O'Reilly: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels"
SUMMARY: In a discussion of recent comments made by Michelle Obama, Bill O'Reilly took a call from a listener who stated that, according to "a friend who had knowledge of her," Obama " 'is a very angry,' her word was 'militant woman.' " O'Reilly later stated: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."
During the February 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly took a call from a listener who said of Michelle Obama, "I just wanted to say that I think Michelle Obama is an angry woman -- is speaking, I think, with her real voice for the first time." O'Reilly and his callers were discussing Obama's recent comments, which included her assertion that "[f]or the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country." When O'Reilly asked the caller, whom he identified as "Maryanne," "You're basing that on what?" she replied: "Well your representative asked me not to talk about this, but I have a friend who had knowledge of her and said to me months ago, 'This is a very angry,' her word was 'militant woman.' " O'Reilly then responded, "What I want you to do then, Maryanne ... I want you to stay on the line. ... Because it's not fair to Michelle Obama for you ... because we don't know who you are, and we don't know who your friend is, but we want to know. We want to know, OK. But it's not fair at this point for you to say, 'My friend said X and Y,' because we just don't know. But if you would give us your information, we would like to talk to your friend. And then whatever your friend tells us, we'll track it down. We'll do it in a fair and balanced and methodical way." He later added, "If indeed Michelle Obama is angry about something, if she has a history, we would like to know that, and then we can put it into some kind of context so that we can be fair to everybody."
O'Reilly then stated:
O'REILLY: You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things, and I think I've made that clear over the years, but he's trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.
That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.
From the February 19 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Maryanne, Woodbury, Connecticut: What say you, Maryanne? Maryanne --
CALLER: I'm here.
O'REILLY: -- you're on the air.
CALLER: Here I am.
O'REILLY: OK.
CALLER: I just wanted to say that I think Michelle Obama is an angry woman -- is speaking, I think, with her real voice for the first time. And --
O'REILLY: But how do you -- what do you base that on? You're basing that on what?
CALLER: Well, your representative asked me not to talk about this, but I have a friend who had knowledge of her and said to me months ago, "This is a very angry," her word was "militant woman."
O'REILLY: All right. What I want you do then, Maryanne, if -- I want you to stay on the line.
CALLER: OK.
O'REILLY: Because it's not fair to Michelle Obama for you --
CALLER: Oh no, all I'm saying is --
O'REILLY: -- because we don't know who you are, and we don't know who your friend is, but we want to know. We want to know, OK. But it's not fair at this point for you to say, "My friend said X and Y," because we just don't know. But if you would give us your information, we would like to talk to your friend. And then whatever your friend tells us, we'll track it down. We'll do it in a fair and balanced and methodical way. That's how we're going to cover this campaign -- all of them, all of them. So stay on the line, give us your information. If indeed Michelle Obama is angry about something, if she has a history, we would like to know that, and then we can put it into some kind of context so that we can be fair to everybody.
You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things, and I think I've made that clear over the years, but he's trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.
That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.
1-877-9-NO-SPIN. Right back.
I'm curious here what in the world you guys are all talking about.
O'Reilly's actually defending Michelle Obama, although he uses the racially charged term lynch mob. I think that's actually more funny than suggestive, because he's always a bumbler about these kind of things.
But there's nothing racist in his express words, and I find it interesting that he rightly criticizes Obama supporters for their very obvious and illogical harassment of Bill Clinton.
Methinks that's what some of you are furious about this, and are using racist allegations as a way of condemning him. It's a phony pretext. But whatever, it's a red herring.
Did O'Reilly use an appropriate word in airing his opinion? No. Was Bill being malicious in any way? No way. He was actually defending Michelle Obama against charges that she is an "angry woman." (BILL: "I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake ...")
This is just another example of MM trying to stir up a bogus episode of "outrage." This is simply the (umpteenth) attempt by MM to drive Bill off the air. MM follows the same formula every time:
1. Plaster a big front-page story.
2. Olbermann airs the story.
3. MM works to get the MSM and other web sites fired up.
4. MM steps up their "Take Action" campaign.
5. MM keeps the story going with more front-page posts.
6. MM lobbies to get Bill fired.
7. MM fails.
8. Repeat.
(Yawn) We've seen this too many times before. This act by MM is getting old and tired.
My 2 cents.
SOLON: "So YOU say it wasnt malicious or inappropriate and him saying that once he investigates its legitimate to LYNCH a black woman is OK."
NO. I wrote, "Did O'Reilly use an appropriate word in airing his opinion? No." (bold added)
Please do not misattribute what I said! Thanks.
Shoe, if a black talk radio host, say "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison of the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER, and/or Bev Smith of the American Urban Radio Network, or Clifford Kelley of Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com, had said that they wanted to invite Cindy McCain to the South Side of Chicago to be nailed in a drive-by shooting, you and the rest of the conservatives would demand that these black talk radio hosts be fired AND you'd also demand that black talk radio be permanently taken off the air!
Also, since you think that O'Lielly comments weren't racist, I challenge you AND O'Lielly to call in to any black talk radio station, be it XM 169/THE POWER and/or WVON, and repeat the lynching comments word for word, so that Smith and/or Kelley and/or Madison and/or any other black talk radio host AND black talk listeners can verbally barbecue you afterwards.
SEE IT REAL: "[I]f a black radio host ... had said that they wanted to invite Cindy McCain to the South Side of Chicago to be nailed in a drive-by shooting ..."
What O'Reilly said doesn't even remotely come close to anything like that. O'Reilly was defending Michelle Obama. Read the transcript.
Thanks.
SEE IT REAL: "[I]f a black radio host ... had said that they wanted to invite Cindy McCain to the South Side of Chicago to be nailed in a drive-by shooting ..."
Shoe's Dubious Disingenous Response: "What O'Reilly said doesn't even remotely come close to anything like that. O'Reilly was defending Michelle Obama. Read the transcript."
Defending shmefending! When someone uses the word "lynching" in a sentence, there is NO WAY that they are defending anyone, and you know it! I don't need to read the transcript, I've read the historical context of this word and/or phrases involving the word many times over.
Also, O'Lielly's comment about not wanting to invite Michelle Obama to a lynching party IS along the same inflammatory lines as the hypothetical situation of black talk radio host Clifford Kelley of Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM 1690 saying that he wanted to invite Cindy McCain to a drive-by shooting, and then Kelley saying he was just seeking to "protect" Cindy McCain from being shot before she knew all the facts.
Now, if Kelley had said that he wanted to wait before he had Cindy McCain nailed in a drive-by shooting before he knew all the facts, and I or any other black talk radio caller said that Kelley was "protecting" Cindy McCain or some other b.s. response, neither you nor any other con-artist-servative would accept Kelley's claim of trying to "protect" Cindy McCain from being killed in a drive-by shooting on the South Side of Chicago, and you know it!
Your refusal to answer my question stands as proof positive of the fact that my reverse hypothetical of O'Lielly's using "lynching" in his comments against Michelle Obama with the hypothetical situation of Clifford Kelley using "drive-by shooting" against Cindy McCain proves what I said earlier is correct, and that is, if Kelley or any other black talk radio host had suggested the possibility of having Cindy McCain killed in a drive-by shooting, you and the other right wing conservatives would demand that the host be fired, AND you'd also demand that all black talk radio stations be taken off the air forever.
SEE IT REAL: "I don't need to read the transcript ..."
Uhhh ... O.K. ...
It's always refreshing to come across such clear thinking. </sarc>
---
SEE IT REAL: "Your refusal to answer my question stands as proof positive ..."
Ummm ... It's hard for me to refuse to answer a question that you never asked. Your reply to me does not have a question anywhere in it.
Are you people stupid, evil, or what? There's nothing funny about threatening to lynch the first Black First Lady.
------------------------------------
O'Reilly...uses the racially charged term lynch mob. I think that's actually more funny than suggestive, because he's always a bumbler about these kind of things.
But there's nothing racist in his express words, and I find it interesting that he rightly criticizes Obama supporters for their very obvious and illogical harassment of Bill Clinton.
I had no problem with what Michelle Obama said, I understood what she was saying. As for Oreilly well what can you say? He used a word I would not use. The other thing is now becuse of this thread, Olbermann will do a complete segment on OReilly tonight and discuss why he is so racist.
The cycle continues. MMFA Reports and Olbermann copies.
Blah, blah, blah.
MSNBC has many problems that sueld is right about. Olbermann, for one-- and he gets a free ride here.
The big issue here is not BOR's phrasesology-- as if people actually think he really wants to lynch her? Yeah, right.
No, the big problem is that Michelle Obama is a loose cannon who shoots her mouth off in stupid ways, and people actually go out of their way to defend her!!
She will end up being the bane of her husband's existence, by the time this campaign is over. You think Barack is happy about her statement?
Car, buy a brain, ok
http://www.theroot.com/id/44914
Media Matters Hypocrisy...
On one hand we claim that Michelle Obama was taken out of context when she made her statement about "being proud of America for the first time in her adult life." We rushed to her defense and told people that if they fairly examine everything she said before and after that sentence, she in fact wasn't being unpatriotic at all.
Yet when O'Reilly claims that "He doesn't want to lynch Michelle Obama." SUDDENLY we have to immediately take that one statement (actually just one word) in the most negative way we can and ignore everything that was said around it and just cry "racism."
I love Media Matters posters, so fairminded, unbiased and nonpartisan. :)
.
Snoopy,
Keep playing that wrinkled old race card. I'm sure you never leave home without it. Remember. it's wrong to make sweeping generalizations about anyone....unless of course it's Republicans then we can label them all as racists. Again I respect your fairmindedness.
OReilly KNOWINGLY inserted race into this incident by mentioning a "lynching." Good, good I'm glad we now have irrefutable "proof" that he intended to make a racist comment....for whatever reason.
To be clear, the loved ones, contemporaries and children of people that were victims of lynchings are alive and well today.I know people like you have a victim mentality and like to still pretend that we live in the Jim Crow south but unfortunately the word "lynching" doesn't have the same connotation today as it once did.
Your very post is racist. Put on your hood and go to He#%! And another rational MMFA poster tosses out his race card. All I can say is thankfully Barack Obama is too smart to play the race card on every issue in this day and age. If he had done that he'd already be out of the race and probably end up another failed Jesse Jackson style politician.
.
Did the definition of "lynching" change? The connotation of "illegal execution of death by a mob" seems pretty constant to me. And I have no doubt that when O'Reilly said "lynching" that he was at that moment planning to organize a mob to illegaly execute Michelle Obama.
Like I said, I love MMFA posters.
I didn't say it was literal, did I?
Now that I've got that cleared up for you, can you address the question?
Lehrer, you're right, I have to say. Like people think O'reilly really wants to organize a lynching party against her!
You're also right about the hypocrisy. They bend over backwards to defend Michelle Obama's dumb comment, and scream about unfairness. But they refuse to extend the same policy to people they don't like-- like BOR.
I really, really detest many of these Obama supporters. They are their own-- and his-- worst enemies. And it's going to backfire in the end.
Did you even read my response? I didn't say anything about it being literal. I didn't even imply it. Note the word "connotation". If it was literal then the connotation of the term is rather beside the point.
"You're also right about the hypocrisy. They bend over backwards to defend Michelle Obama's dumb comment, and scream about unfairness. But they refuse to extend the same policy to people they don't like-- like BOR."
You said yourself he shouldn't have said it. If you stop pretending that people are accusing O'Reilly of being open to a literal lynching, I think you'll find that you are agreeing with all the Obama supporters that you are so venomous towards.
What's more, your agreement that O'Reilly shouldn't have said this severely undercuts your charge of hypocrisy. It's unacceptable no matter how generously you interpret it. I think it's clear that he was speaking figuratively, and that Mrs. Obama was using "really" as a modifier. That's giving both of them the benefit of the doubt, using the same standard. The problem is that using that standard makes Mrs. Obama's comment fairly reasonable, while O'Reilly's comment is still offensive. I believe this difference is the source of your imagined hypocrisy.
Are you saying that as long as O'falafel wasnt actually PLANNING to lynch her there is nothing wrong with using such a racially charged expression? Some of us no longer see the word "lynch" as racially charged. Maybe someday I'll become better educated and then I too will be drowning in a sea of misguided white guilt.
I do enjoy the laughfest you conservatives bring to this board. Actually I support Barack Obama (though somewhat reluctantly.) But I know, I know, anyone who doesn't immediately bendover to the MMFA shtick is automatically a neocon.
<siiiiiggggghhhh> Frankly this has nothing to do with how you feel about the racial connotations of the term "lynching." Would you also think someone saying Joe Lieberman should be "gassed" given the historical context of that term in relation to his ethnicity is okay?
Using your own argument I could make the case that such use of language has no relation to anti-semitism and is merely an attempt to play on Western guilt for allowing the Holocaust. Of course that would be ludicrous as are your posts. Argumentation is apparently not one of your strengths and that's why I -- and perhaps other -- find debating with you so frustrating and pointless.
Actually, MB's comments were edited and the word "really" was edited out of her statement. Changing the context of what someone said by even one small word can change the whole context of the statement.
Likewise, O'Reilly said "I don't want to ....Lynch mob against Michelle Obama 'unless' the facts show....bla bla bla. So in essence he is saying, I don't want to lynch this black woman - unless the facts support the argument, which then implies he is fine with lynching a black woman.
How that cannot be deemed as racist is beyond me especially in light of Shrub's comments that Lynching is an offensive word related to a dark and distrubing part of American history and that this word should not be used in jest.
Bill O was raised by racists and his comments "I can't believe there was no F this and F that at this restaurant in Harlem" bear this argument out.
How is this any different than the "nappy headed ho's"comment uttered by Imus? Ask any black family who has had a distant relative lynched about how they feel regarding the use of this offensive term when used in reference to a black person.
Oh and our freedom of speech rights guaranteed under our constitution allow us the freedom to be unpatriotic if so desired - even if your definition of patriotism is to follow a pinhead blindly down the path of destruction.
There's got to be a bridge somewhere (w/out homeless vets under it) where all of you trolls can go hang out and high five each other for your witty retorts! I don't think that all republicans are racist...But it is a fact that after the passage of the Civil Rights Act all of those racist dixiecrats flocked to the republican party where they were welcomed with open arms! Ever heard of the 'Southern Strategy'? If you think racism is no longer alive and thriving in this country then you are either delusional or a moron. The reich-wing is going to play that 'wrinkled old race card' for all it's worth and, sadly, there will be plenty of sycophants that fall right in line. And let's not forget that Barack is a Muslim, and a traitor, and a separatist, and...
There's got to be a bridge somewhere where all of you trolls can go hang out and high five each other for your witty retorts! And what a magical and enchanting place that would be.
If you think racism is no longer alive and thriving in this country then you are either delusional or a moron. It is alive and definitely thriving; the success of Barack Obama has reaffirmed that.
And let's not forget that Barack is a Muslim, and a traitor, and a separatist, and...And he was right about Iraq and even predicted the disaster this war has become. This isn't about Barack Obama, he's too intelligent to fall in with this MMFA faux racism crap even if people like you aren't.
.
First off let me say that the way you post comments and then respond with witty retorts is classic. I wish I thought of that!
But, if you want to hang out in Candyland under the marshmallow clouds then you can follow McCain on his next flak-jacket clad outing to an outdoor market in Bagdad!
And, if you think the fact that Barack experiencing a modicum of success is proof positive of the dearth of racism in this country...Then I suspect that you would have said the same thing about Al Jolson appearing in The Jazz Singer or Hattie McDaniel in Gone With The Wind!
Lastly, if invoking the specter of 'lynching' is simply 'faux racism' that Barack would not fall for, then why are you twisting your logic in such a fashion to dismiss and/or defend such an obvious slap in the face to African-Americans? Once again, you simply demonstrate the reich-wings pathetic inability to experience anything remotely related to empathy!
I look forward to dancing on the grave of misguided conservative ideology!
JL,
When has O'Reilly used the term "lynching" to describe the fate of a white person?
Jim,
Honestly, I must have missed the post in which MMFA defended Michelle Obama's statement with the claim that she was taken out of context. Did that actually happen, or are you comparing a message board discussion to a post?
I'm not going to call O'Reilly a racist. I have no idea what goes on inside his head, and I'm sure he will say (if he hasn't already said) that he did not intend for his use of "lynching party" in this context to carry its clear racial-historical implications. (It wasn't just one word, as you claim: he said "lynching party.") Of course I don't believe that O'Reilly meant the term literally -- I think he probably meant it metaphorically, but it's an awful and irresponsible metaphor, and one that takes its meaning from a specific history of racial violence. Whether he meant it or not, it's an ugly and violent image to use carelessly when discussing the first African American presidential candidate with a serious chance of winning a major party's nomination and his wife.
As I understand your complaint, MMFA is hypocritical because it didn't criticize Michelle Obama for saying that she wasn't previously proud of her country (the HORROR!), but it did criticize a professional broadcaster with a well-rated show on a news network who said that the thing keeping him from joining a lynching party against an African American woman was a lack of hard facts about her being less than proud of the United States.
Explain, please, how this is in any way hypocritical?
Vysotsky,
When I said MMFA hypocrisy I was referring to the posters. If you read it I even said MMFA posters. I just find it amusing that some people immediately take comments in a negative way when it's from people that don't happen to lean their way politically while at the same time they tirelessly dissect the intricate meanings of what Michelle Obama said because she does lean their way and they want to protect her.
I don't believe O'Reilly meant his statement in any racist way (Christ, he just got done DEFENDING Michelle Obama from a caller who wanted to smear her.) I also don't believe Michelle Obama is unpatriotic. I don't selectively pick a statement to be outraged over based on ideological preference.
.
Hi Jim,
I did read your post, but I was confused by the opening line "Media Matters Hypocrisy," which seemed like an indictment of the organization, and a distinct charge from the one in your conclusion about "Media Matters posters." I appreciate your clarification -- thank you.
I do disagree with you, though, on the point of whether or not O'Reilly defended Michelle Obama from the caller's smear. It seems to me as though O'Reilly did something much more complex and subtle: on the one hand, he declared it an unfair accusation; on the other, he took it seriously enough to follow up on it and ask for further details so that he could track down the friend who complained that Obama was "angry" and "militant"....as if that would somehow be newsworthy. O'Reilly didn't dismiss her charge; rather, he said that would investigate the claim to determine the facts, and he wasn't going to join a lynching party until he had facts indicating that Michelle Obama was "angry". Wouldn't you agree that there's something more than a little disturbing about this attempt to substantiate a hearsay claim about whether or not an African American woman is "militant" and the subsequent comment about joining a lynching party?
Right Vysotsky, it's the posters who are being nutty about all of this. But it's typical of many Obama supporters.
A few weeks ago they were so bad and abusive against any contrary opinion that Digby had to suspend all outside comments for a week or so on her blog.
Sue
I have issues with Olby as you know, but I will cut him some major slack on this one , if he brings it up he should. Using the word "lynched" is disgusting and deplorable. To me it is worse than what Imus said.
Yes, it's worse than what Imus said. Imus made a racist statement about how a group of young black women looked. Bill O'Reilly made a racist statement that implied his approval of physical harm or death to a black person.
So it IS worse than what Imus said. And I think that Bill O'Reilly should lose his radio gig.
Gimme a break. O'Reilly was not advocating an actual lynch mob. It's also an expression--unfortunate sometimes-- but not seriously held.
Here's what I like about what BOR said:
And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things, and I think I've made that clear over the years, but he's trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.
This is what is actually infuriating some of you guys. So drop the phony self-righteousness.
It's also an expression--unfortunate sometimes-- but not seriously held.
You're kidding right? It's an expression?
It's actually a very serious, ugly and dark period in American history. To those who's family members were lynched it's extremely serious. Maybe the actual definition will help you and Bill understand:
Lynching became highly associated with Southern efforts to retain and enforce white supremacy after their initial defeat in the American Civil War. In their defeat, Southern whites resisted allowing full legal and civil rights to African Americans. The aftermath of war increased social and economic volatility.
History is suppose to teach.
Pearlene,
This reminds me of an incident with a colleague a few years back. We got into a disagreement about whether or not "Jim Crow" laws were actually laws and not just social 'norms'. She asserted that they were not actual laws on the books (mind you, this is a college graduate I'm talking about) but were just the way people treated each other in the South. It didn't take very long at all to do a google search (if there was google back then) and pull up a picture of a sign on a bus that said something to the effect of, "Colored People must sit in the back of the bus per XYZ Statute". Yeah, I won that argument without breaking a sweat.
It's amazing how little people know about the history of their own country!
Seven, EVEN Junior understands what the word lynching means:
The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history," Bush said in an event marking Black history month. "The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice," the president said. "Displaying one is not a harmless prank, and lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest."
As a civil society, Americans should agree that noose displays and lynching jokes are "deeply offensive," Bush said. "They are wrong. And they have no place in America today."
For decades, the noose was a symbolic part of a campaign of violence, fear and intimidation against Blacks, the president said. Sometimes, he added, it was orchestrated by the law enforcement officers charged with protecting them. Bush also said the noose was a tool for intimidation and killing that conveyed a sense of powerlessness to millions of Blacks throughout the country.
"Fathers were dragged from their homes in the dark of night before the eyes of their terrified children," he said. "Summary executions were held by torchlight in front of hateful crowds. In many cases, law enforcement officers responsible for protecting the victims were complicit in their deaths."
Is there a right way to say what he said?
None that I'm aware of - and I've been a professional writer for 25 years now...
Is there a right way to say what he said?
No not really but he could have said:
And I don't want to drag Michelle Obama through the mud unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.
OR
And I don't want to badmouth Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.
I think some folks use words like lynching without considering that certain words or expressions are insensitive. Bill should know better.
I think some folks use words like lynching without considering that certain words or expressions are insensitive. Bill should know better.
You're giving BO the benefit of the doubt, Jeter, but I'm not. As a career journalist, he knew EXACTLY what he was saying and chose that particular phrase intentionally, knowing full well that he was referring to a black woman.
I think people should call their local radio stations that carry his radio pukefest, and demand that they cancel it.
Wiz,
Maybe I am giving O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt because even if he acts like a pinhead at times I find it hard to fathom why he would deliberately use wording that was certain to bring him nothing but flak as well as charges of being racially insensitive, or worse.
I think O'Reilly often speaks before he thinks.
I'm not excusing him, just offering a different perspective.
"I think some folks use words like lynching without considering that certain words or expressions are insensitive. Bill should know better."
You're right Jeter, and that's all there is to this issue. And jimlehrer's right, too, in that there is an immense amount of hypocrisy here. When Michelle Obama makes a dumb statement, all hell breaks loose with people trying to explain her "context."
But when a O'Reilly does the same, it's immediate condemnation time--especially when he defends Bill Clinton. This is typical of Obama supporters-- their self-righteousness and arrogance is going to doom the Dem's chances this November.
Yes, the fact that people are upset about the use of "lynching party", and the images that carries with it, that will be the downfall of the party.
Sure.
Who is suggesting that he literally wants to lynch her under any circumstances? It's wildly inappropriate, even as a figurative term.
It would seem you are forwarding a strawman argument.
This is typical of Obama supporters-- their self-righteousness and arrogance is going to doom the Dem's chances this November.
Boy that sounds familiar
The resentful backlash it will engender will set the dems back 30 years if Obama is the nominee.
- carlileb5935 / Sunday January 27, 2008 9:55:31 PM EST
Find a bed and crawl under it. For months you've been whining the same tune and it's OLD!
"J, it was the wrong choice of words, but worse than what Imus said? Puhlease."
- SueEld
Nice to know that your racist white supremacist mentality means that you see African-Americans as third-class citizens who have no rights and no decency, which is the basis of why you are defending O'Lielly.
Now, if a black talk radio host, like "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison of XM 169/THE POWER had said that he wanted to wait before having Cindy McCain killed in a drive-by shooting, you and the other conservatives would want Madison to be fired, AND you'd want Madison's black talk radio station, Radio One, to be taken off the air forever!
Zzzzzzzzzzzz...Sueld whines about Olby yet again
As predicable as the tides.....
If you think this will turn into that Imus scandal; you're wrong. But I'm sure MMFA and Olbermann and the usual crew will milk it for all it's worth for the rest of the week before inevitably giving up in frustration (something they know plenty about.)
How many times has Media Matters posted something like this about O'Reilly or Rush or Hannity and how many times have people like you raced in with your phony politically motivated indignation to denounce it and call for someone's head.
O'Reilly will not be fired over this....this (like all previous MMFA attempts to end his career) will die on the vine.
Enjoy your soapbox grandstanding until then.
.
JL,
I don't think MMFA wants to end anyone's career. I think its great that we know what the followers of these guys (Hannity, etc) get to hear without hearing them. The lies, racial speech and opinions provide me with the background to talk with people who think these guys speak the truth.
I also think its great to see if advertisers truly support this type of rhetoric. If they do, they lose my business.
Snoopy,
I'm sure you are making a big difference. Media Matters started several years ago when Fox News once dominated the cable news rating. And now here we are years later and after all of the hard work from the Media Matters team, Fox News.....STILL dominates the cable news ratings and Air America has gone bankrupt.
Clearly the Media Matters strategy is working. ;)
.
Yeah, that domination thing. Oh, snap! Didn't we just see another report on Fox news total viewership declining?
And yet air america is still on the air. Yup, that bankruptcy thing just knocked them down for the count.
You really are fun to play with. I feel like a cat dickin' around with a mouse before I finally decide to kill it!
Did you miss Media Matter's blacklist of conservative hosts who they want to get the same treatment that Imus did?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010
Not one poster here has suggested this idiot be fired.
Actually, I did.
It goes beyond the FCC. These people are employees, so they don't have carte blanc to say whatever they want. That's why pointing out the ridiculous behavior to uphold a behavioral standard is not "limiting free speech". If you made it illegal for someone to say what they want in a private setting, that would be limiting, because that's where free speech applies.
Broadcasters have the right to say anything over the airwaves unless they utter an obscenity. That's the only thing that the FCC regulates. They don't regulate the content of political speech. That's protected by the 1st amendment.
Suggesting that a black woman should be lynched hardly can be considered political speech, Rink Hunter. It's hate speech, and should be condemned as such.
Broadcasters are supposed to broadcast in the public interest. Hate speech does not constitute broadcasting in the public interest, IMHO.
And, as a consumer, RH, I will boycott anyone who supports this level of hate. Anyone who puts their product alongside Bill O'Reilly will never see a dime of business from me.
Broadcasters have the right to say anything over the airwaves unless they utter an obscenity. That's the only thing that the FCC regulates. They don't regulate the content of political speech. That's protected by the 1st amendment.
Rino, if a black talk radio host, say "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison or Warren Ballantine of the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER had said that they wanted to invite Cindy McCain to a drive-by shooting in Harlem, you and the other conservatives would not only demand that both of these black talk radio hosts be fired, you'd demand that THE POWER be taken off the air.
Would you and the other conservatives excuse and dismiss a black talk radio host calling for Cindy McCain to be killed in a drive-by shooting?
RH,
Why did you not support my protest when the government arrested those people for their anti-Bush t-shirts? Why did you not write to the government and complain? You come here EVERY time you think someone is being censored, but when the government actually takes free speech away, you do nothing. Why?
We don't?
That's right Bill O'Reilly judge, jury and executioner.
And remember, he's relying on the crack staff who couldn't even correctly identify the city the vets that John Edwards referred to are in.
updated 4:34 p.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 12, 2008
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday that recent displays of nooses are disturbing and indicate that some Americans may be losing sight of the suffering that blacks have endured across the nation.
"The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history," Bush said in an event marking African-American history month at the White house.
"The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice," the president said. "Displaying one is not a harmless prank, and lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest."
It was years ago
Keith didn't want to dance
Get over it already
"Alot of people give a crap, the only ones who do not are O'Lielly apologists. His racist remark is over the top on this one."
I'm hardly an O'Reilly apologist, but this is a phony issue.
It's also a distraction, too, because the real problem here is that Michele Obama is a demonstrated loose cannon who will cause many problems over the next few months. She shoots her mouth off and says stupid things-- and many of you guys make excuses for her!
I'm hardly an O'Reilly apologist, but this is a phony issue.
No, what you are is a rabid Hillary supporter who is so disappointed, frustrated and angry about Hillary current position you can't make a rational statement. Get a grip, OK.
"I'm hardly an O'Reilly apologist, but this is a phony issue.
It's also a distraction, too, because the real problem here is that Michele Obama is a demonstrated loose cannon who will cause many problems over the next few months. She shoots her mouth off and says stupid things-- and many of you guys make excuses for her!"
Yes, you are an O'Reilly/O'Lielly apologist. Also, O'Lielly chose to say this himself, neither Mr. or Mrs. Obama made him say this comment. So if any distraction was created, O'REILLY is the one who created it, not us.
Also, if "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison http://www.joemadison.com, black talk radio host extraordinaire on the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER had said that we should invite Cindy McCain to Harlem to be killed in a drive-by shooting, would you call that a phony issue, or would you and the other conservatives call for Madison's ouster and/or call for black talk radio to be taken off the air? I know that you and ther other conservatives would demand that Joe Madison be taken off the air immediately. Let's hear your answer.
Oh, just a buzzword to make you more comfortable with your fears? Thanks.
Another "Obama Supporter" (wink wink).
I see.
So, if BillO finds out that Michelle Obama is NOT jingoistic and a radical nationalist like BillO fancies himself ... if she expresses concern or even (gasp!) SHAME at some of America's policies ... THEN it's OK to "lynch" her.
That was pretty much the KKK's standing policy. Find an uppity so-and-so that didn't know his or her PLACE ... then get a ROPE.
Way to go, BillO ... show a little restraint until you know FOR SURE that she doesn't share your phony flag-waving views, your faux-patriotic jibber-jabber about "loving your country, no matter WHAT". We all know that BLIND FEALTY is what real patriotism is all about ... RIGHT?
"He's not fooling anyone, O'Reilly would love to go on a lynching party."
True...but he would do it in a fair and balanced way. ;>)
True...but he would do it in a fair and balanced way. ;>)
With his sheet neatly pressed and his torch held high....
It's unusual but not cruel, so it's constitutional.
You're on a roll, King, another great catch! It is worded "cruel and unusual", not "Cruel and/or unusual punishment", right?
To far too many poeple on the right, the Bill of Rights only applies to conservatives, and the Constitution itself is only valid when interpreted to fit their narrow-minded agenda.
Yup, they narrowly define everything except the right to bear arms. That's wide open.
But look at the bright side. Now you can own a "hello kitty" gun too! Aww, isn't it cute?
Here he is in the seventies though.
Looks like one of those "peace creeps" to me.
http://www.carlabraham.com/bill%20oreilly%20wnep.jpg
Irony,
I don't know of anyone who thinks America is perfect. The point is pride in one's country in spite of its imperfections.
The point, Tommy, is that one is not permitted to express doubts about whether our country lives up to its own alleged values without being branded as unpatriotic by right wingers. USA, USA, USA...!
He implied that if Mrs. Obama said that this is a "flawed" nation, then the caller's criticism was justified.
Worrierking, I didn't really catch that, but you're absolutely right. BilldO has condoned the lynching of an American who doesn't agree with him that the state is infallible.
I'd have to put Michelle Obama in the Patriot column, and BilldO in the bedwetting, fairy-tale, blind fascist useful idiot pinhead box.
Good pickup, Colonel... Bill's actual words are:
"And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels."
In other words, if the evidence shows that Michelle Obama believes that America is flawed then a lynching party would, in Bill's words, be appropriate.
Indeed:
"I [] want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama [if] there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels"
The guy is one sick puppy.
Tommy -
If you bothered READING what michelle Obama said (instead of listening to what the right-wing wackos tell you to think), you would learn that she said that for the first time she was "really proud" to be an American. That does not mean that she never felt any pride before - just that her level of pride is now higher than it ever was before.
The right is making a mountain out of a molehill. As usual...
I just read BillO's talking points where he's talking about this, and in his Pinheads and Patriots segment, he has the gall to correct Jay Leno for saying "Pinheads or Patriots." What's funny to me is, every day in the video section of the Fox News website, it will say "(insert name here): Pinhead or Patriot?"
I know its a stupid little point, but it's those that get me through the day.
The term "lynch" is not an acceptable term. Kelly Tighlman of TGC was recently suspended for using that term in reference to Tiger Woods. That was a pretty big story, O Reilly should have known better.
Sorry all, but I couldn't hold this one in anymore. It's totally off topic, but man! Talk about making a case for not being in Iraq!
I bet he didn't even get it when he said it.
This is just a glimpse of the crap that is coming our way. I hope the Democrats have learned something from 2000 and 2004... otherwise it'll be Grampa McCain taking the oath in 2009.
Boy, just when you think they can't sink any lower, you find another leak...
Next thing you know, they'll be channelling the spirit of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.....
Nerzog, I just heard that clip when I went to lunch. I didn't catch the name of the site that Hartman got it from, he mentioned that Drudge linked to it, and that it's a site that many of the righty talkers use as a source/link.
They're getting sloppy.Editing out one word is hard to explain as in the interest of brevity, so this is pretty much an admission that the puppeteers completely understand thmeaning of M.Obama'a statement with the word "really" included.
And, in case anybody thinks this appeal to unthinkinking "patriotism" doesn't matter to anybody, immediately after hearing the doctored clip, I turned to Sean Hannity, who was slobbering that he had gotten the most enthusiastic response from his audience that he had ever received towards a political figure - for this Michelle Obama quote.
I love the smell of desperation in an election year! hee hee!
"unthinkinking"
I make no apologies!
Remember admitting to a mistake is a sign of weakness. No matter what the cost to others, we can't appear to be weak.
"What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."
So this is what it takes to be the guest of honor at Bill O's lynching party???
You can bet ann coulter will pay top dollar to be in the front row too.
Oops, I forgot! She can't pay top dollar, her credit card was denied! tee hee!
From Page Six of the New York Post:
February 20, 2008 -- ANN Coulter suffered a serious embarrassment over the weekend when her credit card was declined in Palm Beach. According to our spy, the nutty arch-conservative was caught at 9:45 p.m. Saturday night in the 10 Items or Less line at the local Publix when her card was rejected. "She was embarrassed but didn't make a scene," our witness said. "She just paid with cash and ran out of there. But at least she's eating."
:-)
Governor, I'm glad you posted Michelle Obama's statement to show what she really said. Another thought occurred to me...
Michelle Obama is obviously, and clearly, stating why she is presently really proud of her country, which is admirable. Even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that Michelle Obama was not previously as proud of her country as she is today then what's the beef if she is presently stating how proud of her country she is today. What's the cause for a lynching party against a woman even if there is evidence that she was not always as proud of her country as she is today? What about redemption...? Or do we send out lynching parties against people whose pride in their country has increased...someone who has publicly declared that she is really proud of her country? When did we appoint patriotism police? This is sick...
I would like to take a moment here to thank the folks at MMFA for deleting a series of particularly nasty comments in this thread. Good work!!!
Wzwriter
There...I've made my little statement.
Like most MMFA posters I too am drowning in a sea of white guilt and now I feel really, really swell for having posted this.
Enjoy milking this and pretending that something is actually going to come of it.
.
I know what you mean. I mean, afterall, the right wing talking heads are just as powerful as ever. They are really influencing this election too. They got their candidate of choice to run for the republicans... oh wait, that didn't happen at all, did it?
bwaaaahahahahaahahaaaaaa!
Rightwing radio has NEVER had the ability to dictate the outcome of an election if that were the case we wouldn't have a democratically controlled congress right now.
Rightwing radio isn't that powerful and never will be, though they still more influential than that other network that went bankrupt.....what was the name of that again? It was a liberal network I believe.
.
sure they were, but not this time around. But if I'm not mistaken air america is still on in spite of the rights attempts to buy up every station so they can take them off the air.
But you know the great part about being a dittohead? You don't have to personally suffer withdrawl symptoms at the loss of power, Rush will do it for you! And then he'll tell you what to say! Man, what a relief to get that burden off of your shoulders!
Jimlehrer, where did all of you right wingers get the idea that the sole mission of MMFA and other watchdog groups is to get people fired? At the same time you cry "censorship" where there is no attempt at it, you discount anything that doesn't succeed at censorship.
You don't care about the state of our media. Fine. Speak for yourself, you're happy with mediocrity or less.Those of us who care about our country will pay attention, and point this stuff out. It may be a little more work than saying " I'm really,really.really,really proud of my country", and it probably won't result in enough suckers to catch on right away that O'Reilly and his kind are out of business, but a large portion of your fellow Americans isn't buying the quitter mentality you find so comfortable.
We'll drag your lazy arse along with us as we try to make America a place to be proud of again, but don't complain that we're not dragging fast enough.
Col Sanders,
Jimlehrer, where did all of you right wingers get the idea that the sole mission of MMFA and other watchdog groups is to get people fired? I don't believe that. I believe they're intentionally taking harmless remarks out of context and spewing them all over the internet for purely innocent non-ideological motives. They simply want to educate the media audience and it has nothing to do with politics...yeah..that's it. And we can conveniently forget how often posters on this board call for firings in their sincere indignation as well.
At the same time you cry "censorship" where there is no attempt at it, you discount anything that doesn't succeed at censorship. Strange, I don't recall crying "censorship." Let's wait for the Dems to try and get the fairness doctrine passed again. If it fails we'll then try outright censorship.
You don't care about the state of our media. Fine. Speak for yourself, you're happy with mediocrity or less. I wish I could aspire to the same level of fairminded quality as yourself and the people who run this site. Then I would ONLY call out media errors when they reflected poorly on Democrats while completely ignoring media errors that were unfair to Republicans. Remember this site is about improving the media...NOT about pushing a political agenda.
Those of us who care about our country will pay attention, and point this stuff out. It may be a little more work than saying " I'm really,really.really,really proud of my country", Colonel, I have no doubt that excercising selective phony indignation for partisan political reasons is a very tough job. It is to your credit that you engage in this.
We'll drag your lazy arse along with us as we try to make America a place to be proud of again, but don't complain that we're not dragging fast enough. I commend you for your partisan tactics...sorry, I mean for your sincere quest to police the media (when it's unfair to your side of the political aisle.)
For the record, I actually believe Michelle Obama was taken out of context when she made her recent "controversial" statement just like I believe O'Reilly is being taken out of context here and unfairly being branded as a racist. You see, I don't excercise selective moral outrage and analytical hypocrisy in order to suit my political preferences.
I doubt Barack and Michelle Obama will even care about this "lynching" statement. One of the reasons they have been so successful in the primaries is because they DON'T play the race card ad nauseam like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
.
BUNK. MMFA always provides context. Very true, we all know that MMFA doesn't simply take words at face value and ignore context when it suits them to do so. Bill O'Reilly obviously was making a racist statement here.
You can believe anything you WANT including that fairies will paint your house while you sleep, I would appreciate you leaving my fairy and/or elf house painting fantasies out of this discussion for that is something I truly cherish.
unless you can SHOW they are trying to get people fired you only BELIEVE it because you want to. Right, by spewing statements all over the internet and feeding them to Keith Olbermann in order to get as much media attention as possible they're not trying to hurt anyone's careers or get anyone fired for political gain. It's simply meant as nonpolitical and benign media policing.
Yes MMFA ONLY covers conservative media, But how can that be, the colonel just told me that this site was about improving the media. Now you're telling me it's ideological driven; say it aint so solon. :(
.
Yes MMFA ONLY covers conservative media, But how can that be, the colonel just told me that this site was about improving the media. Now you're telling me it's ideological driven; say it aint so solon. :( - JimLehrer
1. Please copy & paste the quote where I said that this site is about improving the media.
Just to give you a handicap, let's pretend I did say that;
2. Explain how you came to the conclusion that covering conservative media and improving the media in general are mutually exclusive.
3. Explain how being ideologically driven is at odds with improving the media.
You obviously enjoy typing, let's see if you can throw in a little thinking with it this time.
.
Col. Harlan Sanders.
1. Please copy & paste the quote where I said that this site is about improving the media. Sure, here it is (though I'm sure I took you out of context)...You don't care about the state of our media. Fine. Speak for yourself, you're happy with mediocrity or less.
2. Explain how you came to the conclusion that covering conservative media and improving the media in general are mutually exclusive. I thought you never said anything about improving the media? And I don't believe they mutually exclusive. I just thank God that someone is finally being a watch dog of the media....the side of the media that they don't like....for purely political motives.
3. Explain how being ideologically driven is at odds with improving the media. Again....I thought you never claimed this site was about improving the media??? And it's not at odds, by harping on the alleged disinformation and racism of one side and leaving the other side completely untouched (and even promoting the other side) the media will inevitably improve and become much more ideologically "balanced."
You obviously enjoy typing, let's see if you can throw in a little thinking with it this time. Unlike some people I don't find typing and thinking mutually exclusive either.
.
Gee I sincerely hope you didnt think that weak post was clever
1 Show the context that was missing or give up the charade. Billy O was OBVIOUSLY making a racially insensative remark. I dont see any reasonable argument that can be made he didnt.
2 nice dodge
3 So then you CANT show it and are making the argument that by using their own words to show how churlish they are the intent is something they have never stated. You guys dont have amazing mind reading powers no matter how often you try to convince us you do. They are exposing to a wider audience how churlish and often racist and dishonest some rightwing pundits are.
4 Did you really think that silly comment has a point? They say in their mission statement they cover only conservative miedia just like MRC and AIM cover only liberal media. So back to the point when are you going to complain to THOSE groups they arent meeting your standards?
Jim, if a black talk radio host like "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison of XM 169/THE POWER or Clifford Kelley of WVON-AM 1690 had said on their black talk radio shows that Cindy McCain should be invited to the South Side of Chicago to be killed in a drive-by shooting, you and the other cons would demand that Madison and Kelley be fired and/or that black talk radio be taken off the air forever. I challenge you to tell me that would not be the case.
Also, Jim, since you think that O'Reilly's lynching comments weren't racist, I also challenge both you and O'Reilly to, in your case, call in to a black talk radio station, and in O'Reilly's case, to appear on any black talk radio station, and repeat the comments racist word for racist word, and then prepare to have the black talk radio host AND the black listeners blast you big time! What do you say about that?
What a blanket statement. They often urge action when the bloviating, lying smear merchant right wing talkers say something outrageous. They ask readers to complain. That is what "free speech" is about. The broadcasters have the privilege of a microphone; and they should hear from the public when they misuse it.
If you feel that someone is misusing our airwaves, you have the right to complain too.
If I disagree with something that somebody is saying I change the station. You should do the same. It's called freedom of choice.
What we really need around here is Freedom From RinoHunter....
Also, I like Solon's suggestion of putting up a billboard on rhino's yard. He can ignore it after all. But he does have property rights. Let's put it up on his neighbor's lawn.
RINO, you're really losing it lately aren't you?
You can't lose what you never had.....
JIMLEHRER: What cave did you just crawl out of? More results have “come out of” the work of this website than most any grassroots web-based organization. Every one of your heroes is now looking over their shoulder thanks to “us”. They wouldn’t be trashing this website on a near daily basis if they weren’t scared s#itless of the power we have in exposing the truth behind their spins and lies. We represent their biggest nightmare - and are proud of it!
JIMLEHRER: What cave did you just crawl out of? A very damp secluded cave in Pakistan. I've been hiding out with Bin Laden.
More results have “come out of” the work of this website than most any grassroots web-based organization. True, since this site started Air America has gone bankrupt, conservative talk radio still rules the airwaves and Fox News is still not only the top cable news network but one of the top cable networks period. Your work has paid off.
Every one of your heroes is now looking over their shoulder thanks to “us”. They wouldn’t be trashing this website on a near daily basis if they weren’t scared s#itless Or maybe they're just trashing it because it because it deserves to be trashed; either/or. If you want to believe that you're making an impact then enjoy. The 9/11 CTs believe they're making great strides as well.
We represent their biggest nightmare - and are proud of it! Yes, just like Michael Moore was supposedly going to be CNN's biggest nightmare.
Keep policing the media and making conservative radio commentators tremble with apprehension from your impending deeds.
.
Go on kidding yourself about the power you equate to viewership, listenership, or ratings – or the reason for success of right-wing shows over those geared to progressive audiences. It means nothing – other than proving that you wingnuts NEED someone telling you what to do and how to think.
Your peeps who tune in daily to these right-wing radio shows are the same people that made WWE Smackdown!, WWE Raw, and NASCAR within the top 10 rated shows on TV and while your parents are watching Faux News before turning to reruns of Little House on the Prairie, Touched By Angel, or 7th Heaven, or other such “top rated” TV shows. You guys just love to feed your fantasy.
I could care less how many people follow these right-wing loonies – I do care when they spout lies and misinformation – hence my dedication to the mission of this website. I suppose I’m grateful that you people are incapable of thinking for yourselves – you’re dangerous enough as sheep.
Go on kidding yourself about the power you equate to viewership, listenership, or ratings Yes, viewership, listernership and ratings are meaningless when talking about the popularity of a radio or TV show.
It means nothing – other than proving that you wingnuts NEED someone telling you what to do and how to think. That's a good tactic; liberal radio didn't fail because your message didn't resonate, it only failed because liberals are far too highbrow and free thinking to listen to the radio. You see, when you lose in a competition the best tactic is to simply pretend to be superior to the overall game.
I could care less how many people follow these right-wing loonies That I believe, to acknowledge that would ruin your little claim of how this site is making such a major difference.
I do care when they spout lies and misinformation – hence my dedication to the mission of this website. Right, you selectively care about lies from one side of the political aisle. A noble dedication indeed.
I suppose I’m grateful that you people are incapable of thinking for yourselves – you’re dangerous enough as sheep. Please don't give up on me. I want to be just like you where I pretend to hover over the brainwashed masses. Like you I want to con myself into believing that I'm a genius in my own mind and that my political beliefs are just too deep for most to comprehend.
.
"Oh you hypocrite! First remove the plank from your eye so you can better see to remove the speck from your brother's eye." -- Some Guy a long time ago
Look "Jim-Liarer" no one is demanding you agree with anything! But to accuse those who would find this statement offensive "hypocrites" and suggest we are the race-baiters results in fire being returned.
"Oh you hypocrite! First remove the plank from your eye so you can better see to remove the speck from your brother's eye." -- Some Guy a long time ago
Look "Jim-Liarer" no one is demanding you agree with anything! But to accuse those who would find this statement offensive "hypocrites" and suggest we are the race-baiters results in fire being returned.
Umm... Maybe I've got to cut back on the glue, but... Did he just (basically) say "I don't want to [lynch] ... Michelle Obama, but [if she really feels this way] ... then it's legit?"
Yes, I know I'm cropping the quote, but that's basically what he said right? And he can't really said "just kidding" or anything, right? He was serious, right? Because... I don't know... to me this is, like, 100x worse than anything Don Imus, or just about anyone else (Limbaugh, Savage) has EVER said. Basically: "We can have a lynching party because she doesn't love america they way we do."
Do you think he would say "lynching party" if he was talking about Hillary?
This should get him thrown off the air. Period.
MICHELLE, MICHELLE GIRL YOU JUST MADE A BIG, BIG MISTAKE!!! THEY CAN'T GET YOUR MAN ON DIRT BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE RNC , THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA AT MSNBC, NBC, CBS, CNN FOX AND NEWSPAPERS ARE LOOINGK AND YOU JUST GAVE THEM SOMETHING. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THERE FACES LAST NIGHT THEY ARE OUT FOR BLOOD. JUST LOOK A CHRIS LAST NIGHT HE LOOKED LIKE HE COULD KILLED SOMEONE. LOOK AT MSNBC, CNN, FOXNEWS PLAYING THAT STATEMENT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THEY WILL DO ANYTHING TO MAKE SURE MCCAIN WILL WIN. LORD HELP YOU AND YOUR FAMILY BECAUSE THEY A SO SO SCARED RIGHT NOW.
Yesterday Sheer Insanity was going off on Mrs. Obama about this comment - guess he got his copy of the RNC Talking Points...As he was in the middle of his Rev. Gene Scott impersonation (I've noticed he's ranting more and more and taking fewer and fewer fawning calls) he started lecturing about the American Civil War. At one point he stated that 600,000 Americans died to free the slaves - isn't she proud of that?
Leaving aside for a moment if the Civil War was really about freeing the slaves (at least at the start of it), of the roughly 620,000 Civil War dead some 260,000 were fighting for the South...
The bottom line is that the black and white thinkers who comprise the GOP base can't grasp the concept that you can love your country, and still be disappointed in parts of its history. Much as you can love your child and still not condone everything she/he does. In their feeble minds, if you dare to point out something that our country has done wrong, you're a COMMIE PINKO TRAITOR.
If saying that the "lynching" of the potential (and likely) future first lady is "legit" doesn't do it, then nothing will. Not to do a "lynching" myself, but I'm warming up the popcorn in anticipation of what will happen to this baffoon. I can't wait to see the MSM response, assuming there even is one.
I don't think O'reilly intended anything racist with his remarks. He would have used the term "lynching" with any other person.
That being said, BillO could use some sensitivity training.
I find it amazing that people can defend and even agree with this idiot. He's either a racist or a moron. Or a racist moron. Im thinking the latter.
Good for O'Reilly. His statement was completely anti-racist ...
And as usual, Rino hunter's post was completely anti-intelligence.
RH,
You are absolutely nuts on this one. He said he "didn't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts that say this is how the woman feels." Ergo, if he feels there is "evidence, hard facts" that she feels this way, he will "go on a lynching party."
How can this be thought of as supporting Mrs. Obama?!?!
How is talking about lynching an African American woman "anti-racist" I guess I was sick the day in american history class when they covered the racial togetherness lynching parties.
Actually, Rino, Bill O'Reilly said:
"And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels."
How the woman (Michelle Obama) really feels about what? That she thinks America is flawed, as Bill suggested could be the case, or that she is an angry militant woman, as the caller suggested? In other words, if in O'Reilly's judgment the evidence supports any of those notions then a lynching party would be appropriate. Hell, O'reilly even asks the caller to stay on the line so he can try to dig up the alleged dirt on Michelle Obama. Read O'Reilly's remarks again in full.
No... I'm sure O'Reilly meant it figuratively. It's still demeaning.
But now you bring up anti-American. There is nothing to suggest that Michelle Obama is, or has been anti-American...except perhaps in the minds of O'Reilly and his listeners. This whole episode is slimey, Tommy. It's designed to unfairly plant seeds of doubt about Barack Obama.
He's saying that he doesn't want to criticize Obama without evidence.
Rino, if that is what Bill really meant WHY DIDN'T HE JUST SAY THAT? WHY the word "lynch"? Stop acting dumb.
Rino, if that is what Bill really meant WHY DIDN'T HE JUST SAY THAT? WHY the word "lynch"? Stop acting dumb.
It's no act. He really is dumb.... :-)
If O'Reilly didn't WANT to attack Michelle Obama then why exactly did he begin and end his TV show with coverage of this and then continue to dwell on it throughout his radio show?
Did he think that nobody else was going to talk about it and it was his duty to make sure all of us little people were informed?
He undoubtedly wants to attack her and took up this phony "we have to be fair" routine to try and disguise his intent. Kind of like holding a press conference to screen the attack ad you aren't going to use or preceding the most offensive thing you can think to say with the phrase "with all due respect."
If he wanted to wait until all the evidence was in he could have just shut up about this issue and covered something else. I heard there were some primaries in this country and that the leader of another country somewhere stepped down. Maybe those would be stories.
I just noticed this part.
"What I want you to do then, Maryanne ... I want you to stay on the line. ... because we don't know who you are, and we don't know who your friend is, but we want to know."
Why? Because the caller says she has second information that...
"This is a very angry,' her word was 'militant woman.' "
...and Bill O'Reilly wants information about Michelle Obama being, in the opinion of an unknown person, and angry militant woman.
Hey, Bill, why don't you just start a hot line where nut jobs can call in with tips on which candidates' wives they don't like. Can you say slime, Bill?
no rino, he said he didn't want to go on a lynching party for michelle obama without evidence. Which means he would want to go if there was evidence. So I'll say it again, how is saying you want to go to the lynching party of an African American a "non-racist" statement?
When a black person got lynched in the 1800's it usually meant that they were killed with no evidence justifying their death. O'Reilly is simply saying that he doesn't wanted to criticize Obama without evidence, which seems pretty fair and balanced to me and not at all partisan. So, your line of thinking is that O'Reilly wants to literally lynch Obama? Do you realize what you're saying?
If he didn't mean it literally then it's no issue. His comment simply meant that Obama's wife shouldn't be criticized unless there is actually evidence that comes out. Again it's simply fair and balanced and he was figuratively speaking. Rino
As a civil society, Americans should agree that noose displays and lynching jokes are "deeply offensive," Bush said. "They are wrong. And they have no place in America today."
RH,
When has he used the word lynching when discussing white people? He could have said that he didn't want to disparage her or drag her reputation through the mud, why "lynch?"
"When a black person got lynched in the 1800's it usually meant that they were killed with no evidence justifying their death."
Wino, you're being willfully ignorant aren't you? Lynchings happened WELL into the 20th century and as I said in a previous post many people that had loved ones, contemporaries and even the people that participated in these incidents are alive today. This isn't ancient history -- or black hisotry -- it's modern American history. Are you also a Holocaust denier?
While painful you might want to check out this link just as a bit of primer http://www.liu.edu/cwis/CWP/library/african/2000/lynching.htm
Lynching was rampant in the Old West and was its own form of frontier justice for cattle rustling, murder, robbery and basically anything the proverbial "angry mob" or Lynch Mob wanted to use it for as an excuse for revenge or elimination of undesireables in their communities. Hanging is what a judge sentenced you to and lynching was illegal mob behavior.
This had nothing to do with rascism. It had to do with mob mentality and lawlessness. Or, taking the law into their own hands.
It was part of Western American culture.
It would seem that many shrill voices on the PC side of things have hijacked the word to mean that only white rascists intending harm or attempting to inflict the memory of harm to black people use it or flaunt it in contemporary times.
I don't doubt that O'Really watned to injuect a little ugliness for the sake of ratings and used it knowing it would kick up some dust.
But, really, black people don't own the rights to the word "lynching."
And I'll be damned if I'm going to be forced to differentiate between Western/Cowboy lynching and African-American lynching if I use the word in a sentence that had nothing to do with black people.
It's ridiculous!
Billy:
Lynching in the United States refers, primarily, to the practice in the 19th and 20th centuries of the humiliation and killing of people by mobs acting outside the law. These murders, most of them unpunished, often took the form of hanging and burning. To demonstrate a ritual of power, mobs sometimes tortured the victim.
Lynching became highly associated with Southern efforts to retain and enforce white supremacy after their initial defeat in the American Civil War. In their defeat, Southern whites resisted allowing full legal and civil rights to African Americans. The aftermath of war increased social and economic volatility. The formal end of the war meant that groups shifted to other means to try to resist Federal occupation and changes to the law.
The civil rights aspects of the short Reconstruction that immediately followed the Civil War, and then again later in the mid-20th century aroused anxieties among white citizens about African American political power. African American citizens and white allies were lynched during both these periods. Lynchings during the 1960s in Mississippi galvanized public support for the Civil Rights Movement and legislation.
Although African Americans were sometimes able to defend their communities, white militias were more heavily armed and had more military experience.
What is ridiculous is your post. Lynching took on a racist meaning in the civil rights era when it was primarily used against blacks. Feel free to pretend history has no meaning. No one is going to buy it that isnt desperate to have an excuse to act like a racist.
I'm not the one pretending that history has no meaning. Perhaps you should take an American History class and pay attention this time when the discussion turns to the Old West.
It had nothing to do with black people. It was illegal frontier justice. And they lynched white people and American Indians by the hundreds. Indians suffered much higher rates of murder than white criminals, naturally, because they were viewed as vermin.
I'm fully aware of the role lynching played in repressing black people in this country and I'm as digusted by it as anyone.
My point is that it may be a racially charged term in the black community, but it didn't live just there.
And if I'm speaking to a Jewsish friend of mine and he asks me which aisle the microwaves are located at Home Depot, I'm going to say,"On Aisle 3, next to the ovens."
And if he has a problem with the common word "ovens," I'm not going to beat myself up over my alleged insensitivity to the history of his people.
And if I'm speaking to a Jewsish friend of mine and he asks me which aisle the microwaves are located at Home Depot, I'm going to say,"On Aisle 3, next to the ovens."And if he has a problem with the common word "ovens," I'm not going to beat myself up over my alleged insensitivity to the history of his people.
As a civil society, Americans should agree that noose displays and lynching jokes are "deeply offensive," Bush said.
If you are too dumb or insensitive to understand there is a BIG difference between the everyday word "oven" and "lynched" I feel sorry for you.
I'm not going to have a discussion with anyone who quotes George Bush as a source of credible information or opinion.
As far as feeling sorry for me, Pearlene, re-read the first paragraph.
Lynching is a racially charged word wether some people want to admit it or not. More recently than the old west, you know in the 20th century. Lynching was almost exclusive to black people in the south. Now in the right context a lynching party might not be seen in a racial light. But this isn't one of those cases, not with a repeatedly offensive tool like O'Reilly.
Several of them seem to be having a really tough time telling the difference between MMFA items and the comments following those items.
They have an equally hard time distinguishing the difference between their a$$es and a hole in the ground.... :-)
HOTWINGS: The double standard here at Media Matters is amazing. According to Media Matters, Michelle Obama's comments were just taken out of context and she in no way was being unpatriotic. But Media Matters is 100% positive that Bill O'Reilly's comments were racist.
Perhaps the management here at Media Matters should post a disclaimer after every story that reads something like, “The comments posted below are from our readers and we are in no way responsible for their content.” In other words, for your objections to make sense, you should preface all your claims that contain the words “Media Matters” to read “the posters here at Media Matters”.
None of us work for or are paid by Media Matters, so you can’t blame Media Matters for your perceptions. The writers of these stories do a damn good job in taking extreme care to write “just the facts” and leave it up to us – YOU, me, and anyone who wants to participate in the discussion – to decide and argue what is racist, unpatriotic, etc.
I, for one, never said Michelle Obama’s comments did not sound unpatriotic. I will however argue the relevance of one’s perceived patriotism over someone’s blatant racism. Michelle’s comments hurt no one while O’Lielly’s racist remarks border on inciting violence toward Mrs. Obama. BIG DIFFERENCE – or don’t you see that?
Another ironic tidbit pointed out on Countdown on MSNBC this evening is the fact that O’Reilly’s fearless leader just gave a speech a week ago speaking against the use of the word “lynching”. DOES BILL O’REILLY DISRESPECT HIS PRESIDENT? HE MUST HATE HIS COUNTRY TO DELIBERATELY USE THIS WORD, DESPITE PRES. BUSH’S SPEECH!
View Video : GW Bush’s Feb. 12th speech condemning the use of the word “lynching”.
No Clinton Help Please
I want to take the time to say a few words about the Bill Clinton comments he made. It was mighty nice of Bill O'Rielly to come to the defense of Clinton or was it? I know the Republicans have been associating the Clintons with their Party for not so obvious reasons. There is still this campaign to make it seem like Hillary Clinton is just like a Republican.
The night before the Wisconsin primary, CNN’s Larry King had his best in the business group of political analyst on his show talking about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. First off, the ratio was 4/1 in favor of Obama. Actually, one could argue the whole panel was against Clinton because the one Clinton supporter, David Frum, was a Bush supporter. The significance of this is the ongoing claim Clinton is too much like conservatives is supported twice over.
I am really having issues with the MSM and this years Democratic primaries. The Republican attack angle is well hidden so the average voter cannot see their objective. MSNBC and CNN tried too hard to make sure we choose Barack Obama. I will support Obama but I am not fooled one bit by the deception of the right-wing MSM. What they will find is they are responsible for Obama being twice as strong as Clinton. Now that is a backfire they did not calculate. When they do figure this out, they will be trying to reinsert Clinton back into the front runner spot.
Joseph
"But if you would give us your information, we would like to talk to your friend. And then whatever your friend tells us, we'll track it down. We'll do it in a fair and balanced and methodical way. That's how we're going to cover this campaign -- all of them, all of them. So stay on the line, give us your information."
Bill O'Reilly, the capo di tutti capi of the mafia wing of American far-right media calling FOX Security again. 20 bucks that he'll send his Soldato Jesse Watters to go after that person the caller was talking about.
"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence"
Exactly how much "evidence" does a Republican racist need to want to lynch a black person? I'm guessing not much more than the hearsay of a phone caller.
The Democrats should not tread lightly around the extreme racism of the GOP. Instead of worrying about being accused of "playing the race card", when an undeniably racist statement is made by one of the Republican Party's top spokespeople (and for those who don't think talk of lynching a black woman is racist, it's time to turn off FOX!), it should be brought up EVERY TIME their name is mentioned! Bill O'Reilly's name should never be mentioned without letting those unfamiliar with him know that he has a long track record of over-the-top racist statements like this - aside from his million dollar pay out after sexually harassing a fellow employee.
The rightwing are SCUM! The fact that they can continue to go on the air and spout their racist bile - whether it's O'Reilly or Limbaugh - is proof that America has drifted WAY too far to the right over the past 25 years and is in serious need of flushing this kind of sh** off it's airwaves!
It's pretty obvious that O'Lielly's comments were racist and white supremacist, as is he. Bill O's being verbally barbecued on black talk radio, starting with WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com. I challenge Bill to repeat his lynching comment on WVON or any other black talk radio station.
Not only is O'Lielly racist, he also threw in this lynching comment as part of his and/or GOP-Fox's effort to bait Obama into a race debate. I think Obama is letting black talk radio, with black radio hosts like Joe Madison and Warren Ballantine and Roland S. Martin barbecue O'Lielly.
Black talk radio, BOTH WVON-AM 1690 AND XM 169/THE POWER have PRAISED Mrs. Obama's comments, and black callers in to BOTH stations have DENOUNCED her critics for their racism and white supremacy. The lying fascist racist conservatives will call both of these black talk radio stations racist and unpatriotic, too, right?
Also, I challenge racist white supremacist O'Reilly to appear on black talk radio and repeat his comments, since he says they weren't racist.