NewsHounds
We watch Fox so you don't have to!
  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Forum
  • Blogroll
  • Donate
  • Shop
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
Home →

O’Reilly: How Dare Anyone Find My Comments About People Of Color ‘Wanting Stuff’ Offensive?

Posted by Ellen -7859.80pc on November 20, 2012 · Flag

Although many Republicans are abandoning Mitt Romney over his ‘gifts’ comments, Bill O’Reilly is doubling and tripling down on them. And he’s darned angry that anyone, ANYONE might think he’s a racist or anti-poor just because he said that people who voted for President Obama were people of color who “want stuff.” 

A little backstory for those who have not been following along. On election night, when O’Reilly saw how the returns were coming in, he made some shocking comments that have caused backlash from the likes of The Washington Post and Jon Stewart:

It’s not a traditional America any more. And there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it. And, whereby twenty years ago, President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama, overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?

You got that? O’Reilly said it’s people of color who “want stuff," that President Obama ran on that and, because whites are in the minority, won.

Mitt Romney echoed those sentiments recently when he gave this explanation for his loss:

What the president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote.

Thanks to O’Reilly, we know just what color those voters looking for “financial gifts” or “stuff” are – and it’s not white.

In his Talking Points commentary last night, O’Reilly opened by complaining, “Some of us feel they need to kick people when they’re down.” He was ostensibly referring to Republican reaction to Romney’s statement but it soon became clear that the victim he really cared about was his own self.

O’Reilly played a clip of his Election Night statement and added, “That’s the truth.” How does he know? Statistics show that low-income Americans supported Obama in a big way. And to O’Reilly, the only possible explanation for that is, “They want things.”

According to O’Reilly, the left is attacking him “because they don’t want to acknowledge the economics of the vote” and “don’t want to consider the fact that entitlements buy votes.”

O'Reilly can't imagine there's any other explanation. He said, “Ask yourself this question, what do you think those making less than $30,000 a year were voting for?” The other possible choices, as per O’Reilly: “massive debt,” “continued chaos in the Middle East,” “more government regulations that inhibit businesses from hiring people,” and “an 8% unemployment rate.”

“Were they voting for any of that?” O’Reilly asked. “No! Millions of lower-income Americans voted for the candidate who they thought was going to directly help them financially.”

Hilariously, after O’Reilly had spent more than five minutes arguing that lower-income voters were little more than a bunch of moochers, he said, without a trace of irony, that the Republican Party will have to change in the future. “It can’t disparage poor people, it has to engage them.”

How? By “demonstrate(ing) that a healthy economy based on discipline and robust capitalism will lift far more people out of poverty than government handouts will.”

So Republicans shouldn’t publicly disparage poor people (even though O’Reilly was doing plenty of that right then and there) but convince them to be more “disciplined.” And for those who get left behind? Well, I guess it’s character-building for everyone to have the “freedom” to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

“You gotta sell that! Romney didn’t,” O’Reilly explained. And then as an “example,” he talked about how he had been vilified by the Washington Post. His voice seething with anger, he quoted only the parts of an editorial - which was really about Romney - that talked about himself. “How vile, how vile,” he said about the Washington Post Editorial Board. “You disgrace the journalism industry.”

And then he was off on a tear about the “crazed ideologues” who spun an “honest look at the vote as a diatribe against poor people and minorities.”  Sorry, Bill, but not only did your election night remarks quack just like a diatribe against poor people and minorities but this segment probably quacked away any lingering doubts.

It also suggested the entire 8:36 rant was about hurt feelings over WaPo.

Follow @NewsHounds

Follow @NewsHoundEllen


Do you like this post?
Tweet

Showing 11 reactions



    Review the site rules
Sandman2 commented 2012-11-20 16:47:38 -0500 · Flag
Why is this Independent “news analyst,” Bill O’Reilly, so upset after an election? I could see if he was some king of Republican operative, working for a Republican organization, who’s sole purpose was to oust a sitting Democratic President, but, ………Ooohhh, I think I answered my own question!
Never mind
WallyAnti commented 2012-11-20 15:21:15 -0500 · Flag
O’Reilly is an idiot and for all his talk against class warfare, he doesn’t shy away from engaging in some.

7 million votes from the poor elected Obama? News flash O’Reilly: it took a lot more than 7 million votes to elect Obama.

BTW Bill, you made this about race. Why mention white people at all? The Post was spot on. You might not like being called names, but a spade is a spade and you are a racist.
Bob Roberts commented 2012-11-20 13:30:25 -0500 · Flag
I’ve never known an Irishman with as thin a skin as O’Loofah.

And doesn’t this constant victimization of himself wear thin with his senior-citizen audience???? Not unless, I guess, they see themselves in O’Loofah – just another hard working whitey getting shafted by those of a darker skintone.
Anne-claire Souza commented 2012-11-20 10:49:01 -0500 · Flag
Bile ,always wrong .always a pompous ass.
Isn’t it time he let our victory of the Election go and start his ridiculous “War on Christmas?”
d d commented 2012-11-20 10:20:16 -0500 · Flag
Riiight, BOR – like how dare anyone find your M F’er ice tea comment offensive? Or how dare people find your comment about being surprised that a Harlem restaurant was like any other NYC restaurant “even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship” to be offensive? Yet here you are again playing the poor, misunderstood white man who is supposedly being attacked unfairly. Spare us the whining, BOR, as your prejudiced analysis deserves the pushback that you are reaping.

Yeah, his rant was because WaPo dared to point “the contemptuous, and contemptible, O’Reilly-Romney worldview”. Poor BOR’s fragile ego just couldn’t take it. Bwaaah!

Still no mention by BOR of the “gifts” the wealthy/corporations were going to get from Romney/Ryan. Nah, BOR in his biased analysis overlooked all of that in order to belittle Obama voters. He deliberately ignored every other perfectly valid reason that the folks (such as me and every other Obama voter I personally know) voted for Obama and/or rejected Romney.

Not only was it Romney/Ryan, the GOP and Rove et al who lost this election but BOR and FOX “news” also lost in the influence category. Despite all his repeated attempts to prop Romney up and his pitiful concern-trolling for the nation if Obama won, BOR and his opinions turned out to be irrelevant and he is still fuming over that.

Yeah, you just keep tripling/quadrupling down on your “minorities want stuff” theory there, BOR – it will only serve to showcase your foolish, bigoted mindset and prove just how inaccurate and out-of-touch you are.
truman commented 2012-11-20 09:46:33 -0500 · Flag
Bildo and the Repug-Teabagger Party he constantly shills for still don’t have a clue.
R L commented 2012-11-20 09:03:34 -0500 · Flag
wait, o’reilly said those things on Nov 6 and he is just getting around to commenting on them? Why the delay bill? Did it take you that long to process the info? Did it take that long for your crack staff to read it to you? Or did it that long for ailes to send you a memo outlining your thoughts?
Jan Hall commented 2012-11-20 08:06:10 -0500 · Flag
More of the same. Little Billy EGO’reilly and his “it’s all about me”. Now he’s the victim again. Everything in the world is not all about you, Little Billy. Didnt Mommie & Daddy teach you that?
doors17 commented 2012-11-20 06:58:40 -0500 · Flag
The five stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. It seems Bill and many on the right are stuck on anger. Not from the election results from two weeks ago, but from four years and two weeks ago.

Obviously they’ll never reach acceptance.
Kent Brockman commented 2012-11-20 04:53:51 -0500 · Flag
BTW Interesting POV on 2012 election

Did Anonymous Stop Karl Rove From Stealing Ohio Again?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO4vWEdr88c
Kent Brockman commented 2012-11-20 04:46:12 -0500 · Flag
Note to Killer O’Reilly

Actually Killer, the way it works is like this:

YOU work for Murdoch because you Want Stuff.

Murdoch hires shills like you because he wants to promote his world view, even to the point of advising governors, phone hacking, plus police & political bribes.

The totality of the above undermines democracy.

In summary, YOU want stuff for the work YOU do undermining your nations’ institutions.

You need some Prison Time.








or sign in with Facebook or email.
Follow @NewsHounds on Twitter
Subscribe with RSS


We’ve updated our Privacy Policy
Sign in with Facebook, Twitter or email.
Created with NationBuilder