Bill O’Reilly has made it clear he has very little respect for Sarah Palin. Yet he trotted her out last night to offer Republicans advice on how to win the 2012 presidential election. That’s right, the quittingest half-term governor who is now the poster child for what not to choose in a vice presidential candidate and is persona non grata in the Romney campaign suddenly had more valuable insights than, say, Karl Rove or any number of other Republicans in the Fox News stable of pundits. Why? The answer seems to be O'Reilly wants Mitt Romney to personally attack President Obama in Palinesque, “palling around with a terrorist” kinds of ways.
You can – and we do – say many things about O’Reilly but one thing you can’t say is that he’s a fool. And he doesn’t suffer fools gladly, either. So it’s surprising – to say the least – that he’d consult Palin for comments on Laura Ingraham’s harangue the day before in which she said, “If you can’t beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party.”
Palin’s first bit of advice was that Republicans need to explain to “the rest of America, who thinks that they’re gonna get a bunch of free stuff from Obama, that you have a choice. You either get free stuff or you get freedom.”
O’Reilly dismissed that by suggesting Americans “want the stuff” and will “sacrifice the freedom.”
His next question pointed to the possible real reason he wanted Palin’s input: to urge smearing of Obama: “Should Mitt Romney go after Barack Obama more – in a more personal way? Should he use words like, ‘incompetent,’ ‘dangerous,’ ‘socialist,’ those kinds of buzzwords that would get an enormous amount of attention, that would lock people in? Should he do that?”
Of course, Palin thought so. After all, what has she ever offered to any dialogue other than smears and attacks? “They’re not just buzzwords, they’re accurate descriptions,” she now said. She added that Romney should be “severely aggressive.”
O’Reilly went on to say that during their convention, Romney and Ryan “pounded, pounded” Obama: “that Barack Obama is an incompetent, he doesn’t have any solutions to the economic malaise, he just wants to spend more money, and that’s gonna drive us over the fiscal cliff. That couldn’t have been clearer.” But what they didn’t do, O’Reilly said, was hold Obama “personally responsible.” In other words, “It’s not about policy so much, it’s about HIM. He’s a hard-core – and you fill in the blank.”
For whatever reason, Palin was in a restrained mood. She didn’t say “socialist.” She didn’t say Obama doesn’t understand the Constitution or that he pals around with terrorists or any of her other now-familiar hate mongering.
But that was exactly where O’Reilly wanted to go. He said, “And you’re saying the only hope the GOP has is if they change and bring it directly to him personally.” Actually, that was not what she had said. But it served as a convenient way for O’Reilly to make his point and distance himself from it at the same time.
In fact, Palin still didn’t want to go there. She agreed Republicans “do have to bring it directly to Obama personally” but as “a reflection of what he stands for – and his record proves what he stands for – he’s for growing this big, disconnected, dysfunctional, debt-ridden government and disempowering the individual. That’s what Obama and the left stand for.”
O’Reilly interrupted. Dropping his “it’s not me” pretense, he began jabbing his finger in the air and saying, “You gotta use those buzzwords! You gotta say ‘socialist!’ You gotta do that to get people’s attention!”
I’d like to say that this segment – showing that smart people on the right are feeling desperate – made me more confident of an Obama victory. But while it’s somewhat encouraging for a liberal like me to know that people like O’Reilly and Ingraham think Romney’s not looking like a winner, that's overshadowed by seeing how low – without any apparent hesitation or remorse – O’Reilly is willing - no, eager to go for the sake of winning. Less than two months ago, O’Reilly asserted that Obama is not a socialist. Yet now it’s not just OK but necessary to say otherwise because “you gotta do that to get people’s attention.”
Even worse, when O’Reilly says “buzzwords,” you can bet he’s not talking about “socialist.” He’s talking dog whistles on race, “foreign” and treason.
Or were you referring to something other than the Ayers myth? You provide no details to support your statement.
Today’s paper has a vignette by Ellekappa that tells it all:
Two men are commenting on the newspaper:
One says: “The return of Al Queda caught everyone by surprise”
The second one responds: “Except for Romney who’d already put the champagne in the fridge.”
What say thee to that, Lynn?
Personally, I’m not particularly fond of anybody who indulges in the sort of chest-beating and roaring that is generated by desperate fear. People who have genuine authority are wont to speak softly and that actually reinforces their authority.
It’s the “shitting-in-my-pants” sort of fear that produces blustering, shouting and threats.
I’m also pretty sure you don’t believe in evolution so why on earth would you want a human leader to behave like a gorilla alpha male?
Finally, the presence of marines is obligatory at any and all American embassies but they’re there to defend it facing outwards. See my next post for an amusing take on the timing of this attack.
Fox may be trying to clean up the most egregious of its lies in hope of avoiding total irrelevance. How did that little quip of President Truman’s go again?
Name one liberal commentator who would use such methods. And all we hear is how the liberal media and Democrats have never sunk so low before in an election cycle. The projection coming from the far right and conservatives is both sickening and laughable. AND yet they still have citizens who believe and hang on their every word.
Weâll know for certain itâs desperation time for Bill when brings in Hank Williams Jr. and/or Ted Nugent to give us their thoughts and opinions.
Yep, you nailed it, Ellen. BOR (Mr. “Fair & Balanced”, Mr. “I Don’t Have a Horse in this Race”, Mr. “No Need for Personal Attacks in the 2012 Election”, Mr. “I Don’t Endorse and I Don’t Tilt”) is not only showing us a peek into the worried mindset of the anti-Obama talking heads but we’re also getting yet another glimpse into the ugly side of BOR that has no problem getting in the gutter if it can be used against those with whom he disagrees. And, if he can use someone else to do the dirty work, that’s all the better for him.
Sure, we all know what BOR really thinks about Palin but he’s not above using her as a pawn to help get Romney elected over Obama. Yeah, BOR used Palin “to make his point and distance himself from it at the same time” – something he’s very good at doing.
So, Palin, how does it feel to be used by a guy who actually has disdain for you? Bwaaah!
If I recall correctly, O’Reilly has previously admitted Iraq was was a mistake. I believe he said it on Letterman about a year ago and I think he’s said it on his own show, too.