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 (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.
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?