O'Reilly derided caller as "Kool-Aid drinker," "insane"; falsely claimed Democrats took campaign contributions from Abramoff
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that Democrats took campaign contributions from former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. When a caller noted his false claim, O'Reilly stated: "So you are a Kool-Aid drinker who is blinded by whatever neurosis you have, because that's just insane." As Media Matters for America has documented, only Republicans received direct contributions from Abramoff.
On the January 18 broadcast of The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that Democrats took campaign contributions from former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. When a caller noted his false claim, O'Reilly responded: "So, you are a Kool-Aid drinker who is blinded by whatever neurosis you have, because that's just insane." But as Media Matters for America has documented, only Republicans received direct contributions from Abramoff. O'Reilly then said to his listeners: "Sorry you had to listen to that call."
O'Reilly advanced his false argument when the caller complained about the behavior of the Republican leadership in Congress, citing the Abramoff scandal as evidence of "a criminal Congress that needs to be expelled." O'Reilly replied that "[t]he Abramoff thing is being made a big deal on the left, and I'm going, 'Well, you better watch it because Abramoff was spreading the money around to everybody.' " When the caller accused O'Reilly of telling a "[t]otal, complete lie," O'Reilly responded: "It's not a lie if you look at what the prosecutor publicly put out as far as money going to Democrats and Republicans. The prosecutor in the case released documents that said, here's who Abramoff gave money to, and the money is about equally divided between [Republicans and Democrats]." When the caller correctly persisted that "Abramoff gave not one dime to a Democrat," O'Reilly ended the call "because that's just fallacious. And you, madam, don't know what you're talking about. OK? So, you are a Kool-Aid drinker who is blinded by whatever neurosis you have, because that's just insane."
O'Reilly falsely claimed that Abramoff gave "big money" to "both sides" in Congress. He then listed some of those to whom he said "Abramoff gave money": Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). But of these politicians and committees, only Burns received a direct contribution from Abramoff. The others received campaign contributions from American Indian tribes represented by Abramoff, but no contributions from Abramoff himself.
From the July 18 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, which featured co-host Lis Wiehl:
CALLER: It's not robust in that way. What I'm trying to say is -- is that when you have one-party control like this, and you have people strong-arming other members to get their votes; when you have an ethics scandal of the nature of the Abramoff scandal; when you have votes being held open way passed their expiration date -- again to muscle votes through that aren't good for the country -- you don't have a robust debate. You have a criminal Congress that needs to be expelled.
O'REILLY: Well, let's walk through that. Number one, there's no difference between what's happening today than what's happened in every Congress that's ever sat. I mean I agree with you, they're ruthless and they're going to try to get their votes anyway they can. And -- but from the time that George Washington was president to up to this point, that's always happened in Congress.
They've always made deals. They've always had backroom bargains. There's always been lobbyists, and that's just a fact of life. It's no different now.
The Abramoff thing is being made a big deal on the left, and I'm going, "Well, you better watch it because Abramoff was spreading the money around to everybody." You understand that, Sherry?
CALLER: Total, complete lie.
O'REILLY: That's a lie?
CALLER: That's a lie.
O'REILLY: Well, I mean, look --
CALLER: If the top-heavy Republican --
O'REILLY: Whoa, Sherry. Hold it, hold it, hold it. Sherry. It's not a lie if you look at what the prosecutor publicly put out as far as money going to Democrats and Republicans. The prosecutor in the case released documents that said, here's who Abramoff gave money to, and the money is about equally divided between --
CALLER: That is -- Abramoff gave not one dime to a Democrat. Not one.
O'REILLY: All right, Sherry, I'm going to let you go, because that's just fallacious. And you, madam, don't know what you're talking about. OK? So, you are a Kool-Aid drinker who is blinded by whatever neurosis you have, because that's just insane.
Get me that -- get me that Abramoff stuff, please. You know that's the kind of stuff that --
WIEHL: No, it's - that's why this scandal is so --
O'REILLY: When you get a caller on like that who has no idea what's going on in the country and is trying to, you know, parade this out as -- this Abramoff is bribing Republicans and no Abramoff money is going to Democrats, that's just insane. So, I mean, I -- here's my take on Abramoff, he should go to jail for forever.
WIEHL: Right.
O'REILLY: All right, for life. And anybody who took money from him and then voted his way should be expelled, impeached, kicked out of Washington, and scorned nightly.
WIEHL: Hmm. There'll be nobody left in D.C.
O'REILLY: That's how I see it, because I think this is awful.
WIEHL: Right.
O'REILLY: But anybody who did it should be held accountable to doing it. But to come on to a national radio program and say Abramoff didn't give a nickel to Democrats, is grossly irresponsible.
We'll be right back.
O'REILLY: All right, here are the facts on Abramoff so Sherry can perhaps have a -- epiphany here. The two largest donors, the guys who got the money I should say, Conrad Burns, Republican Senator from Montana got $147,000. Patrick Kennedy, Democrat, Rhode Island, got $131,000.
WIEHL: Hmm.
O'REILLY: OK, those are the two top guys. The National Republican Senatorial Committee got $395,000 from Abramoff. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee got $353,000 from him. Almost the same. The National Republican Congressional Committee got $337 -- $337,000. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee got $332,000. Almost the same.
All right. All told, the prosecutor says Republicans got $3.41 million, Democrats almost $2 million. So, there the plurality shifts to the Republicans, but, big money by Abramoff to both sides. Got it? OK.
Sorry you had to listen to that call, but we -- you know, we trust that our callers are going to be honest and sometimes they're not.
That's what the shrinks call it when somebody projects their own shortcomings on someone else. "Insane," "Kool Aid Drinker," "Blunted by neurosis," sounds like Mr. O'Loofah is crying out for help.
Geez - do you think Bull O'Really? could drop the Kool-Aid Kliche?
I lived in San Francisco when over 900 poor souls died in Jonestown, and there is nothing clever or funny or even interesting about "drinking the Kool-Aid." It stinks.
Does old Bull think he's being clever here?
Finally - IT WASN'T KOOL-AID!
I agree, NEWZHOUND. Considering it's history, the term Kool-aid really stinks. But you won't get too far complaining to O"Reilly about it. He'd just sneeringly dismiss the complaint as "political correctness."
Of course, Bill is not even in sight of mainstream press media and what he does is more like performance art than news. But he is listened to by millions of people. I am sure that some of his listeners tune-in to bask in the feeling of being intellectually superior to someone (“No one in their right mind would believe what he just said”), but many others take Bill’s statements for truth. It is not what Bill says that is important but how the regular media react to his statements.
Since Bill does have a following and what he says is of interest to people, should he be covered by the mainstream media like some kind of traffic accident? Chronicling the wreck of his arguments and, perhaps, shedding a tear over the innocent bystanders.
Come to think of it, this could be a regular feature on TV news; the Bill Report.
Prehaps Mr O'Reilly got his figures from the "Paris Business Review"!!!
Though l have to say, when you Americans want to do something, you always do it in a really big way, be it films, food, or fraud!!!!
THE RNC's BUFFOON, Bill O'Reilly (highly paid employee of FOX, and [highly] paid advocate of the RNC) provides us yet again with the best and the worst of what We (the People) care about...
...the buffon falsely claims Democrats took campaign contributions from Abramoff; and so the buffoon provides us yet again with the worst of what we care about, a...
LIE;
...and MMFA provides us (yet again) with the best of what we (the People) care about, the...
TRUTH;
...the Truth being that Jack Abramoff, 'briber extraordinaire', bribed (extraordinarily) only Republicans.
(Well, nothing so extraordinary, if you consider nothing but what that Republican National Committee's objectives are.)
he's not even being ambiguous about it. democrats got contributions "from him". typical right wing propaganda. and why do they lie? because if they tell the truth there goes their so-called "argument". and just as bad are the people that eat this crap up. i'm sure o'reilly knows better. his kool-aid drinkers? they don't care as long as their own stupidity is reinforced.
What is the difference between Abramoff giving money directly to a politician (in this case, Republicans only) and Abramoff giving money to his clients with the instructions to simply hand it right over to a politician (Democrats and Republicans) on his behalf?
Isn't it still 'Abramoff money'?
Clinging to the argument that it wasn't "directly from Abramoff " is not an effective response.
Or do you have some heretofore unknown evidence that the money the tribes donated to dems actually came from Abramoff instead of being their own money. A fairly ludicrous claim since Abramoff worked for the tribes and not the other way around.
Clients provided the money to Abramoff and also to politicians that Abramoff designated. Abramoff didn't give money to his clients.
However, if you ever want to go into the lobbying business, let me know. I could use some extra cash.
Guys, trying for honest discourse is always laudable, but arguing with Mills, Lodi, etc., is like wrestling with a skunk: you might win (indeed, I've never seen anyone here not do so), but why would you want to?
The caller has to be another plant by O'Reilly to get him to get on a topic. No person in their right mind would listen to O'Reilly and then waste their day trying to counter him. He's just going to "shoot" them down, belittle and humilate them. The caller must have been one of his staff members. This man has no real audience.
O'Reilly: Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look! Look!
How many "looks" is that this week? Anybody counting?
Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!
Turn off this guy's microphone.
"- Hillary Clinton's fundraising organization conceded the falsity of its campaign filings and agreed to pay a penalty of tens of thousands of dollars for underreporting donations.
- Charles Schumer paid a $130,000 FEC fine, plus $120,000 in refunds to 77 donors, for violations by his 1998 campaign.
It's laughable watching mmfa play the game of "eyes wide shut" as they paint the picture of democrats with snow white undergarments while deftly hiding behind the words "directly received". -- Those cases are not related to the Abramoff scandal.
MMFA has never claimed the innocence that you speak of. -- O'Reilly's nonsense has come to the point in which it is hard to seperate ignorance from stupidity. But I know he doesn't have to be cruel:
O'REILLY: All right, Sherry, I'm going to let you go, because that's just fallacious. And you, madam, don't know what you're talking about. OK? So, you are a Kool-Aid drinker who is blinded by whatever neurosis you have, because that's just insane.
"jscott" notes:
Something which the MSM may want to address all the more, especially considering where such implies a clear and present danger to democracy, crossing over into totalitarian rule (cf. the 46-year monopoly of power the National Party held in South Africa under apartheid).
As well, "Sluggo" notes where O'Reilly
Especially so the poor, undereducated and easily-influenced, the ranks of which are only likely to rise all the more thanks to the declining quality and nature of American education which can be laid down to conservative articles of faith equating public education with "failed and failing social experiments***unlikely to continue delivering taxpayer value;" ergo, "school choice" to be seen as the Great White Hope for the Lower Classes in particular.
But then again, the question remains:
Do you want to win the war, or do you want to win the battle?
I am not saying he did, but if he did it would be to help destory the Democraats in the same way he will the Republicans once all is said and done. This is a case of comedic backfire. Abramoff might have well said, "I want the Democrats to take contol of Congress" with the damage the GOP will have done to it.
O'Reily lies. We knew that. To Mills, Tommy, Leftof45, et al... You are correct in your repeated assertion that Democrats are "no angels"... Yes, Dems are politicians too. The whole biz is fundamentally corrupt in this day and age. Probably has been from day (ie 2nd probably only to religion in how to get a buck from the common man).
However, let's be honest (to use Tommy's leading style of prose)... Abramoff is a Republican lobbyist and therefore had nothing to gain by donating to Democrats. In this particular scandal -- and, yes, it's a BIG one -- the GOP is in deep doo-doo. Keep screaming about how equally bad the Dems are... MMFA has to continue to point out the -- so far -- unrefutable evidence that this is a Republican scandal.
And, seriously, had these bonehead Republicans been a little smart about it... they would have donated $$$ to Democrats. But, that ain't how the Grand Ol' Party works. That will be the failing of these characters (hopefully).
You are the one clinging to innuendo. Jack Abramoff worked for the Indian casinoes, not the other way around. That was what he was arrested for overbilling, and commiting various frauds upon them. Those tribes had already been contributing to Democrats, and after he was hired they still gave to the Dems but only less. Now, I ask you why you consider those same tribes as agents of Abramoff employ? Republicans are in charge and Lobbyists are almost entirley republican thanks to the K Street project. But you say its equal on both sides? Amazing the leaps of faith people make in politics. Faith is everywhere in politics,but no CRITICAL thinking .
Here is how the righties and the media claim that Dems recieved Abramoff money. They say that it is from him, or his clients. Jack never gave a dime of his own money to Dems, that fact is clear. His clients may have given some of their money to Democratic officials. There is nothing wrong with a tribe deciding to give money to an official, independently of Jack. If a tribe wants to donate to Dems, that is fine, it is their money to do with as they please. Jack made it so they HAD to give to the GOP if they exected anything done in their favor. Stop the GOP and MSM trying to tie these together.
"we trust that our callers are going to be honest and sometimes they're not", says Bill.
Can we trust that he is rarely honest?