O'Reilly named "Worst Person" for "hypocritical" well-wishes for Cindy Sheehan
On the June 7 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News' Bill O'Reilly the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, commenting "on Cindy Sheehan's retirement from the anti-war limelight" and saying, "I don't like to see any American suffer the way I think Ms. Sheehan has suffered, from losing her son to being personally attacked. And we wish her well." Olbermann observed: "In August 2005, O'Reilly said she was guilty of conduct, which, quote, 'other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq think borders on treasonous.' Two months later, he issued a fatwa, a list of cowards who would not appear on his show and among them, Cindy Sheehan -- but he doesn't want to see her personally attacked."
As Media Matters has documented (here, here, here, and here), O'Reilly has frequently been cited during Olbermann's "Worst Person" segment. O'Reilly recently received "Worst Person" honors for claiming that attorney Andrew Speaker acted on "secular-progressive" values when he traveled by airline despite his tuberculosis, adding that "[t]raditional-values people put others on a par with themselves. That's a Judeo-Christian tenet. Love your neighbor as yourself. Secular progressives put themselves above all others. That philosophy says, 'Me first, then I'll worry about you.' "
From the June 7 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: But the winner is: Bill-O. If anybody's wondering who's really speaking on one of those anonymous "Fox Noise" spokesman-issued that say a hypocritical statement that ends with 'We wish them well,' Billy just gave it away.
On Cindy Sheehan's retirement from the anti-war limelight, Bill Orally actually said, quote, "I don't like to see any American suffer the way I think Ms. Sheehan has suffered, from losing her son to being personally attacked. And we wish her well."
In August 2005, O'Reilly said she was guilty of conduct, which, quote, "other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq think borders on treasonous." Two months later, he issued a fatwa, a list of cowards who would not appear on his show and among them, Cindy Sheehan -- but he doesn't want to see her personally attacked.
Well, maybe he just forgot he called her a coward or a traitor. I mean, if you or I were as full of crap as Bill is, would we really remember each time we messed our pants?
Bill O'Reilly -- today's Worst Person in the World.
Says it all.
Not quite all...
There's not a lot with which I disagree with Olbermann, but KO shouldn't have picked BO for the Gold, he should've picked Lieberman, who was by far the WORST.
If Lieberman truely doesn't understand why troops would be hesitant to speak freely, he doesn't deserve to be a Senator.
If he truely does understand, then he is just being a liar.
BO for Silver - well deserved.
good point, forgot Lieberman said that. Thanks for bringing it up.
Lieberman cost Gore the election.
As one of Joe's former supporters and constituents, I could not agree more.
I wonder why the media didn't give him the Dukakis treatment when he wore that helmet in Baghdad.
"I mean, if you or I were as full of crap as Bill is, would we really remember each time we messed our pants?"
I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at this.
On a serious note, I wish Ms. Sheehan the greatest measure of peace as she moves on to the next phase of her life
Remember, if BilldO says something that sounds like a personal attack, it's probably just your spin-conditioned ears not being able to handle the truth.
No history, no memory, no accountability. Man, that must be a blissful ignorant life.
If Billo had a decent fact checker/editor, that person would come to MM Daily to spot check when Billo is being a flaming hypocrite. Of course, 50% of Bill's pieces would have to be rewritten then.
Of course, fact checking Bill O'Reilly is "attacking" him in the Up is down, right is left No spin world.
Bill O'Reilly a hypocrite? Say it ain't so! Actually, hypocrisy is a common thread among these Flying Monkey Liars. I would imagine that they actually teach a course in Hypocrisy at Karl Rove's School for Lying Propaganda Parrots.
As for Cindy Sheehan, she helped put a human face on the horrible waste of lives and money that is Bush's War. She threw it back in his face when most of the Press and Congress were still too cowed by the Hyper-Jingoism that was choking the public discourse at the time. I salute her for her courage.
I took this from Olbermannwatch.com. Now I love Cindy Sheehan but please Olbermann stop. You can note even beat Nancy Grace anymore. This network has lost it completely. This is the 25-54 ratings that Olbermann loves to talk about. I think instead of targeting BO he should change his show, its not working.
These are the reasons I stopped watching him and O'Lielly.
Cable News Ratings - June 6, 20078PM - P2+ (25-54)
1st Place) The O'Reilly Factor - 428,000
2nd Place) Nancy Grace - 266,000
3rd Place) Paula Zahn - 196,000
4th Place) Countdown w/ Olbermann - 179,000
============================
Why do you think MMFA plugs him so much?
Wasn't there a thread on this topic just yesterday?
Oh wait Brock's boy-toy weighed in.
Well then, whatever I wrote yesterday...just apply it here.
I guess it happens when a portion of your program every night is telling your listeners how bad your competitor's program is. O'Reilly does it all the time in a more subtle way, and it's usually cloaked in his culture warrior armor to keep his book a relevant topic.
But Olbermann's incessant whining about O'Reilly may be having a negative affect on his own ratings.
First of all,he doesn't call Bill to the carpet "every night." Secondly, the "portion" of his show that he devotes to Worst Person in the World is usually about 45 seconds. If you feel that amounts to "incessant whining" then that's your opinion, but your impression of Olbermann's show seems to be based primarily on MMFA postings. The show is not Worst Person in the World. That's a brief before-the-break aside in what is a relatively substantive news program.
when has tommy ever cared about reality?
Substantial? Right! Just like his almost-daily segments on American Idol (with his "princess," whatever that means) and an equally useless one with Michael Musto /sarcasmEven his so-called "special comments" are a joke. Consider that the only people watching these special comments are the ones that have sat through the tripe with the princess and Musto."Substantial" LMAO
If you're going to quote me then you might at least get it right. I said "relatively" substantial. I don't watch Olbermann regularly, and I could do without his pop culture coverage, but the bulk of his program is far more substantial and in-depth than most anything else on cable news. Countdown isn't Frontline or the Jim Leherer News Hour, but it's far closer to those than Chris Matthews or Tucker Carlson are. And would be a joke to even make the comparison to shows like O'Reilly's or Beck's.
It's pretty strange that you single out his "special comments" as being insubstantial. Most of those segments pack more insight and intelligent commentary into a few minutes than most cable news show can muster in a whole week of programming. And not for nothing, but from a completely objective point of view, the quality of writing in those special comments segments is miles ahead of the competition. Rush Limbaugh shouldn't even be allowed to use the word "monologue" to describe his stuttering rants.
If by "negative" you mean UP 60% over the last year, then yes, it is having a negative effect.
Pete, I was commenting on the poster's ratings - if they are inaccurate and his ratings are up 60% from last year, as you say - and I have no reason to doubt you........well, then perhaps his whining about his competitor, that he can't seem to catch in the ratings so far, is paying off for him. He should be really proud.
SUEELD is pointing to ratings for a single day, and it doesn't surprise me that this information was pimped at Olbermannwatch. I purposely avoid any and all sites that have one single axe to grind (Olbermannwatch, Oreillysucks, etc.).
Actually, my original number was incorrect. Keith's overall viewership is up 73% over last year, and up 43% in the key demographic.
This day-to-day stuff is much less significant and not worth mentioning in my opinion. There are other days we can point to where Keith's audience was at least 3/4 the size of O'Reilly's. Big whoop.
Is it whining about your competition to point out their hypocrisy, hubris and stark inaccuracy?
Just wonderin'.
Good point. Let's apply their logic to Bill O'Reilly's whines about "vile far left smear sites, the Liberal media, and secular progressives."
Sounds to me like Bill gets a pass while Keith is called out on the carpet. Not very fair or balanced.
I never hear O'Reilly get to specifics any time he addresses his latest grievance with the far-left smear sites. I think it's because a vast majority of the time the facts are insurmountably stacked against him.
Olbermann always gets straight to the point. He either quotes Bill or shows the footage, then lays out exactly why Bill is making a fool out of himself again. The spat over the Malmedy Massacre is the most notable one in my mind.
Yes. And when anyone reports verbatum what BO said, he whines that they're picking on him. Poor, poor Billy.
Glass Houses...
It's pretty rich to see tommy of all people complaining about someone else's "incesssant whining".
SueEld, I'm a little confused. Did you stop watching KO and BO because of the ratings? Were they too high or too low?
No, I stopped watching all of these cable news programs because they are a joke. FOX, MSNBC and CNN to me are all the same. I think Americans in general are probably tired of the games these people play.
I would guess that your system carries (almost all do) BBC. That is a worthy News source, and far fewer "games". However, don't go there looking to get the latest bolster for your tottering political bias, for theirs is quite alien to our process.
I wonder what Bildo's ratings would be if you took away the Fox Zombies?
He'd be left with nothing but the bedwetters.
You havent read comments at the "news hole" written by Olbloons have you?
So Bill's viewers are "zombies", but Keith's viewers are ????
No, that's not my point. My point is that there are many people who watch Fox because it's openly biased to the Right. There is no counterpart for the Left. There are certainly individual shows that are openly slanted to the Left, but no entire Networks. The people who get their news exclusively from Fox, and actually believe that it is "fair and balanced" are the Fox Zombies.
To clarify, I think the presence of these loyal Fox Zombies may be skewing O'Reilly's numbers upward.
Nerzog, I think it's fair to say that anyone who gets their news from one media outlet exclusively could be considered a "zombie". Your assumption that Fox viewers go nowhere else for information and political analysis is quite presumptuous, at best.
It would be, if I assumed that ALL Fox viewers fell into that category. I think it's safe to say that there are some...how many, I can't say. (I think someone else referenced a study which shows that Fox viewers are less informed than those who watch other networks.) And you're right; anyone who depends on only one source could be considered a Zombie.
I would add that Fox is more monolithic in its point of view than MSNBC. MSNBC has Olbermann, Scarborough and Matthews. Olbermann is consistently left, but the other two certainly are not.
Tommy--"So Bill's viewers are 'zombies', but Keith's viewers are ????"
INFORMED !
being informed is why tommy is paid to post here. to try to fight people being informed.
Who would pay someone to post here? You're not serious...right?
I don't know how many people take the idea of paid trolls seriously, but it was Tommy himself who stoked the fires of that idea when he kept insisting that he doesn't waste his employer's time and that he doesn't do anything for free. Seeing as how he posts in eight hour shifts, he's either lying about wasting his employer's time, or his employer is paying him to post nonsense for 8 hours a day, Monday through Friday.
Not sure where you got your stats but, even if accurate, it's just one night, SeuEld. And wasn't there another "missing-found-dead white girl" story; that's ratings gold for vultures like Grace. (No disrespect meant for that young woman or her family.) Take a look at "The Scorecard" for June 5, 2007 --- Countdown beats Grace handily (201,000 to 118,000). http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/07/washington-post-beck/ I believe that the June 5 figures are a bit more representative of Countdown's standings in the ratings.
Didn't Keith have a stand-in on Tuesday (6/5) ? I can't remember, but it seemed he did one day earlier this week. . . or was it late last week?
I think the stand-in, the lovely youngish female broadcaster I've never seen before she appeared on his show, was on last week, not this week. Olbermann did a couple of remote interviews. He also did the monthly recap of the strangest stories on Friday, but wasn't there most of the week, and certainly wasn't there the end of last week.
Your numbers are off slightly. These are the ratings for June 6: 25-54 demographic
These are the ratings for June 4: 25-54 demographic
The numbers fluctuate from day to day. And Olbermann’s show seems to be the highest rated show on MSNBC.
Slight mistake with June 6th. It should be:
I was looking at some stats linked here on another article the other day. Another interesting thing is the relatively HUGE jump in ratings for MSNBC when Olbermann's Countdown runs from the show before it (Hardball, if I'm not mistaken.) Nearly four times the audience. (Might have been closer to three. I forget exactly.) And when Scarborough runs in the next hour, the ratings plunge.
You forgot golden rule one on here, you are not allowed to ever be critical of Olbermann. You will face the wrath of many posters. Olbermann is God to most posters.
Well, he's not God, but his ratings are growing faster.
you have a problem with lies being exposed? and it turns out that citing those ratings (incorrectly and combined with that posters agenda equals a lie) was just another fact-free smear attempt.
No. He has a problem with being called out because he attacked Olbermann by calling attention to and posting the OlbermannWatch website previously, and then claiming that it was an accurate site with valuable information which pointed out the "hate speech" from Olbermann.
When I called him on that effort, he tried to claim that he was being sarcastic, and didn't really mean it. Brain-damaged that he is, he seems to have already forgotten that denial, and is back to suggesting that Olbermann doesn't deserve the loyalty that the posters and this site give him.
Here are his posts.
You guys need to go to www.olbermannwatch.com
It provides more facts than you want to know.
Far from hate speech. Hate speech is what MSNBC and Olbermann engage in on a nightly basis.
No one has ever said this
"You forgot golden rule one on here, you are not allowed to ever be critical of Olbermann. You will face the wrath of many posters. Olbermann is God to most posters."
The fact that we debunk the OlbermannWatch site because it's not credible, and the fact that we debunk a poster who disingenuously posts results from one unrepresentative day, doesn't mean we think that Olbermann is God. The fact that you got called out on your disinformation doesn't mean that we think no one can be legitimately critical of Olbermann.
This is another example of how you behave like a rightwinger, even if you aren't one. That damnedable black-n-white thinking again!
Sue, if you are so much against that hateful site why do you keep posting the url for it?
Wow you keep showing Sue tendencies. Whether you are right or not politically is not the point, your tactics however are Roveian. The problem with Sue/Ellie was never her politics , it was how similar she was to Karl Rove and his tactics.
Sue/Ellie/NotthatGeorge
What is your point other than to again smear me and call me names? By the way they were ways Sue/Ellie debated. If you believe that questioning Olbermanns credentials as a leader for the progressive movement is a bad thing than you really have not changed Sue. You continue to smear and smear. As many posters have decided you are irrelevant.
Interesting that you left out CNN's crappy Glenn Beck Show, which draws an almost too-small-to-measure audience.
Interesting you left out that Olbermann's Show has a much younger demographic than O'Reilly, that his ratings are growing by the day, and that the show's been renewed for -I believe- the next four years. And that Olbermann will be a co-host on Monday Night Football.
And it's very intelligent to not watch a show because of its ratings.
Other than that, your post is so insightful.
Wow - that is revealing. That left-wing hack, KO, is lower in the ratings than Nancy Grace and Paula Zahn..LOL. If you remove the MMFA "monitors," the far-left fringe at DU, and the anti-Semite Kossites, that probably leaves only his MSNBC producing staff as his real audience.
I will miss Cindy for her passion and her courage and her empathy - and for checking the current status of her little encampment outside Bungle's "ranch", to see what outrages have been committed against her little band by various governmental agents.
I certainly hope that she doesn't entirely disappear, for I would worry a lot about, once the spotlight of publicity is shut down, Cindy being disappeared into some dank hole in Romania. Bungle is a vengeful - well, "god" is the word that jumps up in that phrasing, but I just cannot seem to force the two (Bungle & ) into the same clause. Words are such wriggly little things, and it was hard getting them to coexist in the same sentence.
Seriously, can anybody help me out with Sueeld's comment. Did she stop watching BO because he's in first place, and stop watching KO because he's in 4th ?
Normally the cryptic ratings posts breeze right by me, but this one has me intrigued.Are there people who refuse to watch anything in the top 5? Do they watch #2 and #3, but not #1 and #4?
HBL, once again you're missing it.
It's not the content of the post we're supposed to understand and admire.
It's the formatting.
I have to admit she formatted the hell out of that post. Could have checked the spelling, but I'm not that great at it either.
I especially liked the line where she repeated the equals sing over and over, nice flourish there at the end.
The most charitable view I had been able to develop:
Sueeld stopped watching O'LIEly, because, well he LIES. Then she stopped watching Olbermann because he persists in reminding her of O'LIEly with the frequent iterations of Billdo's latest insanity. And she really wishes Olbermann would stop, restructure the show, and leave behind all that "competitive sniping" (my words, not hers). The ratings are cited simply to reinforce her position, as not only sensible, but even the popular point of view.
Alternative: Sueeld has witnessed other attacks on Olbermann go down in flames in this forum, so attempted to cloak her attack in the guise of well-meaning constructive criticism, somewhat as Nancy Grace cloaks her sensationalist gossip-mongering in legal parlance.
King and Conley, you're both generous and helpful. I thought the ratings were the reasons, as nothing before that was coherent or reasonable enough to qualify as a reason.
I'm still pretty much in the dark on this one.
So becuase SueEld wants real news and not guys who lie or make fun of others she is a horrible person? Do you really have any shame?
Where did they say she was a horrible person? My reading didn't even seem to imply anything more than honest difference of opinion.
I don't think it was even a difference of opinion, I just couldn't figure out what her post meant. The part about "these are the reasons I don't watch..." was very unclear.
Upon re-reading, HBL, I have to agree with you 100%.
Personally, I have nothing of which to be ashamed, for I presented two scenarios for Sueeld's posting, for HBL. If that allowed Caseyspring's fertile mind to read the worst into either or both, please recall that Casey is fourth-hand into the discussion. Perhaps, now that I know how far Casey can reach, I can begin to position the shopping cart just so, and prevent even such diligent efforts to mis-represent from spilling the contents of the shelves.
Personal attacks from you are what I would expect.
is that you billdo? the whinning seems so familiar...
SO because I want to just debate this issue you equate me with Bill Oreilly a man who lies more than my rug? Please explain to me anywhere in my statement that I support Bill OReilly?
Another satisfied customer, expectations fully met! Glad that we could help!
As to those "personal attacks": Did I not name the three previous participants (one being me) in the posting you questioned? That makes your entry fourth-hand, doesn't it? Did either of those scenarios I envisioned for Sueeld's post call her a "horrible person"? Does any rigorous reading of either even strongly imply that Sueeld is a "horrible person"? If "yes", be prepared to provide an essay of at least 1000 words defending that allegation, for neither does so: at the most extreme interpretation, Sueeld simply sought to avoid confrontation while criticizing Olbermann's occasional recitations of O'LIEly's daily deluge.
Since (as it appears to me) you were wrong on the facts, and wrong on the law, "mis-representation" is precisely the indulgence in which you engaged yourself; and it is my right - nay, my duty - to refute you. It also behooves me (as a sometimes responsible adult) to take greater care to be certain that similar mischief is not so easily done, should you choose to strike again.
Every sensible person knew from the start, that the fallen Soldier's mom's political activism, was simply the outward form of a mother's grief, at the loss of her son.
Simple.
But the attacks made against her for that outward form her grief took (attacks led by bill o'reilly), those attacks were political in nature.
They were meant to not only intimidate the woman from her political activism (which again I note, was simply in response to her grief as a mom who'd lost her son), but to intimidate all those who might oppose the occupation of Iraq (and who might be similarly motivated by grief), by painting such activism as supporting 'terrorism'.
And that's what I'd note about bill's supposed "well wishes" to the fallen Soldier's mom...
...that in those "well wishes" he just coudn't help himself... he had to do the 'supporting terrorists' thing, when he said (according to MMFA's item from yesterday, and it's transcription):
"...she took a lot of hits, Cindy Sheehan did.
I believe they were her own fault because she crossed the line into advocacy and said some pretty ridiculous things, like Al Qaeda fighters were freedom fighters and things like that, and that the United States is a fascist nation. And she threw in with Hugo Chavez, and we've seen what he's like in the past week."
"...When you throw in with terrorists and call them freedom fighters, when you call the United States a fascist nation, you're in Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore territory. You're in the far left."
That's called wishing someone well?
I'd rather they stayed away from me, than for them to wish me well that way.
But it's not illness we're talking about here (unless it's o'reilly's sickness we have in mind), it's grief.
A mother's grief at losing her son.
I'm sure o'reilly's words are a comfort to the fallen Soldier's mom, now and always... bill o'reilly is a sensible man to such persons and such things, as are the rest of us.
Sensible People.
Many, many countless numbers of right-wing pundits, commentators, politicians, bloggers, and blog posters have bashed and continue to bash Cindy Sheehan with just about any derogatory name you could think of.
Other than saying he "doesn't like" Sheehan being personally attacked, has O'Reilly ever, even once, during all that time, criticized even one of those right-wing attacks?
Cindy Sheehan put her grief and her cause out front and center, from planting herself on Bush's lawn, to snuggling up to Hugo Chavez......while sympathy due her for her personal and painful loss is absolutely warranted, she is also not immune from criticism for her words and actions because of that loss.
Cindy could have picked worse Heads of State to visit - not so sure of that "snuggle up to" line - but, then Bungle wouldn't SEE her, would he?
Ya, I guess she could have gone to Iran or North Korea - good point.
Thanks - I think - but you still evade the sharp end of the "point" you praise: "Bungle wouldn't SEE her, would he?"
conleytgwinn,
Bush met with Cindy Sheehan, as he does with each family of a fallen soldier.. She wanted a second meeting.
Whether she deserved one or not can be debated, or whether any family should be granted a second meeting can be debated....but not that she didn't get to meet with "Bungle". She did
Jeter, your partially right. Bush did meet with her, and a couple dozen other Moms. However, he has met with very few others, and attended no funerals. Whether she "deserved" a second meeting is a matter of personal opinion.
I think Bush's P.R. problem could have been nipped in the bud if he had met with her again, and explained that he would not be able to do the same for others in the future. They could have turned a negative into a positive. But (as everything else) they bungled it.
And just how do you think that second meeting would've gone? Cindy screeming, Bush apologizing, Cindy screeming again, Bush apologizing again. What good or positive PR could've come from that?
IMO, Cindy is a loony toon and her 15 minutes of fame are up.
Bush apologizing? Has he ever apologized for lying us into this war?
He's never aplogized to me personally, but perhaps you might want to try camping out on his lawn. Maybe he'll explain it to you.
Hell, has he ever apologized for anything?
My apologies to all of you school teachers out there, and to Edvard Munch...should have been "scream".
Perhaps you're correct, perhaps not. There certainly could be other ways this meeting might turn out. It's all speculation.
They could have turned the negative into a positive by saying that this Mom was so grief stricken that Bush felt it was important to meet with her again in hopes that she would then be able to get on with her life. That would have been END OF STORY. At least I would hope--Who knows?
Well in my opinion you are an idiot and I dont believe in your amazing powers to characterize with any certainty how a FICTIONAL second meeting might have gone. Personally I have never even heard of Sheehan screaming at anybody. Put down the crackpipe dude its bad for your brainfunction and yours is already at low ebbtide
Therick: Now, STOP IT! Just . . . STOP IT!
STOP being all reasonable and civil and . . . mature! That's not what we came here for - we want blood! Now that you've cancelled the battle about Bungle and Cindy Sheehan, we'll just have to find something else to fight about. Darned . . . adults!
Sorry, but my fire is not burning as hot as it does when I respond to fools such as Roger(Ailes) 7 (chins) or some of the other morons who come here to stir us up with their bovine excrement. But I think Jeter was reasonable in his post, and my disagreements were minor.
To the others who have said that Sheehan is unpatriotic, or Anti-American, I would ask what more should she give that will allow her to to exercise her right to protest this war? Until they lose their own son or daughter, or other family member, they can't possibly understand how she feels.
Sheehan has paid a price that allows her to say or do whatever she wishes, as long as it falls within the law. And while some disagree with her stance and/or her methods, to paint here as either unpatriotic or anti-American is short-sighted and hateful.
I often wonder what our society has become when so many have no problem verbally abusing a person such as Cindy Sheehan, then defends George W. Bush. Hypocrites all.
Thanks for your reply. If it was unclear, mine was an attempt humorously to admit that you did catch me in one of those "if *X* says it is true, then I'm gonna get all Alabama-Senate to establish that it is false - and malicious - and . . . and . . . "
Sometimes I get a little caught up in the passions of the argument.
Of course, no one said she was immune from criticism. Straw man arguments like that are why I don't see anthing to gain in replying to your posts.
You just did.
And for the record, when someone hauls out the strawman argument accusation, it usually means they have no argument......you're right, nothing to gain.
Taking your advice, I'm feeling free to ignore you, for the record.
I double dog dare you to say that to Solon the next 10 times he points out when someone uses a strawman argument, you numbskull! I love it when we get to see him call out posts where people say stuff like that.
Geez , Sue is back with terms such as "numbskull".
NO when someone hauls out the strawman argument it usually means the poster has AGAIN misrepresented the argument made. Often because it is so much easier to argue that which was NEVER said or implied than what WAS said. Actully tommy that was weak.
"And for the record, when someone hauls out the strawman argument accusation, it usually means they have no argument."
Another fascinating nugget of Tommylogic. In his world, it's the person pointing out the strawman who has no argument. Just as it's the person pointing out the racism who is a racist or race-baiter. And the people who point out and correct lies and misinformation are dishonest and/or incessant whiners.
Criticism is one thing, but the way these right wing pundits go about it is absolutely disgusting. They've done far more damage to political discourse than Satan could have ever dreamed of.
Snoopy, apparently you are a 'devil-may-care' kind of guy. ;-)
"Other than saying he "doesn't like" Sheehan being personally attacked, has O'Reilly ever, even once, during all that time, criticized even one of those right-wing attacks?"
Could you imagine the reaction from the Right if the Left attacked the mother of a dead soldier who supported Bush's boondoggle?
Could you imagine the reaction from the Right if the Left attacked the mother of a dead soldier who supported Bush's boondoggle?
I would imagine they would enraged. And rightly so.
It would be one thing to question that mother as to why she believed in Bush's war in spite of everything.
If the left personally attacked her as a "nut" or a "moron" --as the right did to Sheehan (while O'Reilly remained silent about it)-- then they'd deserve the harshest of reactions.
Is it the summer re-run season? Didn't we have fun with this thread a day or two ago?
MMFA = BO all day everyday.
Don't we have on record your insistence that this is the 24/7 "Hillary for President" site now that it need no longer be the "Hillary for Senate" site?
I think it depends on the day, the poster, and the dosage.
It isn't just Cindy or her visit with Chavez. The War Mongers will attack anyone that is against the war anyplace anywhere.
Never mind we were lied into this war never mind Bush was never man enough to talk straight to the People about going to war. note: Bush hides behind slogans like "support the troops" in other words he isn't a man.
I'm scared - Bush on going to war.
There is nothing to fear - FDR on going to war.
Bill-O is a war monger just like the other other war mongers without balls and marching behind Bush who too has no balls. Because they all have to hide behind "Support the Troops" slogan because they are not man enough to admit they are war mongers. He deserves the worst person award.
sheehan gave up?
GLORY
A wonderful day indeed, o, happy day, that sees one less voice raised in question of the base and perverse motives of those who wrought upon us the senseless destruction of Iraq, of our chances of winning in Afghanistan, of the chances of ever paying off the debt delivered to us by this illegal invasion, of regaining the moral status to condemn the torture of those whom we seize (whether or not we have adequately even determined why they were seized), of restoring the Great Writ, of reinstating posse comitatus, of being free from unwarranted surveillance (and if you are not a registered Repugnant, that surveillance may not be limited to electronic - see the revelations of FBI files built on everyone from "greens" to Quakers - and likely including me), of being able to maintain a volunteer armed force other than the very dregs of our criminal system, of the enrichment of the infamous 1% at the expense of further impoverishing the other 99%.
O, joyous day, for we are free of that voice - that chiding, demanding voice of reason and enlightenment.