O'Reilly says birther claim is "stupid" but not "racist," compares it to people questioning Bush's National Guard duty
August 18, 2009 8:40 pm ET
From the August 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Plural..."screen names."
Even for FailLib, who fails spectacularly on a regular basis here, that is mind-boggling.
I'm surprised he didn't go the AnutterAmerican route, and accuse you of "attacking the messenger".
If McCain was elected, there would surely be some questioning of his legitimacy as well. Much of the potential for that was cut off through the Senate resolution regarding his eligibility, but there would surely still be some people claiming that he couldn't legally serve.
There is a technical Constitutional issue at hand here. I think it should be ignored here just as it was for McCain, because it lacks judgment. You can't be President if you spent the first four days of your life in Canada (and your mother is 18 instead of 19 or 21 or whatever), but you can if you were born and raised to adulthood within the boundaries of San Francisco's Chinatown. But that issue is still there. Dismissing it as racism only creates the impression that you're using his race as a shield against criticism. Shoot it down based on the facts, and people can draw their own conclusions as to whether the motivation is racist or partisan.
Keep your powder dry for the people in those pictures.
I've been around for a while and have voted for presidents since Nixon. I've NEVER heard of a single president UNTIL Obama being asked to prove that he is an American citizen. He is being questioned because he is black and he has a funny name. That's all. It is racism at its worst.
I agree with Brabantio on this one. Let those who would smear our president with lies chant 'race' all they want. We will stick to the actual facts. The undecided public can look at the two camps and pick who they would rather be associated with.
There's a line between reasonable doubt and nonsense. That line can be crossed for more than one reason, and we all know that partisanship is a very common one. Things have become much more cutthroat since Clinton was elected, for whatever reason. If there was any seed of doubt that could have been planted for John Kerry, it would have been brought up. But there wasn't. There was never any suggestion that anyone else might not be a citizen, no matter how flimsy that suggestion might be, because nobody else had the same sort of circumstances that Obama has.
Also, as I like to point out, the allusions of "other" regarding Obama and the idea of someone being born in another country go somewhat hand-in-hand. Unless we're talking about most of Europe, Canada, or Australia, anyone connected to another country is pretty likely to be of another race.
I NEVER remember any other president in history being questioned about being a Manchurian candidate like this from actual news reporters. And we have actually had other presidents who had parents born outside the US. We just never had a president who had a black parent born outside the US.
There is still a large fringe group in this country (mostly older, mostly Southern) that cannot handle the fact that a black man was actually elected president and may actually accomplish something. They use the N-word as a general description of people and they do it to feel better about themselves. It is one of the saddest, most pathetic attempts they have in their lives to feel superior to someone. And why not someone we fear and have almost no personal contact with? And if blacks are equal to them, if a black man is superior to them - then maybe they will be forced to look at themselves and ask some very tough questions about the life they've lived.
The fact that it isn't enough for the birthers is, I think, the point where we need to take seriously the question of race. To compare this to questions of McCain's eligibility is to brush aside the obvious: the question over McCain's eligibility arose because, unlike Obama, it is a fact that McCain really was not born in the United States. And even then, the case of McCain's eligibility has been settled: he would have met the constitutional requirements for the presidency.
Do I think the birthers are all racists? Not directly in all cases, but I do think that their preoccupation with Obama's citizenship status is related to race. It seems no accident to me that people are insisting against all facts that the first African American president must be an African.
I do agree that calling the birthers 'racists' en masse is not the best way to respond to their claims, but it seems even more distasteful to pretend that their movement doesn't draw energy from sublimated racist prejudices.
You're right, Obama is first & foremost a Democrat, and that's enough right there to allow the right wing base to hate him, and to believe, and pass on, any lie they hear about him.
The racism is just the icing on the cake, it's intensified the fear and hatred compared to other Dems. Racism is also hard to point out to racists, so even when it exists, it doesn't help in convincing those who can't see it.
The birfers questioned the president's legitimacy to office and in the process attempted to deny him his humanity.
The question of Bush's NG service had no bearing on the legitimacy of his presidency only on his integrity.
I'm not surprised that a guy who had a student, then a teaching deferment, provides cover for another guy who had no problem sending people to die as long as they didn't have to risk their own lives.
As a hobby, I write screenplays, (doubt I'll get to Hollywood), and mainly comedies, and O Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and more are just giving me so much to work with on my newest idea, basically a journalist with poor ratings targets more viewers with shock tactics and major sensationalism of stories.
Really MM I should thank aswell, cause they're doing me a big service getting all this stuff together.
If you do run with this, I expect beer for a year. ;)
They are not conservatives, they are highly paid entertainers who are feeding their low information listeners the false information they are wanting to hear.
And, explain to me, if you will, why it is that when O'Reilly is criticized, you immediately do the small child retort of, "Well, OLBERMANN blah, blah, blah"? That doesn't advance your case for your idol, just makes you look petty and childish. Carry on.
You know, porn sites make more money on the internet than news websites, but I still choose not to get my news from www.falafelfantasies.com.
I don't feel either one of them had much business asking Americans to sacrifice for lies.
What are you trying to suggest with your question?
But while we are talking about the military service of presidents, lets note that we have to go back 30 years to even find a dem Pres with any at all. But all of the repub pres's served.
What was Obama's excuse for not serving? Anyone know? To busy doing blow?
Did you read worrierking's comment? (More to the point, did you understand it and to whom he was making reference?)
P.S. Please, we all know that Obama couldn't serve because he's not an American citizen. By the way, how's that hunt for the real Paris Business Review going?
Bush "served" in the Texas Air National Guard at a time when the National Guard was an organization that rich men's sons joined in order to avoid going to Viet Nam. I know, because I actually REMEMBER Viet Nam.
Oh, and there have only been two Democratic presidents in the past 30 years. You've already mentioned Clinton . . . as for Obama, why would have have joined?
You are the one who asked the stupid question, we just answered. The so-called "draft dodger" didn't send troops into battle, but the deserter and the deferment king did.
William Howard Taft (1909-1913) - no military experience
Warren G. Harding (1921-1923) - no military experience
Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) - no military experience
Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)- no military experience
Wars can be justified. Because one objected to a prior war doesn't mean that on assuming the presidency, that person can't send troops into battle. As long as that president weighs all of our options, gets the best advice and intelligence from our diplomatic, civilian and military leaders and proves to the country that his war in just.
And, yes, the documents proving that Bush went AWOL and did not fulfill his commitment were produced via an FOIA lawsuit filed by the AP. Funny thing, they were released pretty much concurrently with the so-called "Rathergate" incident. I never saw the Rather program, but I did read the FOIA produced documents online . . . they pretty much said the same thing. Bush was a deserter.
Wow. Good point, fairlib. I never heard you come out so strong against Cheney before. Since you bring up, I guess the question is how did YOU feel about Cheney sending troops into battle? Also, how did you feel about Cheney attacking the service of a man, John Kerry, who actually killed for his country? I would love to hear your opinion on these. Also, where did O'Reilly serve?
And to hear Birthers and Lou Dobbs DEMAND that President show his long form birth certificate is down right arrogant and ignorant.
Those fools treat the President of the United States as if he snuck into the White House in the middle of the night! "Whatcha doin' here? Are you supposed to be here? Where your papers boy"
CRAZY CRAZY CRAZY
But this is just another false equivalence that the wingnuts use to trick their followers. I heard MIchael Medved recently positioning himself in the intellectual elite of the right wing by publicly declaring himself not a Birfer.
He should have stopped there, but he continued by saying the Birfers were as crazy as the people who accused Bush & Cheney of lying during the lead-up to the war in Iraq.
I guess this works on their audience. If they can admit to not buying into the most insane fringe movements, then the other side should concede perfectly factual issues to make it even. Otherwise, it just shows that the left isn't fair & balanced like O'Reilly & Medved.
The looney base believes these things (birfers, deathers, Vince Foster murdered) and a few of the more clownish talking heads are assigned to the crazy train to keep them riled up (Lou Dobbs, Limbaugh)
Then the higher primates in the GOP media (Medved, O'Reilly*)quietly distance themselves from the craziest issues. The way-crazy side is too hysterical to notice their defection, and the not-quite-as-crazy element sees a voice of reason within their ranks.
Then they can start explaining to those not gullible enough to buy into everything that their resisting complete insanity proves their ability to see beyond partisan issues and judge fairly. Then these relatively moderate (not quite insane) rightys will believe anything the Medveds & BilldOs tell them about what the left should believe.
* O'Reilly's sanity status depends on the issue. He was picked for the "not as batshyte" team on this one.
Obama's birth certificate proved that he is, indeed, a natural born American citizen. On the other hand, Bush's ANG records are still missing pieces; but they also proved that Bush didn't fulfill his commitment.