Bernard Goldberg seemed a little more cocky than usual last night, during his weekly appearance on the Factor. Instead of whining overmuch about why the evil liberal media are more interested in Marco Rubio’s little drinking malfunction than they are in the Benghazi cover-up, he supplied Bill O’Reilly with some flattering theories: it's because they are compensating for Roger Ailes’s enormous influence, and because they’re scared of Rubio.
O’Reilly started the segment by playing the “testy” exchange between John McCain and David Gregory of Meet the Press, on the subject of the Benghazi cover-up. Why, asked Goldberg, was the media not probing for answers on Benghazi? Why are they “complicit?” with Obama and not holding him accountable? Well, it had to do with two people, Goldberg propounded: Barack Obama and Roger Ailes. (Ailes!?!?! Read on and you shall know all.) Obama, because “the media has never been so in love with a president before… because he’s young, he’s cool, he’s black and he’s liberal. If he were conservative they’d crucify him.” And Ailes? “Fox has become so popular and so influential,” Goldberg replied, “that I think the other media, you know, the networks, the New York Times and other places like that, are compensating for Fox’s influence. So they’re no longer simply biased. Now they’ve moved beyond bias into activism.” (Really? If Fox is so influential why aren’t the other networks trying to grab its viewers by out-right-winging it? And that ever so somewhat contradicts your last remark about the media loving Obama because he’s liberal. And speaking of activism... oh never mind. Back to the blog.)
Next on the agenda was what O’Reilly called “the pipeline” (i.e. from the news to the pundits to Saturday Night Live) to “diminish” Marco Rubio for that post-SOTU lunge for the water glass. Yes, said Goldberg, the media that showed so little interest in Benghazi is all over “Water-gate.” They’re trying to “buffoonerize” (O’Reilly’s word) Rubio because they fear him, he went on, and they only go after those they fear, those who are a threat. After Rubio appeared on the cover of “establishment” Time magazine, “that’s when he became a threat, that’s when he was in their crosshairs.”
So: first he lunges for the water, then he'll lunge for the White House. Are you afraid yet, gentle reader, like those liberal media types?
Do you like this post?
Aria Prescott commented
2013-02-20 20:01:08 -0500
· Flag
I’m still half convinced he’s that guy from J$ that claims to also be that Morty Shatz account that’s cyberstalking certain hounds on FB. That’s the only claim he’s ever made that I believe.
And this does include a few other claims he made that he should count himself lucky he was proven full of shit on.
And this does include a few other claims he made that he should count himself lucky he was proven full of shit on.
Ellen commented
2013-02-20 18:13:55 -0500
· Flag
Kevin, I think he’s U Mad or some Dollarite soulmate.
Bob Roberts commented
2013-02-20 17:38:44 -0500
· Flag
You’re right Patrick T. Same thing I was going to say. It seems that according to Faux, anytime a conservative or Republican is criticized or poked fun at, its because the left is scared or afraid of them. We all heard over and over and over again how frightened we were of Princess SparklePony. Yes we were afraid, not of her “popularity” but of the chance she might have been one 72-year-old cancer survivors’ heartbeat away from the Presidency. And yes, they do define why the left is so scared of these people. Because they relate to real ’Mericans. Because they have a great story. Because they are so likeable to “many” ’Mericans. Because they make such common sense. And so on and so on…………….
Kevin Koster commented
2013-02-20 16:17:13 -0500
· Flag
I think Hart Bochner could have gotten away with the cottonmouth moment with a tad more aplomb. But yes, that crazed look in the eyes is about the same.
Aria Prescott commented
2013-02-20 16:07:11 -0500
· Flag
Exactly, Kevin- You remember that scene in the first Die Hard where that scumbag negotiator got busted lying to the villain’s face?
Trade out a water bottle for a cup of Coca-Cola.
Trade out a water bottle for a cup of Coca-Cola.
Kevin Koster commented
2013-02-20 13:32:36 -0500
· Flag
The thing about Rubio’s water incident that made it memorable wasn’t that he needed the water – it was the look of panic while he reached for it. That’s what SNL was lampooning. He clearly had been told to keep his eyes on the camera and the teleprompter and not to look away. When he suddenly went into cottonmouth, the look on his face spoke volumes…
Kevin Koster commented
2013-02-20 13:29:46 -0500
· Flag
Ellen, who was keepcominback before? His comments don’t make sense.
radpat_USA commented
2013-02-20 13:28:25 -0500
· Flag
Speaking of sitting on stories as another mindless Fox echo attempts self constructed thought:
During Bush’s term…..12 attacks on American embassies…..52 Americans dead…..any bets where our trolls head was during this time?
During Bush’s term…..12 attacks on American embassies…..52 Americans dead…..any bets where our trolls head was during this time?
doors17 commented
2013-02-20 13:25:17 -0500
· Flag
I agree that this Watergate doesn’t rank up there with the classic spelling of potato, and it would have been funnier if he spilled it on his pants giving the look of someone who just wet their pants, but no matter how many times MSNBC replayed it, or how Fox finds ways to down play it or curse the left for reporting it, the fact remains that while politicians don’t mind when they anger the opposing side, to have the other side laugh at them can be devastating, especially when Fox and the right are making the effort to put Rubio on a pedestal and sell him as hope for their future.
This won’t doom Rubio, but no one remembers a thing he said in his speech and he’ll be remembered by the majority who don’t follow politics closely as “that guy, who took the drink”.
This won’t doom Rubio, but no one remembers a thing he said in his speech and he’ll be remembered by the majority who don’t follow politics closely as “that guy, who took the drink”.
Ellen commented
2013-02-20 13:02:46 -0500
· Flag
keepcomin back wrote:
Of course you don’t really have an answer for any of this other than “Well, what about when FOX did this” or “FOX showed this”. You guys spend all your time mad at FOX for doing the exact same thing that all the other News Orgs do (that you ironically see as “reporting the news”).
And yet you can’t seem to stay away or stop talking about us – even though you’ve been repeatedly banned.
Of course you don’t really have an answer for any of this other than “Well, what about when FOX did this” or “FOX showed this”. You guys spend all your time mad at FOX for doing the exact same thing that all the other News Orgs do (that you ironically see as “reporting the news”).
And yet you can’t seem to stay away or stop talking about us – even though you’ve been repeatedly banned.
Thx4 Fish commented
2013-02-20 10:56:33 -0500
· Flag
Rubio did something awkward on national TV and today’s media loves to air that kind of stuff. If Fox was above this kind of tabloidy nonsense, I would allow them the complaint—but Fox loves the tabloidy stories, if they can make one of their political foes seem foolish—they happily do so. So Fox, if you believe the media should be above this kind of thing, then SHOW it-and not just once—all the time.
keepcomin back commented
2013-02-20 08:56:19 -0500
· Flag
Again, 155 times in one day. Explain to me why they would do that? Its biased reporting. They refuse to cover anything of significance like the Benghazi attacks (and no, Benghazi wasn’t covered before the election was over. It was ignored until the election was decided. It is a FACT that the media-sans FOX-has devoted much more time to the story AFTER the election than before when it should have been covered). They purposely sat on a story where Americans were killed but its very important to cover such earth-shattering stories like Rubio drinking water or whether or not Romney was a bully in school 50 years ago (though Obama attending the church of a racist was considered off-limits and unimportant). Of course you don’t really have an answer for any of this other than “Well, what about when FOX did this” or “FOX showed this”. You guys spend all your time mad at FOX for doing the exact same thing that all the other News Orgs do (that you ironically see as “reporting the news”).
Aria Prescott commented
2013-02-20 02:08:54 -0500
· Flag
Is MSNBC showing that sip “155 times in one day” anything like them not airing one segment about the White Paper- despite that an NBC reporter broke it? Or how O’Reilly and Hannity tried to claim Keith Olbermann would never condemn Obama on Olbermann’s 4th night of condemning Obama policies he didn’t agree with? Or how they tried to claim Obama let Bill Maher attack Bristol Palin while CNN and MSNBC were airing Obama telling Maher he crossed the line?
Yeah, come back when you have something better.
Yeah, come back when you have something better.
Joseph West commented
2013-02-19 23:01:58 -0500
· Flag
Certain trolls might want to consider that the reason no one other than FoxNoise brings up Benghazi is because it’s all been covered. FoxNoise thought it had something to ruin Obama’s chances of being re-elected and when that didn’t happen, they had no choice but to double down. And, of course, all their pets in the Senate have to follow suit, displaying to the world, once and for all, how insane the GOP and their propaganda arm truly are.
I just wish certain Democrats would, every time that Benghazi is mentioned, ask the GOPers where all those WMDs that Saddam had were? I mean, aside from the “north and south and east and west of Baghdad” comment. And maybe they could ask why Dubya and Cheney shut down the unit that was hunting Osama and ask exactly what Dubya’s conversations with the Taliban involved while he was Governor of Texas.
If the GOP wants to rehash a past tragedy that killed Americans, maybe there could be some time spent asking Dubya and Cheney why no one seemed too interested in that “daily briefing” handed to Dubya in August of 2001. Maybe you remember that? About a month before 3000 Americans died. It’s interesting how the GOP were all quiet on the subject of investigating THAT and felt there was no need for the President to answer questions in front of a Congressional committee.
As for the “155 times in one day,” MSNBC was obviously just making up for the ZERO times that FoxNoise showed it.
Go home, troll. Go home. (We’ll make sure that you get your 25 cents from your overlords.)
I just wish certain Democrats would, every time that Benghazi is mentioned, ask the GOPers where all those WMDs that Saddam had were? I mean, aside from the “north and south and east and west of Baghdad” comment. And maybe they could ask why Dubya and Cheney shut down the unit that was hunting Osama and ask exactly what Dubya’s conversations with the Taliban involved while he was Governor of Texas.
If the GOP wants to rehash a past tragedy that killed Americans, maybe there could be some time spent asking Dubya and Cheney why no one seemed too interested in that “daily briefing” handed to Dubya in August of 2001. Maybe you remember that? About a month before 3000 Americans died. It’s interesting how the GOP were all quiet on the subject of investigating THAT and felt there was no need for the President to answer questions in front of a Congressional committee.
As for the “155 times in one day,” MSNBC was obviously just making up for the ZERO times that FoxNoise showed it.
Go home, troll. Go home. (We’ll make sure that you get your 25 cents from your overlords.)
keepcomin back commented
2013-02-19 22:09:21 -0500
· Flag
MSNBC showed Rubio sipping that water 155 times in one day. That speaks volumes. That’s probably more times than Benghazi has been mentioned on all those networks combined the last 2 months.
Kevin Koster commented
2013-02-19 21:37:02 -0500
· Flag
I totally forgot about the Howard Dean bit. That’s absolutely right. Or again, does Bill O’Reilly want to condemn that as well?
Aria Prescott commented
2013-02-19 21:14:28 -0500
· Flag
The only difference between Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney was that Romney went in with something resembling a chance. People bought a lot of his hype, and the scandals the news went with took a little reminding when the skeleton closet opened.
Rubio isn’t nearly as popular, he isn’t nearly as well-received with the press (even a lot of Fox seems to be phoning in their support), and his scandals are well-documented enough to render him DOA.
Even if the Dems put up a weak 2016 candidate, Rubio needs a really pathetic primary to get that far. Pointing that out is hardly “bias.”
Rubio isn’t nearly as popular, he isn’t nearly as well-received with the press (even a lot of Fox seems to be phoning in their support), and his scandals are well-documented enough to render him DOA.
Even if the Dems put up a weak 2016 candidate, Rubio needs a really pathetic primary to get that far. Pointing that out is hardly “bias.”
doors17 commented
2013-02-19 20:36:05 -0500
· Flag
Rubio blew it. He should have voluntarily ask Saturday Night Live to be on the show to show America he can laugh at himself. That would have scored a lot points.
As far as Goldberg and Bill with their liberal media bias bit, how many times did Fox News replay the Howard Dean scream in 2004?
As far as Goldberg and Bill with their liberal media bias bit, how many times did Fox News replay the Howard Dean scream in 2004?
Kevin Koster commented
2013-02-19 20:05:51 -0500
· Flag
This was a particularly hysterical exchange.
Let me see if I’m understanding this correctly. John McCain’s embarassing display with David Gregory is somehow to be seen as McCain “winning”? So trying to shout down the interviewer who is asking you an understandable question about your basis for obstructing a nominee is now to be considered “winning”. And I would presume this notion of “winning” would also apply to McCain’s avoidance of his personal animus against Chuck Hagel while asking ridiculous questions like “Do you care?”
Then we’re meant to think that the creation of Fox News has struck terror in the hearts of the rest of the news media so that anyone Fox likes will immediately be attacked. Right.
And then, when their chosen hero for 2016, Marco Rubio embarasses himself on national television, O’Reilly and Goldberg believe everyone should not pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
While we’re on the subject, am I to understand that it is unfair for the various news channels to run with the silly story on Rubio because this somehow means they’re trying to preempt his 2016 run and discredit him? I just want to be clear on this – is that what O’Reilly and Goldberg are really saying here? Because if that’s the case, what do O’Reilly and Goldberg have to say about the smear ads being run by Karl Rove against Ashley Judd? You know, the ones being celebrated by Sean Hannity on the same network? Are they saying it’s very wrong to note the silliness of Rubio’s gaffe but that it’s okay to attack Ashley Judd? Just wondering about some consistency here.
Let me see if I’m understanding this correctly. John McCain’s embarassing display with David Gregory is somehow to be seen as McCain “winning”? So trying to shout down the interviewer who is asking you an understandable question about your basis for obstructing a nominee is now to be considered “winning”. And I would presume this notion of “winning” would also apply to McCain’s avoidance of his personal animus against Chuck Hagel while asking ridiculous questions like “Do you care?”
Then we’re meant to think that the creation of Fox News has struck terror in the hearts of the rest of the news media so that anyone Fox likes will immediately be attacked. Right.
And then, when their chosen hero for 2016, Marco Rubio embarasses himself on national television, O’Reilly and Goldberg believe everyone should not pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
While we’re on the subject, am I to understand that it is unfair for the various news channels to run with the silly story on Rubio because this somehow means they’re trying to preempt his 2016 run and discredit him? I just want to be clear on this – is that what O’Reilly and Goldberg are really saying here? Because if that’s the case, what do O’Reilly and Goldberg have to say about the smear ads being run by Karl Rove against Ashley Judd? You know, the ones being celebrated by Sean Hannity on the same network? Are they saying it’s very wrong to note the silliness of Rubio’s gaffe but that it’s okay to attack Ashley Judd? Just wondering about some consistency here.
Anne-claire Souza commented
2013-02-19 19:49:27 -0500
· Flag
Personally I’m terrified!Hahahahahahahahaha
