O'Reilly accused liberal bloggers of being "blackmailers"
During the August 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed: "[W]hat people don't understand is that these Internet bloggers give messages to these candidates: 'If you don't do what we tell you to do, we will trash you and try to interfere with your fundraising.' " Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Dick Morris later asserted that O'Reilly is "a great rallying point for" liberal bloggers, to which O'Reilly replied: "But I think it's a danger to have blackmailers, which is what these bloggers are, active in the political process."
As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, here, here, and here), O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked the progressive Daily Kos blog and compared it to the Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan, stating: "There's no difference between the KKK and the Nazis, who have websites, than the Daily Kos."
From the August 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: But here's what I do see as a problem.
MORRIS: Well, they live the [unintelligible]
O'REILLY: Yeah, maybe they do, but it's just a stupid issue. Bloggers threatening -- you know, what people don't understand is that these Internet bloggers give messages to these candidates: "If you don't do what we tell you to do, we will trash you and try to interfere with your fundraising."
MORRIS: Right.
O'REILLY: And that is unique. I don't think that has ever happened before.
MORRIS: I think that's true. I think there's the mobilization of the left-wing grassroots. And it is increasingly directed against Hillary. Increasingly you're seeing -- and you saw this at the [August 7] AFL[-CIO candidate forum], you saw it at the bloggers' convention, that there is kind of a new left emerging. And for them, Hillary Clinton is not that far from George Bush or Bill O'Reilly in the lexicon of demons.
O'REILLY: Right. She's not radical enough.
MORRIS: Exactly.
O'REILLY: How much power do they really have, though?
MORRIS: A lot, because --
O'REILLY: Do you really think so?
MORRIS: Oh, a lot. Because these folks are a grassroots group that has spread enormously over the Internet. The left is way ahead of the right on the Internet. Democrats are so much better than the Republicans now at penetrating them, and they have literally tens of millions of people who they're in regular touch with. Those are people who are going to swarm all over the primaries.
[...]
MORRIS: Well, if he [former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)] wins -- if he wins in Iowa, he's in good shape. I don't think he'll win in Iowa, but he's ahead right now because MoveOn and those other groups have so saturated the Democratic left.
O'REILLY: And the people that voted the causes --
MORRIS: And you were a great rallying point for them, my friend.
O'REILLY: Well, they can rally all they want, but they're not going to do anything as far as the main election is concerned. But I think it's a danger to have blackmailers, which is what these bloggers are, active in the political process.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I am guilty I am a blackmailer. I choose my right not to support a candidate who I feel will not do what I want. That is blackmail.
This is even scarier
But I think it's a danger to have blackmailers, which is what these bloggers are, active in the political process
So only his ilk are to be active in the process?
I'm trying to figure out how this differs from talk show hosts and lobbyists.
That's also what I'm trying to figure out. Does bO think what he does is ok because it's on tv and radio and not a blog?
O'REILLY: Yeah, maybe they do, but it's just a stupid issue. Me threatening -- you know, what people don't understand is that these talking heads give messages to France: "If you don't do what we tell you to do, we will trash you and try to interfere with your tourism, [and your imports, like freedom fries and freedom toast and freedom poodles]."
Ha!
Who blackmailed JetBlue into withdrawing from YearlyKos?
Bill has a "blog" alright. The difference is his minions have to pay to even read his pearls of wisdom. The only other major site on the web that charges for people to read its content is The Wall Street Journal. Some sights make you sign in to comment on the content (like Media Matters) but anyone can read the existing content.
I think that is what Baby Bill cannot stand about liberal blogs, Media Matters, and Daily Kos. Someone is actually providing a public service without the profit motive. People like Bill O'Reilly do not believe there is any such thing as the public good. The only thing they believe in is private greed.
QFT my friend.
O'Reilly and all the other rightwing radio morons have enjoyed years of unanswered influence on politics. Now that progressives are gaining the same level of influence in a different format, it's labeled "blackmail".
That is exactly what he is going for. To the Mandarins, the elite who think it is THEIR right to the political process anything that brings the bewildered herd of the people in the streets into the process, into the arena of policy is a threat. He absolutly is looking for a rationale why its WRONG for us to be involved we are just supposed to vote, endorse the decisions the political class makes and then go home, shut up and leave THEM alone to run things.
Candidates are deluged with special interest and pressure groups wanting this and wanting that - it's part of the process, and it's free speech.
It's up to the candidates to stand up to them and put their integrity and honestly above political gain. If they cave, it's their fault - not those that are "blackmailing" them.
Once again O'Reilly is demonizing the wrong ones.
Are you accepting O'Reilly and Morris' claim that liberal bloggers are blackmailers?
The term blackmailers is in quotations, that should tell you something.
But apparently because I didn't haul out a slur against either one of them, you missed my point.....which is pretty obvious, sorry you didn't get it.
Righteeoo, I glanced past,"Once again O'Reilly is demonizing the wrong ones." As always thank you for being a jerk about it.
It's nonsensical to only lay the blame on the people who are blackmailed.
Lobbyists on K Street, for example, were blackmailed into hiring Republicans. They wanted to work, and have influence on Capitol Hill, and so they had not choice by to cave in to the blackmailer's demands, and hire Republicans for key positions. The blame lies almost entirely with the blackmailer, Tom DeLay and others in his cabal.
Trying to claim that the blackmailers have no responsibility or blame is ridiculous.
Perhaps doublethink may be the best way to describe the editorial ideology of Faux News Channel--in the mildest sort of way, methinks.
Oh no! Don't let the left wing bloggers become active in the political process!
How un-American of Bill O on this one. Essentially he's saying, "I don't like what you're saying, so stop participating." It's amazing to me that these guys whine and cry about how people don't want to get involved in the process, and then when they do, more whining and crying because they're not participating in the process like they would like them to.
If the left wing bloggers want to eat Hillary up, so be it. She is, in my opinion, very conservative. Her voting record shows that. Her actions show that. Anyone who claims Hillary to be a true liberal just hasn't been paying much attention to what she has done over the years in the political world. I won't vote for her in the primaries, because she's frankly not even close to liberal enough for me.
Mag,
Obviously you are free to vote for whowever you'd like, but in my opinion if the Democratic party shifts too far to the left in their primaries and nominates too liberal of a candidate, no matter how screwed up the Republican party is, the Democrats will not win the WH.
Unless of course the Republicans do the equally stupid thing and nominate a far right candidate, then all bets are off.
The country is neither far left, nor far right. The smart thing to do when voting for a candidate in a primary is figure out which one is most electable in the general election......otherwise, you're toast.
Tommy old boy,
I agree with what you're saying, and for my own personal beliefs, that's too bad. I think recently, the country got fooled into thinking that George W was something of a centrist, and we all know how that turned out, and we as a country, re-elected him even after he turned out his far right credentials. To say that someone from the further left than Hillary (there aren't too many candidates in there that are that far left, again, in my opinion) can't win might be incorrect (I would hope). We could, maybe, just get a backlash from the far right President that we've had to endure since 2000. We'll see though. I am fairly certain though that just about any of the dem candidates is better than what the republicans are offering up thus far. Again, my own personal opinion.
Just as you are free to vote for whomever you want. I assume due to the content of your posts, that no matter whom the Democrats nominate, they shouldn't count on your vote. That being said I think your concern is misplaced, but perhaps if you could point at issues you think the Democratic party champion, that could take them too far to the left that could be helpful. For awhile very serious people told us things like leaving Iraq and higher taxes for universal healthcare were "far left" too.
In the same spirit. which of the announced candidates on the Republican side would you consider not far right?
This country as a whole is right or left. Despite what Redking would have you think, the parties and the issues are very different between the two. The last 6 years have shown us what happens when a party that doesn't believe a government
can be useful is in charge of the government. The American people are ready for a change in direction, and the Democratic candidates are running under this premise.
You make a point that is conventional wisdom. It may be true, I am not saying it isnt. And yet the GOP has had success with pretty far right candidates like Gump. I am not sure it is that simple. The majority of people seem to want a party that will fight for its beliefs, that is sincere. I am not so sure they are all that worried about being too liberal or too conservative more like they want to give people a chance and see what they can do as long as they are convinced they believe what they are saying and are willing to fight for their principles. TOO far either way sure, I am sure a Chomsky or Zinn would frighten the electorate as much as a Savage would. However if they were given a fair shot I think a Fiengold or Kucinich COULD catch on with the people. I dont think they are any farther left than Bush is right.
This link [link to bostonreview.net] was posted in another thread, by Ewestone, I think.
It gets right to the core of what you are saying and fairly well deconstructs that stupid meme that elections are won by selling out to the middle. It's about sticking to principles.
It has nothing to do with sticking to principles, which I greatly admire of any politician. It's about the reality of politics. People in the general election will not elect an extremist from either party, no matter if they stick to their convictions or not.
You can arguably say Bush is or was an extremist, but he did not campaign as such or he would have been defeated......the same way Bill Clinton campaigned and won as far more centrist than most Democrats.
Just read the article.
I read it, thank you. It does not change reality, however.
If sticking to principles was the key to election victory here, then Hitler would win.
Suit yourself.
You are pretending that is the ONLY consideration being made. The article made it clear that at least economically the majority of people AGREE with the old core democratic message. So its not like he was advocating sticking to unpopular principles or DEATH CAMPS.
People seem to forget that Bush was not considered far right wing when he first ran for Prez. To the right of him were Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, and Gary Bauer. McCain had a more centrist approach and Orin Hatch never really got off the ground.
Many conservatives to this day feel his record is a mixed bag. His administration's profligate spending, government expansion, and policies on illegal immigration fall outside the typical conservative view.
Well said AA, I couldn't agree more.
But, those views don't fall outside the spectrum of the neo-cons, and when Bush did run for a 2nd term, he would have easily and was easily called far right. And he still is.
In 2000, he ran on the compassionate conservative BS we were shoveled from his campaign. You know, non nation building and all that jazz.
Exactly Bush understood quite well the electorate would not buy his brand of far right economics and military adventurism so Bush knew he would have to lie early and keep on lying which he did and lets not forget he LOST the 2000 popular vote by more than half a million votes so lets not pretend his message was the better one.
The people that elected Bush and the other Republicans into office knew full well the Republican Majority was sending bills to Bush that were ok by him. It is not Bush, but those Republicans which did all of those things for which you site him as "not conservative enough", Bush just signed off on the Republican excess.
"Exactly Bush understood quite well the electorate would not buy his brand of far right economics"
Bush has actually been pretty liberal on fiscal issues. He's been conservative on taxes and liberal on spending and the growth of government. Overall, Bush has been a moderate conservative. The idea that he's "far right" is complete nonsense. Guys like Ron Paul and others who want to reduce the size of government to what it was before the Great Depression are "far right." But Bush hasn't really been that conservative. He's made Bill Clinton look conservative on spending issues.
As usual you oversimplify. Of COURSE Bush is far right. However I have said before he is not a tradtional conservative. He is more like a radical statist. There is NO QUESTION he is liar of monumental proportions.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "far right" is. I view someone as "far right" if they take an extreme anti-government stance. Bush has been a supporter of big government, so I don't really think that he's far right at all. I would consider Barry Goldwater far right, because he had extreme anti-government views.
Sure, it depends on how you define the term. Feel free to try to redefine Bush as a moderate or Jesse Helms as a liberal if you want just dont expect anyone paying attention to take it seriously
The military unilateralism and adventurism like lying to start wars. The sychophantic devotion to enriching the wealthy and corporate crony capitalism is pretty far right.
Yes it IS about principles. People dont care what you think until they think you CARE. You throw the word extremist around pretty cavilierly. No one is talking about running Angela Davis or Noam Chomsky. However an unreserved liberal is not by definition an extremist. A Kucinich is not more extemist than a Brownback or a Gingrich. It has been a favored GOP trick to DEFINE the political spectrum further and further to the right until Rush or Buchanon is NOT an extremist but anyone three ticks to the left of center IS. Like say a Fiengold.
The difference is that bush (lowercase intentional) pretended to be centrist, when in reality he is a right-wing tool. Clinton ran as a centrist and actually WAS a centrist.
Clinton was never anything close to a centrist. He was far left on social issues and national security issues and middle of the road on economic issues. And the only reason why he was moderate on economic issues is because he had a Republican controlled congress. Clinton is as much of a centrist as Newt Gingrich is.
WRONG, Clinton was never a far left liberal. You have often seen me say I was never much of a Clinton supporter and THAT is why. Just because to you anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is a far left liberal doesnt mean that your delusions in any way represent reality. Clintion was alwasy fairly centrist. Kucinich is a lefty liberal, Wellstone was. Clinton isnt even close to that, never was.
Kucinich is a far left extremist. He's political views are quite similar to Fidel Castro's. Clinton was a liberal but simply not that extreme. Considering that you think Hillary is a centrist as well, you have very little credibility on this issue. You think that anybody to the right of Fidel Castro is a conservative.
"Kucinich is a far left extremist. He's political views are quite similar to Fidel Castro's." RH
Followed by telling somebody else they weren't credible.Har.
Your delusions are amusing. Hillary IS centrist always HAS been only the truly brainwashed keep trying to pretend otherwise. She is even MORE centrist than Bill. Just because you NEVER know what you are talking about and feel free to toss out the most delusional nonsense I have ever seen doesnt make it less delusional. Kucinich is NOT a communist and you are NOT in the least bit credible about, well, virtually ANYTHING. What you show with each post is that you NEVER know what you are talking about and your baseless assertions are getting stupider and stupider.
Another fallacy you assume is that people who are not extreme, or in the middle, do not have principles or convictions. And that is just not true. Selling out to the middle if you go against your core beliefs is hardly an admirable quality, I agree. But many people have very centrist ideas and beliefs for what' good for the country as a whole, in it's entirety - not so entrenched in some extreme fringe position at the expense of practicality and reality.
What is clear is that you assume people who articulate thoroughly progressive or conservative beliefs are extremists. But you have no real evidence to support your claim that I think people who have both conservative and liberal views are unprincipled.
No, you misunderstood what I said. I don't view conservatism or liberalism as extreme positions.
However, I do view some conservatives who want to, for example, outlaw homosexual sex, or blur the distinctions between church and state to impose their religious views on others, etc as exremists.......and I do view some liberals who want to socialize our economy, raise tax rates to astronomical levels, weaken our military, open our borders and live under a one world order as extremists as well. These people stick to their principles granted, but they will have a very difficult time getting elected POTUS......much less working effectively within our government of limited powers.
There is not one freakin' candidate running for president who fits the descriptions you just tossed out.
Actually no one made that claim. Straw man alert there was no such fallacy. The point is that Dems have not been seen as sticking to their core principles. That they have been willing to do anything and say anything to win elections. No one I know has posited that only extremists even by YOUR broad definition have principles.
Not me ROUNDHOUSE. I started on the article but I'll have to finish it at home, its pretty long.
I did make make an argument that, without an emotional connection with the voters, winning is nearly impossible.
Billy boy has been blackmailing for a long time himself. What happens if you disagree with him? I've never heard of him allowing an opposing veiwpoint to be quietly expressed.
Sorry for the misattribution, Ewestone, and my apologies to the poster who linked the Perlstein article. My apologies and my thanks that is.
Actually, it was me who linked the article. lol. No biggie though, glad that folks read it. Rick Perlstein is one of the best new historians on the scene today, and everyone should read his Barry Goldwater book if they want to know the rise of the conservative movement. I can safely say that Perlstein will become this geneartion's Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
That was a heck of an article. I unreservedly agree with what he wrote
Wasn't that good? I was so glad it was linked in another thread.
You probably already know this but Rick Perlstein does a lot of work for TomPaine.com.
It was good and insightful no I didnt know he did work for TomPaine
Yes an excellant article. As he says, if you're nodding your head smiling at the end, you don't get it.
Side note, anyone familiar with John Muir's "The Velvet Monkeywrench?"
"Unless of course the Republicans do the equally stupid thing and nominate a far right candidate, then all bets are off."
So who could they nominate who is not far to the right? Ron Paul maybe. Everyone else running for the Republican nomination is much further to the right than any Democrat is to the left (with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich). If it came down to a race between Paul and Kucinich, Dennis has my vote.
- She is, in my opinion, very conservative - magnolialover
I'm curious about your statement. I'd like to see your take on the issues that you feel she is conservative on.
I don't expect you to write a thesis...a few examples would be enough.
I'd like to see a rational, measured response...and you normally fit that description. This is really about my curiosity...and there is no bait in my request.
I guess I'd have to start out with Iraq. She has voted for, time and again, funding for the continued efforts in Iraq, as have most of the democrats in Congress I might add, and she still will is what I'm guessing.
She also seems to have a very tight connection with Israel, which is something else I attribute to more conservative type candidates or politicians. AIPAC loves Hillary, and they also love Bush, Cheney, et all.
She has also recently talked about not having a problem with taking money from lobbying groups. I have a large problem with that, and I guess in the back of my mind, I normally equate strong lobbies with things like the K Street Project and large corporate interest groups which is what most lobbying groups are all about. I liked the idea the late great Molly Ivins came up with that all politicians should put logos on their suits of their top 10 contributors to their campaigns (sort of like NASCAR) so we could see who they were really working for.
She has stressed abstinence only sex education.
Regardless of what many say, she IS an evangelical Christian.
She seems to be toting the Bush line on foreign policy.
Those are just a few things she's been doing or has done that I'm not enamored with. There's more I'm sure, but this is just a short list of things.
Thanks magnolia
I get the part about Iraq and foreign policy.
I don't get the part about supporting Israel...but I'll confess that I struggle with understanding the whole Israeli issue. When I ask others about the Israeli question I mostly get..."because they're Jews"...maybe you can help with this one.
On the religion aspect...is being an evangelical christian reserved for conservatives only?
The Molly Ivins nascar story is priceless...what a difference it would make if the pols were identified publicly with their sponsors.
Here's another gem from Molly...“Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
I believe her narrative applies to almost every single politician in D.C.
I guess for me, support of Israel is tacit approval of supporting suppression and oppression of an entire people. I get this from my own personal experiences of when I traveled through Israel in the recent past with my sister where we felt more comfortable in the presence of Hamas militants that we did in the presence of the IDF. We saw what the Palestinians are going through first hand, and it's essentially one group of people (Israel) holding sway and power over another, and basically keeping them down. I think we, as a nation, pump too much money, arms, and support into Israel, and HRC is part of that support. Will this ever change? I doubt it, but I do disagree with it to an extreme level, again, first hand knowledge and seeing what I saw over there.
Now, as far as my evangelical stance on things, well, I might be jaded because I live in North Carolina where I feel comfortable saying that almost ALL evangelical christians here are republicans, and staunchly conservative. I do know that it is possible to be evangelical and liberal, but just not around where I live. Living in the Bible Belt, or in the buckle of the Bible Belt, for me, does have it's downsides to things. I tend to think that most conservatives tend to flout their religion and hold it up for all to see to get elected, and I see HRC doing that, and Obama as well. If I were "king" I would take religion out of it completely and forever, and there would be no mention as to what religion a candidate prescribes to, but even though there is no religious test for public office, we all know that there is actually one. Show me one atheist who has held a high elected office in the federal government, it just doesn't happen, and won't happen.
Anyway, just more of my rambling here.
Appreciate the take on Israel...yet I don't think I'm ready to swallow the fact that the situation in Israel is because of the Israeli persecution of Hamas...I'll chew on that for a while.
Our fore-bearers came here in part to escape religious persecution from a country with state sponsored religion. Yet, most of them were god fearing people.
Religion has played an important role in the foundation of our country...and most of the leaders since. Believing otherwise is just using anecdotal evidence of leaders opposing christian principles.
I don't believe in the concepts of the religious zealots that profess that their religion is the sole path to righteousness. I do believe that most religions profess a fundamental concept of right and wrong and the compassionate treatment of fellow citizens...and that is a good thing.
I guess in response to "no atheists being elected to high office"...it points to the importance of religious tenets in our way of life when we elect government representatives.
Our constitution guarantees us freedom of religion but not freedom from religion...I know...sounds like a bumper sticker...but I believe it fairly defines what should be our guiding principles.
It sounds like bumper sticker logic because it is. Its too simplistic. We are not gauranteed freedom from religion in that we are not guaranteed to be free from being exposed to religion but we ARE guaranteed freedom from religious coercion. That is why the establishment clause went beyond saying we couldnt establish a state religion all the way to saying there could be no establishment of religion whatsoever AND denying any religious test for office. In fact there can be no freedom OF religion without a concurrent freedom FROM religious coercion. For instance in a job that is not religious by nature say Civil engineer or college professor, they cannot demand I be a Christian or a Jew. This is in effect a sort of freedom from religion just not freedom from EXPOSURE to religion.
Freedom from exposure to religion is just what I was referring to...there is no constitutional right to that. But certainly I agree that religious coercion by our government is out of bounds.
Here are a couple of quotes from supreme court justices that put it pretty well:
Justice Souter in a 1994 opinion in which he said that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
In 1952 Justice Dougles wrote that the constitution does not require "callous indifference to religion".
I believe that the role of our government is pretty well defined in what they can or cannot promote in regards to religion.
However, I do believe that we as a people...and that includes our elected officials in their performance of their duties...are better served if they have set their moral compass using basic religious tenets.
I don't believe that christian religious tenets are the only way to shape your life. While I'm not a follower of literal biblical definitions...the basic intention of religion is a darn good way to interact with your fellow man.
Sure they are but that is a chicken egg argument. Were they religious tenets BECAUSE they were basic moral tenets or did they become basic moral tenets because they were religious tenets. I in no way believe that an athiest cannot be just as morally grounded as a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu. So I would have no problem voting for an Atheist who I believed had a good basic moral foundation.
Of course you wouldn't...nor would I.
I asked magnolia for his thoughts on Hillary...and he kindly provided them. In view of that...I'm not interested in chasing any anal chicken or egg religious rhetoric with you.
In a couple of words...I'm done.
Sure you are. You said something STUPID
are better served if they have set their moral compass using basic religious tenets. <<<<<<<<<<<
The implication of which is that moral equals religious. Why dig the whole deeper. You obviously didnt catch you were DONE long ago.
It's not quite true that everyone came here to flee religious persecution. In the north, the Puritans of Massachusetts were fiercely intolerant and their church was funded by the taxes. Rhode Island was built by those who fled their persecution. If Ben Franklin would have stayed in Boston, the climate would have stifled his intellect.
"Tis better to be of no religion than bitter for any", William Penn. This is why we should not support Israel....it's found on the basis of religious establishment, that one religion alone shall rule, and it's pretty darn violent doing it. It's everything good William, Ben and the boys of old Philadelphia were against. To stand by Israel is to turn our back on our ideals as a nation, to spit on the First Amendment. It's just plain wrong to assist them in what they do. Congress shall not pass laws establishing religion....anywhere!
I support the two-state solution. Israel must return to it's official, legal borders and allow a viable Palestine. It's the only way to a lasting peace. The US should be using all it has to make that happen.
I have heard that a lot about the evengelicals yet I read 10 year study of the voting record of those congesscritters who call themselves evangelicals and while about 60% were very conservative about 35% were quite liberal and two of my friends who I would describe as very conservative religiously are very liberal politically. I think like libertarians they tend to reject the middle and are mostly but not overwhelmingly conservative politically. I could easily be wrong here as anecdotal evidence is so often swayed by clustering it could be that just Cal AZ and NM evangelicals are this way.
I agree Wes. They are the reason I left the Dem party. Not ALL of them. You will find Kucinich, to a large extent Fiengold and when he was alive Paul Wellstone always telling you what they believe truthfully whether or not they think you will agree. Hillary has never been a liberal, she is very pro corporate not strong on labor issues, my union brothers despise her, her foriegn policy speaks for itself and while strong on civil unions jettisoned gay issues like they were plutonium when they got beat up on dont ask dont tell and opposed to gay marriage. It is accurate to call those middle of the road position but NOT liberal by any means. I think at heart she is still a Goldwater Girl. To me she meets Phil Ochs derisive definition of a liberal 10 degress left of center at the best of times and 10 degrees right of center when it effects her personally.
Conservative talk-show hosts are really just blackmailin' bloggers who can't type.
Well, I'll take being a liberal blackmailer, whatever that means, to being a back biter like Dick Morris...wait, maybe I'm thinking of Marv Albert.
Billie 789, Dickie likes to suck on toes
I love the pictures put up here sometimes, priceless. Poor Dick Morris, he looks like he's having a bowel movement.
B.O., meet B.M., I mean, D.M.
O'Reilly thinks that this hasn't happened before? Who does he think he's kidding?
President Bush blackmailed much of the Republican Congress for 6 years, telling them that they had better not submit bills that he didn't want submitted, and whatever threats he used were very persuasive, because they didn't submit bills (yes, there was one) that Bush didn't want on his desk.
Let me see. How many times did O'Reilly mention Bush blackmailing Congress?
Blackmail being unique to the netroots? This has never happened before? What does he think lobbyists did before today that makes it a bad thing that Hillary says she's going to continue to accept their money. It's because of the blackmailing that lobbyists do that her comment got her into hot water!
Unique? How about how Tom DeLay forced every K Street lobbyist to hire Republicans on their staff if they wanted to get the attention of the Republican-controlled Congress?
Not quite. Bickering and jockeying for political gain between the legislative and executive branch is hardly blackmail, but rather the system in Washington and the legitimacy of checks and balances.
But nice try at an analogy Sue, nonetheless.
Totally wrong as usual, Tommy.
It's quite clear that the same kind of blackmail that O'Reilly was talking about, denying support and funding, is what Bush used to force the Republican Congress to bend to his will.
Your delusions are clouding your judgment, but that's nothing new.
"Bush blackmails his own party", News at 11.
Even for you Sue, that is beyond ridiculous. But you go with it, I have no intention of dignifying something so hysterical any further.
It's not nonsense, and if you finally admit that you can't challenge it, I am willing to allow you to admit defeat.
The Bush White House forced the Republicans in Congress to behave in ways that no Congress before them had ever behaved. If you think that there wasn't coercion involved there, you're more delusional than I thought.
I don't know that Bush blackmailed the Republicans, as it's not force if the other party is willing. They were happy to be used as tools to promote their agenda upon America. It was a great and tragic display of Republican leadership and vision for this country, one I hope we don't repeat for a long, long time.
I think that many were forced to adapt to the "let's create a permanent Republican majority" plan, and part of that was to accede to Bush's blackmail. If you don't stick to the program, you lose your power, even if you are a Republican.
Just wait until he's out of office to see how many Republicans come out of the woodwork to diss Bush and Rove for the way they forced the Republican power structure to crumble instead of prosper.
O'Reilly asserted that the bloggers on the left would say "If you don't do what we tell you to do, we will trash you and try to interfere with your fundraising."
What did Bush tell Congress for 6 years? The same thing. You think it was simple coincidence that Bush never vetoed anything his first 5 years in office?
The interaction between Bush and the Republican-led Congress has not been the same as the previous Presidents held. He abused the system in a number of ways, including forcing them to not submit bills he would have to veto.
In case you really don't understand this, and would like to become better informed, here are some links.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec06/veto_7-24.html
Tenpas said one of the reasons President Bush did not have to use his veto was because the Republicans who control Congress are from his same party and often handed him bills that were to his liking.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.
''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.
''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0816/p01s04-uspo.html
In fact, well into the fifth year of his presidency, he has yet to issue a single veto.
It's a streak unmatched in modern American history, one that throws into question traditional notions of checks and balances.
Although the streak could end next month - Mr. Bush is threatening a veto if Congress eases his restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research - the Bush era thus far underscores a historically high-water mark of collegial cooperation between Congress and the White House, experts say.
"We're pretty close to a parliamentary government," says G. Calvin Mackenzie, professor of government at Colby College in Watervillle, Maine, referring to Congress's close alignment with the executive branch. "We don't have much recent history with that."
Other presidents have enjoyed majority support in Congress. But few, if any, have gotten the level of disciplined backing that Mr. Bush gets from House and Senate Republicans.
"There is unusual coherence between Republicans in Congress and the president," Professor Mackenzie adds. "So there's very little getting to his desk that hasn't been pre-approved by the Republican leadership."
'If you don't do what we tell you to do, we will trash you and try to interfere with your fundraising.'
Is he serious? Ever? Not only does he work for FOX, but the PRIMARY ROLE of his program is to demonize the left and hail the royally incompetent right regardless of their monstrous screwups
The role of Bill O'Reiily's show is: Do what we tell you to do, or we will trash you in order to interfere with your fundraising and support.
Bill O's statement is the perfect summation of both FOX in general and his show in particular.
Hey, free publicity, ya know? Lay it on there, Billo, send them to us.
Doesn't Morris look like Curly doing "nyuk nyuk nyuk?" Where's Mo? I'd love to see him poke his eyes and smack him on the head.
More like, Hey Moe! Hey Moe!
I can't help but wonder, too, though, whether Senator Inhofe wasn't blackmailed by big oil _ this, when he said that global warming was perhaps "the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." I'm wondering. You're probably wondering, too. Too bad O'Reilly doesn't wonder about stuff like this; the malfeasance of right wingers. For this and other inconsistencies, please check out paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com; "Contra O'Reilly".
O'Reilly can have my liberal blog when he pries it from my cold, dead hands!
Why does Bill always have to say, "What people don't understand.." Bill it is your viewers that don't understand. Why do you think they continue to listen? I think Liberals do understand. That is why they can decided for themselves and not follow like sheep.
Now, Bill, what YOU don't understand is that you and your ilk are becoming passe. You've had your day in the sun and have banked a fortune but those brighter than you have caught up to your BS without utilizing TV and radio. It must be frightening for you to know that you are a dying breed. But, what YOU also don't understand is that truth and just a tad bit of humility can go a long way.( And dumping a$$e& like Little Dick).
Mr. Bill, come over to this site, post your opinions and you may learn to UNDERSTAND.
I have come to realize that these Cable News rackets do not even qualify as venues for Pundits. These boys and girls are opinionators not experts and, to paraphrase an intersesting speech of recent acclaim: Mr. O'Reilly is _The OPINIONATOR_.
I am engaging in this, what Mr. O will probably consider, " hate speech", because I am sincerely disappointed in Mr. O and his ilk. I sincerely believe that the Cable news phenomenon has lowered the bar in journalism and engaged in a massive disservice to the "Folks". I turned off Rush Limbaugh after about 17 minutes. And I now , generally, access Mr. O through MM because I find his program an outrage to Truth, Justice and the American Way (not to mentionthe the UK, European Union, Asia, the South Pacific, Iceland, the Antarica...ok I'll stop with the "hate speech"...
You can quote me on this...um... might be nice to check for spelling...
yep, sorry for the hurried mis-spellings. I wanted to add : Is not threatening to call anyone (i.e. journalists or any other "folks" ) "bad Americans" for having dissenting views a form of "blackmail" considering what it really means...i.e. traitor...? Please see Bill Moyers Buying the War for a reminder, at about 50 minutes in.
Hey Bill, we still got those photos of you and that....