O'Reilly on Factor guest list: "[A] lot of blondes in this operation. ... I need sunglasses in here"
After Bill O'Reilly mistakenly said, "Trust me now, [Fox News contributor Kirsten] Powers," while talking to Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover, Hoover replied, "Get my name straight, will you? I'm Hoover." O'Reilly responded: "I know. There's a lot of blondes -- a lot of blondes in this operation. ... So if once in a while I get you mixed up -- I got [Fox News contributor Lis] Wiehl and [Fox News anchor Megyn] Kelly coming up," and adding, "I need sunglasses in here."
During the February 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing opposition to Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign within the Republican Party with Fox News contributors Kirsten Powers and Margaret Hoover, Bill O'Reilly mistakenly said, "Trust me now, Powers," when talking to Hoover. Hoover replied: "Get my name straight, will you? I'm Hoover." O'Reilly responded: "I know. There's a lot of blondes -- a lot of blondes in this operation. ... So if once in a while I get you mixed up -- I got [Fox News contributor Lis] Wiehl and [Fox News anchor Megyn] Kelly coming up." Hoover asserted: "You're bombarded with blondes," to which O'Reilly replied: "I need sunglasses in here." Hoover then said: "It is so tough for you." At the end of the discussion, O'Reilly concluded: "Ladies, thank you very much for your blondeness."
As Media Matters for America has documented, O'Reilly has previously called Wiehl a "good-looking blonde" and suggested that she learn to dance for a tip. On another occasion, O'Reilly called for "a full-body search" of Wiehl and claimed that "she asked for it." O'Reilly has also referred to Wiehl as "eye candy" and asked her to protest outside CBS studios in a bikini. Wiehl is an author, a graduate of the Harvard Law School, and a legal analyst for Fox News.
From the February 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Rove put a happy face on the Republican situation. You saw how he did that. He put a little smiley face on it. I'm not so sure it's smiley here. I think the Republican Party a little in disarray here.
HOOVER: I don't know if I'd go as far as disarray. But look, the conservatives are beating up on McCain. And one thing I would notice about this, though, is the conservative talk show radio hosts. These people are saying that McCain's not conservative enough. And they're defining conservatism by the Reagan three-stool, 1980s social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, national security conservatives. Well, John McCain happens to be all three of those. So they're not philosophical issues they have -- they have with John McCain.
O'REILLY: Well, why do they hate him then?
HOOVER: They hate him because of his style, the way he has gone against -- he has not been a go-along, get-along senator. And he has not been a go-along, get-along guy with the Bush administration --
O'REILLY: No. You're wrong.
HOOVER: -- and so they don't like his stylistically, not philosophically.
O'REILLY: Here's why they hate him: because he doesn't like them.
HOOVER: I -- that's not true. He's done more to reach out to the different sides of the party --
O'REILLY: Yeah, I know.
HOOVER: -- in the last week. And you know what?
O'REILLY: Trust me on this, Powers -- Hoover.
HOOVER: Get my name straight, will you?
O'REILLY: He doesn't like 'em.
HOOVER: I'm Hoover.
O'REILLY: I know. There's a lot of blondes --
POWERS: He's chastising you. So he has -- whenever he has to [unintelligible], he has to say my name.
O'REILLY: -- there's a lot of blondes in this operation -- a lot of blondes in this operation. So if once in a while I get you mixed up -- I got Wiehl and Kelly coming up. I mean, I can --
HOOVER: You're bombarded with blondes.
O'REILLY: I need sunglasses in here.
HOOVER: It is so tough for you.
O'REILLY: OK, what I'm telling you is he doesn't like ideologues, and they know it, and they don't like him.
HOOVER: I don't know if it's not ideologues. I think he doesn't like partisans.
O'REILLY: This is my opinion.
HOOVER: I think he doesn't like partisans.
O'REILLY: All right, ideologues, partisans. What's wrong with you?
HOOVER: But there's -- you know, partisans are people --
O'REILLY: It's the same thing.
HOOVER: OK.
O'REILLY: All right, last word on you, frontrunner, Miss Frontrunner. Miss Hopping-on-the-Obama-Bandwagon.
POWERS: It's not true. You're not paying attention --
O'REILLY: Miss Throwing-Senator-Clinton-Under-the-Train.
POWERS: You're not paying attention. I like Hillary Clinton. That's not true.
O'REILLY: Yeah, not as much as you liked her two weeks ago.
POWERS: I'm the one who just argued that she could still win the election.
O'REILLY: Yeah. Well, she could. She has to win both Texas and Ohio. Not one, both. Going to be very tough. Ladies, thank you very much for your blondeness.
Palin, the press, and her "no más" moment
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
For any questioners who would like a shot at the antisocial sunglassed-in Bill's-eye, he makes a rare public appearance Friday in Portland. Get your ogle scope on and tix: Keller Auditorium.
Oh, Bill, you big flirty lunk...you are so cute. ;>)
More like, "Oh, Bill, you pig, dirty, flunk...you are so moot!"
Hey ROUNDHOUSE, if you're out there:
In the ongoing analysis of this charade of rush's and ann's and others, running down Mr. McCain publicly, and what purpose it may serve, the above transcript (like a deposition of sorts) might contain a clue or two about it.
O'REILLY: Well, why do they hate him then?
HOOVER: They hate him because of his style, the way he has gone against -- he has not been a go-along, get-along senator. And he has not been a go-along, get-along guy with the Bush administration --
You know what that is she just did?
She used the rush/ann thing as evidence of Mr. McCain being unlike Bush, and distant from him! She distanced Mr. McCain from George W. Bush, and used rush's and ann's charade as evidence of it!
She did the "maverick" thing for Mr. McCain!
Then we have more, from the bufoon o'reilly...
O'REILLY: No. You're wrong... Here's why they hate him: because he doesn't like them.
Which is now distancing Mr. McCain from rush and ann! Which is what I speculated about on the other thread (if you saw it under your post), when I cited what is for the most part a majority dislike and mistrust of rush and ann, nationwide, and what might be a ploy to disassociate them from the Senator, as a great obstacle to his gathering a popular enough national following, to win in November.
And so the clowns in the above item's transcript (or deposition) have provided us, in their own words, with two rock solid reasons for rush and ann to run down Mr. McCain: To distance him from them, and from George W. Bush.
Because LORD knows that the Republican Party has some pretty unsavory characters at the present time, and Mr. McCain will have to be distanced from them, if he is to have any chance to succeed in November.
Uh, sorry, this isn't about the substance of what any of the guests, or O'Reilly, were discussing regarding the political campaign we are currently engaged in.....no, this is about the far more important topic of blondes, their sunlit bright dos, and the sexist leanings of the misinformer.
Please, do not try and interject fluff and puffery when it is clearly off topic.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here... is it that Dem should't offer this post? or that mmfa is out of line highlighting O'Reilly's indescrepancies? Because neither of those points are valid.
No, that's not it.
I am sorry, if you can'f figure out the sarcasm behind my post, then it's lost on you, but it's ok.
I figured maybe it was a way of observing that the "blondes/sunglasses" citation is fluff and puffery... which I'd agree. If it's supposed to be sexist what the buffon b.o. said, it still doesn't rise above even "she's awful nice on the eyes!" or "she's a looker!" or other common expressions often made by men who can't think of a better way to compliment a woman's appearance.
The only reason I clicked the title on the front page, was to find out what the heck the "sunglasses" part of it was supposed to mean... and found it to be something that I guess a guy might say about a blonde, if he was really lame and at a complete loss to compliment her... her what? Her hair color? Go figure.
As far as what I posted, about what the brief transcript showed, I'd have thought that a better find from the bufoon's brief exchange as transcribed, and I'd have titled the item...
Hoover Interprets rush's and ann's Criticism of McCain as Evidence he is a "Maverick"
...except instead of "maverick", she said it was evidence of:
"the way he has gone against -- he has not been a go-along, get-along senator. And he has not been a go-along, get-along guy with the Bush administration"
Which of course is a way of "mavericizing" Mr. McCain, and distancing him from George W. Bush, which might well be the entire purpose of the charade of criticism being leveled at him by rush and ann.
Dem,
You addressed the meat of their discussion, which should be the conversation here, but MMFA chose instead to focus on the silly and harmless blonde remark of O'Reilly instead. Your post was thoughtful, this thread's focus is ridiculous.
Your stamp of harmless is in my opinion way off base.
Why does he need sun glasses???
So he can ogle them without them knowing?
;-)
My problem with Bill is that he's wrong...most of the time. Like, very wrong. Facts are wrong. Assumptions are baseless. That sort of thing. He's also a visible stereotype of older folks who can't quite get with the times on what's considered socially offensive in terms of racial remarks, etc.
That being said, he was just joking/lightly conversing with co-workers here, many of whom seem to have been hired because, in addition to public speaking skills, they fit a particular physical stereotype. Can't say I think Bill is being over-the-top in this particular example.
"What's here? the portrait of a blinking idiot..."
Merchant of Venice (can't help myself; today is Shakespeare day at MM)
Don't tempt me Mary. I've had the siloquy(sp alert) of Edmund Edmund, that b*st*rd, floating arround in my head all day. It can amount to cruel and unusual so I've been restrained.
:o)
Profanity phasers are set to kill today.
Out of the dozens of flat out factually challenged and stupid things Bill says on any given episode of his show, THIS is what MMFA picks to highlight?
Really?
I dont understand what O'Reilly means or why this is offensive? Am I missing something? I can bet one thing though MMFA Poster Boy Olbermann will use this to name Oreilly worst person in the world. Yada Yada Yada. Or should I say Yawn, Yawn , Yawn.
Hi Lost, I happened to see this segment, probably hadn't watched the Factor for at least 6 months but I did see the first 15 minutes last night. For MMFA to highlight this as any kind of conservative misinformation, or any other reason they may have to put this on their site only gives further ammunition to the extreme right that call this a far-left smear site. That exchange has no business showing up on this site. None whatsoever.
O Reilly made a mistake with the name, made a joke about it, which could be interpreted as ripping his own station depending on how you interpret it, and the women had no problem with it at all.
Not sure if this is relevant, but I think Michelle Malkin is pretty hot. But she's a raving lunatic, and I happily distinguish natural feelings of attraction from the politics she espouses. I have this image, otherwise, of sitting in O'Reilly's chair and having Malkin spout her garbage, and then I smile vacantly and say something like 'oh you're so silly Michelle, i hate everything you say but you do have nice eyes....' I bet she would find taht pretty degrading, and it would say a lot about me... lol....
I'm not surprised by the lack of criticism here. Sexism is something even progressive men don't get up in arms about. Clearly O'Reilly is a pig, and MMFA is pointing out his sexist demeaning of his female guests.
What is the point of posting this? Has Media Matters lost its collective mind??? I hope all of you have enjoyed having your time completely wasted.
"Almost all the women on Fox are young, beautiful, and blonde and almost all of the men are old and ugly. Wonder why?"
Come on! You've answered your own question! The old, ugly men hire other old, ugly men because they don't want the competition for the young, beautiful, blonde women they hire as eye candy. Simple, really!
No-one's even made a falafel/loofah reference yet...:-(
Without wanting to jump on the WITH bandwagon, this is just basic stupid sexism, nowhere near as funny as his usual paranoid ranting. C'mon MMFA, surely Bill'O has come up with something better than this.