Here's what Bill O'Reilly said on Leno last night:
"President Obama has the power to stop this 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' business. Just sign an executive order. I don't know why it's taking so long—it's not fair. We should stop this nonsense."
Dan Savage: "... for the record: Bill O'Reilly is now to the left of President Obama on DADT."
Reminds of when O'Reilly used to position himself as a fair-minded libertarian, about 15 years ago, before he became a Fox demagogue. I actually bought and liked his first book. Believe it or not he was once a voice for liberty and reason. That was a couple of sexual harassment episodes ago.
Posted by: TomF | July 28, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Yes, it was Andrea Mackris (the loose-lipped gold digger) that exposed him for who he is. No other sexual harassments were there ?
Posted by: KS | July 28, 2010 at 01:21 PM
Anybody who calls themselves a libertarian and doesn't support gay rights including marriage is a hypocrite.
Posted by: me | July 28, 2010 at 01:28 PM
Amazing turn around...just a few months ago he was for it, stating that most people who volunteer for the military are conservatives, and they would feel uncomfortable.
Jon Stossel also wrote an article for a very conservative magazine and agrees with Orally....
See a pattern?
With a few exceptions, those are not countries where free people want to live.
By contrast, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia and Spain all allow gay people to serve.
Posted by: sparky | July 28, 2010 at 01:50 PM
I wonder if O'Reilly is looking to clean up his image a little. There may yet be a spark of integrity in the man.
I wouldn't want to be remembered as a clone of Lee Atwater or go to my deathbed with the sins on my mind of an Atwater.
Maybe Beck demagoguery has given O'Reilly pause to think.
Posted by: joanie | July 28, 2010 at 02:35 PM
Demagoguery has become elevated thanks to our constantly demogoging POTUS. His demagoguery are of significantly more consequence than Beck's.
Posted by: KS | July 28, 2010 at 04:34 PM
I wouldn't want to be remembered as a clone of Lee Atwater or go to my deathbed with the sins on my mind of an Atwater.
Posted by: joanie | July 28, 2010 at 02:35 PM
Atwater pales in comparison to what Bill Moyers did as LBJ's hitman.
Yet you excuse his conduct towards MLK. Hmmm. what a ph(J)oanie you are.
Oh wait, that doesn't matter cause it was a long time ago. Atwater supposed transgressions were a long time ago also.
Posted by: Puget Sound | July 28, 2010 at 04:48 PM
Let's hope that we can allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military.
Posted by: Puget Sound | July 28, 2010 at 04:50 PM
I wonder if Pres Obama will have a Walter Cronkite moment ala the Vietnam War with O'Reilly and Don't ask, Don't tell.
'When I lost Bill O'Reilly, I knew I had lost middle America on Don't Ask Don't Tell.'
Posted by: Puget Sound | July 28, 2010 at 04:52 PM
As Michael pointed out, you're tiring. Get some new material. Whether it's Moyers/LBJ or Byrd/KKK, who cares? Try to move into the current decade, will you?
Posted by: joanie | July 28, 2010 at 06:47 PM
you brought up some crap from the last century -hell, Atwater died in 1991?- and i added some relevant facts to put it in context.
history matters, ph(J)oanie. even an 'alleged' school teacher should know that.
and it would sure be nice if you would stop making crap up. being 60 plus and lying is no way to finish your life.
Posted by: Puget Sound | July 28, 2010 at 08:14 PM
The nineties are not the sixties. You really cannot connect the dots, can you?
And history matters, of course. But only for those who know it, understand it, and can relate it to the present None of which can you do. Which is why you repeat the same history over and over and over . . .
Posted by: joanie | July 28, 2010 at 08:59 PM
Indeed, the Southern Strategy hasn't gone to the center. The conservatards will only get uglier.
Posted by: Coiler | July 28, 2010 at 09:05 PM
so, it was 'okay' in the 60's to do it but not the 90's. btw, atwater died in early 1991 and was paralyzed for about a year before his death. so he wasn't really committing those acts in the 90's.
anywhoo, i can connect the dots. the dots you lay out tell me if a dem does it you have no issue. if a repub does it you have an issue.
kind of like when dems win elections it was the will of the people. when repubs win elections it was a stolen election.
coils, are you ready for this november? less than a 100 days.
LMAO! btw, is rangel going to stay around or will he resign?
Posted by: Puget Sound | July 28, 2010 at 09:11 PM
See, that last post is exactly an example of how uninformed you are. If you don't have an ad hominem to use, you are without facts whatsoever.
Paralyzed? So what? Changes nothing that he did. And he knew it. Which is why he came undone at the end. Too bad he didn't pay some penance like Moyers and Byrd. And saying you can connect the dots needs to be supported by some evidence that you can actually do it. We've been waiting for that for a long, long time.
Like I said, find some new material.
Posted by: joanie | July 28, 2010 at 09:21 PM
Bill Moyers was one of Lyndon Johnson's bad actors. Don't forget Moyers role to stop the legitimate seating of an integrated delegation from Mississippi at the 1964 Democratic National Convention. Moyers giving the FBI the okay to spread dirty stories about Martin Luther King's sex life, and his ongoing role spinning war in Vietnam as Johnson's press secretary from 1965 to 1967.
Moyers asked the FBI to investigate 15 members of the Senate staff of Johnson's opponent, Barry Goldwater.
Tell me again how Lee Atwater was worse than that?
I'll bet you can't, ph(J)oanie!
Posted by: Puget Sound | July 28, 2010 at 09:25 PM
and what penance did Moyers do?
Posted by: Puget Sound | July 28, 2010 at 09:27 PM
He became an honest journalist and watchdog for democracy. I guess you never watched him or you would know that. Maybe you shouldn't judge people you don't know.
As for running down the rap sheets on Moyers (which you posted ad infinitum) and Atwater, don't be stupid. If you don't know why Atwater went to his deathbed fearing for his afterlife and repentant for his actions. it is another example of your inability to connect the dots.
And you know I don't like circle talk so I refrain from trying to reason with you. It always proves futile and frustrating. You lack the ability stay focused and end up bringing red herrings and non-sequiturs,
Done with it. Carry on, Coils.
Posted by: joanie | July 28, 2010 at 09:38 PM
I think he's lonely Joanie, he comes in here and prefaces most comments starting with the name of a poster without substantive discussion to the post at hand, "Andrew you want fries?"
"Joanie, allegedly a teacher.."
I just tell him to fuck off and how full of shit he is.
Posted by: Coiler | July 28, 2010 at 09:50 PM
He may be a watchdog for democracy, but not for America, which is a Democratic Republic
I am familiar enough with Moyers to realize that he is a committed socialist - some topics he reports on are interesting though, but when goes political - he comes across like a partisan hack -(he was once a political operative for LBJ), more so than Larry King did. He worships Keynesian economics, which shows his blindness to common sense. His historical background speaks about his convictions.
I think that Kevin Phillips would be much more interesting to listen to, who I heard being interviewed by Moyers one time - a very interesting interview.
Posted by: KS | July 28, 2010 at 09:57 PM
Let Rangel stay around and keep being funded by the Unions and other lobbyists to pay his legal fees. His pride (really arrogance) along with other Democratics of the ruling class will turn off many voters.
This administration IS the most transparent administration, when it comes to exposing themselves and the incumbent Senators and Representatives in power for the a-holes that they evidently are. Voters will not forget this soon.
Posted by: KS | July 28, 2010 at 10:06 PM
He may be a watchdog for democracy, but not for America, which is a Democratic Republic
Do you know what a "democratic republic" is? From that post, I don't think so.
he is a committed socialist
What is a socialist? What is your evidence Moyers is a "committed" socialist?
Moyers and Phillips? Yes, I saw that one. They were both on point and seemed equally disallusioned with the Bush Policy. I've always considered Moyers a good interviewer. What made it interesting to you?
If Rangel deserves to go to jail, I hope he does. What does his "pride" have to do with it? Is "pride" a euphemism for "black?" Are you proud of anything?
That was certainly a well-thought-out and erudite post there, KS. First you laid the foundation for the conclusion: Excuse me if I've forgotten the supporting details to that erudite conclusion: they are a-holes.
Now, I'm still waiting - even if Tom isn't - for your response contrasting the tactics and strategies of Alinsky and Breitbart. You can teach me here.
Posted by: joanie | July 28, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Umm, KS, are you saying we are a Repub-cracy?
Posted by: joanie | July 28, 2010 at 10:27 PM
clumsy sidestep, joanie.
audioslave was right, you are a bit of an empty suit but it's useful to use you to highlight hypocrisy and ignorance. i thank you for that.
unlike you, i actually know a bit about atwater, moyers, and rove. when asked to see what YOU think atwater did that compares to what Moyers you can't.
turns out that it is just more of your if a dem does it give it an excuse if a repub does it then it is bad crap. too funny.
if moyers was a lying weasel before how do you know he isn't a lying weasel now?
moyers makes a very nice buck off of feeding you what you want. keep swallowing it without any critical thinking.
the power of myth. i'll bet he laughs every time he sells another copy of that.
as for you coils, you're just ticked cause it's coming down.
the so called crusher of rethuglican nuts is getting some of his own medicine. can't take it, can you coils? turn to the left, cough...
LMAO.
Posted by: Puget Sound | July 29, 2010 at 04:52 AM
We are off to the Rocky Mountains for a few days
to breathe fresh air and to relish the silence.
Feel free to accuse me of being every poster you don't know Putz. Keep that Old Comments Database up to date--or is it a spreadsheet?
Posted by: sparky | July 29, 2010 at 07:14 AM
Do you know what a "democratic republic" is? From that post, I don't think so.
he is a committed socialist
What is a socialist? What is your evidence Moyers is a "committed" socialist?
Posted by: joanie | July 28, 2010 at 10:24 PM
These are questions a high schooler would ask. You are supposed to be a teacher, so get off your bum and research them.
Are you daft ? The USA is a Democratic Republic, not a democracy. Too lazy to google- eh. Another naive adolescent question ? You are underwhelming even if you are feigning naivety.
Posted by: KS | July 29, 2010 at 08:13 AM
KS wrote:
"I am familiar enough with Moyers to realize that he is a committed socialist - some topics he reports on are interesting though, but when [he] goes political - he comes across like a partisan hack -(he was once a political operative for LBJ), more so than Larry King did."
If Moyers ia a "committed socialist," he's managed to suppress the impulse when it comes to his own business dealings: he owns his own production company, Public Affairs Television, and has become very wealthy in the old-fashioned capitalist manner. As Hollywood stars so often prove, it's easy to espouse extreme-left policies, and call for the taxes to support them, when you've got millions in the bank. When I was a kid we called that limousine liberalism.
KS also wrote:
"I think that Kevin Phillips would be much more interesting to listen to, who I heard being interviewed by Moyers one time - a very interesting interview."
Kevin P. is a tortured, conflicted, David Brooks-class moderate Republican who is out of favor in today's extreme climate. He loathes the Bush dynasty, which is enough for me to want to have a beer with him.
Posted by: TomF | July 29, 2010 at 08:44 AM
I submit that Moyers is an opportunist when it comes to investments that plays into capitalism. Like the Hollywood stars, that doesn't change from his eonomic philosophy. He is out to get his before the free market system deteriorates. He subscribes to the "Don't do as I do, do as I say" - limousine liberal philosophy.
How is Phillips in favor of this extreme climate ? I know that he could neither support Obama and McCain in the 2008 election - he may have grudingly voted for BO.
Do you have any evidence that in light of what has transpired in the last 18 months that he is in favor of what is goiog on now ? I'll have research that one too...
Posted by: KS | July 29, 2010 at 09:43 AM
my bad - you wrote "out of favor" in regard to Kevin Phillips - I'll buy that. BTW, David Brooks is leaning toward out of favor, but he still likes to advise the Administration (unrealistically it seems though, because it goes against BO's ideology) to change their economic behavior on occasion in his editorials.
Posted by: KS | July 29, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Ever since O'Reilly's big mouth helped inspire that nutjob to kill the abortion doctor, he seems to have ramped down the ranting and actually started sounding reasonable-ish. Say what you will, but he's sounded off in support of working people, universal access to healthcare and now this. Roger Ailes must be faceplanting every time he watches the Factor.
Damn, I used to like to hate the Fallafellator. Now he's making it hard to hate him.
Posted by: Redneck Liberal | July 29, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Don't expect this to be posted; but good investigative work Andrew. :)
Posted by: Duffman | July 29, 2010 at 01:42 PM
Well, KS, if they're questions a high schooler would ask, you should be able to answer them.
Can a Democratic Republic be a democracy?
As for Kevin Phillips? He's an Eisenhower Republican. And every Eisenhower Republican is out of favor. Look what they did to David Frum for even hinting that they needed to clean up their act. This is not rocket science folks. I'm disappointed in your characterization of Phillips, Tom. And he is left of Brooks. Brooks is not an Eisenhower Republican. Phillips is a hundred times smarter and more moderate.
Finally, I'm still waiting for an interesting discussion triggered by Tom's challenge to "discuss" strategies and tactics . . . but I guess that was just rhetoric.
And, Puget Sound, your whole highjacking of an O'Reilley thread to the new subject of Atwater vs. Moyers is why I don't talk to you. Had you stayed focused and continued the subject of the thread by countering how I was wrong in contrasting O'Reilly's possible motivation to Atwater at the end of his life, focus would have continued. That's exactly what I mean when I say you lose focus and bring up red herrings.
Stay on topic and think about what's on the table before you change the subject. the "so and so did it too" or "so and so did worse" responses get old.
And my finally finally is that today I was hearing quite a few suggestions that Fixed News sent O'Reilly out on a mission to get the apologies out because they could be in big litigation and it doesn't look good for them. Es posible?
Posted by: joanie | July 29, 2010 at 06:47 PM
Joanie - wrong question - it should have been can a democracy be a democratic republic ? Simple answer - No.
re:Phillips - source please ? Why are you pitting Brooks vs. Phillips ? Where do you get he was an Eisenhower Republican. He only served under Nixon.
Who besides you classifies Kevin phillips that way ?
You are the blog butinski- you are the only one stuck on tactics vs. strategy. Why don't you write a short essay on it if you want to know ? We have since moved on.
"a few suggestions that Fixed News sent O'Reilly out on a mission to get the apologies out because they could be in big litigation and it doesn't look good for them"
You likely read or heard those suggestions from liberal progressive blog rag. That is laughable, although I wouldn't put anything past this current White House who might try a stunt like that, after all they tried to declare war on FNC last year about this time.
Posted by: KS | July 29, 2010 at 07:53 PM
poor Joanie, you have "Putz-Tourette's Syndrome."
when faced with salient facts and reason, your only response is to spew nonsense. i love how you contradict yourself in the same post.
ks, joanie has no idea really who kevin phillips is. oh, she has seen him on a show or perhaps listened to a radio spot. but ask her which of his books she has read: zilch
just an empty suit.
Posted by: Puget Sound | July 29, 2010 at 08:44 PM
Well, since there is no reasonable response to Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, I'll just spank you both and send you to bed.
Posted by: joanie | July 29, 2010 at 08:54 PM
don't be afraid to pick up a book. it will do you good.
Posted by: Puget Sound | July 29, 2010 at 09:07 PM
Get back to be immediately or mommy's going to spank again. .
Posted by: joanie | July 29, 2010 at 09:39 PM
Could it be that the emperor has no clothes ?? (a rhetorical question)
puts, better watch out or she may resort to calling us racists next.. Just like her old icon, Saul Alinsky would do.
Posted by: KS | July 29, 2010 at 09:47 PM
Democracy means rule of the people. The two most common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. In direct democracy everyone takes part in making a decision, as in a town meeting or a referendum. The specific rules may vary: perhaps everyone must agree, perhaps there must be consensus, perhaps a mere majority is required to make a decision. The other, better known form of democracy is a representative democracy. People elect representative to make decisions or laws. Again, specifics vary greatly.
And, surprise, a representative democracy is a kind of republic. What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government. Representative democracies are, therefor, a kind of republic.
and
A republic is a form of government in which at least a part of its people[1] have some element of formal control over its government,[2][3], and in which the head of state is not a monarch... In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy[6], and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans"
and
Democracy is a political form of government where governing power is derived from the people, either by direct referendum (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy). The term comes from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people"...
You really are an idiot you know.
Posted by: joanie | July 29, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Reliable sources - LMAO...
With all of that blather, you didn't prove a damn thing except that you're an ideologue and selectively oblivious and oh yes, you are proud to be a useful idiot. Doesn't change my answer to your adolescent question.
BTW, democracy is mob rule and the minority doesn't matter, while the difference in Anerica is that the constitution allows safeguards for the minority. Read the constitution...
Posted by: KS | July 30, 2010 at 08:20 AM
You first . . . another red herring. Kind of embarrassed, aren't you?
Posted by: joanie | July 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Joanie,
Don't you realize that protofascists like KS get mad when you talk about democracy because they prefer dictatorship? Not sure what else would motivate conservative types to talk up the Republic but downplay the democracy like they'd prefer to live in 1970s Chile. It amazes me how these these sniveling little pricks yell about supporting our troops even as they work to undermine the ideas of freedom and democracy they're dying for and on which America was founded.
Posted by: Redneck Liberal | July 31, 2010 at 07:05 AM
With all due respect, you are full of shit, Redneck Liberal reactionary. .
Posted by: KS | July 31, 2010 at 12:36 PM