O'Reilly "runner-up" in "Worst Person" for failing to acknowledge error about the Constitution in his book
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly received "runner-up" in Keith Olbermann's nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for not acknowledging that he falsely suggested in his book Kids Are Americans, Too that the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is from the U.S. Constitution.
During the January 4 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly "runner-up" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, not acknowledging that he falsely suggested in his book Kids Are Americans, Too that the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is from the U.S. Constitution. Olbermann stated: "In his book, Kids Are Americans, Too, Bill O. opined, quote, 'For openers, the Constitution guarantees all of us, in a famous phrase, "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." ' " Olbermann continued:
OLBERMANN: For openers, that famous phrase is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Bill O. was called on this fabulous error by a kid. He had the nerve to read the letter on the air and turn it into a plug. And when the girl named Courtney Young asked, "Isn't that from the Declaration of Independence?" He replied, "Another excellent question, Courtney. The reason the Constitution was forged was to assure new American citizens the right to free life and access to pursue happiness in his or her own way. The Declaration was the statement. The Constitution, the instrument."
Olbermann responded: "No. No, bonehead. The Declaration was the thing that had 'life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness' in it. The Constitution was the thing that didn't. Just say 'oops' and get out."
From the January 4 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: The runner-up, Bill O. We know he doesn't know the difference between a falafel and a loofah or between World War II Nazi war criminals and their American victims. But he doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? In his book, Kids Are Americans, Too, Bill O. opined, quote, "For openers, the Constitution guarantees all of us, in a famous phrase, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' " For openers, that famous phrase is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Bill O. was called on this fabulous error by a kid. He had the nerve to read the letter on the air and turn it into a plug. And when the girl named Courtney Young asked, "Isn't that from the Declaration of Independence?" He replied, "Another excellent question, Courtney. The reason the Constitution was forged was to assure new American citizens the right to free life and access to pursue happiness in his or her own way. The Declaration was the statement. The Constitution, the instrument." No. No, bonehead. The Declaration was the thing that had "life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in it. The Constitution was the thing that didn't. Just say "oops" and get out.
OMG, an Olbermann/WPITW thread?
5..4..3..2..1.. blast off!!!!!!
I think Bill-O was not capable of understanding that he was being corrected by a child. He used the opportunity to be condescending, a common failure of bloviators.
Pearl, can't help you with your countdown :-)
Mary, I know is was bad, but I just couldn't resit. ;-)
I think Bill-O was not capable of understanding that he was being corrected by a child.
There are a lot of things in this world that Bill-O does not understand....
I think you can leave off "...by a child." He just doesn't understand when he is corrected, PERIOD. He ignores what he doesn't like.
He ignores what he doesn't like.
Like that character Nicole Sullivan used to play on "MAD TV" who would stick her fingers in her ears and go "La la la la la".
That's the world's worst Worst Person award!
Bill-O is a moron. BUT,
You guys are all wrong on this one. Bill-O didn't say that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was verbatim from the Constitution, he said the Constitution guarantees "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
No different than MMfA saying Clinton didn't request "the documents" to be withheld, only that he "recommended them for withholding".
Olbie was just looking for ammo, and even if you agree with him most of the time, he's really no better of talking head than BillO.
Dex,
KO simply ran with the MMFA topic of a few days ago.
New year, same backscratch.
I would have thought Keith would have given it to O'Reilly for attacking Obama's 8 foot 2 inch bodyguard ;-)
Maybe that's tonight?
Jeter, get your facts straught. That body guard was at least 9'3" tall. And Billy boy "gently removed" him, he did not attack him. So if KO puts him into WPITW tonight for THAT, I will take solidarity with Sueld.
Oops, bad spelling creeping into today's posts too. Oh well. I need to slow down but my bossy kitty keeps wanting to take a ride on my shoulder. I can't deny him.
I love bad spelling. It could lead to new words being coined. Let's see, straught...
Bill O was distraught that he could not get a good camera angle, so he straught himself gently into position by a gentlemanly shove.
It's comments like that one that get these nasty rumors started in the first place, and allow Olberman to pick on dedicated and sincere journalists like Mr. O'Really.
The true story is that an obstructionist of monstrous physical proportions employed by the liberal senator from Illinios, B. Hussein Osama, was hindering Dr. O'Really's civil right to pursue topical and important information (along with happiness, guaranteed by the constitution, you know) which he had planned then to divulge to the fact-thirsty Homeland via the public airwaves. The Right Rev. O'Really subsequently requested access to the source of said information and happiness by way of subtle physical suggestion, to which the cry-baby gargoyle bodyguard apparently took offense. After being verbally attacked by the 10-odd foot venom-spewing gorilla in response, Benevolent Bill jovially inquired as to the well-being of said primate's matriarch. The situation finally ended with the whole B. Hussein Osama klan disgraced, and a peaceful and friendly exchange between Maj. Gen. O'Reilly and the liberal senator.
The real truth is out there, Mary. Your wildly spun tale of "shoving" is easily debunked.
And let's not forget that after all this, Obama talked to Bill, and what was Bill's tough, hard hitting question that he was dying to ask Obama?
"Barack, will you come on my show?"
Neon, you are a gas...[link to www.chemicalelements.com]
gentlemanly shove.
I'm sure that Billo features himself as nothing less than a gentleman, riding on his Belgian Steed to save the day. He is a hero of gargantuan porportions doing his level best to straught any evil and slay any dragons named Hillary. He is a king among mere men and a lover of woman kind, especially in the shower using a falafel or a loofah, whichever is handy. But he always seeks the truthiness of any situation and boldly reports it as he sees it. No Spin or B.S., except his own. He dares to go where no other mere journalist dare tread for he has no press pass. But he is a legend in his own mind and he can not be denied.
According to Marvin Kitman, BillO's unofficial biographer, he sees himself as a Clint Eastwood type figure, swaggering up with his six-shooter (mic) to deliver justice for the people.
I loved how O'Reilly had to clarify that he "likes" Obama when Obama came up to him. It just shows that he even knows that he's a right-wing hack
Not only is he 9 foot tall, he can shoot fire from his eyes and consume entire armies with bolts of lightning from his arse!
(couldn't resist, my favorite line from Braveheart!)
I declare, we should get outselves organized and open a comedy blog....julia, snoop, pearl, HBL, neon, etc etc.
But O'reilly just outdoes us all day after day...
Nope, you're wrong...
"the Constitution guarantees all of us, in a famous phrase, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'"
According to Bill-O's book, the guarantee and the phrase are in the Constitution. He's wrong.
Pete, really?
He didn't say "in THE famous phrase", he said "in a famous phrase". I think that's the distinction.
It's also a bit illogical that BillO, dislike him as we all do, would think the phrase came from the constitution and that the editors would all miss it.
How do you explain away the usage of quote marks?
The quote marks are inconsequential; if anything, they show that Bill meant 'life, liberty.." as an independently-coined phrase, lending more creedence that he didn't mean the phrase was in the Constitution, just that the Constitution guaranteed the statement.
The quote marks are inconsequential, etc.
I actually think this thread is kinda pointless since MMFA covered BillO's boner the other day, but Dex, I gotta tell you, that is about the lamest excuse I have come across in one heckuva long time.
Gotta agree, Dex, I had to read your post a couple of times to be sure you were actually saying that.
Quotation marks are inconsequential.In the Fox News world, I guess they are.
Isn't this a matter of us all "knowing" what Bill "meant"?
No, just "reading" what he "wrote"(a mistake in his book), then "hearing" what he "said" (A lie to the child who corrected him.
This is not very complicated.
I guess that goes for the use of ellipsis too, right? Oh, that's Joe Klein, sorry. So many misinformers, so little time.
And question marks! Don't forget the all-important "I'm not saying this is the case, but what if?" statements that are generally in the descriptor at the bottom of Fox News' screens.
You know, like "Did Obama attend a Madrassa?" and "Is Clinton secretly a man?" And don't forget "Democrats legislating defeat in Iraq." Oh wait, Hannity forgot his question mark for that one...
The Constitution doesn't guarantee "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Of course, neither does the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence merely suggests that people should have those things.
It is actually not POSSIBLE for Bill O'Reilly to be right on this one, not matter how much you wish he was. And all Olbermann was saying was, when you make a mistake, own up to it and move on.
Quite right. The Constitution guarantees none of those things, which is why they're not in the Constitution. The Constitution does not guarantee those things for the simple reason that none of those things can BE guaranteed. The Constitution does not guarantee life for those who stop a sniper's bullet in Iraq, it does not guarantee liberty for those who choose to break the law (although it does allow for Presidential pardons), and to what degree it guarantees pursuit of happiness depends on your definition of what constitutes happiness. If your definition of happiness includes raping young girls or driving drunk, you'll find out real quick how the Constitution guarantees liberty and pursuit of happiness. If you screw around, all the Constitution guarantees is right to counsel and a speedy trial.
The Delaration of Independence is a general statement of principle and a specific list of grievances against the Crown. The only thing it guarantees is that the colonies were going to fight the British for independence. It's a document of great historical value, but it has nothing to do with governance. That's what the Constitution is for, and you're going to be looking for a long time before you find any of those things guaranteed there.
For all you constitutional scholars out there, if the Constitution does not guarantee that anyone is entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" why all the social spending programs?
If they are not expressly provided for in the Constitution are they not illegal?
Just curious. It sounds like to me we have a bunch of liberals arguing for an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. :-)
AA,
I'll go a step further, it says "life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness" - not "life, liberty AND happiness".
We both know there is no constitutional argument for many of the spending silliness we engage in every day, to the grave stirring discomfort of all our founding fathers.
yep, like all the military spending down the hole.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Military_Fraud.html
Mary, military wastefulness notwithstanding, "liberty" is keeping our citizens safe from foreign and domestic enemies - as is "life", and the "pursuit of happiness".
The military should be as accountable as any other expenditure, absolutely.
you both THINK so I disagree. I think it is promoting the general wellfare.
AA, none of those things are guaranteed. Those of us who are trying to have a civilization feel compelled to do our part to help provide them for everybody else, not just ourselves.This is the position of liberals and most of the other higher primates. ;0)
Social spending programs? I don't know where that comes from, but I guess you mean stuff like corporate welfare, and wars of choice to support the defense industry in the style to which it has become accustomed and provide endless profiteering opportunites to cronies, and energy policy dictated by energy corporations, and $5,000 dollar pieces of cloth to drape over the breasts of Lady Justice to quell the sprurious thoughts of those who might gaze on them with lust? Oh no, wait a minute, you mean stuff like food stamps, and health insurance for poor children, and veteran's services, don't you? The BAD stuff, right? No problem with the interest on a mounting pile of national debt though, huh? I wonder what percentage of the GDP goes on food stamps, and what percentage goes to the defense industry?
Just curious. It sounds like we have a conservative who doesn't understand the difference between the guarantees of the Constitution and the body of law that actually governs us. Each state has its own laws. You get that, right? The laws passed by a legislature or even by Congress are not the same as the guarantees and principles in the Constitution. Passing a law does not change the Constitution. A law can be struck down if it violates the Constitution, but no law can strike down the Constitution. Only a Presidential signing statement can do that. How can a law be illegal if it's a law that does not violate the Constitution? The fact that it's a law pretty much means it's legal. This doesn't take a Constitutional scholar, or a rocket scientist, or even a high school graduate.
If there are spending programs you don't like, you can't claim they're unconstitutional because it's already been decided that they don't violate the Constitution. That ship has already sunk. You have to go after the laws that maintain the program, and the only way to do that is by going after the lawmakers who fight to maintain them. If you want to go after the spending programs you don't like, or the ones I don't like, or all of them, you have to go after the lawmakers who are responsible for them. If you want to end the laws that allow the fraud, pork, waste and corporatism, welcome to the liberal camp, we can use you to help oust the lawmakers who are responsible for them. If you want to end the laws that allow social security, and health care for kids, and programs for veterans who actually put something on the line, you'll have to go after the lawmakers who support those laws and replace them with lawmakers who will eliminate successful programs in favor of 'work until you die'. Have fun with that.
If they are not expressly provided for in the Constitution are they not illegal?
No, I think you have that backwards. The Constitution defines which rights cannot be infringed by the federal government. We (the people) are in no way limited to only those rights.
"If they are not expressly provided for in the Constitution are they not illegal?"
Amendment 9 - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So if you're talking about rights, then that's explicitly debunked by the Constitution itself. If you're talking about programs, how many spending programs are expressly listed in the Constitution?
These are some truly bizarre arguments you're forwarding today.
The Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(emphasis mine.)
No because the preamble to the Constitution says one of the obligations of the federal government is to promote the general wellfare. You can argue YOU dont think that means doing things like feeding the hungry, I think it does, at any rate its interpretational and definitly NOT illegal.
In his book he quotes the constitution:
"For openers, the Constitution guarantees all of us, in a famous phrase, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.""
I believe those quote marks can be interpreted as "verbatim" from the constitution.
You are correct. Billo would correct himself if he was an honest broker. But as somebody else pointed out in another thread he's a raging narcissist. He can't admit he's wrong.
Which is why MMFA said he SUGGESTED it. I am not sure where the Constitution is supposed to do any such thing. For the most part it limits goverment power then enumerates individual rights but I think it is a stretch to say the Constitution guarantees any such thing it certainly doesnt do so directly. No it was a mistake Billy made, he mixed them up. It is a mistake that has been made before and it will most likely be made again.
Congratulations Bill! Fox News liberals are very proud of you! You have made Fox News Channel the laughing stock of news organizations. Bill is the "Worst Person" at Fox News Channel, followed by stupid Sean.
Bossman Roger Ailes have run this news organization to the ground. The only way to save it is to end Bill and Sean's contracts, and to force the retirement of Ailes (he's in his 60s anyway).
The only way to save it is to end Bill and Sean's contracts, and to force the retirement of Ailes (he's in his 60s anyway).
Of course, you're referring to Ailes' IQ - right?
:-)
I think it's too small for his waistband.
Strange he would try to cover over his mistake...
Children on occasion make adults seem silly. There's nothing to be afraid of.
Why should anyone expect BillO to know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence -- or, for that matter, the Bill of Rights? He's long supported the very forces that are at work in the abrogation of all those freedoms true Americans hold sacred.
I finally saw the video of O'Reilly at the Obama event tonight, at least I saw what BilldO called the "unedited" version on his show.
BilldO looks like an escaped mental patient, on the verge of tears as he whines about freedom of the press to anyone who's not diving out of the way of his camera.
Whether I recognized him or not, if I was security, I would have had O'Reilly cuffed and searched before he got any closer to Obama. This is an emotional basket case and an obviously unstable old man.
You think that one was funny ,check out hannity being run out of a resturant by Ron Paul supporters.That will really make your day.
Snoopy linked to that on another thread. Hi-larious. If anybody thinks the GOP being the party of terrified,emotional girly-men is some sort of liberal invention, just look at their top tough guys when they actually leave the safety of their studios.
seems like mr o'reilly has a great way of making his own truth, he is beyond truthieness, i bet he made that girl feel stupid, to bad when considering who actually WAS a freakin moron