O'Reilly: "Soros-funded smear sites ... just go after you"
On the January 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly "predict[ed]" that "[i]f [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] is going to make a serious run for [the presidency] and he's got Soros money behind him, it's going to get nasty." O'Reilly frequently attacks philanthropist George Soros, who recently contributed $2,100 to Obama. Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers then mused about whether Obama will be able to anonymously attack Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), a fellow presidential hopeful, or whether Obama will have to "take the hit for it." O'Reilly responded that Obama will not "take the hit for it" because such attacks will be conducted by "Soros-funded smear sites," which "don't operate that way. They just go after you. And you know that. You know what they do."
O'Reilly has often referred to Media Matters for America as a "smear site" (including here, here, and here).
From the January 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right. So, this is what I can't predict. If Obama is going to make a serious run for it and he's got Soros money behind him, it's going to get pretty vicious. If history follows itself. And, you know, they're going to go after her. That's going to damage her in the major run, will it not?
POWERS: Well, I don't think -- it's pretty dangerous to get vicious in a primary, in a Democratic primary. It doesn't mean that it's not going to happen.
O'REILLY: Look, [Former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry] McAuliffe pointed out the [George W.] Bush-[John] McCain thing [in the 2000 Republican presidential primary in South Carolina].
POWERS: I know, we just heard Terry say that it was going to happen. We just heard it. But you know, if it's -- the question is who -- whether or not you can do it without actually having it come back to you. If you can do it anonymously, or if Obama has to take the hit for it, that's going to hurt his image. Because --
O'REILLY: He's not gonna have to take the hit for it because --
POWERS: -- you know what? Everybody likes him. They think he's a nice guy. And --
O'REILLY: I know that. But he won't have to take the hit for it, because the Soros-funded smear sites don't operate that way. They just go after you. And you know that. You know what they do. And if they crank up to go after Hillary Clinton, that's going to get nasty.
POWERS: Well, I'm just expecting -- I agree with what Terry said earlier. I'm expecting Hillary to be attacked constantly. And it's not just going to come from other --
O'REILLY: Even in the Democratic primaries.
POWERS: Well, I think, in the Democratic primaries. But she's going to get it from -- you know, the Republicans are still going to be attacking her because they see her as a major threat, you know, if she gets through the primaries.
O'REILLY: But that's a given.
POWERS: And they will be attacking her. And I think it's going to be ugly. You know, she really -- she brings out the worst in a lot of people.
I also contribute to this site, and do it with pride. this is a great debating site, truly fair and balanced,
Indeed. You'll not find a more ethical analysis of conservative misinformation anywhere on the planet. Sure, MMFA makes the occasional mistake. But they have a system that clearly works. It provides transcripts, video, and the all-important context. O'Reilly hates MMFA because he could never hope to be this principled.
Furthermore, there's a lot more conservative viewpoints given voice in these discussion threads than there are liberals on FreeRepublic or LGF.
I hereby extend the following offer to Bill O'Reilly:
Bill,
If you and your peeps promise to stop saying asinine, reckless, verifiably false things on national television on a daily basis, we promise to stop calling you on your bulls--t.
If you promise not to lie, we promise not to quote you directly when we shoot your lies down.
Thanks,Everybody
Deeznuts, have you ever tried to post on the righty sites?
I've been emailed a password for more than one, but there's usually a glitch, or it tells me my posting privilege has been suspended.Just wondering if there are any con sites that allow opposing views.
Off topic, but I went to Freerepub the other night (sorry, I need a creepy laugh sometimes)- my faves from that visit;
The poster whose tag line is "The media is an evil that cannot be remedied". (That's about as crazy as it gets)
And a discussion on abortion - the poster who claimed to know that the Repubs can't overturn Roe v. Wade, but was just happy they said they were against it.
Then the solution to the abortion problem- It should be taxed and restricted by the government until it is virtually illegal, like smoking.This was applauded by other posters.
This was from the same people who were on all the other threads crying about taxes and government regulation. You gotta love the freepers.They're like the Crazy Green Berets of the Republican Elite Guard.
I have tried several times to get a password for the "Newsbusters" hate club, to no avail. I was allowed for some time to post on the "Sweetness & Light" website, but they took away my priveledges last week after I pointed out to the moderator that Guam and the Marianas Islands are 2 separte entities. The newsbusters one is puzzling. I have no idea if there are any actual people posting to that one, or if it is completely fake.
Also, allow me to take this opportunity to direct everyone's attention to this picture:
link
I believe it sums up this entire debate quite nicely.
To me, this is much more interesting than O'Reilly's comments. Although O'Reilly's comments "You know what they do!" wink-wink.
POWERS: "She brings out the worst in a lot of people."
What the hell is that supposed to mean? It's Hillary's fault if people attack her? That's some twisted logic if you ask me.
Well, to be honest, if she was actually a liberal and not a right-wing corporofascist jerk, people might be more sympathetic to her.
Huh? Powers or Hillary? Hillary is a right-wing corporo-fascist jerk? She may not be what I would call a 'liberal', but corporo-fascist... right wing? I don't think so.
Redking is waxing hyperbolic. But he's mostly right on this one; Hillary is no flaming liberal.
She's way up in the DLC, the (mostly) centrist wing of the Democratic Party. And, like the rest of the DLC, she is intensely pro-corporate.
That's what confuses me about why right-wingers hate her so much. With a few exceptions, policy-wise she's not significantly different from Reagan or Gingrich. I guess the only real reason they hate her is because her last name is Clinton, which is of course silly in the extreme.
Same deal with Bill Clinton. Not particularly liberal, and quite pro-business. You'd think he'd have been the Republicans' favorite Democrat. But not so much.
Well, to a Republican, anyone who isn't a Republican is a heretic. They're like the Spanish Inquisition, all non-believers must convert or die. It's not really about policy, the Dems and Repubs are too close ideologically for that. It's all about who belongs to which gang, like two mafia families fighting over turf. Both are composed of sociopathic thugs and killers, both have the same aims of control, corruption and crime, but each side has totally loyalty to the "family" and the other side is the "enemy" for life.
Greek
I was thinking the same thing. It's her fault that people behave badly?
Beat me to it, Greek.
This is a pretty popular shtick , especially on Fox.The same way they'll attack a person or issue for weeks, then refer to it/them as "controversial" or "distracting".
If Bill wants to talk about "nasty"...?
What about FOX contributor Dick Morris? Did Bill see Dick Morris on the HANNITY & colmes show talking about his new 90 minute smear film that's intended to take out Hillary Clinton by exposing all her lies and such. Is George Soros funding Dick Morris' film, Bill? Or is Dick Morris' film simply a solo gig by a FOX employee to smear someone? Oh wait... that's right, FOX doesn't smear people. Right...
Like hundreds of times before, O'Reilly and others have now set the expectation that Obama or Hillary are going to have a nasty, drag-out fight, flinging mud and wallowing in the slop. And now they'll be "damned if they do; damned if they don't."
It doesn't matter what they are doing now or what they do in the future. This 'hypothetical' discussion is what's important. A year from now they will either be vilified for stopping at nothing to be elected president, or vilified for NOT flinging mud in order to appear falsely unified before the general election.
There's a conspiracy behind this master 'Democrat' plan, whether they attack each other on personal issues or they only discuss real issues. It just takes the right mind to spot it.
You can bet money there will be no issues in the next Presidential election, just as there was none in the last. The candidates that the media gives press time to will all be telling us how they could have invaded Iraq better and how they'll get tougher with Iran and how much we must stand by Israel, while the domestic situation worsens..but they won't mention that. US politics as usual, the rich arguing over how best to kill arabs and rob the poor.
the left wing leatherhelmet
Yeah... I think the 'leftwing LH' holds. Good for balance, I suppose.
Actually, I'd like to think that most candidates will say there was no need to invade Iraq. Given that, you know, it's the truth.
Don't expect any candidate who talks of leaving Iraq without all sorts of strings and conditions attached to make it impossible to do so to make it past the primaries. Remember how the corporate press suddenly attacked Dean when it became clear he would probably end the occupation and then propped up the pro-war Kerry and reduced the entire election debate to "swift boats" and Vietnam War records? The DLC and AIPAC will not allow a pro-peace Democrat to have the nomination, and they are the ones who control the flow of money to the campaigns.
O'Reilly breaks the Irony meter yet again, failing to acknowledge that he spews forth from a Murdoch funded smear NETWORK.
O'reilly's complaints about anything Soros related aren't merely the pot calling the kettle black, but the most repeatedly burnt soot, permanently and irrevocably caked at the bottom of the pot calling the kettle black
damned falafel-molesting crank.
Okey-dokey, Bill O'Ramblin'on....exactly WHAT smear sites are funded by Soros...? And by 'smear', do you mean they use transcripts and facts?
I was wondering the same thing. What proof is there that Soros funds MMFA?
Pssst. Do a little fact checking on who funds the Center for American Progress, Moveon.org, a Soros-buddy named Peter Lewis, the Shadow Party, and more but you will get the point. Media Matters is funded by Soros-sponsored organizations if not by Big George himself.
I don't think there's any real doubt that Soros' money goes to a lot of liberal causes, sites and organizations.
The real question is: "So what?"
You're not advocating any kind of "cap" or "regulation" of how he spends his money are you?
That would be interesting, because it would run counter to all the "campaign contributions equal free speech" rhetoric we've been hearing from greedy conservative lawmakers for years.
Excuse me, but that's Billionaire George Soros to you.
Mr. O'Reilly
Can you please be specific and name the "Smear sites" that you are refering to?
BO's claim that "They just go after you." is right on the money.
With facts, Bill - MMFA, Newshounds and others "go after" idiotic, lying, hate-mongering, fact-twisting, hypocrites like you with facts.
She does bring out the worst in a lot of people. In fact, once Bill got elected, the entire political right has ran headlong into the gutter attacking her and haven't stopped since. In fact, since Bill first got elected, we've had the creation of Fox News, the gutting of objectivity at ABC and CNN, and the deification of Rush Limpbaugh, just to scratch the surface. So see, he's right!!
"Smears"? I Think Not.
Just compare Media Matters' relentlessly sober tone to O'Reilly's. After all, the two most frequently-used terms on this site have to be "baselessly" and "falsely" - hardly the stuff of "smears", these terms place the burden of proof on those who are making outrageous statements which Media Matters merely points out.
But but but! THEY USE ACTUAL QUOTES! IN CONTEXT! How is that NOT a smear!?!?!
</sarcasm>
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..oomphh...humph...oh hello
Sorry I fell asleep reading Billy Boy's latest installment of that boogieman Soros is gonna get you.
Bill why not call Hillary and warn her?
I'm sure she'd appreciate your concern.
Jeter,
I agree. Somehow, I can no longer muster any indignation or anger at the likes of O'Reilly (and Coulter). They've become boring one-notes worthy only of indifference.
This Just In-
O'Reilly and Limbaugh calling for a boycott of gyro sandwhiches. Fair and balanced coverage at 11
A quick question for Bill...?
Since Bill O'Reilly has accused George Soros in the past of attacking people with false and baseless smear, are we to assume that when, as Bill predicts, Soros goes after Hillary that we should not believe the smear? Should we not just disregard the smear as typical and predictable Soros lies?
Should we not just disregard the smear as typical and predictable Soros lies?
The easy answer, "YES".
Jeez... do you think Bill's gonna defend Hillary and denounce Soros' lies about her? A smear is a smear, after all. Or will Bill defend Soros for enlightening the public about Hillary? If Bill agrees with Soros' claims then that kinda takes away Bill's long-standing accusations that Soros smears with lies, don't you think? But, hey... I'm sure Bill's loyal viewers won't notice that slight inconsistency.
What a Loon!!!
Bill O attacking George Soros again! The Ultimate BO Strawman! I watch his show now just to laugh! How come he is not worried about any visciousness on the GOP side.?Speaking of viscous, O'Reilly always has Toe-Sucking Morris on for a free Hillary attack.
By the way, in 2000 Bill gave a series of interviews that he was" Looking into running against Hillary in 2006." Why didn't he? Andrea Mackris. I am waiting for another "Factor Investigation" where the 25 year old kid runs up to Soros with a Mike.
I don't recall Democratic candidates in the last election attacking each other through fear and smear, and funding form George Soros going to undermine one or more candidate. I'm quite sure there is nothing that can now substantiated about this at all.
In a crowded field that included John Kerry and Howard Dean, and John Edwards as the front runners, I don't remember them using any kind of character assassination against the other.
However I do well remember what happened to the Democratic nominee's Kerry and Gore in each of the last campaigns by the masters of "dirty tricks".. the Repug party.
I guess I don't need to catalogue them all here. Let me just say Florida and Ohio to start...
I have to say my admiration for the sheer strength of character and determination of Hillary Clinton grows by the day. To endure the endless investigations of everything she's ever done and said in the nastiness most vile ways for 8 years with great hostility form her opponents while her husband was President, and to be willing to subject herself to such intense hostility from the ignorant again... I say the woman is made of steel.
Monster
I know one thing, the woman has a stronger constitution than Bill O'rielly who is always whining about someone picking on him Hillary's a better and bigger man than Bill. In addition, both Obama and Hillary will be very cautious with each other, neither wants to tick of the other's followers and I'm sure of that. Besides I happen to believe that both are decent people who will stick to the issues. There won't be any whispering campaigns about illegitimate babies or who is getting botox injections and other such non-sense. That's what the wingers do.<i>always whining about someone picking on him</i>
I've noticed that, too. In one way, I feel kinda sorry for him: I have rarely encountered anyone else so acutely and even painfully aware of every bit of criticism aimed at them. It really is rather sad.
Whoops - sorry, still thinking html for italics.
This is all an attempt to create an image about Hillary, that she's this vindictive, Kaiser Sozay, pulling strings behind the news reports to undermine Barak Obama, and the American people are going to fall for it. And they're going to deliberately vote against her, because the media will have painted her as this viscious, manipulative, nasty, "smear-merchant" who will stop at nothing to win. I love how Bill attempts to make it look like he's actually concerned for Hillary being treated fairly in the election. And we're supposed to believe it. I remember when Rathergate broke, he was all like: "What if this document wasn't disproved and Bush lost the election because of it? This is horrible." Swift Boat? You heard nothing. And you'll hear nothing when they take phony shots at Hillary to try and knock her down.
Come on, Dr. Engine-
BilldO proves his fairy-balance all the time.I've heard him tell his audience and guests that he often criticizes Bush.
Wait for it...
"On immigration, for example. And spending".
Then he proceeds to make up for it by latching on to Bush's smart end.
Dear Bill,
Be afraid, be very afraid. We are going to get you. We have a Master Plan to make you look foolish and a**holish. It is calculating and a perfectly evil plan.. We, at the Soros Kill Bill Foundation, are going to become the producers of your show and bring it to one of the Major Networks. Yes, Bill, you will make it to PrimeTime on CBS. A nightly show, 2 hours, just you and the public.
I am sure that this exposure will show the world what you really are. So be afraid, be very afraid.
Signed, The Boogeyman
Don't worry, when you are cancelled after two nights, you will be proven right...we are out to "let you, get you".
I love hearing O'Reilly talk about this place as a smear-site. This coming from a guy who smears more than butter. Hey Bill-O, if facts equal smears in your little world what do you call the encyclopedia?
Shall we start referring to Bill O as the "Moonie-Funded Bill O?"