O'Reilly baselessly claimed "mainstream African-American[s]" are "conservative at heart"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly stated that "the mainstream African-American person" is "conservative at heart." O'Reilly defined such a person as "the person who goes to work, gets up, doesn't live in the ghetto, lives in a, you know, in a working class neighborhood or an affluent neighborhood."
On the March 30 broadcast of his syndicated radio show, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly stated that "the mainstream African-American person" is "conservative at heart." O'Reilly defined such a person as "the person who goes to work, gets up, doesn't live in the ghetto, lives in a, you know, in a working class neighborhood or an affluent neighborhood." He then proceeded to list several characteristics purportedly shared by African-Americans that indicate their conservatism, including that "[y]ou don't see a lot of African-Americans ... running around with [actress and anti-war activist] Jane Fonda." He later added: "[W]e're not talking gangster rappers, or [Rev.] Jesse Jacksons. We're talking mainstream." But Jane Fonda aside, African-Americans vote Democratic in overwhelming numbers, a fact O'Reilly did not mention, much less attempt to reconcile with his theory that African-Americans are conservative. In the 2004 presidential election, exit polling showed that Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry (MA) won 88 percent of the African-American vote, with President Bush receiving 11 percent.
O'Reilly made the remarks during a conversation with syndicated columnist, author, and commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson on the recent immigration controversy across the country, and on Hutchinson's April 3 column, "Bush's Black Voter Court Shakes Democrats."
From the March 30 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor:
O'REILLY: Let me -- let me throw this to you. I read your column, and you didn't mention this, and I think this might be a factor, but you tell me if I'm wrong. I -- I have always believed -- always believed -- that the mainstream African-American person, the person who goes to work, gets up, doesn't live in the ghetto, lives in a, you know, in a working class neighborhood or an affluent neighborhood is conservative at heart. Their value system is church. A big church-going population among African-Americans, particularly female, if you look at the polls, they're against gay marriage; they're against far left political thought. You don't see a lot of African-Americans, you know, running around with Jane Fonda. You see a lot of African-Americans going into the military.
HUTCHINSON: Um-hmm.
O'REILLY: And I think that there is a conservative bent among African-Americans mainstream now. And we're not talking gangster rappers, or Jesse Jacksons. We're talking mainstream. And I think that they feel that look, we have to obey the law, and why don't these people have to obey the law? I -- I -- I bet you if you strip it down, Doctor, there's a lot of that going on.
That's wonderful ... he's always believed that... based upon, of course, absolutely no fact or personal experience.
Why on earth would AA voters support the neocon agenda?
Bill lives in Archie Bunker-land. In his mind, "mainstream" African American voters are WHITE at heart.
"exit polling showed that Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry (MA) won 88 percent of the African-American vote, with President Bush receiving 11 percent."
Bill has a problem telling the difference between what he thinks is true and wants desperately to be true and what is true, real or factual.
That's his opinion and thoughts, and he portrays them as such. "I -- I have always believed -- always believed..." and "I think that there is..."
Now before someone jumps in here and starts calling me a troll (like that would ever happen ;-)), just know I'm no huge BOR supporter. But he is allowed his opinion, and as long as he says it is his opinion and thoughts, and doesn't try and claim that they actually do, etc., I am fine with this. People should be free to express their thoughts, beliefs, and opinions... no matter how "baseless" they may be.
It's more like BO's wish.
JUST KIDDING! O'Reilly gets his statistics from the Bureau of his own butt (borrowed from Al Franken when referrigh Limbaugh) . I would agree though, if O'Reilly starts with "I believe" or "in my opinion" I don't have a problem with that - he's entitled to make an ass of himself at his peril. If he stated it as a fact? Well, I've got a problem with that. Did you happen to hear a poll that was done about 3-4 months ago that placed the administrations approval among the AA community at 2%? Oh, the margin of error was 3%, so, theoretically, it could have been as low as -1% LOL
Billy boy gets his data from BBB ( Bureau of bill's Butt.). that is so funnt I am going to bronze this thread
I cannot stop laughing. LMAO! It usually takes me to make me laugh so hard.
I have nothing to add, but to ask if BOR calls himself a “journalist?” I really do not understand or appreciate this transition of factual reporting to opinionating reporting. Is the news no longer anything but a spreadsheet of editorials?
Of course he's allowed his opinion, but what's your point? Should MM not have posted his remarks and should we not be critical of them simply because they were prefaced with "I believe..."?
"So what?" was my response as well. The point isn't that he doesn't have a right to his opinion, it's that he's either grossly misinformed or completely dishonest and either way he is not someone who should be relied upon to inform people.
The freedom of speech/freedom of opinion argument is ludicrous when a person is paid to do a job. If they are performing badly or are just ill-suited for the work, they can be fired. In an objective media source, the argument could be made that O'Reilly should be fired, because he is either ignorant or dishonest (or both). A paid pundit does not have carte blanc to express any opinion they have and retain their job any more than a 50-year old fat man can sue a strip club for discrimination for not hiring him as a dancer. If he wants to strip in his own house, god bless, but nobody is required to pay him for it. In the same way, a news organization is not required to retain the services of a lying or ignorant person because of "freedom of speech" or their rights to their own opinions.
To sum up, stupid and dishonest speech should be discriminated against, in the same way as 50-year old fat would-be strippers. That's just the way it should be.
But, then again, we're talking about FOX. This is the GOP propaganda machine. It's all COMPLETELY willful and planned.
Bill’s social responsibility with stating an “opinion” that could be construed as being derived by facts?
O Reilly's show is a topical show, it is not a straight news program. I'm not following your logic since O'Reilly is bringing in the ratings in relation to his competition, therefore he is doing a successful job.
Going back to your analogy about the 50 year old man, if enough people would pay to watch him dress down, then he would be marketable.
Bill is marketable, people are watching. You don't have to.
"O Reilly's show is a topical show, it is not a straight news program. I'm not following your logic since O'Reilly is bringing in the ratings in relation to his competition, therefore he is doing a successful job."
The key phrase is "In an objective media source, the argument could be made that O'Reilly should be fired, because he is either ignorant or dishonest (or both)". If ratings are the sole measure of job performance then you would have no problem with someone who tells slanderous, ridiculous lies and gossip for an hour every night as long as it gained ratings. Just because it's an opinion show doesn't mean he can say whatever he wants and not be held accountable. If we are going to go with the premise that everybody who watches him knows he's a lying sack and doesn't believe a word he says, then fine. But if any significant portion actually assimilates his viewpoint, even in an ambivalent "well there's two sides to that story" manner, that's clearly a problem! In an objective environment, that would be grounds for termination, since it's inappropriate for the job, whether it was expressed as opinion or not.
"...if enough people would pay to watch him dress down, then he would be marketable."
Umm, true. And if everyone in the USA gave me a dollar I'd be rich. It's true but slightly unlikely to happen. It shouldn't be about just "marketable" though, that's why I talked about an objective news source, which would actually care about journalistic integrity and objectivity. A newspaper can have an op-ed page filled with opinions based on absurd lies, but it's sacrificing integrity for money. The whole problem is that we're dealing with media that are outright partisan and/or who value ratings over integrity. O'Reilly is a malignant polyp, a symptom of a much larger disease.
The main point was that the "freedom of speech" argument does not apply to employees. O'Reilly has a right to think whatever he wants, but he should be held accountable for what he says. People like to pretend that any discrimination is bad, but it's not. It's only unfair discrimination that's the problem (unlike the stripper, get it? It's fair to say he shouldn't be hired). Employers can and should discriminate against inappropriate or ill-fitting behavior - the whole problem is that O'Reilly's behavior should be universally acknowledged as such, but isn't.
IMO, O'Reilly is held accountable. MMFA holds him accountable, the blogosphere holds him accountable, viewers hold him accountable, Olberman for sure holds him accountable and advertisers hold him accountable.
But his level of accountability isn't as high as you would like if I'm reading your post correctly. The show is about his opinion, as misguided as it might be.
If he does something SO outrageous, then the repercussions will follow. See Rathergate 2004 for a real life example.
I actually agree with your premise that O'Reilly is there for entertainment's sake (ie spewing forth his opinion on us all night after night,) but unfortunately his show is sold as "No Spin". Only if you are speaking Orwellian infospeak is this term legitamate. However, I believe (my personal opinion) a sizeable portion of America does realize that O'Reilly is a commentator like Limbaugh, and not acting as a journalist.
However, apparently BRUCE1ACE does not see this distinction, for Dan Rather was a journalist, not a commentator. So to use an example of "Rathergate" to show that O'Reilly will be held to the same standards as journalists (when in fact he has the veil of non-journalism to protect him) is a bit hopeful. Maybe there is another example, but for all the horrible, false things that come out of Limbaugh's mouth, I don't think this will be the case.
"IMO, O'Reilly is held accountable. MMFA holds him accountable, the blogosphere holds him accountable, viewers hold him accountable, Olberman for sure holds him accountable and advertisers hold him accountable."
Is he losing advertising revenue? Isn't that based on ratings? Accountability relies on power, MMfA and Olberman alert people but they have no power over the show. I simply find it difficult to believe that the bulk of his viewers knows he's a lying shill and still watch him, like it was pro wrestling or something. Don't you think people absorb what he says at all? Is it entertaining to be lied to? I just don't see that. I don't think people want to watch someone if they can't believe anything they say, do you? And if they don't, then how can you imagine that such outside sources are holding him accountable, if his viewership is not dropping significantly?
"The show is about his opinion, as misguided as it might be."
Again, I just don't think people watch or read opinion purely for entertainment. People look for his take on events, and if his opinion is that intellectually dishonest or misinformed, then the show is utterly worthless.
"If he does something SO outrageous, then the repercussions will follow. See Rathergate 2004 for a real life example."
This is just beyond bizarre. Let me get this straight. You're telling me that if O'Reilly forwarded an accurate yet fake memo that there would be repercussions, but all the other lies and comments such as "Coit tower" aren't worth their attention? Come on, Bruce, are you kidding me? Where do you draw the line on outrageous behavior? Does he have to advocate someone's murder or what? What about Coulter? She makes outrageous comments and lies often and still shows up on FOX. I think either you're being intellectually dishonest here or are living in a fantasy.
My Rather analogy was a bad example because he CBS News should absolutely be held to a higher example than O Reillys program.
MMFA documents O'Reillys statements that are untrue, but that doesn't mean that the entirety of the show is untrue. MMFA picks up on 1 or 2 things a day which makes up a small fraction of what he says in total.
I've watched the show sometimes, not every day, and it can be interesting. He keeps it moving, offers many topics and has a lot of guests. I think you should give the viewers more credit to know what the show is.
The above should say "higher standard".
"MMFA picks up on 1 or 2 things a day which makes up a small fraction of what he says in total."
Sure, but then it's even harder to discern the lies from the truth, right? You yourself say you find it "interesting", as what, a psychological observance? Or is it because of content? Surely you recognize that when you find something interesting it's more likely to stick in your mind and form the basis for opinions!
"I think you should give the viewers more credit to know what the show is."
I think what you're missing here is that just because you visit this site that not everyone has your knowledge. How many of his viewers do you think visit here or watch Olbermann? Let's be honest here, it's not a coincidence that so many FOX viewers believed there were WMD in Iraq, and some of those still do. I don't think it's unreasonable in the least to believe that they are highly vulnerable to assimilating misinformation, generally speaking. That goes for both O'Reilly's phony facts and baseless opinions. That was the original point anyway, that just because it's his opinion doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out and criticized.
Before I started reading this site I had no idea that O Reilly and FOX news was despised like this by the left. I have no problem with his words being criticized and challenged and you calling him out on it. Not at all. I just thought it was over the top to say he should be fired for his opinions.
You did notice how much he despises the left, the poor, France and anybody who doesn't hold his point of view? I used to watch his dumb show when he first came on. This was stupid of me because why would I watch a show where the host insults me every night with his Liberal bashing. Additionally on occassion I had to endure a lecture on how I as an AA had to engage in good moral behavior if I wanted to be successful like him or have him tell stupid me how I've been duped by Democrats. The man is an ass and one night I literally through a shoe at the TV screen. I asked myself why am I even watching this nut and I stopped, and that's been years now.
When I listen to AAR, specifically The Majority Report and Malloy. Something tells me they are stretching the truth a wee bit. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment ;-) But I'm determined to continue listening, I'm trying to get them a 0.1 share.
I wholeheartedly support you not watching O Reilly if he upsets you. Life's too short.
You can't compare the day time shows at AA to Fox's lib bash pretend news network; especially since AA isn't pretending to be anything but progressive advocacy talk radio. They also don't try to convince their listeners that Republicans are evil incarnate. BTW, I don't like Mike Malloy's show for the same reason I don't like the right wing radio shows. It's too nasty for my taste.
You know AA celebrated their 2nd anniversary and they're doing just fine but it's going to take some time to build audiences. They also have to be quite innovative because the techniques that work on say a Limbaugh audience would be useless and manipulation would be resented by a progressive audience. Everything I hear on Air America I research with other sources. They encourage you to do that. I suggest you do the same. You'll see only on occassion will they get something wrong, and the information they give is generally correct and supported by facts. If they didn't do that unlike Rush they would loose their audience. I can't speak for the two shows you mention I generally just catch Al F, Jerry S., and Rhandi R.
Look, right wing-nut radio has had a what 15-20 yr jump in the industry. And Fox must be quite greatful to right wing radio, they had already conditioned their audience not to research stories with other sources. So Fox had already had an audience primed for it's brand of whatever that is they do there.
"Before I started reading this site I had no idea that O Reilly and FOX news was despised like this by the left. "
Well, what did you expect? If there were a left-wing news station that continuously misinformed people I would expect right-wingers to be outraged. Are they victims because we're criticizing their contemptible behavior? Maybe we should just say "well people run stories that reflect badly on Bush, I guess it's only fair to have a channel that runs propaganda for him all the time...that's balance" instead.
"I just thought it was over the top to say he should be fired for his opinions."
Why is that? If it's all about his opinions, then shouldn't that be a major factor? Search through the records here. He hasn't said enough outrageous things? Again, where's the line? What does he have to say to make you think he should be fired?
I don't expect FOX to fire him, no matter what he does. If it was an objective news outlet though, I would hope they would have dumped him long ago. It used to be that credibility was the primary factor for gaining and holding viewership, not just being as outrageous an ass as possible.
As I said before, since his opinions are generating good ratings compared to his competition, I see no reason to fire him for stating them on the air.
If you disagree with his views, he has an e-mail segment at the end of his program. Maybe he would read yours. But keep it pithy.
In an ideal world, sure... "he says it's his opinion"...blah, blah, blah... Well, there's no payment in kind from the RIGHT. This guy has been blaring misinformation for too long (opinion or not). I say, no quarter for BO or his ridiculous rhetoric.
So if he had said "It is my belief that terrorists should blow up Coit Tower" that would be ok because it is his opinion? Sorry, opinions are just as offensive as his "facts"
What's in the heart of mainstream AAs is yet another thing Bill O'rielly doesn't have a clue about . Maybe I should e-mail him this link.
[link to www.blackcommentator.com]
... is not a disease.
A great many African Americans, and a great many LIBERALS, have beliefs that could be called "conservative".
Stunningly, Rightwingers and NeoCons have ABANDONED many of these "conservative" views, in favor of a hybrid plutocracy/theocracy world view, which is demonstrated daily by the actions and results of the Bush Administration.
Some "values" that are considered "conservative" which I, as a LIBERAL, hold dear:
1. Family should come first.
2. Equality under the law.
3. Fiscal Sanity in the government.
4. Enthusiastic adherence to our Constitution's carefully crafted Checks and Balances (i.e. Healthy skepticism of government power, thus a demand for OPEN and ACCOUNTABLE government).
Also, a Congress which takes OVERSIGHT very seriously.
5. Religious Faith should be protected, and kept personal, and out of the inappropriate hands of government and politicians.
6. Value our Community; as much as possible, our policy should reflect loving our neighbors as ourselves.
7. Our borders should be protected from unregulated invasions, even by workers who contribute mightily to America's operation.
8. LAW and ORDER should be followed, even when the law applies to the Executive Branch.
9. Neoptism, Favoritism, and Cronyism represent a perversion of capitalism's "open competition", and are thus repugnant to government operation.
10. America should defend its sovereignty with every force available, and demand it be respected ... and in return, America should respect the sovereignty of other nations ... even ones whose "leadership" we might dislike.
11. There should be severe penalties for government officials who LIE to the American People about issues and policies which affect our lives.
There are many other VALUES that are considered "conservative", which are held by African Americans, Liberals, and many many others.
What is stunning is that these values are NOT held by our current NeoCon leadership and its supporters. They have ABANDONED Conservative Principles, and embarked on an ideology which has oppositie goals of those stated above.
those DID used to be 'conservative' values - how the current crop of criminals managed to become labeled conservatives is absolutely beyond me. But the Democrats have always more been the party of civil liberties. I just do not understand how the wingnut religious right managed to hijack our entire political system - however - the pendulum will swing.
Neocons, are not conservatives at all. But the left refers to them as such, so that's why the name stuck to refer to all conservatives. Most of the so-called neocons are former liberals in the LBJ mold (big government/government as a tool of social change, etc.) who have taken traditional right leaning views and are employing the same big government methods to ram it down people's throat.
A true conservative is skeptical of the growth of government, and expansion of government power even if the ends are good, e.g. affirmative action or the war on poverty, because the means may lead to deprivation of rights.
A true conservative also adopts a public policy of live and let live to others (even if they disagree with the personal choices others may make), provided there is no threat in doing so, is against nation-building, massive public entitlements, and the like which has become so common in the past five years.
Whats that giant sucking sound? Did I just hear an implosion? Now even the cons are libs. ROFLMAO. Thanks to Jack Abramoff and the worst president ever, we may see the end of them yet.
"Neocons" started out basically as old socialists who decided they wanted to take a hard-line approach to national defense, etc. They (Bush & Gang) sure as hell are not conservatives.
You say, "A true conservative is skeptical of the growth of government, and expansion of government power even if the ends are good, e.g. affirmative action or the war on poverty, because the means may lead to deprivation of rights."
RESPONSE: Perhaps the most "conservative" group are Libertarians, and I believe you express THEIR beliefs more than "traditional" conservatives here.
Specifically, on the issue of "government POWER."
See, a Liberal view of government is that it is the servant of THE PEOPLE, which is to do tasks FOR the people as determined by the representatives OF the people. (Particuarly in areas where a "solution" from the people themselves is impractical, and the benefits are universal.)
For example, in the 30's we had a national crisis, which could well be nation-threatening. The way our economy was developing, we had a vast elderly population beyond working years who had NO MONEY and NO PENSIONS. The Industrial Revolution coupled with improvements in travel had led (an unintended consequence) to the spreading out of families, some moving to the cities to get jobs, others remaining "on the farm".
When poverty struck the elderly, there was no place to turn. Our choice as a nation was to either DO something, or not. We could have said (as was Herbert Hoover's belief) that this development is very sad, but the government should not intervene. "The market" or "society at large" will either solve the problem, or not, and in either instance, these people's condition is of their own making, and if they suffer and die in poverty ... so be it.
America decided not to define itself this way. Our government was tasked to HELP in this problem, and have a safety net for those who, for whatever reason, find themselves poor in their elder years.
Back on point, that the government performs the task of aiding the elderly who can't help themselves, is not an exercise of POWER, any more than a ditchdigger digging a ditch gives him some sort of POWER over you.
Now, to be sure, conservatives HAVE deplored the gathering of TRUE power to the government, such as the POWER to imprison without giving charges, the POWER to refuse due process, the POWER to spy on Americans without a warrant, the power to commit TROOPS to WAR without justification. THESE are powers which conservatives would deny a government.
The "POWER" to help, that's not a threat to our liberties, it's an expression of a national spirit and compassion, which makes us a MORAL nation instead of one based on "Social Darwinism" and the law of the jungle ... survival of the fittest.
I'm sorry I missed it yesterday. And Tex, once again, I think you should be prez. I wish we lived in the same town and go meet over coffee. Ideologically, I'd feel less alone is this conservative town.
O'Reilly specifically mentions opposition to gay marriage as proof of conservatism. Let's go with that. If 12% of black voters went for Bush in 2004, when the gay marriage issue was being beaten to death, and 8% (or was it 9%?) voted for him in 2000, what's the math on that? 3% or 4% of black voters were swayed by that issue. It could be that 100% of black people disapprove of gay marriage, but 97% have enough sense of priority not to vote for Bush over that one issue, and in general terms they are still not "conservative". In any event, 3-4% or even 12% is not "mainstream", obviously.
I've also heard a stat recently that Bush's approval rating in that particular community is at 2% (yes, that's two, not a missing number anywhere). Yep, that's a conservative bunch, alright!
What's really disgusting about this commentary by O'Reilly is the suggestion that church-going=conservative, and military=conservative. The religious myth I've dealt with several times in the past (if 84% of the country believes in a higher power, and 49% vote for a democrat for president, what's the maximum amount of non-believers that are voting democratic? Even 33% against 16% makes for a solid majority of religious democrats). And the military numbers are because of financial reasons, not because there's some bravery/patriotism/conservative trend going on. I'm curious what O'Reilly contributes the high prison ratio to? Is it because conservatives are, in general, criminals?
Oh, and if O'Reilly is correct, that mainstream black people are conservative, what do those numbers of 2%, 8%, 12% indicate? Doesn't that prove that Republican policies are truly detrimental to the black community, since such an overwhelming number of people are voting against their own political leanings? Or is the suggestion that those voters are all ignorant and/or swayed by the liberal media? That's a bit insulting, isn't it? Or maybe they just didn't vote! Well if that's the case then they're lazy or apathetic, right?
O'Reilly is making a big statement about the nature of Conservative policies or black people. Somehow I doubt that he's smart enough to have realized it though.
"...O'Reilly's point was true--but irrelevant. While African-Americans tend not to support secular progressive philosophy, it is a fact that since the 1960s African-Americans have overwhelmingly supported secular progressive (i.e., Democratic) politicians...."
(continued at:
[link to humaneventsonline.com] )
The post below is in repsonse to this.
Is that right?
"...were all charged with bigotry by the left's political and press prosecutors, and though they were all innocent, liberals successfully persuaded black voters that they were in fact guilty." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for the link it illustrates another reason AAs don't support Republicans. The Republican power structure has propagated this patronizing belief that that we're to stupid to assess issues on our own and reach our own independent conclusions. They want you to believe that we've been brainwashed to believe that Republicans are all bigoted and the reason we don’t support them is because we only vote on issues relevant to race. I imagine this is why Fox rarely have Blacks on unless they are speaking about race issues, I guess from Fox’s perspective they couldn’t possibly have anything to say about anything else. Give me a break would you please. I’m AA and I vote for progressive candidates because I’m Liberal and consequently better represent my point of view in government.
...and consequently they better represent my point of view in government.
Read my lips BO. You are the sworn enemy of African Americans.
"And we're not talking gangster rappers, or Jesse Jacksons. We're talking mainstream."
O'Reilly can not even understand what it is to be an African-American. So why is he flapping his gums? It's like watching and listening to Archie Bunker.
Everytime Bill says he's for the working class, the Blue Collar jobs, the idea of the "man's man," he just proves he doesn't know what the working class actually is.
So, since I know he reads this all the time, this is just for Mr. Bill O'Reilly:
"The working class is a social class often contrasted with middle class and upper class in terms of the nature of work undertaken (manual labour or skilled), the level of remuneration (typically low hourly rates although there are exceptions) and access to resources (limited access to capital, education and land). People in this class often rely on payment for their labour to survive. The defining characteristic is the dependence on wage-labor (or salaried employment).
The working class is mainly found in industrialised capitalist economies or in urban areas of non-industrialised economies." -- [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Bill, the working class is not affluent. It is the class that lives in the ghettos.
Thanks for trying.
"You don't see a lot of African-Americans, you know, running around with Jane Fonda. "
Hmm...I don't run around with Jane Fonda, and I also "feel that look, we have to obey the law". Does that mean I'm actually a conservative? Or maybe it means I'm African American? Or both? I'm so confused! : )
How would he know who she runs around with?
Jane, watch your back. Bill's keeping an eye on you.
If he approaches you with a loofah, just keep running...
How do you know this? Please cite a poll? My guess is the dreadful Keith Olbermann will follow up by calling him the worst person in the world.
LOL
No, this isn't "worst person in the world" territory. Bill makes that when he's said something both stupid and nasty. This statement isn't nasty.
Far less likely than you piping up to bash Olbermann. Get over it dude. You're obsessed.
"O'Reilly: I -- I have always believed -- always believed -- that the mainstream African-American person, the person who goes to work, gets up, doesn't live in the ghetto, lives in a, you know, in a working class neighborhood or an affluent neighborhood is conservative at heart. ... You see a lot of African-Americans going into the military."
Actually, the majority of African-Americans that go into the military are not from the middle class / affluent neighborhoods O'Reilly is referring to earlier, but instead from lower class. It's something called "Not having many options." that is often associated with being poor. So he's talking about two things here.
Also, my sister is black, middle-class, she doesn't have the liberal stance I have on homosexuals (I believe), and yet she considers herself liberal. Just one person, but I'd thought I'd drop that tidbit in.
Bill has his finger on the pulse of the AA community . . . and this coming from someone who used to take a swipe at Ludacris at every opportunity . . .
Just like when he said he was the "poster boy" for Americans working their way up from poverty . . . Bill, the only thing you're a poster boy for is the Loofah Manufacturers of America.