O'Reilly: MLK wouldn't be disappointed; "I'm the poster boy' for economic opportunity
Bill O'Reilly marked Martin Luther King Jr. Day by saying that "I don't think Dr. King would be disappointed ... because our system of government and economy gives more people the chance to pursue happiness in a meaningful way than any other system in the world." He added, "I'm the poster boy for that."
Marking the 20th anniversary of the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, on the January 16 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, assessed the potential for all Americans "to pursue happiness in a meaningful way" and concluded, "I don't think Dr. King would be disappointed ... because our system of government and economy gives more people the chance to pursue happiness in a meaningful way than any other system in the world." He added, "I'm the poster boy for that."
O'Reilly continued: "[N]o matter what color you are, if you work hard, and you're persistent, and you get educated, you can make it here."
From the January 16 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: OK, I don't think Dr. King would be disappointed in where the economic situation is in the USA right now. I really don't. Because our system of government and economy gives more people the chance to pursue happiness in a meaningful way than any other system in the world. I'm the poster boy for that. And, you know, no matter what color you are, if you work hard, and you're persistent, and you get educated, you can make it here. You know, it's no accident that millions of people are trying to get in here. So, you know, you hear a lot of bad things about the USA -- you can make it. No matter what color you are, no matter where you come from. But you gotta -- you gotta work, gotta get educated, gotta be persistent.
It's a moronic statement from an often moronic person, but even if most of us think it's baloney on its face, does it really qualify under MM's mission? I am not sure how this qualifies as "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation" in any way shape or form. It's certainly not provable in any way other than basic common sense.
I think it applies easily.
First, O'Reilly routinely bashes LIberals and their policies and compares them to communists and dictators. Yet MLK and his policies are routinely liberal. ANyone today could advocate for the things MLK did in the past and O'Reilly will call them a loony member of the far left. If MLK were alive today O'Reilly would accuse him of being a pawn of George Soros.
Second, sure, according to O'Reilly anyone in the Us CAN succeed in the system. But guess what? Blacks disproportionately do not. Either it is due to racism, which O'reilly never talks about, or it is due to O'Reilly's theory and there he is basically saying all Blacks are lazy and their poverty is their own fault, OR it is because as MLK said "The bootless can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps."
If you look at those three possible examples, then it exposes O'Reilly as spreading misinformation not only about what MLKs policies and beilefs were but also the subtext that Blacks are simply lazy. It also makes the leap in logic that many loyal viewers will miss...the idea that because O'REilly belived in the capitalist "ideal" that anyone can work hard and succeed, he somehow supports blacks and equality and the end of racism. But those two are not the same issue and Bill is wrong to try and tie them together, especially considering what you end up with after examining his points. and the racist assumptions he has.
That doesn't even touch on the fact that FOx news cares little about black people. How much coverage did they give MLK on MLK day? NOne unless Bush was making a MLK day speech. Rosa Parks? Again, NO coverage except for when BUsh made a photo op. How many of those missing girl stories Fox loves about a missing black girl? None. HOw much time did Fox spend examining the disenfranchisement of Blacks during the Election? None. Etc, etc, etc.
I watched clips of MLK on Russet this Sunday. In one interview MLK said it was cruel to ask a bootless man to pull himself up by his boot straps. I'll say it again if MLK were alive today he would routinely be derided on BO's show. MLK was against the Viet Nam War and his Civil Rights campaign had expanded to become a campaign for social and economic justice in general. I don't think BO would be a big supporter of MLK, BO is not only a war monger but he has a definite bias against the poor. Nay, don't think he would have much in common with MLK.
if MLK were alive today he would routinely be derided on BO's show
Absolutely. Is there any doubt that this would be the case? Honestly?
O'Reilly would challenge George Washington's patriotism if it brought him ratings. He would certainly smear MLK. Believe it.
Whether O'Reilly is a poster boy for anything is just more of him propping up his self-importance, who cares?
But the points he makes are valid and true........if one doesn't work hard, or drops out of school, or makes stupid moral choices, or breaks laws; then that person will most likely not succeed on any level, regardless of their race......and they only have themselves to blame, not society.
There are always exceptions, but generally speaking he is absolutely correct in his statements here.
I see your point that if you are lazy and don't work, don't bother going to school, make horrible moral choices and break laws then you aren't going to do very well. I don't think anyone will argue with you there. That list applies not only to America but to all countries. However, I disagree with O'Reilly assertation and your support for the notion that Dr. King would be happy with the United States economic policies. Dr. King fought for fairness. I don't think he would be happy that for the fourth year in a row GDP is up but so are poverty levels. I don't think he would be happy that wages have remained stagnant while health care costs, energy costs and housing costs have risen (often times dramatically). I don't think he would be happy that in order to keep passing tax cuts that go mainly to the wealthy we've cut spending on Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and other social programs.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas
Regarding the economic policies, you are in error if you are saying that spending for social programs have been cut at the expense of tax cuts for the wealthy. Under this President and this Congress, spending is at an all time high, out of control, budget deficits, etc. So you cannot make the claim spending on these programs have been cut.
Cutting taxes is good for everybody - people keeping more of their own money is not a radical or a right wing issue, government accountability and strict cost control of our taxes should be demanded by everyone.
Here's one example: [link to news.yahoo.com]
I agree that strict control of taxes is desirable. I don't know anyone who wants money thrown around indiscriminately. It's what we spend our money on that worries me. Although Medicare and Medicaid can be expensive most social programs are not and are well within our means to support. I think it speaks volumes for our society by how we treat the underpriviliged.
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas
[link to www.tompaine.com]
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas
[link to www.tompaine.com]
Just something to think about. I'm curious about your thoughts.
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas
Robert Reich is to be respected, but I disagree with his politics and his viewpoint. Cutting taxes is not class warfare, allowing people to keep more of their own money rather than giving more to the government accomplishes many things - creates jobs, forces elected official to live within their means.......the problem is not revenues shrinking, it's spending exploding.
That's where the emphasis should be, but spineless politicians would rather spend and borrow from our children than make tough spending choices......that's shameful, for both parties.
Social programs took the bulk of the hit during the last budget cuts. What a legacy, tax cuts for the wealthy, increased poverty rates, and war.
Mr. O'reilly could not be farther from the truth. there are many Black males who have are educated, work hard, and try to live the American Dream.
I for one am one of those under-employed who face covert racism each and every day in my state of North Carolina. racism today is practiced through economics exclusions. I served my countr for 13 years, worked for a fortune 500 company as well.
1999 I enrolled in college received my undergratuate degree in Business Management; I graduated in 2003 with a GPA of 3.19 and immediately enrolled in a Graduate program. I am currently enrolled, will graduate July 28, 2003 with an MBA in HR Management. I work each and everyday yet I am still homeless and struggling.
I know that there is a job out there for me, but I will not give up my quest. The 200,000 plus jobs the president say they created are mostly part-time, temporary, and do not pay any benefits.
I do not consider my problems the federal governments fault, I have to work out of this situation. I have learned that individuals color and age means a lot when searching for a job.
Mr. O'Reilly education and hard work alone does not mean that a person will be successful. Look at the political appointees, the things happenings in the Halls of Congress and you will see that Cronyism, and Nepotism will get you employed faster than accomplishments or education in many instances. You are correct that education will open up many doors faster if you are not a person of color.
I wish you print this, I am not bitter, I voted republican last election; This letter is one of truth, I am a homeless vet, who will gradutate with an MBA in HR Management who is in search of improving his earning capabilities.
Cleveland Williams
As another poster mentioned, if King we alive today and agaist Bush, against the Iraq War, etc, they'd be slandering him 24x7 on Fox News.
Can you give me an example of a reasonable, principled opponent of the Iraq War that has been "slandered" by FOX News? If so, in what fashion, specifically?
How about Murtha or Al Gore or Henry Reid or all of that veteran who ran and was brutally smeard by that same crazy chick who smeared Murtha as a "coward". Or what about all those Iraq war veterans who are coming back and putting their name into the 2006 election ALL as Democrats. Or General Clark?
Oh wait...you will just label any name I mention as being part of the extreme, loony left. Pretty convenient when you can ignore reality and label anyone who belies reality as the crazy ones.
You haven't given one example of what FOX news did to any of the people you mentioned that is slanderous? (false statements to injure one's reputation)
And for the record, I don't consider any of the Democrats you mentioned as part of the loony left, well maybe Al Gore?
But if you think a staid, establishment suit like Al Gore is part of a "loony" or "radical" anything, you need to re-examine your own political standing. If a known centrist like Gore is too far left for you, perhaps it is you who are too far right.
Hannity quoted Pelosi out of context, falsely suggesting she changed her position on the Iraq war Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:57PM
Fox's Wilson misrepresented Levin's criticism of Bush's prewar statements linking Iraq to Al Qaeda Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:19PM
FOX reporter Garrett falsely claimed that Gore distorted 9-11 Commission finding Monday, June 28, 2004 11:42AM
O'Reilly distorted 9-11 Commission findings, blamed the press Friday, June 25, 2004 4:53PM
Marine Corps Captain Josh Rushing, who took a job with al-Jazeera. Fox smeared the guy's story with a grossly misleading and slanderous tagline.
[link to mediamatters.org]
That's the first one that comes to mind. I'm sure a brief search would yeild many more. Fox's slanderous reporting is common and indefensible.
I won't even go over the amount of time the Swift Boat Vets were given. How about Hannity putting forth the "mistress" story from dredge as if it were fact? Or the entire "throwing his medals" story. Or the "picture" with Jane Fonda. Man it is like shooting fish in a barrel with that question.
If you look at the comments and not attach his name to it, what he is saying is true. People float on homemade rafts just to get here, heck, maybe this country aint so bad. The playing field will never be completely level, and as a black minority I know that. Let's look at the comments, not the fact that it came from Bill O'reilly.
The only thing he is the poster boy for is "bloviating." The dictionary defines "bloviate" as "to speak pompously."
More offensive was O'Reilly using MLK day as an occasion to trash today's civil rights leaders on the Factor. He also trotted out his tired rant against "gangsta rap," claiming that King would have been appalled by black culture today. During one of the segment's teaser spots he actually posed the question, "Would King have been down with it?"
What a shameless buffoon.
Who exactly did O'Reilly trash? Farrakhan? He is a racist and a bigot. Jesse Jackson? He has his own agenda for promoting the "evil white man".
As for gangsta rap, if you think there is anything positive in the lyrics of that music, for anybody, you are not listening to the contents.
Yes, no matter what you may think of them, Farrakhan, Jackson and Sharpton are civil rights leaders. O'Reilly slapped his own broad labels on each of them in order to dismiss their accomplishments and their status as civil rights leaders, just as you've done in your post. He also included Harry Belafonte in the mix, once again condemning his recent comments about Bush. But my point wasn't to defend the past statements or actions of Farrakhan, Jackson et al--I was simply taking offense at the way that O'Reilly used MLK Day as a reason to repeat his simple-minded attacks on these men.
So according to BO gansta rap represents the sum total of Black culture. That's like saying heavy metal represents White Culture. I agree insulting the Black community is a great way to commemorate MLK day.
He didn't say anything about gangsta rap being a sum total of black culture. Where did you read that? He has simply stated that it was a negative influence on many, you can't deny that?
The previous poster wrote this "He also trotted out his tired rant against "gangsta rap," claiming that King would have been appalled by black culture today." I have no reason to doubt this posters word.
I totally agree that MLK would have been appalled by gangsta rap.........MLK stressed ideals that most gangsta rap spits at.
For years BO has been equating gangsta rap with black culture, and Lynn is absolutely right to say that this is like using heavy metal as a representation of white culture. You'll never hear BO commenting on the positive aspects of rap music. He'll only hone in on the most offensive lyrics he can find and then use them to condemn black culture as a whole.
When was his last rant on death metal? Or on the likes of Limp Bizkit? He hasn't done that, has he? And other than skin tone, what is the difference?
and lots of reasons for MLK to be disappointed with US government.
Main stream rock doesn't have the same level of degrading material as gangsta rap. You do have those satanic and skin head bands but they aren't huge commercial enterprises. That is the problem, rap is. Look at the charts, it's right there. Pepsi wanted ludacris as its spoke person for that reason.
Not to be redundant, but as a black person, this is frustrating. I went to school in Hawaii for 3 years. There are almost no blacks in Hawaii. I had a lot of my friends who grew up there ahad their perceptions of blacks molded by what they get off MTV and the rest of the media. To much of the time, it's rappers that they see.
Here is the problem. White people won't criticize rap music because they will be branded racists and bigots.
Blacks won't criticize rap because they want something that has mainstream popularity that they can culturally identify with that doesn't come from the "man".
Very well said...........and not all rap music is gangsta rap. There is a defninite distinction.
I criticize gansta rap all the time. Most AAs in my age group do. The lyrics are offensive to me. But anyone Black or White with common sense who would conflate gansta rap lyrics as representative of a whole race of people is stupid, racist, or both. That's the point I was making in my previous post. Now I will get back on topic as we have strayed off of it. I find Bill O' Rielly’s as offensive as I find gansta rap, he's the condescending race baiter that he accuses others of being.
It's very easy to accuse someone of race baiting without a concrete example - can you give us one please regarding what O'Reilly said here?
Race baiting as in consistently denegrating Black leaders and organizations that the AA community has chosen to lead them. If you are BO regular you are lead to believe that every Black leader or Black organization is corrupt and that the AA community must either be stupid or corrupt for supporting them. I also remember BO telling JC Watts that he should go and be 'The Leader" of the AA community as if that was up to BO to choose 'THE Black leader". BO also made the statement that Blacks need to stop the drinking and drugging although he qualified it by saying not all of them but a lot of them do. I used to watch BO when he first came on, I realized what he was in very short order and stopped.
I don't understand your comment about the AA community choosing their leaders? Anymore than that white community chooses their leaders.......there are many leaders that people look to for many reasons. JC Watts is a leader to many, not so much because of his race, but because of his qualities. I would consider many white and black people as people I respect, not because of their color, but because of what they do or stand for in everyone's community.
It was always MLK's dream for us to be basically a color blind society, where people are judged not on the skin color but the content of their character.
I'm not going to keep following you off topic, but of course communities choose their leaders. You can't be a leader if you don't have followers. For instance Malcolm X and MLK were contemporaries vying for the dominant leadership role in the Black commuinity during the 50's and 6o's. Malcolm X most certainly had a following, but MLK's message resonated with a larger portion of the community. The same can be said of WEB Dubois and Booker T. Washington 50 years prior. In addition MLK groomed a whole host of leaders including the much derided Jessie Jackson.
Lynn, For the record - I don't choose my leaders based on race at all.....it is irrelevant. I choose the people I respect because of their qualifications, their character, their strength of leadership, their principles among many other qualities.
That is because there are good people and bad people in every race.......to choose leaders within one particular race is shortsided and exclusionary.
whew what grammar. What I meant to say was nobody with common sense would conflate gansta rap with Black culture.
Wait, O’Reilly the self proclaimed ‘poster boy’? I wonder what he would say if someone like, say Samuel L. Jackson (who I believe grew up in poverty) or someone who actually grew up with nothing, said that they were the ‘poster boy’. After all, O’Reilly is an entertainer, just like the many members of Hollywood that he loves to bash.
You make a good distinction there between rap and gangsta rap. There are guys like Will Smith who stay clean. I would argue however that they majority of mainstream rap would fall under the category of gangsta rap. I'm a young guy and I don't know anyone that listens to clean or positive rap.
Maybe that says more about my friends than anything else:)
O'reilly deeply respects responsible black leaders like Sec. Rice and Sec. Powell. Anyone who has read his books would know he also has a lot of praise for Shaq and other responsible black role models. He has specific reasons for deriding irresponsible black leaders, but the O'reilly haters don't want you to know that. He also likes Sharpton (even if he disagrees with him) which is evident if you have watched any of their interviews. Gangsta rap is a vile, horrid form of music. Anyone who defends it should get their head checked.
It's a routine strategy that BO uses against many of his guests. He'll try to joke around or say something like, "You're an all right guy in my book," in order to disarm his more intelligent liberal guests. A perfect example of this was an interview with Alec Baldwin, where BO kept deflecting Baldwin's points with flattery.
BO is all chuckles and chumminess with Sharpton in order to deflect and neuter the man's message. O'Reilly makes it easier for his audience to ignore the content of Sharpton's points by mocking him in his "friendly" faux-folksy way.
Can this buffoon stop with the I was poor rhetoric already. He grew up in a relatively wealthy middle class neighborhood and attended private school. I don't think that makes him qualified to talk about economic opportunity. He is right that the beauty of America is that it rewards hard work. If you work hard, more often then not you will be able to succeed. But with that said, there is no question that things have slowly changed under GWB. John Edwards said on TDS that we are now rewarding wealth instead of hard work and he's 100% correct. Yes tax cuts are good, but not during harsh economic times and especially if it means not taxing corporations or dead rich people or taking money from education loans. How is giving Paris Hilton back more money going to help our economy? Or for that matter having Enron not pay any taxes? How does this promote hard work? How does making higher education more and more expensive promote hard work. I'm all for tax cuts, but in times of a war we started and disaster recovery, wouldn't that money be best spent providing for these causes rather than Paris Hilton's dog's sweater or a millionaire's space fantasy? In short, O really's mouth was right that America does reward hard work, but he's full of his usual BS if he thinks the Bush policies have done anything to promote this.
when he said he was okay with tax cuts Bush was making, as long as it did not take away from important social programs. He also said incurring debt to fight a stagnant economy was good. What he opposed was the widening of these measurings to become all consuming and the continuation of them after the economy stabilized, as at that point "you might want to start paying down the debt you built up in the hard times." Of course this was prior to Iraq. And this was prior to the Bush adminstration announcing like they did somewhere else I can't remember "Mission Accomplished". So if times are so good why aren't we paying the debt back or at least stabilizing it, instead of raising it? It is class warfare, in its simplest form punish the majority for the benefit of one class unevenly. You can say what you want about it but that is what is happening.
I felt the need to make this post in light of previous posts in this topic.
I dare say that conservatives have this incredibly myopic view with regards to Dr. King and what he stood for/fought for. They are often of the attitude that "everything" is better now. The policies and overall attitude of the current administration have only reinforced the need to remain vigilant with regards to human and civil rights, not only here in our country but globally as well.
I just wanted to leave a couple of links to articles that I felt hit the mark and explain views with regards to Dr. Kings message and legacy a lot better than I could hope to relate. I took them to heart. I hope some of you will. I doubt any of the conservatives that hang out here will though.
[link to www.commondreams.org] [link to www.commondreams.org]
respectfully submitted, thank you
While I think that there are some things that Dr. King would be pleased to see these days, we have not progressed much at all in some areas. De facto residential segregation is still prevalent in most places, and that has not been recified by school desegregation, as had been hoped (although I think there were some benefits from school desegregation). And I think we are headed in the wrong direction when it comes to the economic justice King dreamed of, with low-wage, no-benefit service jobs taking the place of the factory jobs that once elevated many workers to the middle class.
Hard work leads to success? Wage slaves work hard. They manage to pay the bills and avoid homelessness, even feed the kids - are they "successful" or just getting by? Would they call themselves successful, or just workers? I think they would call financial independence successful, or the ability to do work they would choose. These platitudes that are supposed to make your chest swell (a hard days werk fer a hard days pay) are right up there with Boxer from "Animal Farm" declaring, "I will work harder" eventually working himself to near death and ending up as glue. Where did you get this notion that humans must "earn a living", as if we aren't born deserving of life? What business is it of yours or anyone's if someone has type A personality disorder or just wants to spend most of the day puttering in his garden and why must we penalize one for not being more like the other?
It's not worth over analyzing BO. He is merely a kind of clown act. Like the others, if he does happen to say something that is true, it is an incidental.
If O'Reilly were born into an environment comparable to those that beset many poor black Americans and if he had to attend a school like those that disserve many poor black Americans, he'd probably be a poor white American. It's about circumstances...and racism. They separate the poor black American and the rich white American.
Unless, of course, you believe that black people and white people are fundamentally different...or that rich people and poor people are fundamentally different. I think a lot of people do believe that black people and white people are fundamentally different...and that justifies the chronic inequity.
so I'm quite certain he'd be disappointed about a preemptive war we started in the middle east . . . and the only thing O'R is a poster boy for is the loofah manufacturers . . .
O'Reilly is not a poster boy for economic opportunity he is a opportunist just as Cheney and majority of our "elected leaders" Deferred from Vietnam the whole lot of the scum did not have to piece lives back together, but took advantage of the vacuum left in job market by all of the true Americans who served when called. They got rich because they played hooky from duty when called and have the audacity to call themselves Americans and especially O'Reilly's crap about looking out for Americans. He is just like the rest of the foul mouthed non-journalist (Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Snow etc.) who spew filfth and ingorance every day to make money - They should be ashamed of themselves.