AMERICA'S DOWNFALL - Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly attempted a rare triple play during a recent radio broadcast. In order, he disparaged American's fascination with iPods and technology, computer "geeks", and the combat preparedness of average Americans. Don't believe me [h/t Think Progress]?

[1] I don’t own an iPod. I would never wear an iPod… If this is your primary focus in life - the machines… it’s going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America…

[2] [D]id you ever talk to these computer geeks? I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them? …

[3] I really fear for the United States because, believe me, the jihadists? They’re not playing the video games. They’re killing real people over there.

I, like millions of Americans, am an iPod owner. I recall the days of the Walkman, and I'll take my small iPod Shuffle over that big honkin' yellow cassette player anyday of the week. And while I'll admit that it is not the primary focus of my life, I do find it handy while cutting the grass or riding the subway the couple times of year I find myself doing so. It seems that on my all too frequent journeys to New York that everyone seems to have the white earpieces in their ears listening to their own personal soundtracks. Whether this is having a "staggeringly negative effect" on America seems a bit of a reach.

Next, he takes the swipe at computer "geeks"? Why? Is that some remnant of his younger days as a bully or something? What's the point really? And his query, "I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them?" would be applicable to the majority of his audience in my mind.

Finally we have the jihadist remark? So, while Americans are playing video games, the jihadists are killing people; is he suggesting that we put down our controllers and start killing people as well in order to prepare for the coming apocalyptic conflagration when our skills at hand-to-hand combat against these devil worshippers will finally be put to the test? He really stumped me with this one. Then again, perhaps we should provide the jihadists with video games and maybe that will stip them from killing people since they would then have something else to do with their time.

Bill-O really stumped me with this rant. Maybe he's choosing to forgo his annual war on Christmas diatribes and is instead focusing on the laziness of Americans (and the awkward social skills of computer geeks) who ought to be practicing the art of jihad rather than cuddling up with our iPods and Xboxes.

OH CRAP, THIS AGAIN?

BILL O'REILLY


Ugh, it's that time of year again. The holiday season is upon us, so you know what that means, right? Time to don your body armor and load your weapons - it's the War on Christmas time of year! Again.

In the story that no one gave two shits about last year, save tired polemics looking to sell books, it's time for everyone to get all up in arms because a greeter at a given department store says "Happy Holidays" as opposed to "Merry Christmas." And, like last year, Bill-O is leading the charge. On his program last night, he trumpeted his crusade to make the holiday shoppers safe from the benign yet completely offensive Happy Holidays phrase as some retailers this year have decided to go back to Merry Christmas.

I'm trying to write this with my usual clever and witty remarks, but I feel as though my brain is literally melting for having to even address this inane bit of nonsense that was pointless last year and it frustrates me to no end that it's being regurgitated yet again in '06. Memo to Bill - this was not a battle in the culture war, this is not a "problem" as you put it [video found at Think Progress]. This is useless filler designed for you to sell a few more copies of your silly little book. Get over yourself, you fearless culture warrior. You've taken what is basically a 20-second Seinfeld joke ("Did ya ever notice how greeters used to say Merry Christmas, but now say Happy Holidays? What is the deal?") and made it into the most pointless argument this side of a discussion on the pre-nup between Britney and K-Fed.

LETTERMAN'S SEAT OF HEAT

BILL O'REILLY

It's not often that a self-righteous know-it-all puts himself in enemy territory by appearing on a program where he does not have primary control. One of the few instances where this is the case is when said bloviator has something to promote, say - a book that revels in its self-righteousness. With this in mind, I bring you Bill O'Reilly's appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman.
This is not O'Reilly's first appearance with Letterman, and if I recall, that meeting didn't go all that well for Bill-O, so why should this one be any different. And, in many ways, it was worse. From the start, Dave did absolutely nothing to hide the fact that he finds people like Bill and his Fox News cohorts as beneath contempt. It was really a masterful performance by Dave as he never missed a chance to get in a dig at the falafel man. When asked by O'Reilly if he wants the U.S., he paused for a moment. When O'Reilly commented that it's an easy question that doesn't require a pose, Dave quickly retorted, "It's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful," which got a huge audience response. It was such an enlightened answer and it illustrated the the polar opposite of how Fox News as an entity operates as the administration's mouthpiece, where deep thought is frowned upon and simple soundbytes and semantics are key. There aren't easy questions or easy answers when looking at Iraq and the middle east as a whole and Dave's response was illustrative of many people's views.
The discussion became more heated over time and at one point, Dave asked a question, Bill murmured a little something and Dave quickly interjected another question (which is basically standard operating procedure over at the Factor) to which Bill huffed, "Do you want me to answer the question?" Dave, not missing a beat, responded, "I don't care!"
I've watched Letterman off and on for years and I don't ever recall him ever treating a guest with such disdain. It was a thing of beauty to see a blowhard get something of a comeuppance. Night after night O'Reilly operates in much the same manner and it's just nice to see the tables turned on this offensive little troll of a man.
I think Dave struck just the right tone at the end as he noted, "I have no idea what I'm talking about ... but I don't think you do either."

(Note: Crooks and Liars has the video.)

ATTACK OF THE CLONES

BRIT HUME & FRED BARNES


As I have blogged about in the past, certain rightwing bobbleheads have made it their mission to demonize current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in an effort to rile up the GOP base and make certain that Pelosi does not become House Speaker, assuming a Democratic takeover of the House this November. Bill O'Reilly fears for the future of the nation with a California liberal like Pelosi in charge of the House while Sean Hannity feels that keeping Pelosi from becoming House Speaker is something worth dying for.
On Sunday, another Fox bobblehead put forth his two cents in attacking Pelosi, this time pulling stuff directly from of his own posterior. Brit Hume had this to say about her (via http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150005):

Let's talk about this possibility -- it seems likely now, in almost all cards that the Democrats will get control of the House, which will bring us two years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally. Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever. What effect does that have on the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008? I think it is a very good question. I suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive.

First of all, the claim by Hume that Pelosi is not a popular figure doesn't hold water. A full forty percent of those polled, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll either have never heard of her or have no opinion of her (35% have a favorable opinion with 26% unfavorable). Yet, she is "not a popular or respected figure"? And as for her effect on a potential Hillary Clinton presidential run, how would he 'suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive'? Did he use some special glasses or perhaps jump into Doc Brown's DeLorean with Marty and zoom forward to 2008 to see what two years of life under Speaker Pelosi would be like?

Of course, the lies didn't stop there, as The Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes (a frequent guest on the "fair and balanced" news network) attempted to spin the same schlock about Pelosi's unpopularity, claiming, "[...] Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America." Is he out of his ever-loving mind?! I mean really, how did he actually write that last sentence without cracking up laughing? The intellectual dishonesty of the spinmeisters on the Right is enough to make a reality-based individual want to barf.
Excuse me for a moment while I borrow judiciously from Media Matters again:

Bush:
According to an October 10-11 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 54 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Bush, compared with 43 percent who had a "favorable" opinion. The October 6-8 USA Today/Gallup poll put Bush's "unfavorable" rating at 55 percent.

Cheney:
An October 5-8 CBS News/New York Times poll put Cheney's "unfavorable" rating at 48 percent, compared with the 20 percent of respondents who had a "favorable" opinion of him.

Rumsfeld:
According to a September 22-24 CNN poll, 50 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Rumsfeld, compared with 35 percent who viewed him favorably. Moreover, the October 6-8 CNN poll found that a majority of respondents (52 percent) thought Rumsfeld should be fired as defense secretary, and 48 percent thought he should resign (compared to 41 percent who thought he should not).

Hastert:
The October 6-8 CNN poll found that 36 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Hastert, compared with 28 percent who viewed him favorably, 24 percent who had never heard of him, and 12 percent who were "unsure." The October 6-8 USA Today/Gallup poll also put Hastert's unfavorability rating at 36 percent, compared with 27 percent who viewed him favorably, 23 percent who had "no opinion," and 13 percent who had never heard of him.

Frist:
The October 6-8 CNN poll found that 36 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Frist, compared with 28 percent who viewed him favorably, 22 percent who had never heard of him, and 14 percent who were "unsure."

Sadly, this is all just a lame attempt to paint Pelosi as a scary ogre in an effort to drum up Republicans supporters to get out to the polls in three weeks. I think it speaks quite poorly about the right if their main message is, "Gee, I know we in the GOP have done a crappy job, what with a huge deficit and the Iraq debacle and some other stuff too, but can you imagine how much worse it would be if that Pelosi-monster were in charge of the House?"

THOSE WHO CANNOT REMEMBER THE PAST...

BILL O'REILLY


What a lucky break for Bill-O. He got himself invited to the White House to have a sit-down with Bush. Nice "get" there, buddy. It's about time that someone put Bush in your patented no-spin zone. You go give him hell, O'Reilly!

Or not...

See, Bill-O neutered himself as he prefaced how things were going to go during the interview.
He started off by saying, "You cannot be confrontational with the president of the United States. You can be direct, but you can't be disrespectful." The question that popped into my head (well several did, but I'll focus on this one first) was how do you define confrontational? Was Matt Lauer confrontational during his stroll around the Oval Office with Bush? Is confrontational defined by any question that gets Bush out of his comfort zone of talking points? If an interviewer causes Bush to stammer and lose his composure, is that being confrontational? Was this caveat about being non-confrontational an excuse for Bill to softball Bush for an interview to be stretched over three nights? After all, we wouldn't want to be confrontational with poor, delicate Georgie.
I would like to ask Bill-O if he thought Chris Wallace was confrontational with President Clinton during their infamous interview a few weeks back? I thought that was as "in-your-face" as one could get, but I would tend to think that Bill-O would think that Wallace was just being direct.

O'Reilly also defined the parameters of his sitdown with Bush by claiming that due to time constraints, he could only focus on the present and the future and that there would be no looking back when Bush entered the no-spin zone. From a transcript provided by Think Progress:

Over the next three nights, President Bush will have his say. You will know exactly where he stands on the most vital issues facing america and the world. Because every presidential interview is finite — time is always a concern — I decided to concentrate on the conflicts — Iraq, Iran, North Korea and terror — rather than on domestic issues. Also, I think it’s important to look ahead rather than to look back. what good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?

Um, yes, Bill. I think that looking back might actually do some good. Did you not consider for a moment that perhaps by looking to the past, you might be able to discern Bush's motives and decisions as they pertain to the looming threats of Iran and North Korea? Foreign policy does not happen in a vacuum, Bill. Decisions made in the past have a great bearing on decisions to be made in the future. So, you don't choose to broach the subject of WMDs? How about in the context of faulty intelligence and how we can avoid falling into a similar pitfall as the rhetoric of war with Iran is currently being ratcheted up? You didn't think that a look back at the past might have made for a more effective interview?

Of course, that's the whole point now, isn't it? It is never the intention of any bobble-head at Fox News to openly question Bush and his policies; their's is the role of cheerleader, a role they have honed these ten years on the air. It's not Fox News' job to actually do, you know, journalism; it is paint Bush in the best possible light during his hour of most desperate need, namely when Bush's party is set to lose the majority in one or both houses of Congress and his presidency officially enters into its lame duck phase.

WASTE OF BREATH?

O'REILLY AND HANNITY


I've posted recently about Sean Hannity's and Bill O'Reilly's attacks on Nancy Pelosi in an attempt to demonize her and make her supposedly less palatable as the new House Speaker, assuming the Dems gain a majority in the House. Hannity feels that making certain Pelosi does not become Speaker is something worth dying for while O'Reilly fears for the very future of this nation with a liberal married mother of five at the helm of the House.
But Del Ali, posting at Political Wire, thinks these types of attacks are pointless:

In October 1994, the Democratic leadership began attacking Congressman Newt Gingrich with both ads and on Sunday morning talking head programs with a simple theme of, "You the voters may be angry at President Clinton and our failure to come up with national health care and our corruption in the House leadership among those involved with the Post Office Scandal, but can you imagine a Speaker Gingrich? In 2006, the Republican leadership has begun attacking Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi with both ads and on the Sunday morning talking head programs as well by telling voters that nothing could be worse than a Speaker Pelosi in spite of the Page Scandal, Iraq, etc.

The GOP leadership may want to seriously consider dropping this strategy because of two reasons. First, Pelosi is no where near as polarizing as Gingrich was in 1994. In fact, even after Gingrich's unfavorable rating sky rocketed after he made his infamous claim that Susan Smith, the South Carolina mother who murdered her two children and then blamed an African American man for it was the fault of Democrats in power, the Democrats had their heads handed to them on election night. Number two, Pelosi does not have the name recognition or the high profile that Newt Gingrich had nationally. Our polling shows that at this same moment in time, Gingrich's name recognition nationally was 25 points higher than Nancy Pelosi's. In the end, voter disgust towards Democrats in 1994 superceded any feelings voters may have had about Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich's unfavorable rating was 12 points higher nationally than Pelosi's.

Now, I doubt that the bobbleheads on the right will heed this information, but it is interesting to see history repeating itself; at least one part of history. Let's hope that the other part - namely the majority party being thrown out on their collective asses come election day - also hold to form.

PELOSI IS COMING! PELOSI IS COMING!!

BILL O'REILLY


It appears to me that the talking heads over at Fox News have made it there mission to do and say anything and everything in order to avert the greatest disaster that America would ever face - Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Recently it was Bill O'Reilly's turn to take a bat to the Pelosi pinata as he warned his viewers that if the Dems win control of the House in a few weeks, Pelosi-zilla and her crazy, fag-loving, pot-smoking, ultra-liberal San Francisco values would run amok in the hallowed office of the Speaker and reverberate through the halls of Congress. The message here was clear - don't vote for Republicans because they're the better party, instead vote for them because the alternative is a Speaker who has remained married to one man and raised five kids and even waited until they all started school before she started her career. Truly the End of Days is near with a scoundrel like that in charge of the House.
About a month or so ago, Sean Hannity donned his khaki overalls and strapped his proton pack to his back and armed himself with his particle thrower in order to go hunting for the evil Pelosi-monster (with Ray Parker Jr. theme music pumping in the background, no doubt). On his radio show, he posited the notion that stopping Pelosi from becoming House Speaker is something that is worth dying for. And now O'Reilly felt is was his civic duty to warn America that a vote for a Dem this November is a vote for all manner of lewd and lascivious conduct in the halls of Congress (oh wait, we've already got that in the House).

In all honesty, I think all of this speaks volumes for the dearth of anything to actually run on in the Republican Party. Things have gotten so desperate as more and more unfavorable polls come out that the GOP and their annointed mouthpieces on Fox News must spend their time belting out asinine ad hominem attacks rather than telling voters why they should vote for Republicans.

It just popped into my head that Repubs are always attacking Dems for having no plan for anything, but I cannot remember for the life of me what the GOP plan is if they happen to hold onto the congress. Could it be because they have no plan (other than to bend over and take whatever Bush-suppository he deems to jam in their collective asses over his final two years in office)? Could it be, as is evidenced by Hannity's and O'Reilly's attacks, that they have nothing to run on so they instead spend time and money attacking Dems and riling up the base? If nothing else, one thing has been made certainly clear - this Grand Old Party is a long way aways from their Contract with America days. And let us hope and work and pray that their days as the majority party in Washington are numbered.

[h/t to News Hounds for this one.]