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?
And this does include a few other claims he made that he should count himself lucky he was proven full of shit on.
Trade out a water bottle for a cup of Coca-Cola.
During Bush’s term…..12 attacks on American embassies…..52 Americans dead…..any bets where our trolls head was during this time?
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”.
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.
Yeah, come back when you have something better.
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.)
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.”
These assholes can’t imagine anyone living their lives without being afraid of ‘make-believe’ shit and stupidity.
It sure sucks to be them, eh?
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?
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.