O'Reilly: NY Times is "quasi-socialistic"; Krugman is "just to the right of Fidel Castro"
In a discussion on his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly claimed that The New York Times "is basically a quasi-socialistic outfit" and that Times columnist Paul Krugman "is just to the right of Fidel Castro." O'Reilly was discussing an October 24 New York Times editorial that advocated an increase in the federal gasoline tax. After quoting the article, O'Reilly described the paper's suggestion that the added revenue could be funneled back to lower-income households as "income redistribution."
O'Reilly's shot at Krugman also referenced their joint appearance on the August 7, 2004, edition of CNBC's Tim Russert; O'Reilly asserted that he "took [Krugman] apart." During the debate, O'Reilly made numerous false statements and linked Media Matters for America to Castro, exclaiming: "Media Matters! Why don't you just call Fidel? Call him up in Havana. He'll tell you what's going on." O'Reilly also called Krugman "a quasi-socialist" during that program.
From the October 24 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
CALLER: Hey, Bill. New York Times and Senator [Charles E.] Schumer [D-NY], their solution to the oil companies' price gouging just makes the government work in collusion with the oil companies against the consumer.
O'REILLY: Well, they would say no, because if you have a $3 oil tag that fewer people will buy gasoline. That's what they would say. And I tend to agree with that. I tend to agree that if you keep oil prices at $3 a gallon that most folks are going to cut back. But I think they're going to cut back anyway. And you can get fuel efficiency by demanding efficiency out of Detroit. You know, the government has a right to protect the environment, and it is a national security issue, so they can say to Detroit, "Look, we know you have the technology to do it. And if you have [cars that get] 30 [miles per gallon] and up, we'll, you know, we encourage you. And if you don't, then we're going to tax your vehicles more because they're harming our country." The government has a right to do that.
And -- you know, The New York Times is basically a quasi-socialistic outfit. And that's what they are. Read Paul Krugman. I mean, the guy is just to the right of Fidel Castro. It's ridiculous. Krugman is one of their columnists, a guy I took apart on CNBC; you might remember that.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Okay...we liberals are often accused of calling someone a "racist" or using "class warfare" to quash the debate. Fair enough; it happens sometimes. Isn't O'Reilly doing essentially the same thing, constantly throwing around the "socialist" label? What's his obsession with Fidel Castro, anyway?
nerzog,
Your point? Nobody here that I have read, conservative or not, goes out of their way to defend O'Reilly......he is MMFA's favorite whipping post but there is no love lost on him from anyone here, including me.
tommy - Thursday October 27, 2005 01:18:52 PM EST
Fair enough, in fact a good point, very, very few people defend O'Reilly. I dont see that this rebuts, or that nerzog is wrong, but it is true, O'Reilly defenders as hard to find as Godot with the philosopher stone next to the fountain of youth
"Isn't O'Reilly doing essentially the same thing, constantly throwing around the "socialist" label? What's his obsession with Fidel Castro, anyway?"...by nerzog
=====
I used to enjoy reading Krugman, Dowd too...HOWEVER the NY Times is now charging $$ to read their columnists...pity.
I don't HATE O'Reilly like some of you HERE seem too (in fact SOME of you sound a bit obsessive about it), and on occasion, I AGREE with O'Reilly on certain issues. But I do FROWN on the use of CERTAIN labels such as Nazi-Fascists-Socialist-Commie thrown around whenever someone is TRYING to discredit an "opponent". O'Reilly does it MUCH TOO OFTEN!!
Actually, too MANY of YOU here do it also...so I find it kind of hypocritical that you're POUNDING O'Reilly for the SAME kind of behavior.
As for his "obsession" with Fidel Castro....Mmmmm it kind of REMINDS me of some of the posters here and their "obsession" with Hitler.
That's what I was thinking. This is about the third Fidel reference in a week. Maybe Dild O'Reilly has a thing for beards?
I wonder what Bill O'Liely thinks about conservative Charles Krauthammer? Is he now a quasi-socialist too? Back in 2004 Krauthammer proposed a gas tax, the proceeds of which would be funneled back to the poor and middle class through a cut in payroll taxes.
Hilarious.
Does O'Reilly remind anyone else of those performance artists who smear their own feces on their chests while reciting "The Itsy-bitsy Spider" in German?
Is it just me?
I've found that once you accept that O'Reilly is little more than a miserable, megalomaniacal entertainer it becomes more fun just to anticipate what asinine thing he's going to say next.
I can't even really get mad at the guy anymore. His BS has been debunked so many times, he could say almost anything and it wouldn't faze me.
If Bill O'Reilly said the sky was blue or water was wet, I'd check to make sure.
"... a guy I took apart on CNBC...." ~~~~~> "... A guy I pelted with a veritable hailstorm of lies on CNBC...."
Sagra - Thursday October 27, 2005 03:00:30 PM EST
Oh no, dont tell me O'Reilly is claiming he took Krugman apart in their debate? I read the transcripts, Krugman ate his lunch.
I wonder if you could get the full effect of the slavering and shouting from a transcript.
But yeah, O'Reilly claimed victory. I could never make up anything that wild.
he ate his lunch for breakfast
MMFA, please just create a dedicated O'Reilly "right" wing, or is that unfair? I mean, not EVERYTHING he says is a lie or an ad hominem attack. Is it?
The entire Meet The Press transcript is out on the Krugman website if anyone doubts that PK took him apart.
The funny thing is, O'Reilly called Krugman a "quasi-socialist" during the debate to which Krugman scoffed at the relevance of the term and mocked O'Reilly by calling him a "quasi-murderer".
As far as the rest of the debate it was like watching a guy with a BB gun fight a guy with a bazooka - O'Reilly was way out of his league.
In fact BO is mostly out of his league when he debates someone on any type of equal platform where his mike isn't 100 decibals higher than his opponents.
O'Reilly: "It's ridiculous. Krugman is one of their columnists, a guy I took apart on CNBC; you might remember that." ______________________________________________________
Yet O'Reilly complains he can't get people on his show!
I too read the transcripts. Yes, Krugman tore O'Reilly apart, no question. It was almost sad to think that so many people rally behind O'Reilly without thinking about what he is really saying. He got torn apart by not only by facts, but by the a LIBERAL (Fox's enemy).