Former Clinton operative turned journalist George Stephanopoulos appeared on Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor and received a declaration from Bill O'Reilly that, while obvious, probably wasn’t very welcome: "...You're a Democrat. I'm an Independent." This assertion resulted in no audible or visual protestations from Stephanopoulos.
And although the comment is demonstrably true, one might think that a supposedly independent, neutral journalist would fight back or claim to have put such partisan beliefs aside when he became a journalist. Stephanopoulos didn’t. The This Week host was appearing to discuss Barack Obama’s speech to Congress about health care and how the President has handled the issue.
On the show, Stephanopoulos repeatedly played the role of defense attorney for the President. After O’Reilly chided Obama’s handling of health care throughout the last few months, the ABC anchor retorted, "Well, I think he's [Obama] mad about some of the illegitimate criticisms that have been made." The O’Reilly Factor repeated his critique and Stephanopoulos, who once worked on Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential bid, complained, "You can't blame someone for when lies are told about his plan."
As a preface to a discussion of whether or not the Commander in Chief will be able to able to keep the health care bill from increasing the debt by only cutting waste and fraud, O’Reilly began: "Here's what Stephanopoulos and O'Reilly know. Okay, and we're coming at it, because you're a Democrat. I'm an Independent." Either Stephanopoulos had no response for this or he thought none was necessary.
A transcript of the September 10 segment, which aired at 8:02pm EDT, follows:
BILL O’REILLY: And now the lead story tonight, post Obama speech reaction. Here's what was said on ABC's "Nightline" last night.
GEORGE: STEPHANOPOULOS: I think it was the most emotional I've ever seen President Obama in a major speech. His anger at the tone and tactics of his opponents was very palpable tonight. And he even seemed to get caught up in the emotion of the moment towards the end of the speech.
O'REILLY: Joining us now from D.C. is ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos, host of "This Week" on Sunday. Okay.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hey, Bill.
O'REILLY: So why would Obama be angry with people who oppose his vision because, number one, he can't explain it, has not explained it still specifically. And, number two, there are a lot of legitimate points that people have to say look, we don't want a big government colossus running this. It might bankrupt the country. So why would he be mad? I could see why he disagree. Why would he be angry?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I think he's mad about some of the illegitimate criticisms that have been made. And he really addressed those right in the middle of the speech last night, when he took on the claims of death panels, and whether his plan would serve illegal immigrants, and whether it would require a government takeover. He was clearly very angry about that. I also think, Bill, that his anger was somewhat tactical. I mean, I think he's very passionate about this issue. And it was sincere, but I also think it served the purpose of rallying and unifying the Democratic base, getting them revved up.
O'REILLY: Yeah, maybe. But I don't think he's got a legitimate beef about the anger. Look, if somebody lies about Obama's health care plan, the President can come on this program and come on your program. He can send his acolytes out. And they can correct the record right away. So he-
STEPHANOPOULOS: And they didn't do good enough job of doing that. I think that's right. They didn't do a good enough job.
O'REILLY: He did a terrible job of doing it. He did an awful job of doing it. It's his fault. He couldn't explain it after, what, 39 speeches?
STEPHANOPOULOS: You can't blame someone for when lies are told about his plan. You can say he could have been more effective. But, I think he has a right to take on his critics in a pretty tough and a pretty forceful way. And he clearly did that last night. But I do also take your point. Now the President did have a bit of a concession last night when he said that confusion has reigned in this debate. And he should bear some of the responsibility for that.
O'REILLY: No, no, all of the responsibility, not some of the responsibility. Look, President Obama is the leader of the country, okay? He has a grand vision for improving Americans health care. He believes that vision is correct. I respect all of that. I respect his office. I respect his passion. And I respect the fact that he wants to improve health care for all Americans. What I do not respect is him blaming his critics when it's his fault. He could come on this program as I just said. He can come on your program. He can hold up a chart. And he can say this is what we want to do. He hasn't done it. He's given speech after speech after speech. And I don't know what he's talking about.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But-
O'REILLY: And last night, I knew what he was talking about.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that's what I was just going to get to.
O'REILLY: -but he's still dodging the two questions that I cited. One is cost. Look, George, you don't believe for a minute sitting there in D.C. that waste and fraud efficiency's going to pay for this. You don't believe that for a second, do you?
STEPHANOPOULOS: No, no. No, but, let's look at the other side.
O'REILLY: What other side? He said it's going to pay. You don't believe it. I don't believe it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the President said if the savings that he's calling for don't materialize by 2012, he's going to impose this trigger. He's going to be required to come up with more savings or to scale back.
O'REILLY: But he didn't say how.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I mean, and you're right. We're going to have to check the details on how this proposal is constructed. But I think it's going to be essentially -- the second thing, and this is a more technical point, but I think it's important. There is a real dispute over whether or not the kinds of programs the President is calling for on urging more prevention, on having more electronic health records, whether they will save more than the current score keepers like the Congressional Budget Office.
O'REILLY: But nobody knows.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, I was just going to say that. I think that's right. We don't know.
O'REILLY: Nobody knows.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -but we don't know that it's not true either.
O'REILLY: Okay, we can't guarantee though.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The other numbers are going to be true.
O'REILLY: Here's what Stephanopoulos and O'Reilly know. Okay, and we're coming at it, because you're a Democrat. I'm an Independent. We both don't believe that the President can pay for this by cleaning up waste and fraud. That is not going to happen. And the second thing is.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I think there's a lot of waste and fraud in the system, but that's not enough to get to where he wants to go.
O'REILLY: If you put 40 million new people on the insurance rolls, you don't have enough doctors and nurses to care for them. You don't.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know that.
O'REILLY: So that means health care rationing kicks in.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Our medical editor- Well, you have rationing now. The insurance companies as you pointed out, and I think that was one of the most effective parts of the president's speech last night when he talked about the kinds of abuses that people are visited with by insurance companies. I think that was important. Our own medical editor Tim Johnson agrees with you on this need to make sure that we have more incentives for doctors and nurses to go out there in the country that we offer more funds for training. Because if we do expand the number of people who are covered, we're going to need more doctors and nurses.
O'REILLY: Yeah, there's no way they can do it now.
STEPHANOPOULOS: There's no question about that.
O'REILLY: There's no way they can - they can't.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But I think you can't deny that rationing happens every single day in America right now.
O'REILLY: But George, let me get this straight. It's going to get worse for everybody. It's doesn't happen to me, but it will.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's an open question. I'm not sure about that.
O'REILLY: My doctor is overworked now. My doctor is like this. You know, it is going to get worse because it has to. 40 million new patients, no more new doctors and nurses.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You and I agree, more doctors, more nurses.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I noticed this last night
September 11, 2009 - 16:15 ET by d1carterI noticed this last night how George seemed to be defending his man's plan...?
Stephanopolous, and the MSM wonders why it's dying?
September 11, 2009 - 16:38 ET by jefflebowskiGeorge Stephanopolous...the perfect example of a liberal who is over-educated and under-smart! They hang out with theoreticians at Harvard for so long they start believing their pie in the sky crap works! And putting a Clinton tool in the seat of a Sunday morning "news" show? They might as well as put Bubba there himself!
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
O'Reilly Almost Said Republican
September 11, 2009 - 18:06 ET by allanfDid anyone pick that up.
PLEASE..the next administration..hopefully republican..will
September 12, 2009 - 14:02 ET by Paarlspecifically ban anyone from Harvard School of Government and Harvard Law.....these two institutions prove the truism expressed by William F Buckley a few decades back when he said:
"I rather be ruled by the first 1000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard University"
so true then...so much truer today....
and I want to add my own truism with respect to Joe the Plumber..a great American..and all other plumbers:
"More human health and cleanliness and human happiness can be ascribed to the hard work and innovation of plumbers over the last 150 years than to any combination of lawyers and Phds that can be assembled by the chattering and intellectual classes in America"
and I would like to add Mark Levin's prescient comment when Obama started his "change" campaign for the Presidency. Levin said that guys like Obama are incapable of changing a light bulb or printer cartridge or oil filter or light switch or a small pipe under the sink or any other part of our modern infrastructure...they are totally disconnected from the great physical innovations of our age....they are merely pushers of papers and developers of 'weird' ideas that incubate in the minds of people with too much time on their hands...and the greatest example of this in the news currently is this intellectual weirdo Cass Sunstein....
Paarl of Rhodesia
PS....changing my oil filter and fuel filter and air filter and brake fluid in my TDI Golf Diesel today.....all by myself...no Harvard Phd required !!!
I had other adjectives in
September 11, 2009 - 16:20 ET by Guapo DiabloI had other adjectives in mind for O'Reilly.
"Independent" didn't make the cut.
"Needs to take a course in basic economics" ranks right behind "needs to close mouth while waaaaay smarter guest is trying to speak."
White Guilt
September 11, 2009 - 16:53 ET by ScottyDogO'Reilly is no independent but a Washington DC liberal elite that voted for John Kerry and probably voted for Obama out of his white guilt.
He attacked the Swift Boat Veterans and apologized continually leading up to the election of Barry Soetoro for his affiliations with Communists. He said the Barry Soetoro was basically a good man and was not a communist so many times pre election that I wanted to puke.
Where was O’Reilly pre election exposing this red diaper doper baby?
He has the balls to come out being critical of the messiah now that Glenn Beck is eating his lunch with his ratings on the Van Jones expose and soon, the Acorn expose he is running.
O’Reilly is nothing but a carnival barker and left winged liberal.
IMHO
BOR a left-winger? Puh-leeze!
September 11, 2009 - 19:15 ET by JerIf O'Reilly is a left-winged liberal...why has he only endorsed Republicans for elected office? Why does he say George Soros is the most dangerous man in the America, and the ACLU is its most dangerous organization?
Why has he attacked only the "liberal" Supreme Court justices as extremists, and none of its conservative members. Why did he continually label Tom Daschle as an extremist, but never put Tom "The Hammer" Delay in that category--the latter being at least as ideologically partisan as the former. Why would he pronounce Janet Reno the worst AG in US history.?
Why did he attack Clinton/Gore relentlessly?--"they did nothing about terrorism", "nothing for blacks", "nothing about transportation or energy issues"--while his criticism of Bush was far more muted, even claiming there was not a single environmental policy about which he had a problem with Bush.
Why does he night after night attack the left-wing loons and lefty character assassins in the media and on the internet, while rarely mentioning those on the right?
O'Reilly was a registered Republican--who quickly re-registered as an independent when that fact was about to be disclosed, and his sympathies still clearly lie with the GOP.
The notion he was a Kerry supporter--and voted for him--is ludicrous. I watched his interview with John O'Neil, and the only major item about which BOR disagreed with O'Neil was whether Kerry was a patriot. He never rejected any of the other material charges of the Swiftboaters.
Jer
Might be able to help you here some, Jer
September 12, 2009 - 03:29 ET by Indiana JoeMaybe he feels Soros is dangerous because he basically BUYS elections. Can't a liberal be against that kind of thing?
And it's mostly "liberal" SCOTUS justices who try to legislate from the bench. Conservatives, remember, are by and large "strict constructionists," who don't subscribe to the "living, breathing" idea of the Constitution. Was "Heller" legislating from the bench? No. It was merely extending the stated language in the 2nd Amendment to DC. Soon, it will be spread to other cities via the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, something that should have been done long ago. So, maybe BOR isn't a "living, breathing" Constitution kind of guy. Again, no room for him in the "people's party?"
It seems you put Tom Daschle and Tom DeLay in the same group. Maybe BOR doesn't. Once more, no dissension in the liberal ranks?
Maybe he pronounced Janet Reno as the worst AG in history because she was. She headed the Elian Gonzales(?) debacle, not to mention Waco and Ruby Ridge. A bigger "shoot first, ask questions later" devotee than J. Edgar, almost.
If O'Reilly really WAS a registered Republican, and really WAS a conservative, why wouldn't he want that found out? Would it cost him viewers? But he's THE "conservative" host, how could that have hurt him? The only way it makes sense is he didn't WANT to be known as a "real" Republican. Maybe to preserve his "even-handed" concept? I don't know. But it goes a long way from proving he's a died-in-the-wool conservative.
And not rejecting the Swift Boaters is your final "proof." Well, that could just be to help maintain the "fake conservative" front that many here seem to accuse him of. And I'd be willing to bet that SOME Dems who voted for Kerry actually may have believed the Swift Boat Veterans. Who can say? Again, not a convincing proof.
Regards,
IJ
"Four legs good... two legs better!" - George Orwell
IJ... If "liberalism" is
September 12, 2009 - 04:10 ET by JerIJ...
If "liberalism" is so comprehensively objectionable, and "conservatism" so demonstrably surperior, then why would O'Reilly maintain the sham of ideological neutrality? The obvious answer is that he is anything but. Assuming you and BOR are both correct in your intensely negative assessments of Reno, Clinton, Soros, Scotus justices, etc., then he--but not you--is being transparently disingenuous and intellectually dishonest by continually representing that he has "no dog in the ideological fight".
Why did he hurriedly switch his registration several years ago? That's an easy one. He had already gone to great lengths to portray himself as an "independent". The revelation that he was in fact a then-registered Republican would have been a serious blow to his credibility.
Actually, by his employment of the terms "traditionalists" and "secularists" as code for conservatives and liberals--and touting himself as one of the former--he has as much as admitted to his political leanings.
Anyway, thanks for your response. Maybe we can continue this later. I just happened to notice it as I was calling it a night.
Later, Jer
Jer -- I could care less
September 12, 2009 - 04:38 ET by Jack BauerJer -- I could care less about BOR's political party affiliations.
But anyone watching him for just one show would know he is NO conservative. Not even close. Just on his odd non-free market econonic solutions, as a starter.
He sounds more like a JFK type Democrat, though possibly more liberal than the former President, certainly on "lifestyle" issues, like abortion.
He only sounds "conservative" to some because the Democrat party has been pulled so far left.
Sure on some issues he sounds conservative, but on others, like being a warm monger, he doesn't.
O'Reilly
September 12, 2009 - 04:47 ET by Sergeant ROCKCorrect. Bill believes that the government is the answer for a lot of things - you just have to administer it as he sees fit.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
But anyone watching him for
September 12, 2009 - 13:09 ET by JerBut anyone watching him for just one show would know he is NO conservative. Not even close. Just on his odd non-free market econonic solutions, as a starter.
Maybe if you've only watched one show--and it was an aberration. But, I've watched easily over a thousand shows, and know that while he may not be a "core" conservative, he is clearly right-leaning. True, he understands and advocates the need for strong government oversight in certain [limited] areas, and his criticisms occasionally border on populist demagoguery, but his fundamental economic philosophy is firmly free market, low tax, less government--and decidedly pro-Republican.
His so-called "liberalism" centers around his position on a couple of issues: capital punishment and the environment
Anti-death penalty: He thinks all convicted killers should be placed on an uninhabited glacial island off the coast of Alaska. In all other respects, his criminal justice views are generally to the right of Judge Andrew Napolitano, one of the most conservative judges in America.
Environmentalist: He has said that he thinks there may be "something to that global warming thing". But he has spent very little time analyzing or even superficially discussing the issue. He is and has been palpably anti-Gore, lampoons the 'environmental whackos, and lauds Bush's environmental record.
He doesn't go into detail about his views on abortion. I suspect he may support it, but ONLY in cases of rape and incest. And he does not attack pro-lifers, only the pro-abortion groups.
O'Reilly's a Bush Republican...I'll let you mark the corresponding position on the political spectrum. But, it sure isn't left of center.
Jer
a thousand shows?
September 12, 2009 - 13:12 ET by katainkentI'm sorry. lol.
Bush was the drunken sailor form of conservatism. Unsat.
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
katainkent
September 12, 2009 - 13:17 ET by FeynmanFanHey! Let's watch what we say about drunken sailors! I was in that group years ago and we were never that careless! ;)
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
ha!
September 12, 2009 - 13:22 ET by katainkentI've been on base on Friday nights... ok, maybe you're right. I withdraw that and recognize I have, indeed, insulted drunken sailors. ;)
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
Okay, no harm done KK.
September 12, 2009 - 13:27 ET by FeynmanFanYou can buy the next round. ;)
(I see you are also a fan of Jefferson. Good choice)
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
In all other respects,
September 12, 2009 - 13:30 ET by Jack BauerDon't think so.
Napolitano is very very libertarian. I knew that without even checking having heard his many opinions on air. Some of which I disagree with vehemently, most I agree with wholeheartedly as he always comes down for the individual right versus the collective.
So I just checked on line and he is a self-professed libertarian. And a real one, not a fake one like Bill Maher.
And O'Reilly is NOT a conservative that I recognize as a conservative. I agree with his on many issues, but they used to be issues that trancended party. Not any more.
There are right-leaning
September 12, 2009 - 14:17 ET by JerThere are right-leaning libertarians and left-leaning libertarians. Napolitano is one of the former. In many respects, they believe they are "truer" conservatives than the neocons. The point is this: Neither Napolitano nor O'Reilly are liberals.
Jer
left-leaning
September 12, 2009 - 18:39 ET by Jack BauerNo no no. You cannot be "left-leaning" and be a libertarian. They are polar opposites.
The problem is, leftists don't know the difference between "libertarian" and "libertine."
Leftists who erroneously claim to be "libertarians" are usually libertine socialists.
Like Billge Maher. You just cannot believe in big, intruding, overwhelming government and be a libertarian. Ain't possible.
It's as absurd as a right-leaning Marxist.
I never said BOR or the judge were "liberals."
JB...
September 12, 2009 - 19:17 ET by JerI never said BOR or the judge were "liberals."
And I never said you did. Note my original reply was to ScottyDog who averred O'Reilly is a "left winged liberal".
With regard to your other points, we could jump into that thicket and never hack our way out. I'll just say that I vigorously disagree with most [although not all] of your post, and leave it at that.
Jer
1. You did post this as a
September 14, 2009 - 14:15 ET by Jack Bauer1. You did post this as a response to my post above...
There are right-leaning
September 12, 2009 - 15:17 ET by Jer
There are right-leaning libertarians and left-leaning libertarians. Napolitano is one of the former. In many respects, they believe they are "truer" conservatives than the neocons. The point is this: Neither Napolitano nor O'Reilly are liberals.
And 2. You cannot argue that "libertarians" subscribe to the leftist ideologies of big "government control."
It just ain't true. They only people making that claim are those who don't understand what they are talking about. And, as I said, mistake libertine for libertarian.
Just because some leftist believe is decriminalzing certain drugs, as do libertarians, and some conservatives, doesa not make them libertarian. Just confused.
Jer,
September 12, 2009 - 15:29 ET by Indiana JoeI just pointed out possible reasons that O'Reilly has taken positions you pointed to as proof he was a conservative.
I don't think many of those positions are uniquely conservative positions. Some are moral positions, and I don't just lump all liberals together as amoral. Some are small-government positions, but it wasn't too long ago that the Democrat party included many "conservative" Democrats, small-government type people.
Remember one of JFK's most famous quotes: "Ask not what your country can do for YOU, ask what YOU can do for your country." Now, modern liberals hold themselves up as the descendents of JFK, but I truly believe that, were someone to come along today with the exact attitudes and principles that JFK espoused, they wouldn't be given the time of day by the increasing liberal Democrat party of the 21st century.
In sum, I would say that BOR is a RINO. Usually reserved for politicians, but as good a word as any. And it's clear that most here would agree with that assessment (or something stronger, lol). And I think a group of like-minded people would recognize one of their own. Not many here wish to claim BOR as a "conservative". Hannity, sure. Limbaugh, undoubtedly. Beck, certainly.
But not O'Reilly. And that's really the proof of the pudding.
Regards,
IJ
"Four legs good... two legs better!" - George Orwell
O'Reilly is an elitist liberal
September 12, 2009 - 16:39 ET by ScottyDogYou need to define what you think a conservative is because O'Reilly is clearly not conservative in any sense of the word. He does not believe in limited Government because his solution to every problem is for the Government to do something even if it is unconstitutional.
O'Reilly admitted he backed John Kerry for President in an interview about Global Warming. How soon you forget the groveling he did to get the interview with the phony solder and he did the same with Obama. In Barry Soetoro's case, he agreed to run his "Exclusive Interview" during the Debates.
You must have watched the John O'Neil interview that he was forced to do because of all the viewer complaints. He repeatedly attacked John O'Neil as an "Ideolog" and would not let him speak in the first interview. His favorite expression to pigeon hole someone he disagrees with.
He constantly attacks the first amendment and feels he and the press should determine information disseminated by news networks. That is why he hates the Internet so much. In short, he hates free speech unless he is the gate keeper of the news.
BTW he has never endorsed a Republican for office, links please. He constantly says he will never endorse a politician especially for public office except He let it slip in a Global Warming interview he supported John Kerry.
Just as another poster said, at best O'Reilly is a JFK Democrat unless you think people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham are conservatives.
Sorry ScottyDude...but you are mistaken
September 12, 2009 - 19:39 ET by Jer"BTW he has never endorsed a Republican for office, links please. He constantly says he will never endorse a politician especially for public office except He let it slip in a Global Warming interview he supported John Kerry."
Sorry, ScottyDog...
Indeed BOR has frequently claimed he doesn't make endorsements, but sometimes Bill has difficulty with the truth. I was watching the Factor--as I did regularly--when O'Reilly explicitly endorsed Republican John Thune over Daschle; Republican Mel Martinez for the U.S. Senate; Republican Doug Forrester over Corzine for governor of New Jersey. And of course there was Coleman vs. Franken in Minnesota. Not sure Bill actually used the word "endorse"--just that it would be a "national disaster" if Franken "Stuart Smalley" were elected senator.
BOR supported Kerry? Bwahaahaahaa! Absolute nonsense. No way on God's green earth he voted for Kerry. He has said that Bush was a traditionalist like himself, while Kerry was from the secular wing of the Democratic party. One of his guests stated O'Reilly's obvious preference for Bush over Kerry, and Bill didn't deny it.
Jer
Delusions of Grandeur Jer
September 14, 2009 - 14:05 ET by ScottyDogYou can continue in denial that O'Reilly is not a liberal but the facts prove that he is an elitist liberal. O'Reilly is no traditionalist. Your list of candidates that you think he endorsed proves his(your) support of Rockefeller Republicans except Coleman. He has a love affair with John McCain too.
By you own omission you are assuming that he endorsed candidates even though he never said it. There is an old saying about people that assume.
I urge you do a Google of his interview on Global Warming during the big Global Warming support week on FoxNews. He came right out and said I supported John Kerry in the last election.
I am sorry but your conservative messiah is no conservative. You are in denial my friend.
ScottyDog: Know your subject-matter before making wild claims
September 14, 2009 - 17:47 ET by JerI'll google the interview, but first I am forced to conclude that you have not only shown you haven't watched very much O'Reilly in the past, but you also don't read my posts very closely.
He explicitly endorsed Martinez, Thune, and Corzine's Republican opponent. With respect to Coleman, his was not a formal endorsement, but an admonition to his audience the night before the election that voting Franken into office would be a "national disaster". In my book, that qualifies as a fairly solid endorsement.
By the way, do you know what BOR had always said his first question to Kerry would be if he ever came on the show? I'll let you ponder that for awhile. Hint: It makes it clear he was no fan of Kerry.
Even the conservatives at this site--with the exception of you and maybe one or two others--know better than to claim O'Reilly is a "liberal". It's absolutely ludicrous.
By the way, so you are accusing O'Reilly of lying when he calls himself a "traditionalist"? Interesting.
Jer
"Former Clinton operative
September 11, 2009 - 16:48 ET by Kat Outta the Bag"Former Clinton operative turned journalist George Stephanopoulos..."
More like former Clinton and current Obama operative. And the only way he could be seriously considered a "journalist" is if he keeps a diary under his pillow.
You Beat Me To It
September 11, 2009 - 20:35 ET by Junk Science Skeptic"Long-time DNC operative and journalist poseur George Stephanopoulos" was my version of the opening line.
Stop Funding Leftist Propaganda - Boycott GE & Disney
More worrisome...
September 11, 2009 - 16:54 ET by Forest for the TreesWhat is more worrisome to me is now that Fox ratings are justifiably increasing so well, notice that Axelrod was on Fox 2 days ago, and now GS? What is worrisome to me is now that the Obamination administration sees Fox's success, they are NOW granting interviews by their key spin guys to US, Fox News watchers, directly.
Looks like part of a new Omarketing strategy is a foot! Try to win over Fox News people. Watch out a new phase of slime-spin has begun.
Very, very disturbing to me. I like not having to listen to these idiots of liberal spin ad nauseum, that is why our household NEVER watches the MSM networks anymore.
FftT... I've noticed
September 11, 2009 - 17:04 ET by bigtimerFftT...
I've noticed also, but I look at it as an act of desperation from the left and this administration, but you do make a good point as well, something for me to keep in the back of mind, that's for sure.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
They only seem to be on
September 11, 2009 - 17:10 ET by d1carterThey only seem to be on BOR's show, he has been begging them to come on for months, sometimes embarrassingly. He thinks it gives him cred.
But at least on Fox they
September 11, 2009 - 18:43 ET by motherbeltBut at least on Fox they are likely to get follow-up questions; their spin will not be simply accepted with a nod and a move-on-to-the-next- question.
Besides, what kind of conservative never wants to hear what the other side is saying? We can't just listen to people who agree with us.
Motherbelt, I understand
September 12, 2009 - 02:41 ET by Forest for the TreesMotherbelt,
I understand what you are saying about the benefit of not hearing only our side (conservative) all of the time, but remember that the Hallmark of Fox News programs is that all of FN shows routinely have both sides of the issues presented. So, the difference for me is some of both sides on Fox for most every topic versus virtully mostly ALL Libs ALL the time on the MSM outlets. That is what I was talking about.
We are subjected to the likes of Lamont Hill, Bob Beckel, Alan Combs, and a whole slew of other leftists proponents all of the time. What we see is not a conservative monopoly by any means. In fact, for me, it gets nauseating seeing them all of the time too, but it is necessary to get a complete picture of any issue, in my opinion anyway - so, we already get both sides of opinions & issues without a potential direct onslaught from the top echelon of the WH spin machine.
Having some of each is OK...
September 12, 2009 - 11:53 ET by StarAZFor some reason, Kristin Powers on Fox News Watch bugs me--she says almost every time, she voted for Obama. OK--but you're supposedly a journalist...I guess this is what they teach in J-school now--do they still have J-school?
Forest~
September 11, 2009 - 19:25 ET by Georgia GirlWell, look at it this way: it's yet another opportunity for Americans to see/confirm for themselves what idiots they are. Gee, that didn't sound very nice, did it? ^_^ My patience level is at an all-time low for leftie nuts. Oops. I slipped again.^_^
But I have to agree ... I do not enjoy seeing them on FOX either. FOX is a sanity check/refuge from all the crap of the leftie extremists/socialists -- who so obviously don't want a truly free America that is based on hard work, personal responsibility and moral integrity.
Georgia Girl
September 12, 2009 - 02:46 ET by Forest for the TreesBingo! You said exactly what I was feeling about this, Fox is a place for sanity check & refuge from mounds of crap from the guys trying to ruin our country as fast as they can AND where we can get real news to boot!
Imagine people wanting to hear real news? Go figure.
I keep an eye on the oppo
September 12, 2009 - 11:50 ET by StarAZI don't watch MSNBC anymore--I depend on Newsbusters for the more risible outings over there. If you can't stand the "balanced" thing--queue up a backup channel and click back and forth. I like HGTV.
O'Reilly is the Olympia
September 11, 2009 - 17:33 ET by celatorO'Reilly is the Olympia Snowe of Fox.
He's never convinced me he's "watching out for me". That's something you would say to a 12 year old, not adult citizens of the United States. He's watching out for ol' Bill O'Reilly, that's who he's watching out for.
He's solidly planted in the "what's in it for me" camp of TV presentation. Not loyal to much of anything. Folds up like a cheap suit when he has radical goofballs on. No back bone, no detectable working conservative philosophy. He's not even a moderate. He's nothing, politically.
Nope. A complete phony.
Glenn Beck is eating O'Reilly's his lunch, ratings-wise, because he's doing what the old media has refused to do for 30 years--report the news.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
O'reilly is not a conservative
September 11, 2009 - 18:08 ET by allanfI think he is subconciously trying to curry favor with Obama som people like Axlerod appear on his show.
cel & allan... Agree with
September 11, 2009 - 18:17 ET by bigtimercel & allan...
Agree with both post.
Btw...I've said the same thing about BOR doing his best to curry favor with this administration as his wannabe guest list to my other half...sometimes it is so obvious it's pathetic...pander, pander, pander.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
BT
September 12, 2009 - 03:25 ET by Forest for the TreesLike the way he was trying so hard to make Obama like him in that interview before the election?
Yeah, noticed that too.
Same...
September 12, 2009 - 11:48 ET by StarAZBill was all giddy when The One almost touched his knee for emphasis.
I agree that BOR is not
September 11, 2009 - 18:40 ET by motherbeltI agree that BOR is not really a conservative but the fact that Axelrod etc. have appeared on his show isn't proof of that.
After all, most here belittle Olbermann for never having anyone on his show who's not a flaming liberal....
It's great that Axlerod Appears
September 11, 2009 - 18:59 ET by allanf.. and its fine if O'Reilly is very polite to Azxlerod. Yet O'Reilly pulls punchs in his commentaries to curry favor.
I must say, when O'Reilly referred to the Levin Group as the best source on healthcare I was flabergasted. The Levin Group gives no hint on how it makes its calculations. It's available "on request".
O'Reilly may not be a full fledged Conservative, but he does...
September 11, 2009 - 19:45 ET by jawebster1have mostly traditional values and his show is very entertaining and fast moving. Since I DVR his show, I can easily speed past Mark Lamont Hill, Juan Williams, Commercials and anything else I don't like. Jim Webster
Then O'Reilly
September 12, 2009 - 11:46 ET by StarAZNot only did Axelrod come on "for the first time" (whup), but the next nite, Bill sustained the glory with that body language woman Tanya who said Axelrod didn't seem to enjoy the questions. Well, nuh-duh--the sweaty baleful looks were my first clue!
Mr. Stossell
September 11, 2009 - 18:22 ET by etc67With Mr. John Stossell going to FOX, could he be a type of mole for ABC? Don't get me wrong I do like his reporting. I am glad he is leaving that tabloid newtork. But ABC is so in the tank for the great one, I was just wondering, if they would try to use him in such a way. I thought that after I read the above comment from Forest for the Trees. This is my first post. I've been reading Newsbusters for a very long time now. I finally thought I would get with it and comment.
Don't worry about Stossell. He is a good guy. He will fit in..
September 11, 2009 - 19:48 ET by jawebster1better with Fox Business Channel and Fox News than he did with ABC. Jim Webster
etc67--
September 11, 2009 - 19:52 ET by Kat Outta the BagI personally doubt that Stossel's moving to Fox is anything other than the fact that he knows ABC is a slowly sinking ship and Fox News is more in the line of his way of thinking and their growing ratings doesn't hurt. It's a smart move on his part, IMO.
"STEPHANOPOULOS: Our
September 11, 2009 - 18:25 ET by ckc1227"STEPHANOPOULOS: Our medical editor- Well, you have rationing now. The
insurance companies as you pointed out, and I think that was one of the
most effective parts of the president's speech last night when he
talked about the kinds of abuses that people are visited with by
insurance companies. I think that was important."
No insurance company can prevent a doctor from selling me his services....only government will have that power, and that is the ultimate power they seek. Funny that he doesn't deny that government will be rationing care though. I thought the reason for putting government in charge was to stop abuses, not to spread the abuse to the 150 gazillion uninsured who currently aren't being abused by some evil insurance company.
I would like to see Beck or even Stossel in BOR's time slot
September 11, 2009 - 18:50 ET by R D HelmI know it won't happen until BOR either retires or drops dead, but there it is.
-Dave
I agree with Rush. It's time for Obama to resign.
Besk should at least be moved
September 11, 2009 - 18:54 ET by FeynmanFanBeck should at least be moved to the 7 PM slot so more people can see him.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
FF... If you're eastern
September 11, 2009 - 19:04 ET by bigtimerFF...
If you're eastern time, that is the time slot Shep comes on here, which would make me day if Beck took his spot as well...also in my time zone, Beck would be directly against Dobbs (who I do like to catch segmnents of his shows most days as well) wouldn't that be a heck of a rating war...hehehe
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
BT
September 11, 2009 - 19:07 ET by FeynmanFanI'm in Ohio right at the edge of the Eastern time zone, and you're right that it's Shep's time slot. I'm sure Beck would do a lot better there.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
I would love to see beck
September 11, 2009 - 19:23 ET by countryfirstI would love to see beck geto'reilly or shepherd time slot, I am in new mexico which is mountain time and beck comes on here at 3pm, he deserves to be on prime time
Get a DVR! I am old enough to remember people...
September 11, 2009 - 19:37 ET by jawebster1shouting: "Get a horse!" "Get a DVR!", would be the modern equivalent of the aforesaid. Jim Webster
Worth it!
September 12, 2009 - 03:29 ET by Forest for the TreesDVRs are a marvelous tool & time saver - well worth the purchase.
I'd like to see them
September 11, 2009 - 19:56 ET by Kat Outta the BagI'd like to see them flip-flop Beck and Hannity's time slots. I rarely get a chance to see Beck since he's on during my drive home from work and I could easily do without Hannity.
I was waiting for Steffie to react to being called a...
September 11, 2009 - 19:40 ET by jawebster1Democrat, but his reaction was just like the one in the Baltimore ACORN office when told by the undercover "pimp" and "prostitute" that they were looking for a house to conduct their illicit business. In other words, there was no reaction. I have never watched his show because I knew whose side he was on and his side is definitely not on the side of the unbiased truth. Jim Webster
Hmmm, I wonder
September 11, 2009 - 19:43 ET by RESTLESS 1"You can't blame someone for when lies are told about his plan.
You can say he could have been more effective. But, I think he has a
right to take on his critics in a pretty tough and a pretty forceful
way."
I wonder if steffie would have defended GW's right to defend his plans and policies this way. Too bad Bush never really did.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
BOR and Beck try really
September 11, 2009 - 20:29 ET by RR GOPBOR and Beck try really hard to be even-handed...even to the point of being annoying.
But, they are right to have had criticisms of the Bush administration and the GOP. I certainly have. But, the other side simply does not have that, so I'm less inclined to be critical of Republicans anymore for that very reason. The exception being that the GOP is not doing much in the way of attacking...except for Sarah Palin...so that is now my criticism of them.
BOR's definitely conservative, but I think he's done his best to try to present his program as objectively as possible, which is what journalists should do. But, again, if the other side isn't doing it, then we definitely need guys like Hannity and Beck to even things out a bit by hitting hard from the right.
BTW, Hannity seems to have toned it down a bit. It's as if Beck has eclipsed him?
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Hannity
September 12, 2009 - 11:58 ET by StarAZI don't miss Colmes--he always seemed kinda boring. But Hannity can get "one note" too. And where does he get those panelists--the movie has-beens, the flinty female "strategists" in the low-cut dresses, the coaches, and Beckel! Beckel--the pet Fox liberal.
Star, You mean Blowhard
September 12, 2009 - 12:33 ET by Chris NormanStar,
You mean Blowhard Beckel, the panel bully who sits there looking like he's constantly passing a kidney stone?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
First, Dumb
September 11, 2009 - 20:34 ET by slickwillie2001It's difficult to take a reading of BOR's politics because first and foremost, he is a profoundly stupid man. That stupidity results in maddening inconsistencies in his positions. Remember his assertion that life expectancy in Canada is higher than in the US, because the US has more people –video here.
His positions on corporate profits is so illogical that I suspect he doesn't understand basic economics and balance sheets. When gas prices went up two years ago he simply insisted that 'gouging' was going on, demonstrating that he has no clue as to the legal definition of gouging and didn't care to find out. He and Cavuto went at it on this a couple of years ago, nearly to Geraldo v. Malkin levels. He and Cavuto have also battled on executive pay. No one ever dares bring up BOR's ridiculous salary.
There are many other examples of his stupidity out there. It makes trying to pin down his politics a futile exercise.
Now add into the mix his opinion of himself as a 'journalist'. He doesn't want to go pure commentary like Hannity because then he gets no big interviews. That forces him to water down any opinion. Yet he can't go pure news because he can't resist his urges to spout off and share what he thinks is his immense wisdom with us. He's stuck vacillating between opinion and news delivery.
Other than that he's an okay guy.
Slick-All valid
September 11, 2009 - 20:38 ET by RR GOPSlick-All valid points...also his being a self-appointed internet cop is annoying as well.
But, think what the TV news would be like without him, in other words, I consider the alternative and that makes me think even more fondly of BOR.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
RR... Oh that internet
September 11, 2009 - 21:03 ET by bigtimerRR...
Oh that internet cop thing with him drives me mad as well, not even getting into the oil issue...sometimes it takes BOR years to realize the truth though...I can remember when he didn't think the media as a whole weren't in bed together, corrupt with their bias, talking points with an agenda etc...he has come along way since then...
...but I do have to agree with you here regarding your point about the rest of the msm and what it was like before him, and others as well on Fox...they aren't Number One for no reason.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
BOR & the Internet
September 12, 2009 - 14:51 ET by CiampinoI watch BOR most nights and I do enjoy the show. With that out of the way, BOR is old-fashioned in the true sense of the word and has no clue how modern technology vis-a-vis computers/Internet works. He thinks he can police an international utility. I guess he thinks he could police international radio too?
BOR prides himself on his command of the English language but then proceeds to make a fool of himself. Note his Heroes & Pinheads - last time I looked a hero was someone who, in the face of danger and adversity, displayed courage and the will for self sacrifice unselfishly. Even getting killed on 9/11 does not make one a hero automatically unless the person displayed such qualities. Otherwise it was a case of being in the wrong palce at the wrong time. I won't even go into the real meaning of 'pinhead'.
Hhmm
September 12, 2009 - 14:57 ET by general companyIt is Patriots and Pinheads, little different no?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
BOR
September 12, 2009 - 15:50 ET by CiampinoThanks for correcting me. Senior moment there confusing patriot and hero. LOL. My argument still applies loosely though, as doing good deeds for the poor does not a patriot make. Patriotism is a love of and loyalty to one's
country and is prepared to serve the country.
He should call that show segment some variant of "the good and the idiotic".
Yes, I like Bill, but....
September 12, 2009 - 10:38 ET by StarAZI like O'Reilly's insistence on bulling on, come whatever...But he is becoming too conscious of what others think. I have noticed it for the last yr (I watch nightly). He wants to be urbane and supposedly even-handed, but it comes off as sucking up to the president or the presidency or however he justifies it. He always says, "It was a great speech, but too long..." or "He is a smart man, but..." Sucky! He is firmly straddling every time! And I really dislike how he brushes Beck off...Oh, we didn't cover Jones here because he doesn't have power...etc. Just let Beck talk if you are having him on...
My opinion is slightly
September 11, 2009 - 20:52 ET by JerMy opinion is slightly different: I believe BOR is an intelligent man who occasionally says profoundly stupid things--more often than not associated with his clumsy, faux-populist efforts to curry favor with the "little people" he purports to "watch out" for.
Jer
Billy O'Reilly
September 11, 2009 - 20:44 ET by katainkent"Party of One"
He spends more time preening than any talking head I've ever watched. He's only good for making the lefts talking heads explode.
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
Party of One
September 11, 2009 - 20:48 ET by FeynmanFanIt does seem like O'Reilly likes to talk about himself a lot. I don't watch him nearly as much as I used to because he seems to be doing "game show" kinds of things and that's not what I'm looking for in political analysis.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
Stephanopoulos is a liberal
September 12, 2009 - 17:23 ET by NonArabOmarStephanopoulos is a liberal democrat. Along with Carville they were considered exceptional party strategists. They got into their positions for manufacturing Clinton's victory in 1992.
George is not going to protest being labeled a democrat because he never hides it. Has he ever claimed that he's independent?
As for Bill, Bill built up a fanbase being a dissenter during the Clinton years. Over the years he's gone soft. He's looking for some validation or acceptance from his peers in the left wing media and bloggers on the left. He's trying too hard to get people on the left to see him as a "moderate and neutral libertarian-esque" pundit. He needs to accept that as long he isn't on the Obama train 110 percent, they'll continue to put him in the same group as Limbaugh. That's how they work. He should give it up. They still remember him from the 90's.
It's annoying, he's wussed out as of late. He's kind of afraid of going all out on a black president.
BOR is an elitist wannabe
September 12, 2009 - 20:51 ET by Edward CropperBOR tries to make us think he is one of the folks. Not so . His dad was an
accountant and if he made an average accountant's wage he made about three
times what the average working man made.
Bill would do anything to sell his books. The only number that has exceeded
his reported books sales is the number of times he has told us how long it has
been on the NYT best seller's list.
His giving free copies to the troops is a shameless act of sales perversion.
He sucked up to Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, and gives credibility to a
worthless caricature like Whorealdo Rivera.
He would kiss Obama's butt to get him back on his show.
Real conservatives watch his show occasionally because he does have some
interesting guests. He does say things other host do not say and deals with some
other than usual subjects. He also has Dennis Miller who can be really
provocative unless he is craw-fishing about some of his show biz cronies. But
make no mistake about it they never watch him because they think he is a true
blood brother.
On
September 13, 2009 - 10:09 ET by jessieHOnce a boot licker, always a boot licker.