O'Reilly called Gore an "evil enabler" for speaking at Netroots Nation, repeatedly compared event to Ku Klux Klan, Nazi Party, and David Duke
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly used both his radio and TV programs to attack former Vice President Al Gore for delivering a July 19 speech at the Netroots Nation conference, calling Gore an "evil enabler" and repeatedly comparing the event to gatherings by the Ku Klux Klan, Nazi Party, and David Duke. O'Reilly made his attacks on Gore and the Netroots conference after asserting that the blog Daily Kos posted "hateful e-mails" about Tony Snow. But while O'Reilly repeatedly linked Netroots Nation to Daily Kos, Daily Kos was not an official organizer or sponsor of the Netroots convention.
After asserting that the blog Daily Kos posted "hateful e-mails" about the late former White House press secretary and host of Fox News Sunday Tony Snow, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly called former Vice President Al Gore an "evil enabler" for delivering a July 19 speech at the Netroots Nation convention and repeatedly compared the event to gatherings by the Ku Klux Klan, Nazi Party, and David Duke. According to the group's website, Netroots Nation "amplifies progressive voices by providing an online and in-person campus for exchanging ideas and learning how to be more effective in using technology to influence the public debate. Within that campus, we strengthen community, inspire action and serve as an incubator for progressive ideas that challenge the status quo and ultimately affect change in the public sphere." O'Reilly did not explain why alleged comments by readers of Daily Kos -- a website that is not officially associated with the convention -- justified his attacks on the Netroots convention, or on Gore for addressing it.
Further, while Netroots Nation is the successor to the YearlyKos convention, named for original sponsor Daily Kos, Netroots Nation is operated by Bloggerpower.org and the Netroots Arts and Education Initiative, not Daily Kos. (Convention marketing director Mary Rickles wrote in a letter posted to the blog of Chicago Sun-Times Washington bureau chief Lynn Sweet: "The YearlyKos Convention is actually organized by a group of volunteers unaffiliated with Markos Moulitsas and Daily Kos. ... Kos Media LLC simply lent bloggerpower permission to use the Kos name in the title of the convention in its early years.") Further, though O'Reilly claimed that Netroots Nation is "sponsored by a website that displayed brutal attacks on Tony Snow" -- an apparent reference to Daily Kos -- neither Daily Kos nor Kos Media LLC is listed among the sponsors for Netroots Nation.
Moreover, O'Reilly did not mention during either his July 21 radio or television broadcasts -- during which he made his comments about Gore's appearance at the convention -- that Gore delivered a speech at Constitution Hall on July 17 -- just days before appearing at the Netroots Nation convention -- Gore said of Snow's passing:
One of my objectives in approaching this climate crisis is to try to lift this as much as possible out of the partisan framework that sometimes is a serious impediment to solving serious problems in our country. Incidentally, I did also want to make special mention of the fact that some of our mutual friends are in mourning today, and I want to extend my best wishes to the family of Tony Snow, whose memorial service just ended a short time ago. And we are keeping his family in our thoughts and prayers.
On the July 21 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, as noted by the blog Think Progress, O'Reilly said of Gore's appearance at the Netroots conference: "Now he shows up on Saturday at the most hateful -- there is not -- and I'm including the Nazis and the Klan in here -- there is not a more hateful group in the country than these Daily Kos people. Now, will they come to your house and hurt you? I don't know. Probably not. But do they wanna hurt you? Do they say terrible things about Tony Snow when he dies? All day long. Hateful, hateful, hateful. The rhetoric they use and the rhetoric that the Klan and the Nazis use are the same rhetoric. It's hate. Everyone knows that." He added, "Now, why would you go to a convention sponsored by these people when you know that currently on the Kos is stuff about Tony Snow, it's good that he's dead, he's in hell, all of that. But Gore did. Gore went there." Moments later, O'Reilly said, "Al Gore now is done. He's done. Okay? He's not a man of respect. He doesn't have any judgment. The fact that he went to this thing is the same as if he stepped into the Klan gathering. It's the same; there's no difference. None. He loses all credibility with me. All credibility."
Also on his radio show, while talking to Newsday columnist Ellis Henican, O'Reilly again cited Gore's appearance at the Netroots convention and Henican stated: "Well, listen, first of all, I'm way more interested in his message than his audience. OK?" Moments later, O'Reilly compared Gore's appearance at the Netroots conference to an appearance at a "David Duke rally" and asked Henican, "If Al Gore walked into a David Duke rally with his message of global warming, are you going to say the same thing that you just said about the Kos situation?" O'Reilly later asked, "What's the difference?" Henican responded, "Well, there's a major difference. First of all, this group, although there are some elements of it that you can find on somebody's chat room somewhere, some reprehensible thing. But there were, as I understand it, about 2,000 bloggers at this event. ... but they truly, they're a huge ring. Some of them are terrific. Some of them are really smart. Some of them are dopes. Like any group of 2,000 bloggers, right wing or left wing."
Later, while talking with a listener who had called into the show, O'Reilly asked: "If somebody went into a racist concern and gave a speech -- some public servant, somebody who held high office, you'd be the first one -- and rightly so -- to say what the hell is that guy doing at the Klan meeting or at the Duke convention or with the Nazi gathering, wouldn't you?" During a discussion with another another caller, O'Reilly asserted, "And look, the argument in his speech is because Al Gore shows up to the Nazis or to the Klan, he gets killed, all right? They murder him. And he'd never do it. But he shows up to the far-left haters and it's OK. It isn't OK."
That night, on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly devoted the "Unresolved Problem" segment of his show to "giving evil credibility" and after asserting that Daily Kos posted "hateful e-mails about Tony Snow," O'Reilly stated: "The Kos is an evil enterprise. There is no question about it. Guess who showed up at a convention for those haters. Hey, there, Al Gore."
O'Reilly later said: "I have lost respect for the former vice president, who lends his name to the haters." O'Reilly went on to assert: "Now, I don't know whether you saw the postings on the Kos about Tony. I'm not going to read them to the audience, but I will say that they were as hateful as any Nazi thing I've ever seen, any Klan thing I've ever seen. And to have Al Gore show up at their gathering and legitimize it made me sick to my stomach, and I have no respect, nor will I ever have for Al Gore." Continuing to discuss Gore's appearance at the convention, O'Reilly called Gore "an evil enabler" and later said: "These are haters, and Al Gore ought to be ashamed of himself."
As Media Matters for America has documented, O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked Daily Kos by comparing it to the Ku Klux Klan, Duke, and Nazis.
On July 23, after O'Reilly said "the fact that Al Gore showed up at a hate convention last weekend sponsored by a website that displayed brutal attacks on Tony Snow soon after he died brought disgrace to the former vice president," he further noted: "I will say the Gore people called us today and said that the former vice president was very concerned, didn't know about the attacks. And we take him at his word." O'Reilly did not, however, retract his comments or apologize for calling Gore an "evil enabler" for appearing at the Netroots convention.
From the July 21 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Now, I got his book, his movie, all of that. I looked at them. I -- but I never got emotionally involved with Al Gore. Number one, because he never gets into an interview situation where you can ask him any questions; he always goes to people who kiss his butt. And number two, ahhh, you know, he could be a phony. He could be a phony. And I'm not going to get involved with anybody with that potential because it's ridiculous for me to do so. However, I didn't hammer the man and I said that him bringing attention to a cleaner planet was a good thing. Everybody knows that. That's on the record.
OK. Now he shows up on Saturday at the most hateful -- there is not -- and I'm including the Nazis and the Klan in here -- there is not a more hateful group in the country than these Daily Kos people. Now, will they come to your house and hurt you? I don't know. Probably not. But do they wanna hurt you? Do they say terrible things about Tony Snow when he dies? All day long, OK? Hateful, hateful, hateful.
The rhetoric that they use and the rhetoric that the Klan and the Nazis use are the same rhetoric. It's hate. Everyone knows that. Now, why would you go to a convention sponsored by these people when you know that currently on the Kos is stuff about Tony Snow, it's good that he's dead, he's in hell, all of that. But Gore did. Gore went there. So did [Speaker of the House] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA]. That disqualifies Gore from any serious consideration by me in the future. Al Gore now is done. He's done. OK? He -- he's not a man of respect. He doesn't have any judgment. The fact that he went to this thing is the same as if he stepped into the Klan gathering. It's the same No difference. None. OK. He loses all credibility with me. All credibility.
[...]
O'REILLY: OK, we're talking about Al Gore, who's lost all credibility by showing up at this hate fest over the weekend. Let's bring in our pal. I was just going to say Al -- Ellis Henican -- I oughta call you Al.
HENICAN: You know --
O'REILLY: Al Ellis Henican.
HENICAN: I can do a lot of things. I can't be Al Gore.
O'REILLY: All right. You're lucky for it. Columnist for Newsday and Fox News analyst. Let's start at the beginning here. When you go -- and I'm sure you do this too because you're a professional, at least most of the time -- when you're invited to speak somewhere, you vet the venue, you have to go -- know who you're going to speak to.
HENICAN: Yeah.
O'REILLY: Every -- every professional does it because you can't get trapped into going into a place that has, you know, criminal ties or ties to groups that are, you know, unsavory. So you vet it. So then we have to assume that Gore knew exactly where he was going. Exactly. I mean -- you know -- exactly what these -- now, did he know how vile it is? Probably not, but that's no excuse. He's going into the most extreme elements -- most hateful elements of this country right now. And then he's spitting out this stupid stuff about, you know, selling oil to China and all this other stuff. So, I mean, you gonna defend this?
HENICAN: Well, listen, first of all, I'm way more interested in his message than his audience. OK?
O'REILLY: Really?
HENICAN: And I'm going -- I'm going to appeal to your better nature on this thing because you actually do have some history of being pretty good on environmental stuff, and I am frankly concerned listening to you for the past few minutes that you may be walking away from that, you may be --
O'REILLY: No, I'm not walking away from the cleaner planet thing. But you're from Louisiana.
HENICAN: You may be -- Good. I am. We have oil there too.
O'REILLY: And -- and -- and so is David Duke. And if --
HENICAN: Wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait, wait. What are you -- what are you -- what are you suggesting?
O'REILLY: Well, let me get out my question. So is David Duke --
HENICAN: And so are a lot of good people too.
O'REILLY: So if Al Gore walked into a David Duke rally --
HENICAN: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- with his message of global warming, are you going to say the same thing that you just said about the Kos situation?
HENICAN: Listen, first -- first of all --
O'REILLY: Are you gonna say the same thing?
HENICAN: I'm gonna -- I'm gonna tell you. First of all, I like talking to people that I disagree with. In fact, you may notice from time to time I visit with you. It is interesting -- way more interesting to talk to people that you do have disagreements with. But as to the message that Gore made there --
O'REILLY: What about David Duke? I thought you were gonna answer that question.
HENICAN: Well, I'll talk to Duke. Bring him on. Get him on the horn right now.
O'REILLY: All right.
HENICAN: I'll debate him.
O'REILLY: So if you saw Al Gore go into David Duke's organization --
HENICAN: Oh, goodness.
O'REILLY: -- with a message of global warming, that would not concern you.
HENICAN: He -- listen, I would be happy right now to have a debate with David Duke. I have no trouble with that. He doesn't scare me.
O'REILLY: There's a difference between debate and lending credibility --
HENICAN: Right. Right. Absolutely.
O'REILLY: -- lending credibility --
HENICAN: I would -- right.
O'REILLY: -- to the organization.
HENICAN: I would not endorse David Duke. I wouldn't say that his views are my views. Because I think they're pretty reprehensible.
O'REILLY: Do you think that Al Gore would go into a David Duke rally?
HENICAN: Probably he wouldn't be invited. It's hard to imagine --
O'REILLY: Well, if he was invited. I think I could get Duke to invite him.
HENICAN: I -- He probably wouldn't, that's right.
O'REILLY: OK, he would not. So what's the difference?
HENICAN: Well, there's a major difference. First of all, this group, although there are some elements of it that you can find on somebody's chat room somewhere --
O'REILLY: No, no. This was front and center.
HENICAN: -- some reprehensible thing. But there were, as I understand it, about 2,000 bloggers at this event --
O'REILLY: Loons.
HENICAN: Well, I mean, you know, but they truly, they're a huge ring. Some of them are terrific. Some of them are really smart. Some of them are dopes. Like any group of 2,000 bloggers, right wing or left wing.
O'REILLY: But did you see what they said about Tony Snow last week?
HENICAN: You know, I saw quotes from like the -- like the chat room, or the back --
O'REILLY: No, no, no -- this is front and center.
HENICAN: -- the people weighing in --
O'REILLY: No, no, no. This is front and center on their website. This is what they do.
HENICAN: I will -- I will concede to you that no doubt among those 2,000 bloggers, there were some who've written on their blogs things that you and I would find reprehensible.
O'REILLY: No but look, look. The Huffington --
HENICAN: I'm sure that's true.
O'REILLY: No, no, you're rationalizing. The Huffington Post stopped it all.
HENICAN: Right.
O'REILLY: They wouldn't post any of that hate stuff against Tony.
HENICAN: OK, sure.
O'REILLY: All right? The Kos reveled in it.
HENICAN: OK.
O'REILLY: So you're telling me that a former vice president of the United States should have leant his credibility to that organization.
HENICAN: I do not believe that I need, nor does Al Gore, nor you -- need to take responsibility for every single thing that every single member --
O'REILLY: Wow.
HENICAN: -- because you can't. You cannot possibly --
O'REILLY: You know. I think you're --
HENICAN: -- be responsible for it all.
O'REILLY: -- defined by the person --
HENICAN: No.
O'REILLY: -- people you hang around with.
HENICAN: No. Not when you're in the rhetoric business.
O'REILLY: No?
HENICAN: You do your best to out-argue them, to out-debate them --
O'REILLY: All right.
HENICAN: -- and to convince people that you're right and they're wrong.
[...]
CALLER: Well, my point about Gore is I just think that you're a little bit unfair in this -- in this same context because this is your friend. I mean, if it were --
O'REILLY: No, it's not that. If it were anybody else who died -- and the vile stuff posted -- when Dick Cheney had a heart attack, and I don't have any use for the vice president, everyone knows that, I said the same thing. You don't revel in other people's pain and destruction. And look, Bill, if -- are you an African American?
CALLER: Yes.
O'REILLY: OK. If somebody went into a racist concern and gave a speech -- some public servant, somebody who held high office, you'd be the first one -- and rightly so -- to say what the hell is that guy doing at the Klan meeting or at the Duke convention or with the Nazi gathering, wouldn't you?
CALLER: Yes and no. And let me explain.
O'REILLY: All right. Well, give me the no. Give me the no. Why wouldn't you -- why wouldn't you condemn that?
CALLER: OK. I have often said I would love to go speak to go and speak to David Duke because --
O'REILLY: But that's a personal thing. That's what Ellis said. And -- and I think you guys are both right to do that. I mean, I had Duke on my program and I laid him out. There's nothing wrong with that. But to lend that -- look, Gore didn't go into this Kos convention to confront them. He went in to pander to them. Don't you see that?
CALLER: See but I also think that you're unfair in terms of what is posted on -- on the webs. And I know your whole campaign against it.
O'REILLY: Well, if I'm so unfair, then why did the Huffington Post do a 180? Why did they do everything I told them to do when it came to Tony Snow? Because they knew I was right. They knew that allowing people to vent hate -- and I mean real, rank, vile hate -- hate is hate, Bill, whether it's directed toward African-Americans or Tony Snow. Hate is hate. There's no difference, OK?
And I told Ariana Huffington, listen, lady, if you continue to traffic in this, I'm going to continue to expose you. Now Ariana Huffington, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, sat down -- she's not a stupid woman -- and said, "You know, O'Reilly's right. I'll never admit it. But I'm going to change my tact on the Huffington Post," and they did. They did. But not the other ones. They were worse. Hate is hate. And you don't -- if you justify hate in one area, you can't condemn it in any area. And Gore went in there to the most vile hateful website in the country and pandered to them. Period.
[...]
CALLER: But I feel like Al Gore is coming from a totally different angle.
O'REILLY: He may be.
CALLER: He's not in the business of trying to decide who's right and who's wrong.
O'REILLY: But then he should be in that business.
CALLER: The thing is --
O'REILLY: Then he's making a terrible mistake. Because as a former vice president, where he shows up matters. He's abdicating his responsibility by lending credibility to a hate group. And, look, the argument is specious because Al Gore shows up to the Nazis or to the Klan, he gets killed, all right? They murder him. And he'd never do it. But he shows up to the far-left haters and it's OK. It isn't OK. We'll be back.
From the July 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us, I'm Bill O'Reilly. In the "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight, giving evil credibility. As we mentioned the Huffington Post did not run hateful e-mails about Tony Snow, but the Daily Kos did, allowing bloggers to revel in the man's death and insult his family in a very trying time. The Kos is an evil enterprise. There is no question about it. And guess who showed up at a convention for those haters. Hey, there, Al Gore. He brought this message.
GORE [video clip]: Proposing to -- to get a slight increase in oil drilling for fuel to be sold to China 10 to 15 years from now as a solution to our rising gasoline prices makes about as much sense as responding to an attack from Afghanistan by invading some other country that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us.
O'REILLY: Now, I've stuck up for Gore in the past, saying that, whether you agree with him or not, his warming crusade brings attention to pollution, which is a good thing. But now I have lost respect for the former vice president, who lent his name to the haters.
Joining us now from Washington, Fox News analyst Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams, whom I sat next to at Tony Snow's funeral last Thursday.
Now, I don't know whether you saw the postings on the Kos about Tony. I'm not going to read them to the audience, but I will say that they were as hateful as any Nazi thing I've ever seen, any Klan thing I've ever seen. And to have Al Gore show up at their gathering and legitimize it made me sick to my stomach, and I have no respect, nor will I ever have for Al Gore. What say you?
HAM: Well, I mean, I -- I think it --
O'REILLY: No. I'm going to Juan. I'm going to Juan here.
WILLIAMS: Well, I mean, I just -- I don't see why he did it. But on the other hand, I understand the politics of it that they are the base for the Democratic Party, and they drive a lot of the opinion. But I've got to say what they did with regard to Tony, I mean, you know -- you can imagine how I feel. I -- Tony was my friend. So I just don't understand it. And I don't understand why people don't raise their voice when they see something objectionable, they see something hateful. And Al Gore has the standing to say to them that's wrong. He didn't take that opportunity. If he had gone there and spoken to the issue, that would be one thing. He went there like nothing was going on.
O'REILLY: He's a coward. He's a coward, Juan. Look, I'm going to try to be diplomatic here. Gore is a coward. He never goes into forums where he's challenged, ever. He -- if you were to say to Al Gore, Mary Katharine, do you know what the Kos put on about Tony Snow, he would say, "No, I do not," and he would be telling the truth. He doesn't read that crap. He doesn't go in there.
HAM: But --
O'REILLY: -- But the fact is that he doesn't care.
HAM: Right.
O'REILLY: And all he wants to do is pound home his propaganda in front of audiences that lap it up.
HAM: Right. Yeah. He likes -- he likes to visit The New York Times, the U.N., and Netroots Nation is basically what he does. But this is not just a problem with Tony Snow, as you know. Every time someone gets sick who happens to be right of center or dies who happens to be right of center, they're all over this on -- on the left blogs. And he Huffington Post has gotten a little bit better of it, partly because you keep mentioning it. The Daily Kos has not. And people don't speak out about these things. Democrats behind the scenes get frustrated that these are the people who make up their base, and that this is a political --
O'REILLY: I don't believe that --
HAML -- machine they have to deal with.
O'REILLY: I -- I don't think they make up the
HAM: More reasonable --
O'REILLY: -- base of the Democratic Party. I think they're the extreme wing that's capable of raising money and bringing --
HAM: Right.
O'REILLY: -- a lot of havoc into somebody's life.
HAM: But it's a machine -- it's a machine they have to deal with, and they're frustrated with that to an extent. But if Obama hadn't been overseas this week, he would have been wrestling with whether he was gonna go --
O'REILLY: He couldn't have gone.
HAM: -- placate them for having moving --
O'REILLY: If -- if --
HAM: Right.
O'REILLY: Barack Obama
HAM: I think -- I think --
O'REILLY: -- legitimizes that group --
HAM: It's actually convenient he left right before it happened.
O'REILLY: I don't think -- if he -- I know he spoke last year and Hillary Clinton and all the Democratic did. But now it's so bad. It's -- they're so bad that anybody going in there now is going to be branded forever. Am I -- am I wrong here to do this, Juan? I mean, I'm making a judgment that's irrevocable to me. Gore could come in here and explain himself, and I would listen. But as I -- as I said, I stuck up with this guy on the warming thing. I don't agree with everything he says. But I think thought it, you know, it's worthy that were -- that we're talking about it. But now --
WILLIAMS: Oh, sure --
O'REILLY: -- to me --
WILLIAMS: I -- I agree with you.
O'REILLY: -- to me --
WILLIAMS: I think that he --
O'REILLY: To me he's an evil enabler.
WILLIAMS: Well, that's the question. I mean, you said earlier, Bill. You said, you know, he probably could say that he hasn't read all this stuff. He doesn't go there and look at this trash. But the fact is that it's become well-publicized and well-known. That it's the extremist and it's beyond extremist. It's not just --
O'REILLY: No. It's way beyond extremist.
WILLIAMS: It's not just extremist in terms of a political spectrum.
O'REILLY: Right.
WILLIAMS: It's hateful. It's hateful stuff.
O'REILLY: There's no --
WILLIAMS: Call it what it is.
O'REILLY: Right. There's no doubt.
WILLIAMS: And -- and in the days -- if you said -- you know, if you go back and you look at this historically, you'd say this is what drives people to extreme behavior that, you know, leads to demonizing the "other" in -- in a society --
O'REILLY: And worse.
WILLIAMS: -- and leads to horrible outcomes.
O'REILLY: And worse. And violence.
WILLIAMS: Right.
O'REILLY: Mary Katharine, I'll give you the last word.
HAM: Well just -- I just --
O'REILLY: Am I being too tough on Gore?
HAM: No -- I don't think you're being too tough on Gore. I don't think you're being too tough on them, because this movement is going to burn itself out acting like this. Because there are decent people who have decent -- I don't agree with their ideas at all, but they have -- they just want to go about the political process. And if they don't speak out about this nasty stuff, they're going to burn their entire movement out. And that's just the way that's going to go.
O'REILLY: Well, I don't know with that. Newsweek magazine hired this guy who runs it to actually work for them, so --
HAM: Yes, but if they want to pull the center to -- if they want to pull the country to the left, these are not the people that the country wants to be moving towards.
O'REILLY: They won't. These are haters.
WILLIAMS: Yeah they lose -- they lose credibility.
O'REILLY: Here's -- these are haters, and that -- and Al Gore ought to be ashamed of himself.
From the July 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. In the "Miller Time" segment tonight, as we told you earlier this week, the fact that Al Gore showed up at a hate convention last weekend sponsored by a website that displayed brutal attacks on Tony Snow soon after he died brought disgrace to the former vice president.
Dennis Miller has been watching Mr. Gore for years and joins us now from Los Angeles. I will say the Gore people called us today, said that the former vice president was very concerned, didn't know about the attacks. And we take him at his word. We've asked him to finally come on the program. We want to talk about a lot of things. We don't expect that to happen.
O'Reilly later said: "I have lost respect for the former vice president, who lends his name to the haters."
And I'm sure Al Gore really doesn't give a you-know-what about you not 'respecting' him, Billy.
Don't flatter yourself. You're on your way to becoming a has-been, you egomaniacal jackass.
Whats that old saying Billy......
Oh yes..... Man (or in the case of BillO..... a rightwing corporate bloviating dirtbag sleeze) who live in glass house should not throw stones!!
I do not believe Billy is capable of covering ANYTHING that is 'relevant'. Like I said earlier... he's on his way out. HE is the one that is becoming irrelevant.
I'd say stick him and the rest of that sorry bunch over at Fox on the 'Out' list for 2009.
Tommy, I can ask you and get a fair answer (without all the namecalling I get from others).
Isn't this article about whether netroots nation is a racist organiztion similar to that of the kkk? I looked on-line and couldn't find much info about this group. Are they a white supremist type group as BOR implies? If so, why isn't THAT the key issue on this thread? If not, why does BOR think it is? Didn't O'bama make an address at that convention, also?
Tommy rarely posts on weekends.
The issue would be an attempt to paint MoveOn,org as fascist.
This would be part of the on going neocon efforts to paint progressives as fascists. An impressive projection, and given media enabling, does find some traction in wingnutworld.
That's netroots, though MoveOn is a part of it.
Billdo has made some hypocritical, contradictory, and ironic statements on his show, but I think this one takes the cake (so far...):
Hate is hate. And you don't -- if you justify hate in one area, you can't condemn it in any area.
Yeah, self-awareness is not one of O'Reilly's strong suits.
I think he actually believes the stuff he says.
I'm certain that there are a lot more dangerous groups in America than Netroots. Actually, I'm pretty sure they're not even in the top 5,000,000. And apparently, O'Reilly is confusing commentary by posters on Kos and other places with actual postings by the folks who work for them, or write for them. O'Reilly even said it himself. He said, would they show up at your door? No, probably not. The KKK and Neo-Nazis promote themselves through fear and intimidation. Anyone who puts a comment on Kos, or here for that matter and acts tough, is just that. Internet tough guys.
Now, I wouldn't talk bad about Tony Snow the person in his death, but he was still a propagandist of the highest order for the Bush administration before and after he worked for them. Does it make him a bad person? Nope. Does it make him a willing stooge? Yes.
Oh, and Bill, remember what party David Duke was actually a member of? Oh yeah, right, he was a Republican. Get a grip Bill. Stop comparing progressive groups to the Nazis or the KKK (both of which are severe extreme RIGHT wing groups). You're making yourself look even dumber than you really are.
Ooooh, I'm so excited for this year's War on Christmas!! Between Iraq, Afghanistan, and Christmas, our war-time economy should be running at full strength by December!
i love the war on christmas stuff too. and this never gets old, when o'reilly and his buddies at fox were carrying on about the liberal attempt to "secularize" christmas by using the term "holiday" instead of christmas. and then media matters pointed out that both the o'reilly factor and fox were selling "holiday" ornaments on their on-line store.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511300006?f=s_search
"I never got emotionally involved with Al Gore."
Oh, Bill, you poor thing. The sooner you own up to truth about your relationship, the sooner the healing can begin.
"O'REILLY: Do you think that Al Gore would go into a David Duke rally?
HENICAN: Probably he wouldn't be invited. It's hard to imagine --
O'REILLY: Well, if he was invited. I think I could get Duke to invite him."
What the hell? Is he claiming to have some pull with David Duke?
Do you think that Al Gore would go into a David Duke rally?
Wow. David Duke RALLY? Did they ever have those? Do they still have those?
And lookie here - even Duke is against the war.
On August 5, 2005 Duke published an article stating support for Cindy Sheehan, saying that "The Iraq war and her son’s death did not defend America from hatred or terrorism" and that "In fact, the war is massively increasing hatred and terrorism. For every one terrorist killed in Iraq, we are creating thousands more who hate and want to hurt America and Americans. This is the surest way to lose the war on terror not win it."[72]
mmfa repeatedly attacks media outlets and pundits for not reporting their affiliations with other groups when they report on or give opinions publicly...projecting that these affiliations bias their statements.
You know the drill...anti-GW proponents are not credible if supported by oil companies. Prolife groups are not credible if supported by religious groups...they can't be trusted to speak the truth because of their associations.
In this thread, mmfa fails to disclose the fact that they were a sponsor of the Netroots convention.
Well how 'bout it mmfa? Does your sponsorship of netroots disqualify your opinion as biased or should we judge your comments on their merit? I fall squarely on the side of judging by merit...but you can't have it both ways.
Wesley-
MMFA never claimed to be un-biased. In fact, it's written in the mission statement of the site, which has been brought out several times to refute concern trolls like yourself.
The problem is when news outlets claim to be objective, but then only tell one side of the story. That's when there is a problem, and MMFA is justified in pointing that out.
If you don't like what MMFA does, you don't have to visit the site. There are right-wing versions of media watchdogs, such as Accuracy in Media, which do the same thing as MMFA but from a conservative perspective. If MMFA postings upset you, maybe you'll feel more comfortable at one of those sites.
Whoosh....
I'm well aware of mmfa's mission statement...and if not...nearly every newbie eventually posts it as some revelation.
mmfa consistently suggest that pundits are at fault for not disclosing their other affiliations when opining on subjects...exactly the same standard that should apply to mmfa. By their standards they should have disclosed their sponsorship of the netroots convention.
Accordingly, I don't need your advice or opinion on what websites I should visit. I prefer the discourse of differing opinions...rather than a lemming's enjoyment of one note operas.
Good question, but those who could respond to it are too busy stomping out a strawman.
Loonz,
Some of us can actually walk and chew gum at the same time. While O'Reilly's rantings are just that, and boring to boot; we can still question the affiliation between MMFA and Netroots, the organization they sponsor; you know, the one O'Reilly is ranting about.
Some of us can actually walk and chew gum at the same time.
But most of you wingnuts are unable to think and post at the same time.
Indeed.
Objection, your honor! Relevance?
MMFA is not opining on O'Reilly, or the subject. MMFA is exposing the current right-wing frame that open political participation on the internet is fascistic.
"The problem is when news outlets claim to be objective, but then only tell one side of the story. That's when there is a problem, and MMFA is justified in pointing that out."
This site is not above reproach in that area just because they are biased anymore than Limbaugh, or World Net Daily, or any other often scrutinized media outlet is here. Wes' point is a good one.
This site is not above reproach in that area just because they are biased anymore than Limbaugh, or World Net Daily, or any other often scrutinized media outlet is here. Wes' point is a good one.
If you two are getting at some kind 'conflict of interest' issue here, I don't think citing Limbaugh or WND makes much sense. There never spotlighted here for failing to disclose affiliations.
They are a "sponsor" Governor, you figure it out.
Or do you think it's just so MMFA can get their name on a cocktail napkin during one of their fund raising parties?
"the sponsors for Netroots Nation."
Make that one mouse click. Your gripe make NO sense.
Never mind.
Um susan...if it makes you feel better...I think O'Reilly is pretty much a doofus.
But St. mmfa's liberal skirts are not exactly clean when it comes to spinning and word-smithing.
It's a pretty weak argument by mmfa to disassociate dailykos from the Netroots convention. Markos and the dailykos are hip deep. The following is from the Netroots website titles "Whose Movement?":
-- Since its inception, one of the primary goals of the Netroots has been to examine the future of our movement. Who are our leaders?...
Markos went on Meet The Press to debate that very topic with Rep. Harold Ford Junior. Now, the two are meeting again at Netroots Nation for a lunchtime keynote discussion about party infrastructure.
This won't just be any keynote. This will be a chance for you to hear a casual discussion between the current chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council and a Netroots favorite. --
It's all pretty funny actually.
While the left constantly complains about the evil corporate rightwing media driving the debate, misrepresenting and misinforming us all, twisting and manipulating what we hear and read to prop up their agendas - all at the expense of fair and openness in our media.....and then from their stealth operatives seeps a vast, powerful "progressive" grassroots movement ripe with rich fatcat donors and dozens of liberal organizations with checks in hand and influence ready to reshape and do a little agenda driving of their own.
While both whine about the other until they're blue in the face, the rest of us get on with it.
Get on with what exactly?
Anyway, comparing corporate media to grassroots bloggers is a false equivalence so obvious that it shouldn't really need to be pointed out. One is not like the other, no matter how hard you try to frame it that way.
Oh please, poor grassroots bloggers to you are actually high priced uber rich liberals pushing their leftwing agenda through "progressive" organizations.....of course you consider it divine intervention, but not all of us are as naive as you are.
They bother me as much as the corporate media, so I "get on with it", unaffected.
Tommy,
Thanks for the chuckle...it sure is hard for some to just "get on with it". Me? I'm with you...I'll just sort thru all the chaff and make up my own mind and vote accordingly.
Well you know Wes, you and I are just "dittoheads" who can't think for ourselves, and are just slaves to eating up every slanted morsel of con crappola out of the mouths of the corporate media goons and rightwing talk show hosts we bobblehead to everyday.
If we would only allow ourselves to be cleansed by the truthful baptismal enlightenment found in the liberal promised land, we may be saved from ourselves, after all. Now that is really "getting on with it".
-- we may be saved from ourselves -- Tommy
Now I get it...our liberal brethren here at mmfa really just have our salvation and redemption from our black souls in mind...no wonder the zealotry...LMELAO!!!
Off to a birthday party for my wife...have a good weekend!
Sorry to break up the wingnut circle-jerk here.
But I'm still trying to find where MMFA tried to disassociate DailyKos from the Netroots convention...
It's well known that the convention itself is really just the continuation of YearlyKos. This fact is neither hidden nor avoided. I fail to see where MMFA (or anyone else) asserted otherwise.
Remember to take her with you.
(I made that mistake once...
Once.)
J,
I didn't say they were getting away with anything. I said all the hard partisans love to complain about how much influence the other side has, and downplay their own. When in fact, it's probably a wash - which is why it's more comical to me than anything else.
Omigosh -- I have been really busy lately and have not been fully attuned to what is going on in the world. But how could I have missed the news that 9 million Jews, gypsies, Poles and others were slaughtered by Kos and Huffington and their minions?? And the lynchings perpetrated by white-sheeted packs of bloggers . . . oh, the humanity!
Billo is a sick, sick, sick man with no soul and even less understanding of history.
I called, but kept getting your answering machine. Sorry, you missed a dandy.
A bunch of us took Amato's pickup and met up with Duncan, and went over and torched the synagogue, (you should see the tire tracks we left in their lawn! Classic!) then stopped by Taco Bell for chalupas before we headed down to the projects to mete out a little good ol' bible schoolin' and bust up some mailboxes. This one time Ana was trying to hock a loogie on these dudes waiting at this bus stop, but we hit a bump and she spilled her hot sauce all over Markos' lap. He had to ride in the back of Josh's convertible standing up to dry off. After that, we all went and had our heads shaved. Now you know I always thought Katrina was doable, but now, well, without hair, I'm thinkin' "I'll drink yo' bathwater, baby"! Whoot!
Other than that, the normal same ol' same ol'. As usual, Arianna broke out the X, the robes, hoods, and armbands came off, and we all got our freak on to Skynard. Sorry you missed it. Will try to get in touch sooner next time.
P.S. Oh, almost forgot the best part. While we were driving along this one road, we saw Doug - you know, Doug Thompson, aka wanker? - walking his dog. We started honking and heading right for him. He like screamed like the biotch he is and dove into the ditch. HA HA!!! I don't know if his dog got out of the way or not. Next time we're in that area, we'll check. Later!
Dang -- I miss all the good stuff.
You are too, too funny! ;->
Bias and credibility is a complicated thing.
Demanding that media outlets and pundits disclose their affiliations with groups when they are opining on them does not necessarily mean that their statements are false or misleading. Disclosure simply serves as a disclaimer that the information MAY NOT be entirely unbiased and COULD be misleading; in other words, it INITIALLY loses SOME credible. Otherwise someone may mistake the statements as objective and true. They may not bother to fact-check the information or do independent research because they are confident that they "have no agenda".
Unfortunately the word bias makes people automatically dismiss things as untrue and incapable of expressing truths. But that's wrong. You can certainly make accurate, fact-based assessments and still be in favor of a certain ideology or belief system. Newbusters may be right-leaning, but they can still accurately show a Democrat making factually incorrect statements, and back them up with credible, unbiased sources. The sources don't become "tainted" because they're on the site.
Ideally, things should be judged according to their merits, not their associations. But because such a task is exhausting and would require constant research, people (including myself) tend to first see if it is openly objective\non-partisan or biased/partisan. Those that are in the latter category are simply tossed out without a single glance.
Now, is MMFA wrong for not disclosing their support of Netroots? That's debatable, since MMFA is an openly progressive media watchdog site, and Netroots is also openly left-leaning. That might be redundant.
FYI, if a conservative poster links to Newsbusters or a similar site in a debate with someone, and the other person dismisses it as total BS, that's hypocrisy of the highest order.
Now, is MMFA wrong for not disclosing their support of Netroots? That's debatable, since MMFA is an openly progressive media watchdog site, and Netroots is also openly left-leaning. That might be redundant.
I think they disclosed that right here:
"the sponsors for Netroots Nation"
"He could be a phony. And I'm not going to get involved with anybody with that potential because it's ridiculous for me to do so."
As they used to say back in the olden days, "That's rich."