCH THIS (especially the end part where he gets huffy).
NBC’s handling of the interview was not atypical for a tightly-edited broadcast and did not violate any journalistic norms. The White House may believe that news outlets are obliged to reproduce all of Bush’s non-answers in their rambling entirety, but that’s not the way the news business works….
“The White House’s outsized reaction instead appears to be about two other things entirely.
It doesn’t take a trained psychologist to observe that Bush got angrier and angrier as the Engel interview went on….
Bush typically sits down with interviewers from Fox News — or, more recently, Politico — where he can count on more than his share of ingratiating softballs. But Engel, a fluent Arabic speaker who has logged more time in Iraq than any other television correspondent, assertively confronted Bush with the ramifications of his actions in the Middle East.
For instance, Engel noted: “A lot of Iran’s empowerment is a result of the war in Iraq.” He questioned Bush about his lack of an exit strategy in Iraq: “So it doesn’t sound like there’s an end anytime soon.” He clearly upset Bush by saying that “on the ground,” the situation in Iraq “looks very bleak.” (Bush replied: “Well, that’s interesting you said that — that’s a little different from the surveys I’ve seen and a little different from the attitude of the actual Iraqis I’ve talked to, but you’re entitled to your opinion.”)
He also challenged Bush on his legacy: “[I]f you look back over the last several years, the Middle East that you’ll be handing over to the next President is deeply problematic: You have Hamas in power; Hezbollah empowered, taking to the streets, more — stronger than the government; Iran empowered, Iraq still at war. What region are you handing over?”
And Bush seemed positively furious by the end of the interview, when Engel had this to say: “The war on terrorism has been the centerpiece of your presidency. Many people say that it has not made the world safer, that it has created more radicals. That there are more people in this part of the world who want to attack the United States.”
Love him or hate him, Bush was an arrogant, uninformed miscreant. He embarrassed us and changed history for the worse, much worse.
In case you couldn’t stomach listening to the end, here for your convenience is the last part of the interview featuring the Bush Beehive Theory. Read the rest of this entry »