Well, sports fans, the Democrats are afraid to debate on Fox News, but they sure aren’t above using segments from the network’s top show to discredit political opponents.
To set this up, Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) was Bill O’Reilly’s guest on “The Factor” Wednesday, and the two got into quite a discussion about the proposed immigration bill (video available here).
Thursday morning, Michael Link posted the video at the Democratic Party’s website with the headline “O’Reilly Defends “White, Christian, Male Power Structure;” McCain Smiles and Nods” (h/t Pajamas Media).
Unfortunately, that’s clearly not what occurred (partial transcript to follow), and someone at the DNC wisely changed the headline to:
O'Reilly Defends "White, Christian, Male Power Structure;" McCain Smiles and Nods
Here’s the actual exchange:
BILL O’REILLY, HOST: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap it with a number.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: In America today we've got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need additional farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don't need so many.
[crosstalk]
O'Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it.
McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you.
Was McCain nodding and agreeing with O’Reilly’s point about “the white, Christian, male power structure,” as the DNC post states, or that an immigration cap is needed?
You watch the video (pertinent section begins at minute 4:45), and you decide.
Before you do, keep in mind that the DNC must have felt the headline misrepresented the truth, for not only was the headline changed, but this is how the post ended:
(Headline modified for clarity.)
Wouldn't it be wonderful if they modified all of their statements for clarity?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
BOR said the far left wants t
May 31, 2007 - 22:38 ET by balboaBOR said the far left wants to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down "the structure that we have." "So I say you've got to cap with a number."
Doesn't that seem like he's saying you have to cap the number of foreigners to maintain the white, Christian, male power structure?
Sure boa...That's got to be i
May 31, 2007 - 22:46 ET by bigtimerSure boa...
That's got to be it....
Whatever.
I saw the segment....I sure didn't take it that way...but leave it to you to come up with your usual.
Been a long day...someone else will play along with you.
Btw....now that I think about it..what exactly is wrong with what our country was founded with and on?
White Christian males...so what...I am sick of this being bashed as if it is a boogie man somehow...they have kept this country strong and thriving so far.
I'm duly impressed with your
May 31, 2007 - 23:04 ET by balboaI'm duly impressed with your world-weariness.
Technically, that is not what
May 31, 2007 - 22:54 ET by SmartypantsTechnically, that is not what he's said at all, unless you're interpreting his words from a purely leftist standpoint. He said that the "far left wants" to break down the "white, Christian, male" power structure. In no way did he acknowledge that there really is a white, Christian male power structure to break down. BOR was merely stating what he believes the left's reasons are for wanting so many foreigners to freely enter the U.S. In other words, if the far left believes there is this white Christian power structure to break down, which BOR would certainly be a part of, then allowing millions of ostensibly nonwhite people into the nation would certainly be a good strategy for accomplishing that objective. Yet, the right does not believe this power structure exists, so there is nothing to resolve. From BOR's perspective, a cap needs to be instituted because the left's objective is bogus to begin with, and there is more harm than good that can come to the nation as a result of open borders. See the difference?
So BOR wants a cap on those a
May 31, 2007 - 23:08 ET by balboaSo BOR wants a cap on those allowed into the country to prevent the far left from reaching a goal that can't be accomplished because it's basic premise doesn't exist?
And still, he says the far left wants to accomplish something, "so" this must happen. The use of the word "so" seems to indicate the action must be taken to prevent the accomplishment just described.
The video is much better. Hav
May 31, 2007 - 23:19 ET by balboaThe video is much better. Having seen it, I think the transcript is off slightly. Now it makes sense what Bill is saying, but it can easily be misconstrued.
It was a poor choice of words
June 1, 2007 - 08:38 ET by dscottIt was a poor choice of words on BOR's part, he should have stayed away from the emotionalism of changing the "culture" of the country which implies the majority: Christianity and Caucasians. His emotional knee jerk reaction over emphasises the real issue that nags everyone, how many people are we expected to take in from countries whose leaders don't take the responsibility to create jobs and thus push off their poor on us?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Hey Balboa?To be honest, yo
June 1, 2007 - 06:08 ET by MBConservHey Balboa?
To be honest, you get on my nerves. But I guess that is what get's you off, otherwise you wouldn't be here. But the purpose of this comment is not to indulge your fetish, but to make a point. Being a native of South Texas we do see our fair share of illegal immigrants. I happen to spawn from Mexico, however my family came over legally, to provide future generations the freedoms and beauty of America. I am sick and tired of you left wing idiots telling me I could not do it on my own. I earned my college degree through hard work, athletic and academic scholarships. One thing I realized, the right lets a human formulate him or herself. You idiots on the left have to tell the immigrants they can not do it on their own, that they need YOUR help.... and what is sad is you do it for votes. Take a typical Mexican immigrant, he comes to America to provide for his family...he is a hardcore Catholic, God fearing, hard working, picks his children over abortion and cares more about his family than anything else. I would really love to see Barbara Streisand, or George Clooney, or Ben Affleck invite some illegal aliens to their parties in the Upper East Side, or perhaps the West Side (depending on which side of the Park you prefer).
Balboa, you have no credibilty to comment on this issue, so my advice is to shut your mouth. Bill O'Reilly is simply saying with pourous borders, we have no control. Yes we are a nation of immigrants, but if we make this nation a public park, it turns to S*it! And everyone has a public park somewhere near, nowadays parents steer their children away from them.
you have your freedom of speech, so feel free to opine, however your empty rhetoric means s*it
No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests." Fred Thompson
Streisand, Clooney, Affleck & others
June 1, 2007 - 07:48 ET by PawpawNMBConserv, BS, GC & BA do all invite them to their parties-THEY PAY THEM $10 a night to serve everyone at their parties and $5 a night to the ones who clean up afterwards!!
Have we ever conversed befo
June 1, 2007 - 10:38 ET by balboaHave we ever conversed before? You're pigeon-holing me in with a lot of other people. I never told you or anyone they couldn't do something on their own, nor do I believe that. But don't let that stop you from assuming, since you obviously have the "credibility" to do so.
O"Reilly should have s
June 1, 2007 - 06:28 ET by motherbeltO"Reilly should have said they want to break down what they see as the white Christian male power structure. In print he could have put the WCMPS in quotes.
Hmm, I think O'Reilly needs t
May 31, 2007 - 23:08 ET by SMGalbraithHmm, I think O'Reilly needs to be a little more judicious in some of his comments. He's on dangerous ground here.
This one can easily be misinterpreted (and we know that Dave Brock's little cadre of smear artists will be working overtime with this one doing just that) into the view that O'Reilly is holding nativist views. Which, I think, is unfair because O'Reilly has repeatedly stated that we need to be sympathetic to the fact that the vast majority of immigrants are decent, hard-working individuals simply trying to make a better life for themselves.
O'Reilly has often argued that, as he sees it, the "SPs" or secular progressives want a radical change in the makeup of America. From the top down and everything in between. They wish to remove the traditional views and mores and values of America (the, as they see it, white male Christian dominance) and replace them with a series of "nonjudgmental" or "progressive" views on everything from drug usage, abortion on demand and the establishment of a completely secular public square.
From that, I think O'Reilly is arguing here that the NY Times and other leftist groups wish to have open borders to allow a new group of Americans that they can use to promote this secular vision. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity or nationality per se; but it has to do with a new wave of immigrants that (1) are more likely to vote Democratic and (2) from that, will more easily be assimilated into a different worldview, one vastly different than the one we traditionally have held.
It's not that these new influx of immigrants will by themselves change America. It's that this new wave will be used by the left to change the country. That's a key and critical distinction.
Best I can do, O'Reilly. The fact that it took me three paragraphs to explain your comment isn't a good sign for you. As I said, these type of statements can easily be used against him.
And they will be.
SMG
May 31, 2007 - 23:17 ET by Noel SheppardSMG,
I agree with you. If he's going to be interviewing presidential candidates, he's got to be a little more judicious with the questions he asks. That seemed like a rather absurd corner to back McCain into. ns
Oh well, at least someone was honest for once.
June 1, 2007 - 05:16 ET by SportPoliticsOh well, at least someone was honest for once. The women and minorities and gays and freaks and muslims have been screaming as well as shillary herself about the good ol boys network, and now we're all supposed to pretend to STOP them from destroying it is a bad thing ?
Wow, talk about a standing disadvantage.
Statement " I want to destroy you."
Answer " I can't stand what you're trying to do, but we really don't exist. "
Result " America turns into a ****hole of incompentent hateful illegal minorities, raging feminazis with their gay activist and drug addled crybaby losers ruling the roost ."
As far as I'm concerned, their idea is to destroy, because they say it is, and they do a pretty good job of it.
As far as I'm concerned, th
June 1, 2007 - 06:37 ET by motherbeltAs far as I'm concerned, their idea is to destroy, because they say it is, and they do a pretty good job of it.--SportPolitics
I agree with that, SP. One only needs to listen to "La Raza" to realize that. They have claimed California, saying it is a Latino state, and anyone who doesn't like it should leave. They have said the Southwestern states really belong to Mexico and they intend to take them back. Their motto is "Por la raza, todo; fuera la raza, nada." For the race, everything, outside the race, nothing.
Does that sound like a group that just wants to share the American Dream?
Yeah, it's getting to the poi
June 1, 2007 - 10:08 ET by Challenger GrimYeah, it's getting to the point that more and more will start considering this joke as a serious idea. Seems to me that it's going to get to the point, Mexico et al will push to far and Americans will finally decide to show them what true bigotry and hatred are like.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
I like how you add "fr
June 1, 2007 - 07:46 ET by WisdomI like how you add "freaks" into the same category as "women, minorities, gays, and Muslims"... Imagine someone taking the exact opposite viewpoint of those four descriptions by adding "freaks" in that same category and saying "...the males and Caucasians and heterosexuals and freaks and Christians... " .. wouldn't that seem a little out of line?
On the one hand--
June 1, 2007 - 10:54 ET by misterbillOn the one hand--I agree that the questions need to be more carefully phrased. Also, they need to be asked the same way to each candidate being interviewed for fairness to the interviewee.
That being said, BOR is absolutely correct. The thrust of the immigration issue from the left is to use the immigrant vote (they believe that most will register as Democrats when eligible) and keep the Dems in power. If that is not selling the country out, I do not know what is. The Left wants their changes and they only stand a chance if they can keep the majority in both houses.
The candidates need to address the issue, but they should not be pushed into a "when did you stop beating your wife?" situation.
Here is the irony...
June 1, 2007 - 07:34 ET by c5thenIf you look at the demographics of the illegal imigrants, what the left is apparently trying to replace (according to BOR) the "white, Christian, male power structure" with is a brown, Christian, male power structure. So logically, that would mean that the left is racist against white males.
P.S. Interesting factoid...Since President Bush came out and bashed the opponents of the immigration compromise bill the RNC donations have almost dried up. here.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
money
June 1, 2007 - 10:46 ET by iveseenitallI, for one, have stopped giving. George Bush has had my unwavering support. NO MORE!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal ( or George Bush )
Me too! By giving away the
June 1, 2007 - 12:11 ET by StogieGuyMe too! By giving away the store and not securing the borders, he has betrayed the 2 votes I gave him. Usually, you shouldn't pass judgement on one issue - but the immigration/border issue is the exception. No more support from me - and this tragically poor judgement makes me question his other positions too.
I have a 60's-burn-out-former-hippie friend who says that immigration is "the only thing Bush has gotten right." That should tell you something about how he's driven off a cliff.
(Excerpt)Just two days after
June 1, 2007 - 11:28 ET by dahliatravers(Excerpt)
Just two days after President Bush slammed critics of his immigration policy, the Republican National Committee has reportedly fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors, as donors are said to be furious over the president's stance to give legal status to millions of illegal aliens.
"Every donor in 50 states we reached has been angry, especially in the last month and a half, and for 99 percent of them immigration is the No. 1 issue," a fired phone-bank employee told the Washington Times.
Holy mackeral. Thanks, c5then.
let the $$$ do the talking
June 1, 2007 - 11:32 ET by LionKingWhen Republicans walk away from their base, the dollars the base have will not go to the Republicans. It's time Bush and the RNC wake up!!!
Money talks, bullsh*t walks !!!
If this is the case, then why
June 1, 2007 - 11:33 ET by dscottIf this is the case, then why is he fighting a loosing battle against his own party on the immigration issue???? Ok, I demand to know what they did with W, who is this guy in the WH because he is not W.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
abducted by aliens
June 1, 2007 - 11:37 ET by LionKingI think GWB was abducted by aliens...illegal aliens at that.
Maybe it's a W suit? You kn
June 1, 2007 - 11:41 ET by dscottMaybe it's a W suit? You know like the one in Men In Black in the opening scene with the alien posing as an illegal. LOL
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
C5--the President is sneakily trying to move---
June 1, 2007 - 11:45 ET by misterbillC5--the President is sneakily trying to move---toward his vision--a North American Union. Meetings, agreements held wuietly to stay under the radar.
He sees this as his "legacy". I have posted many times about this--we have gotten so wrapped up in the compromise bill (me too) that we are losing sight of the complete sell out of America. We need to go to what our Founding fathers wanted--we need to reinforce state's rights. The governors of each state need to construct militias (the Nat'l Guard belongs to the President if he calls them). The statement below from World News Daily tells us why the Federal governmant is not enforcing our laws.
"As bad as this North American Union plan is," said WND founder and Editor Joseph Farah, "it does succeed in making much more understandable exactly why our government isn't stopping illegal immigration. It doesn't really want to."
Right
June 1, 2007 - 11:53 ET by iveseenitallYou are on to something,MB. Why is GB sr. so cozy with the Clintons?
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
ISIA--Why is GB sr. so cozy with the Clintons?
June 1, 2007 - 12:02 ET by misterbillWhy is GB sr. so cozy with the Clintons? My first answer is sarcastic re: Clintons: Because he thinks they are two nice guys.
The second answer is-- senility! He will be 83 on June 12.
Unfortunately , it happens to a lot of older people. (Perhaps , me too!)
Sen. McCain is toast.
June 1, 2007 - 22:06 ET by Dave RI have no idea why the liberal media would even trouble itself formulating any sort of attack on the senator from Arizona. His stated enthusiasm for the scamnesty bill was an act of political suicide as far as conservatives are concerned.
In a word, he is toast-of the severely burned variety. His presidential aspirations have quite literally gone up in smoke.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
I believe he has a better cha
June 1, 2007 - 22:08 ET byI believe he has a better chance at the Dem primary than the Repub primary
Maybe because they're not act
June 1, 2007 - 23:14 ET by balboaMaybe because they're not actually "formulating any sort of attack."
Bal,Why don't you try to actu
June 1, 2007 - 23:36 ET by BlondeBal,
Why don't you try to actually post something meaningful instead of snarky for a change?
You know I love you, guy, but you've become rather pathetic.
Do you seriously think John McCain is deserving of anything other than derision by conservatives? Or do you just find it something you can sideswipe with a soupcon (sorry, no French punctuatin marks available) of derision?
Dave R said he had no idea wh
June 1, 2007 - 23:48 ET by balboaDave R said he had no idea why the liberal media would even trouble itself formulating any sort of attack on the senator from Arizona.
My point is, there is no formulating of attacks.
Too tiresome to respond to.
June 1, 2007 - 23:55 ET by BlondeToo tiresome to respond to.
But keep trying. You know precisely what I'm talking about.
Then again, I know you'll keep pretending that you haven't a clue.