Justin's Thursday Political News 08.09.07

Posted by Justin Baragona on 08.09.2007

Not really a news report today, but more a commentary about two recent shows by John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly.

Welcome to another edition of Justin's Thursday Political News. Today I'm going to do things a bit different. I am only going to focus on two stories. Both stories are actually about two well known conservative pundits and how they brought the level of discourse down from even their already low standards. I also want to show how personal attacks are still the standard operating procedure over on the right side of the aisle. So, without further ado, let's jump right in.



The following exchange took place on John Gibson's radio show August 3rd. 'Angry Rich' is Gibson's executive producer. This was in response to Edwards stating that Democratic candidates should return money donated by News Corp., which is the parent company of Fox News:


GIBSON: Fraud alert. Fraud alert. This is Angry Rich's favorite subject, and it's getting to be mine as well.

AUDIO CLIP: Fraud alert.

GIBSON: Our John Gibson program fraud alert today focuses on the biggest fraud running for president, and that takes some doing. We're talking about the Breck Girl, Silky, the former senator from North Carolina, the baron of a 28,000-square-foot manse, the protector of the poor while ensconced on a pillow of 100 million dollars.

ANGRY RICH: A man who whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick.


First off, I'm going to state that Gibson does what many on Fox or right-wing radio like to do, which is use a co-host or someone that works for them to make a vicious personal comment on someone. Therefore, they can say later on that it did not come from their mouth, but their 'guest'. In this case, Gibson had his executive producer, who he calls Angry Rich on the air, state that Edwards 'whored' out his wife to raise campaign funds. Gibson, however, still makes personal attacks on Edwards here, by calling him a few pet names, like 'Breck Girl'. It seems that Gibson's biggest issue with Edwards, and this has been used by many other conservative talk show hosts, is that he is personally wealthy but states that he stands up for the working class man and talks about two different Americas.

As always, when you can't attack someone's position, go after them personally. Attack the messenger has been a key tactic in the neo-con playbook for a while now. The same thing was done with Al Gore when he produced 'An Inconvenient Truth' and became more vocal about the environment and global warming. It was pointed out that he lived in a big house and had a high electric bill, so therefore his position had to be worthless because he was a hypocrite. Didn't matter if what he was saying had merit and was backed up by facts, because he was living high off the hog, so therefore we should discount what he was saying completely. This is the tactic Gibson is using with Edwards. He is rich (from his days as a lawyer) and has a big house, so anything he says on affordable health care and taxes is complete BS. It is a simple, mindless argument to make, an argument that takes almost no thought whatsoever and can be shot down easily. This is the level of discourse and political content you get from the guys at Fox and on the radio. It is pretty sad, actually.



Below is a large excerpt from an interview that Bill O'Reilly had with Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) on August 1st and which aired on both his radio and television shows the following day. The focus of the segment is the website Daily Kos and its yearly convention:



O'REILLY: You know, you've known Senator Lieberman for 30 years. He knows President Bush. I'm sure you respect both men as patriots, and you see something like this, why don't you distance yourself from it, sir?

DODD: Well, what I'm stunned at; Mr. O'Reilly, is the fact that you spend as much time here going after an online community gathering where there are 500,000 people who visit that site on a daily basis, here. To identify five, six, seven, eight objectionable, offensive cartoons or comments that people are making, here, I find that rather stunning, to be quite honest with you, here.

O'REILLY: Well, I mean, you know this is the worst stuff on the Internet. There isn't anything worse than his.

DODD: Just let me finish -- this is a place -- this is a place where people can -- you're missing the point. You ought to be far more candid with your viewing audience, here, and tell them that your real objection here is the ideology of Daily Kos –

O'REILLY: No.

DODD: -- not what's on the air. This is silly, this is silliness for you to be suggesting –

O'REILLY: If you went to the –

DODD: -- 500,000, 500,000 people appearing on that site –

O'REILLY: Senator.

DODD: Let me finish. Here, 500,000 people every day on that site. Why are you attacking something like this? It broadens the debate, allows people to –

O'REILLY: Because It's vile. It's vile.

DODD: That's why?

O'REILLY: It doesn't matter how many people go in, go out, have a cup of tea.

DODD: There are a lot of things that you say are vile on a daily basis. Am I –

O'REILLY: What about that cartoon, Senator? What about it?

DODD: No, no, no, no, no -- listen.

O'REILLY: What do you mean, "no, no, no, no, no"? It's up there for a year. What about the cartoon, sir?

DODD: Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. O'Reilly, you're not listening to me, here. Mere point is you are not being candid. Your objection is to this community gathering here. You don't like their politics.

O'REILLY: I don't like their website.

DODD: That's the legitimate criticism here. Why don't you focus on that and recognize that 500,000 people a day.

O'REILLY: All right, I'll ask you the question again. You OK with that cartoon, sir?

DODD: Of course not. That's not the issue, Mr. O'Reilly.

O'REILLY: Of course it's the issue.

DODD: No, no. You're going after –

O'REILLY: That's what they do. That's what they do on the site. They do that hate stuff all the time.

DODD: No, no. You suggested -- you suggested that we ought not participate in the convention –

O'REILLY: Correct.

DODD: -- because six, seven, eight, or 10 people here have said something on this site that's objectionable –

O'REILLY: Eight or 10 people? What are you, crazy? There's thousands of vile postings on that website. Thousands.

DODD: Look, Mr. O'Reilly, there are thousands on your posting, as well, every day, I might add.

O'REILLY: No there are not. There are not any on my website.

DODD: Oh yes there are.

O'REILLY: We take them off right away.

DODD: Talking about Al Qaeda attacking San Francisco and blowing up San Francisco.

O'REILLY: When did I say that, Senator?

DODD: That's not offensive?

O'REILLY: When did I say that?

DODD: You said it in 2005, I think is correct?

O'REILLY: When? Where? What forum? When?

DODD: Right here, I believe, on your own show.

O'REILLY: No, you're wrong. I didn't say it here. You don't know what the hell I said, with all due respect.

DODD: No, I don't think so.

O'REILLY: You got it from Media Matters.

DODD: Focus on the legitimate criticism.

O'REILLY: You didn't hear it and you don't know what I did.

DODD: Focus on your legitimate criticism.

O'REILLY: Look, you're a propagandist, Senator. You're a propagandist.

DODD: No, no, no, no, no

O'REILLY: I used to respect you. I don't have any respect for you, and if I were Joseph Lieberman I would never talk to you again because this is vile and you're legitimizing it. You're legitimizing it.

DODD: Well you're not Joseph Lieberman. You're not Joseph Lieberman, and if you would sit there and just be honest about your criticism, here, rather than focusing on a few specific instances that everyone I know would find objectionable. That's not the issue here. The issue is –

O'REILLY: The issue is you're legitimizing a hateful website.

DODD: Can I please finish? Can I please finish a thought with you, here? That you object to the fact that 1,500 people are going to gather in Chicago representing hundreds of thousands of people who utilize this community gathering, this community site, as a way to express their views every day –

O'REILLY: It's hard to believe.

DODD: -- which is not a bad way to do this.

O'REILLY: It's hard to believe.

DODD: The fact that there are objectionable people who show up here on this site doesn't discredit everyone else who participates in this in a wonderful way to share their views on a variety of subjects.

O'REILLY: OK, OK. [inaudible] Little Bo Peep fight? Look, you talk about being disingenuous. Your description of that site is so opposite from what it is, and anybody who's been on it knows the hate that they peddle every day. Look, Senator, I appreciate you coming on here –

DODD: Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. O'Reilly.

O'REILLY: -- I appreciate it. But you are so dead wrong on this, and I'm going to give you the last word. You are so dead wrong on this and you ought to apologize to Lieberman.

DODD: Indiana University -- no, no. Listen to me. Indiana University has suggested that once every 6.8 seconds you say something derogatory –

O'REILLY: Yeah, and we discredited it. It's bogus.

DODD: Let me finish. You make derogatory comments about individuals and groups once every 6.8 seconds. That's nine times a minute. That's your history here. Go after the ideology.

O'REILLY: And you believe that? You believe that?

DODD: Let me finish. That's a legitimate point for you to attack the ideology of Daily Kos but don't –

O'REILLY: It isn't a legitimate a point. It's a bogus study. We've already discredited it.

DODD: Don't suggest here, don't suggest here that this is real debate you're having about Daily
Kos. You object to the ideology. You are using a few instances here –

O'REILLY: A few –

DODD: -- that everybody would find objectionable as a way of saying we ought not participate.

O'REILLY: All right.

DODD: That's terribly wrong in my view.

O'REILLY: OK. I want everybody to go to that site and remember what Senator Dodd said and make up your own mind. And there go, Senator –

DODD: Good. 500,000 visits a day.

O'REILLY: They'll make up their own mind. We appreciate you coming in and taking the fire though.



O'Reilly can only argue in absolutes and has a totally black/white view of things. Also, he tries to be a bully and will never allow his guest to finish their statement before talking over them, attacking over and over again with the same tunnel vision logic that he began with. Here, O'Reilly's main attack on Sen. Dodd is that he supports the website Daily Kos. Daily Kos posted a cartoon that was not too kind towards Joe Lieberman, and many felt it crossed the line (obviously O'Reilly being one of them.) So O'Reilly decides to make the simple, connect-the-dot logic of stating that since Kos posted the cartoon, and he thinks the cartoon is evil, then Dodd is supporting an evil and hateful website. Dodd tried to make a legitimate point that O'Reilly is using a few instances to try to discredit Daily Kos because he disagrees with their ideology and therefore will do anything possible to bring them down. So, he will just completely overstate something to the point of exhaustion to state how horrible it is, when in reality he just can't stand the viewpoint of the site and its readers.

O'Reilly also was completely upset that Dodd brought up that he endorsed Al Qaeda bombing San Francisco back in November 2005 on his radio show. So, when Dodd brought it up, O'Reilly went into full-fledged attack mode, asking him where and when he said such a thing and then blasting him for not coming up with the exact right answer. (Dodd was partially correct. He stated it was in 2005 but thought it was on his television show. It was on his radio show. However, the main point was that O'Reilly indeed said that.) O'Reilly tends to try to put people on the spot and fluster them, all so he can brag later about how he handled his guest and brought truth to the airwaves. Of course, he did it with this interview, as the following day he had hack Dennis Miller on and he patted himself on the back about how he showed Dodd the light, all while letting Miller piss all over the Senator. (Miller called Dodd a hack. That is a total pot/kettle/black situation there.)

The fact is, O'Reilly is a little man with an inability to think or discuss anything rationally or logically. He prides himself on his tough interviews, but in reality he is just trying to get his easily refutable arguments across by doing a lot of shouting and talking over what his guest is saying. When his guest doesn't cower, he will just up the volume and yell some more, and if that doesn't work, he'll just end the interview. (He especially does this with callers to his show.) Dodd tried several times to steer the discussion back to legitimate criticism or a real debate, but O'Reilly would have none of it. Attack, attack, attack…that is all he knows. I just pity the poor people that actually think they are gaining real knowledge and information from his show. However, I don't think there was much help for them to begin with.



Well, that is going to do it for me this week. Apparently, I hurt Crow's feelings last week by stating Ray Church was my favorite 411 writer. I was going to try to make it up to him this week by linking to a superbly written column that he contributed. However, all I could find was Fact or Fiction , nothing more. And Crow wonders why I've moved on. I'll be back next Thursday with more news in the realm of politics.