September 29, 2007

Williams Defends O'Reilly, Rips CNN

Juan Williams defends Bill O'Reilly against charges of racism in Time Magazine, and angrily calls out O'Reilly's critics for calling him an Uncle Tom. He charges those critics with intellectual dishonesty for pulling one quote out of context to reverse what O'Reilly really said -- and he also accuses CNN for deliberately misreporting the incident in order to eat into O'Reilly's substantial ratings lead over CNN.

It's a media meltdown!

It started with Bill O'Reilly's grandmother. And it blew up into charges of O'Reilly being called a racist and me being attacked as a "Happy Negro" (read that as a lackey or Uncle Tom). ...

So, O'Reilly says to me that the reality to black life is very different from the lowlife behavior glorified by the rappers. He told me he was at a restaurant in Harlem recently and there was no one shouting profanity, no one threatening people. Then he mentioned going to an Anita Baker concert with an audience that was half black, and in sharp contrast to the corrosive images on TV, well dressed and well behaved.

I joked with O'Reilly that for him, a guy from Long Island, a visit to Harlem was like a "foreign trip." That's when he brought up his grandma. He said she was prejudiced against black people because she knew no flesh-and-blood black folks but only the one-dimensional TV coverage of black criminals shooting each other and the rappers and comedians glorifying "gangsta" life and thug cool. He criticized his grandmother as irrational for being afraid of people she really did not know.

Just like Bush's analogy about Nelson Mandela and the Rush Limbaugh controversy, this is another effort to discredit someone by cherry-picking the transcript and stripping something of all context. I don't even care for O'Reilly's show. I never watch it unless Michelle Malkin appears on it. I don't like shoutfests on TV and haven't gone out of my way to watch them in quite some time. That, however, doesn't mean that O'Reilly should be pilloried for supposedly saying something almost completely opposite of what he actually said.

Juan Williams goes into far more detail than I will, but essentially, O'Reilly was arguing against the rappers' defense that they just represent reality in the 'hood. O'Reilly countered that by relating his experience at a Harlem restaurant and an Anita Baker concert. His supposed "surprise" that black people behave normally was a sarcastic commentary on the "reality" that rappers supposedly relate to their audiences.

Media Matters, which has apparently created an entire division of cherry-pickers, dishonestly claimed that O'Reilly was surprised that black people act normally, and the rest of O'Reilly's critics followed. Normally, that would only matter in the blogosphere, but CNN decided to play the same intellectually dishonest game, and they're still playing it.

Last night in the 8 pm ET hour, I watched a segment on CNN where they continued to exploit this story, claiming that O'Reilly wouldn't come on their show and wouldn't apologize for what he said. Well, first off, O'Reilly's show airs live against that time slot, a point which the CNN hosts never mentioned, so he couldn't possibly join them to discuss it. Second, why should he apologize? He didn't say anything wrong, as Williams notes in his column.

Even the other people in the airport were scoffing at this. One younger man sitting next to me said, "Wow, CNN must be getting desperate." Another said, "Isn't there anything else to talk about?" Not on CNN. They and the Left have to play their intellectually dishonest games, and as Williams points out, make it impossible for anyone to have a constructive conversation about race.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (71)

Posted by Sue | September 29, 2007 11:07 AM

I've watched O'Reilly for quite some time. Not as much now as I did a few years ago, but I still find him to be one of the rare few that will bring up ugly subjects or subjects that are ugly directly in our face. To even out his show he also has his shtick, but to this day, I find that he is always ready to tell it to us like it really is. So few people have the cajones, the integrity and the ability to do so. Blogs have that freedom as you do on yours, Captain. But, this is the very first time I have been gleeful to watch as a mainstream Liberal like Juan Williams backs him up. If what O'Reilly does is rare, then Juan Williams does the almost unheard of: he stands up to the liars and cheaters and backs the truth about O'Reilly. Made my day!! Now, if we could find others willing to do as Juan did perhaps the Democratic and Republican parties can regain some of their lost respectability. But, having listened to some of the "presidential debates" I can tell you that not one candidate out there could stand with O'Reilly straight up.

Posted by mitt4mypres | September 29, 2007 11:10 AM

John McCain had this reaction to Rush:

Any American who risks his or her life to defend us has earned the respect and gratitude of every American citizen, irrespective of their views on this war. If Mr. Limbaugh made the remark he is reported to have made, it reflects very poorly on him and not the objects of his offensive comment. I expect most Americans, whatever their political views, will have the same reaction. He would be well advised to retract it and apologize.


Mitt Romney spokesman Kevin Madden expressed this reaction to Rush:

"Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion."

But then, neither of the above is on the FOX payroll.

Posted by richard mcenroe | September 29, 2007 11:22 AM

Nancy Pelosi announced today that she was proposing a plank for the DNC '08 platform revoking Juan William's blackness. In Spanish.

Posted by Okonkolo | September 29, 2007 11:24 AM

There are enough intellectually dishonest games on both sides of the spectrum to fill a canyon, and there is enough milking of mountain-out-of-molehill topics to feed the faithful.

Posted by Ned | September 29, 2007 11:25 AM

Read what Rush or Bill said to see the truth. The drive-bys and Democrats are on the ropes and they are trying everything they can. This is their surge. Rather than surging forward it is more like what happens when a sewer backs up or a drunk blows chunks.

Posted by John Houghton | September 29, 2007 11:34 AM

I believe everything is slowly coming to fruition. The Democratic party is so split and their organizers are dumbfounded. Corruption is all over them. From Jefferson to Hsu to Murtha, Pelosi et al. And a joke. The left is showing its true colors and they cannot figure out why they are losing. Wondeful!!

Posted by Fox Noose | September 29, 2007 11:47 AM

Oh you wish John Houghton. The two wingnut morons (RL & BO) you guys hold as beacons of right wing knowledge are undergoing a slow toast as people wake up to their blatant stupidy. Your withering party is going to need to resort to bake sales soon to beef up the GOP kitty. And Rudy's taking personal calls during campaign speeches, Fred's campaign is a non-starter, and value voters think Mitt is too slick by half. Good Luck.

Posted by sdmoderate | September 29, 2007 11:48 AM

O'Reilly's defense is that it was all taken out of context. Why then does he refuse to play the whole sound bite on his show so that we can get the quote in context?

Maybe because it is already being aired in many other outlets and it shows just how much of a nutcase he really is...

Posted by Sue | September 29, 2007 12:00 PM

Ahhhhh, the trolls are out of the sewer: foxnoose and sdmoderate. We're used to it, but I thought that perhaps on the Captain's site more intelligent folk from the left would post, not the rabid under rock smear merchants of hate.

Posted by SteveMG | September 29, 2007 12:01 PM

Why then does he refuse to play the whole sound bite on his show so that we can get the quote in context?

Because the entire discussion - the setup, et cetera - takes over 20 minutes or so. Not very conducive to good TV, perhaps?

So, the entire sound bite - and show - is available from his website.

As O'Reilly said (and said and said), the jumping off point of the entire debate was his discussion with his grandmother who said that she was afraid of black Americans. O'Reilly told her, "Grandma, you don't know any black Americans. How could you be afraid of them?"

She was fearful because the only images of black people she saw was from the media. And these largely negative images, O'Reilly points out, are not a fair portrayal of black Americans who, like everyone else, are ordinary people going about their lives.

This is not a difficult concept to understand. One has to be either very confused, very misguided or very malicious not to understand it.


Posted by jeff | September 29, 2007 12:05 PM

the entire sound clip from the radio program is available on his website, pretty prominently as well.

BTW, also interesting to note that the dinner in Harlem was with Al Sharpton.

Posted by mistercalm | September 29, 2007 12:23 PM

Trolls are funny: they either continue to support the bogus story in contradiction to the complete transcripts or they say 'everyone on all sides are equally bad' or some other fictional, moral-equivalence claptrap! I see this as desperation. The fact that they have to line up the entire big media apparatus and the Dems in Congress to attack a couple of free thinkers reminds me of the Politburo in the CCCP days.

Posted by njcommuter | September 29, 2007 12:24 PM

The Left has been doing this a lot. It's "the truths you've spoken, twisted by knaves into traps for fools," and knaves is the perfect description of people who do this. They can't find sound arguments and so resort to finding hot buttons in misquotes.

Either they have no sound arguments or they don't know how to find them, which suggests that they aren't astute enough to find a position which has them.

Misquotes are a desperate rearguard action, and only work because the sea of public opinion has become an unthinking slough. We have to keep the pressure up, not in slogans but in pithy, sound argument, and that means that each of us should have those arguments and their supporting facts at our fingertips.

Posted by quickjustice | September 29, 2007 12:28 PM

I don't watch O'Reilly. His tone's too strident for me. That said, it seems that the left is mounting an offensive against all of the right-wing media hosts by mis-characterizing what they say. First, Limbaugh, now O'Reilly?

There are no coincidences here. O'Reilly was dining with Sharpton? Did Sharpton place a call to Media Matters thereafter? Sharpton was treacherous in dealing with Giuliani. I guess O'Reilly hasn't learned his lesson yet.

Soros, Media Matters, and their trolls are in full cry. They're trying to "soften us up" in the lead-up to 2008.

Watch your back, Ed! It's already getting ugly.

Posted by theblacksheepwasright | September 29, 2007 12:31 PM


Maybe you should seek a new source of data because whoever told you O'Reilly refused to air the piece... LIED... it's that or you are offering untruths..

From day one he stated it was on his website for all to hear...

Posted by Terrye | September 29, 2007 1:10 PM

I don't watch O'Reilley and I think Malkin can be downright nasty, but this whole thing is just silly. People are not that stupid, CNN is just making fools of themselves.

It is right up there with Bush thinks Hussein killed Mandela. Willful stupidity.

Posted by Teresa | September 29, 2007 1:25 PM

Some of you are UNBELIEVABLE. I don't care what Juan Williams says. He does not speak for all black people. Anyone listening to the entire conversation knows that what O'Reilly said was wrong. Even Joe Scarborough (former Republican congressman) said that if you listen to the whole thing it is WORSE than what CNN is claiming.

I note how Juan Williams carefully doesn't mention that O"Reilly was "surprised" to find no one screaming, "Motherf***cker, get me some tea" at Sylvia's. He was not talking about what his grandmother thought would happen there, he was talking about what HE expected.

Juan Williams has valid points to make about hip-hop culture and its corrosive effects, but he is letting his contract with Fox blind him on this occasion.

Posted by SteveMG | September 29, 2007 1:34 PM

O"Reilly was "surprised" to find no one screaming, "Motherf***cker, get me some tea" at Sylvia's.

That was a joke, for crying out loud.

He was juxtaposing the behavior of the people at Sylvia's with the behavior of the gangster rappers shown in the media.


Again, if the ONLY idea of black Americans that one received was from the media, one would believe (INACCURATELY!!!) that black Americans go around yelling "M-F" this and "M-F" that and treat women like dirt.

That was his point! Black Americans, like the ones in the restaurant, DON'T go around yelling, "Hey, M-Fer, where's my iced tea??!!"

I truly believe that the concepts of parody or irony are just no longer permissible in our age.


Posted by flenser | September 29, 2007 1:35 PM

Anyone listening to the entire conversation knows that what O'Reilly said was wrong.

Why don't you use your gigantic brain to explain to us poor fools exactly how what he said was wrong.

Posted by flenser | September 29, 2007 1:37 PM

I truly believe that the concepts of parody or irony are just no longer permissible in our age.

Not if you're on the right it seems.

Posted by Jeff | September 29, 2007 1:39 PM

Having lost the debate on Iraq and run out of constructive ideas, the once-great democrat party is throwing the Hail Mary pass by trying to smear its way into power.

It's transparent.

Posted by flenser | September 29, 2007 1:40 PM

I note how Juan Williams carefully doesn't mention that O"Reilly was "surprised" to find no one screaming, "Motherf***cker, get me some tea" at Sylvia's.

Perhaps that is because O'Reilly was not surprised.

But I notice how you "carefully" did not mention that.

Posted by Proud kaffir | September 29, 2007 2:02 PM


Here's a little hint: When you see dot, dot, dot in a political quote, it usuually means someone is pulling words completely out of context.

After O'Reiily mentioned the restaurant and how the scene there was the opposite of the black culture depicted by gangsta rappers, Williams stated that most white Americans believe that gangsta rap is the only black culture. That's when O'Reilly stated that no one said, "Motherf***er, get me some tea". i.e he was agreeing with Williams and illustrating the point using sarcasm.

Let me play the same game with your post,:

Theresa posted, "I. . .don't care for all back people. . . .Motherf***cker."

It's a direct quote, you foul-mouthed rascist.

Posted by Proud Kaffir | September 29, 2007 2:06 PM

Actually it should be,"I don't care . . .for all black people . . .Motherf***cker." but the same idea applies.

Posted by George | September 29, 2007 2:11 PM

What "corrosive images on TV?" Having lived in a predominantly black section of a major U.S. city, I have yet to see a TV show that even comes close to portraying the blacks that seem hell bent on living for the moment while destroying their future and the future of their community. What TV show even touches the 70% illegitimacy rate among blacks? How about a TV show portraying ten black children with seven of them abandoned by their fathers? You will never find this politically incorrect scenario on TV; people might start stereotyping blacks as if the problem really exists (when it actually really does). You would never even know this problem exists if you only watched TV.

It is very true that it impossible for anyone to have a constructive conversation about race. If you mention the elephant in the room, you are labeled a racist.

Posted by SteveMG | September 29, 2007 2:18 PM

Even Joe Scarborough (former Republican congressman) said

Even Joe.

Scarborough's colleague at MSNBC, Keith Olbmerann, recently stated that Fox News "is as dangerous to us as the Ku Klux Klan ever was".

Read that one again.

Scarborough's reaction?: Silence.

Imagine one Bill O'Reilly claiming that: "MSNBC is as dangerous to us as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

Methinks Mr. Scarborough would have something to say. Media Matters, CNN et cetera too.

Good old Joe knows who's signing his paychecks. Ratings, like public opinion polls did before, guide Joe's worldview.


Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | September 29, 2007 2:38 PM

It is a sign of their deteriorating political situation that the MSM is going after O' Reilly and Rush. Anything to avoid talking about the successful US troop surge in Iraq, the Democrat Congress' shrinking poll numbers (far lower that GWB's), the MoveOn meltdown, and the growing Hsu scandal that has engulfed major Democrats like Hillary.

Posted by red | September 29, 2007 2:39 PM

Saw the response to CNN with O'Reilly and Juan Williams. I have to say Juan really shows me something in that clip, making very clear points about damaging stereotypes in the media. Juan may be liberal in many ways, but he demonstrated that he is a leading voice contributing to a genuine conversation about making race relations honest and positive in America.

His reaction to CNN was very passionate. You won't get any support for the smear of O'Reilly from him.

As an idle question, when do we get to discuss John Edwards 'blacks are criminals or dead' remark? On a humanity and understanding scale of one to ten with 10 being Martin Luther King and 0 being Al Sharpton, John Edwards comes away with a negative score.

Posted by jeff | September 29, 2007 3:11 PM

Juan Williams may be liberal but I give the guy a lot of credit for being intellectually honest about it, defining his own positions rather than repeating someone else's talking points.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 29, 2007 3:19 PM

The real issue here shouldn't be what O'Reilly did or didn't say, but CNN's breathtaking hypocrisy in going after him for saying it when they would have give one of their own "high priced news people" a pass for saying something similar. After all, CNN's own Wolfie Blitzed had this to say a couple of years about the New Orleans victims of Hurricane Katrina:

""You simply get chills every time you see ... almost all of them that we see, are so poor, and they're so black..."

Wolfie got a total pass from the "network" for that statement. And if he had been the one sitting at that table in Harlem with Sharpton and said the same thing O'Reilly said, no one would raise an eyebrow.

A few years back, the senior US Senator from the Democrat Party, who despite having a past as a member of the Ku Klux Klan is widely revered by his political party, uttered the "N" word on Fox News. He was given a pass too.

Can you say "Double standard"? George Orwell's "Animal Farm" was right-some are more equal than others.

Posted by hunter | September 29, 2007 3:23 PM

This only shows that lefty hacks, as we see here daily, are incapable of comprehending thoughts that require more than one sentence, much less a paragraph.
Add to that their intellectual dishonesty, and we get to watch them lose even more credibility with mainstream America.
Stalin and Pravda could not smear any better than what the lefties are doing today.
They will survive as well in history.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 29, 2007 3:25 PM

CNN is getting crazier than Ted Turner!

It seems the whole object of business is to IMPROVE your product!

Check this out: CNN is not improving their product.

They're coming up short on the Internet. And, there are a lot of "old customers" of CNN, who no longer go there; and who see this stuff, reminding themselves why CNN stinks as a news source.

Why would O'Reilly even go on CNN? He doesn't have to boost their ratings. If anything, given such a chance, he'd turn those lunatics down cold.

The other piece to notice? Okey dokey.

This past week both Rush and O'Reilly got "full frontal assaults" from Media Matters.

It would be more honest if we just changed the working title to CLUELESS ABOUT MEDIA MATTERS.

George Soros has gambled.

This is what he's got.

Rush? Increased his reputation. People who know he does a show, but don't tend to tune in? Here, they could see the segment up on U-TUBE.

O'Reilly? How does he come off bad? He's willing to extoll a restaurant in Harlem! I think that's good advertising.

Just like the restaurant in Greenwich Village, Osso Bucco. Chelsea's picture in the window is very "second tier, celebrity." But now? Adding her dad's pompous letterhead to the deal? PRICELESS.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 29, 2007 3:29 PM

It's also worth noting that Lucianne and InstaPundit are giving great space extolling Justice Clarence Thomas' new book. Due to hit on Monday.

In his book, Clarence Thomas says, "he feared the KKK when he was growing up; but it seems the real monsters were the liberals, garbed in their fake sanctimony.

By the way, debate race issues all ya want. It still remains to the INDIVIDUAL to prove they're head and shoulders above the next guy.

Expect Thomas' book to reach blockbuster status.

I'd imagine there will be people who will purposely read this text IN PUBLIC. That's what's gonna stick it up the craw of those liberal provocatures.

Posted by Tom W. | September 29, 2007 4:14 PM

It's funny to hear "progressives" express such righteous indignation about racism.

Even seen Michele Malkin's hate mail? It's full of racial epithets you'd expect to hear from the Ku Klux Klan. Yet it comes from enlightened, humane, tolerant, educated leftists.

Michael Steel is pelted with Oreo cookies. Asian conservatives are called "Twinkies"--yellow on the outside, white on the inside.

To liberals, the only "authentic" black is disgusting gangbanger from da 'hood. Have you ever noticed that in TV commercials, when black men are shown in business suits, they usually speak their lines in a proud ghetto accent so nobody will think they're "happy Negroes" or Uncle Toms?

Liberalism is almost entirely destructive. It demands that people adhere to strict orthodoxy of thought, action, lifestyle, and appearance. The worst thing it does, however, is demand that non-Caucasians remain forever outside the mainstream, simply because of their ethnicity.

That's the textbook definition of racism.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 29, 2007 4:53 PM

Well, after the EDSEL couldn't be moved off of showroom floors, no matter what the marketeers did; it turns out you can't sell "class," or "status," while your front grill is designed to look like an oncoming toilet seat.

Of course, there's an old adage: "It's as obvious as the nose on your face."

That the media's been squandering assets?

You need me to confirm this for you?

One of the things that happened to european aristocracy; after they "bet the wrong horse," and ened up with titles. BUT NO MONEY. And, little chance of income ...

Is NOT give up on the ways they sipped their tea!

Goodness gracious.

Big balls on fire.

One of the things that happen to the progeny of wealth, that are clueless about how to "maintain" the pot. Let alone grow it some more ...

Is the odd habit of calling their small, elite, group "home." While others don't care if the boat they're on, capsizes. Or not.

We know that today the liberals had to go and do a surgical name-change. Why? There was nothing wrong with the word "liberal" two hundred and more years ago. We actually got power from the ENLIGHTMENT. And, then? Light bulbs, followed.

There's no "sizzle" in progressive.

Just as there's no beauty in "code pinko." Imagine adopting the very name that Nixon, in his first run, came on stage: AGAINST.

You might not like Nixon. But he did go far.

Till the elites in the media, getting terribly unhappy with the way Americans were voting; went ahead and created a scandal that sank Nixon.

Returning, again, as farce, however, Dubya defeated his enemies.

"They" didn't set a glove on him!

And, the Internet GREW.

Did the elites take after Matt Drudge?

What used to amuse me, so! Every time mud was slung at Drudge, he displayed in prominently.

Over and over, again.

The elites kept giving him opportunities.

They also take very good articles and kill them.

So, you probably know that Gentlemen's Quarterly shucked a negative Hillary article, in exchange for getting Bubba on their December cover.

Well. If nothing else. No need to hire Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. Bubba's a fine stand-in for that.

And, Drudge? I bet more people go to his site, than just about any other, around this globe. Where else can you get all those links? And, where else do the media ACCOUNTANTS forbid the meia midgets to disgrace themselves by telling Drudge "no links."

That wouldn't be profitable. Ya know?

While over at TNR, quiet as mice, since the Beauchamp flap blew up; went ahead and fired two people. McGee, an insider who pointed to Elspeth Reeves being Beauchamp's wife. And, TNR's tip-top-fact-checker. Her job was so easy, now that she's been fired, nobody knows she's missing.

So my question IS: Exactly how much is Franklin Foer's "bonus" gonna be worth? And, will it come wrapped in GQ's December cover?

Not. That. I. Care.

Posted by dhunter | September 29, 2007 5:32 PM

No-one is reading the Dem papers or watching the dem news, check out Chrissy Matthews ratings some time, OReilly out sells all of CNN.

Pisses off the dum..s Dems so whats left for the brain dead party of Paris, Lindsay Lohan, Brittany?

The only thing left for them when they are losing so badly is to lie like a bedwetter,,,(The war is Lost) and use whatever power they have to censure the right wing that is getting all the readers and ratings.

If the dems get the presidency and maintain conressional leads bet on it that the fairness doctrine returns.

Maybe McCain can co-sponsor it worked on McPain Feingold. PAIPS must be defeated.

Posted by Rick Moran | September 29, 2007 6:01 PM

O'Reilly's show airs live against that time slot...

Sorry Ed, but I believe at least some of the shows are on two hour delay - at least that was my experience taping a segment.

Posted by Fox Noose | September 29, 2007 6:02 PM

Good grief republitards. Your hero Rush is caught with his pants down (again) calling our nation's finest "phonies." Falafel man is spouting soft racism over the airwaves. Your GOP candidates are also obviously and intentionally skipping black forums and debates. What's a modern voter to think? You guys are truly clueless to think the country hasn't noticed your hatred for humanity.

Posted by fouse, gary c | September 29, 2007 6:20 PM

Juan Williams, Bill O'Reilly and CNN

I don't necessarily agree with everything that Juan Williams says on a variety of issues, but I feel compelled to come to his defense in this week's controversy involving himself, Bill O'Reilly, Media Matters and CNN. In terms of background, O'Reilly recently had dinner with Al Sharpton at Sylvia's Restaurant in Harlem and made some innocuous (and favorable) comments on his experience there, which led the usual left-wing elements try to make the Fox News commentator out to be a racist. Media Matters, a left-wing, mad hatter web site, led the charge with CNN, a mortal enemy of Fox and O'Reilly in particular, chipping in. This week, O'Reilly, in defense, brought Fox News contributor Juan Williams onto his show. Williams referred to CNN as "idiots". On Wednesday, CNN hosted Syracuse University professor, Boyce Watkins, on its Newsroom show. Watkins referred to Williams as a "happy Negro"- in other words, an Uncle Tom.

So here we go again. Not only is O'Reilly painted as a racist for his innocuous comments about Sylvia's Restaurant-which were meant to be in the context of refuting racism- but Williams is now an Uncle Tom for defending O'Reilly and referring to the "idiots" at CNN. For the record, Williams has never been considered a conservative. If anything, he is moderate to liberal in his leanings. However, Williams is also an independent thinker-something that is anethema to liberals and black activists. He is also now a Fox News contributor, which will never earn him points on the left. Perhaps more importantly, Williams has recently authored a book entitled: "Enough", a critical look at the "traditional" black leadership of the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the victimhood mentality that afflicts so many African-Americans and serves them no useful purpose. Could this have anything to do with the virulent attack on Williams by people such as Professor Watkins, Media Matters, CNN and others?

The fact is that any African-American who dares to step away from the party-line is putting him/herself right in the cross-hairs of the race hucksters and the far-left, who continue to preach that nothing has changed since the 1960s and that blacks cannot get a fair shake in America. Any black who speaks against this ideology is branded as a sell-out and Uncle Tom. If left-wing organs like Media Matters and CNN want to paint O'Reilly as a racist, woe be to the black public figure who comes to his defense. The charge of Uncle Tom or white racist is specifically designed to silence opposition, whether the target be black or white respectively.

I am certain that O'Reilly will continue to speak out against this outrage. After all, he is not known for turning the other cheek. I hope that Williams will as well and also speak out in defense of other blacks- more conservative than he- who have long been paying a high price for their independent thinking. The voices of Williams and others deserve to be heard and considered-not silenced. This is just another example of how the left attempts to silence their critics. It should serve as an example to anyone concerned with free speech, but who has yet to figure out where the greatest threat to free speech is coming from.

gary fouse

Posted by SteveMG | September 29, 2007 6:30 PM

the country hasn't noticed your hatred for humanity.

Geez, all of humanity? All of it?

That's a helluva burden you're putting on us.

Can we start with just those in the Western Hemisphere and then work our way east?

Otherwise, I'm going to have to pack a couple extra pair of underwear.


Posted by unclesmrgol | September 29, 2007 6:43 PM

Fox Noose,

The modern voter should think the following:

a) Candidate should not attend voter forum which are race-oriented. If a candidate would not attend a KKK event, the seamless garb says not to attend the corresponding NAACP event either. There are other means of getting your racial neutrality across then walking into a racially polarizing environment and then trying to tug the other way.

b) Consider which party historically has been and continues to be the Party of Slavery. Passing out candy to voters doesn't make the passer the voter's friend.

c) Republitard. Darn -- its too long to fit on a license plate! Maybe I'll make a bumper sticker. But I would only have one bumper sticker on my car, and the liberal lady down the block has twelve! What to do...what to do...

Posted by patrick neid | September 29, 2007 6:45 PM

Juan Williams had better watch his back.

First the interview with Bush at NPR's expense and now defending or trying to explain O'Reilly. Whew.

The new uncle Juan seems to have gone over to the dark side. (no pun intended).

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 29, 2007 8:08 PM

Fox Noose babbled:

"Good grief republitards."

LOL! Calling Republicans retards? I think Capt. Ed had a post about the gratuitous use of the term "retards" back about a week ago. Please get some new material from Begala.

As I recall, the Dems were the party of slavery. Al Gore Senior was against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the current Senior Democrat in the US Senate was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, as I noted previously.

By the way, I wouldn't use a screen name like "Noose" in a thread about race if I were you.

Posted by Neo | September 29, 2007 8:39 PM

Media Matters doesn't matter. They are a bunch of undersexed credants.

Remember, they are getting paid to do this poor excuse for a job. It will look nice on their resumes, right next to their time at McDonalds. I'm only surprised that they haven't broken out asking you if you want fries with their platter of overdone guano.

As soon as they get out of their mother's basement, they might growup into something that I will take seriously.

Posted by The Mechanical Eye | September 29, 2007 10:14 PM

I don't have much to add, beyond shaking my head at how easily trolls and racists can take over a thread.

But I will add that Bill O'Reilly did sound very out-of-touch; his understanding of black American life really does consist of hip-hop videos. Even taken in context, his words sound a tad patronizing in his apparent amazement at the sight of well-behaved black people.

As for the Democratic Party being the "party of slavery," I'd be careful of talking up this charge -- talking about the past like that opens up a lot of history, and the Democratic Party isn't the only one with skeletons in its closet.

*cough* southern strategy *cough*


Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 29, 2007 10:40 PM

"As for the Democratic Party being the "party of slavery," I'd be careful of talking up this charge -- talking about the past like that opens up a lot of history, and the Democratic Party isn't the only one with skeletons in its closet."

How many Senior Republican Senators have used the N-word on national tv in the past 10 years?

Speaking of "ancient" history:

"Who can forget the Florida 2000 recount battle, when white supremacists rallied for Republicans who embraced their support? What about Florida Republican Gov. Jeb Bush's and former Bush-state-campaign-co-chair-Secretary-of-State-turned-Congresswoman Katherine Harris' openly racist system of purges before the 2000 election that took the names of mostly African-American voters off the rolls? "

Keep spinning, Skippy. I have to go make some more popcorn.

Posted by Carole | September 29, 2007 11:26 PM

Yes, trolls can easily take over a thread and it
is not something we usually see on this blog.

Tell me, Dear Trolls, were you given your orders
to get to work on the conservative bloggers

I seem to remember a time before when this happened, but you were driven off by decent
people who did not use swearing to make their
point. Yes! I remember that

I suppose it is really the trolls take their
order well, or perhaps it is just "see the
dems do real nasty and dirty" so we must as

When a person grows up he leaves the childish
nasty games behind, unless he becomes a dem.

These people are only worth no attention at all,
ever, they are simply dem troublemakers who
think they are clever and will somehow take
over the blog comments with their wise and
thoughtful thinking.

Dream on!

Posted by Gregory | September 29, 2007 11:38 PM

Yeah, Rush called our nations "finest" and those who served with "honor and distinction" phonys, sure, keep telling your self that. All of a sudden troops aren't murderers and rapists anymore? The sign I saw in Washington D.C. that said "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers" was just a little joke then? Guess the Morning Joe missed that one. We know who the phonys name. We also know who the racists are. Mr. Williams wandered to far of the plantation and gets hit with the "house negro" label. Weak.

Posted by Night Owl | September 30, 2007 1:52 AM

"Last night in the 8 pm ET hour, I watched a segment on CNN where they continued to exploit this story, claiming that O'Reilly wouldn't come on their show and wouldn't apologize for what he said."

This is why CNN is doing it. To make you watch and get them ratings. Don't fall for it.

Posted by docjim505 | September 30, 2007 6:18 AM

Let's say for the sake of argument that Bill O'Reilly is a nasty ol' bigot and he meant his remarks to be just as they've been reported.


Now what?

Shall we hang him? Burn him at the stake? Or (gasp!) take him off the air? (You're getting warmer....)

A week or so ago, many of the same liberals attacking O'Reilly were strutting their "intellectual" credentials by claiming that Ahmadenijad had a "free speech" right to come and blather at Columbia. These were also among the people who gave Ward Churchill a similar pass when he called the victims in the Twin Towers on 9-11 "little Eichmanns".

Does Bill O'Reilly not have those same "free speech" rights? If he is such a nasty ol' right wing Christian conservative bigot homophobe, shouldn't his opinions get a full and free airing? Sunlight is the best disinfectant, you know.

I think what we're seeing here is Imus v2.0. Libs learned from that ridiculous episode that they can get unpopular (with them) voices taken off the air by ginning up charges of racism / sexism / homophobia. O'Reilly is a popular "conservative" talk show host (on the hated FOX NEWS, no less!). He needs to go! Having no power to have him taken off the air by the government (yet), the libs are doing the next best thing, which is to smear him as a racist in the hopes that Fox News will do the job for them.

Teresa: I don't care what Juan Williams says. He does not speak for all black people.

Oh. Does Jesse Jackson? Or Al Sharpton? What about Charlie Rangle?

Terrye: People are not that stupid...

Obviously you don't read some of the comments here! There are PLENTY of people who are that stupid... and they vote democrat. Even worse, I think they breed.


Posted by the fly-man/bong boy | September 30, 2007 7:24 AM

Honestly I'd have to say the Rush Limbaugh analogy doesn't fit. He made a comment about one phony troop and from the Right's rabid affinity towards anyone who dares questions the troops he blew it. Blasphemy of one troop is blasphemy to them all. Talk about cherry picking, brilliant Capn' Ed, but I don't think the right should let Rush off the hook, he crossed that holy line, plain and simple. Either hold him accountable to the standard or get rid of the ridiculous sanctimonious crap about our soldiers.

Posted by woof | September 30, 2007 8:35 AM

He made a comment about one phony troop and from the Right's rabid affinity towards anyone who dares questions the troops he blew it.

Is the left still beating that phony (dead) horse? Rush was speaking about wannabees like Jesse McBeth.

As LGF so eloquently put it

Jesse MacBeth, the lying scumbag who became a hero of the left when he claimed to be an Army Ranger and alleged that the US military was routinely murdering Iraqi civilians, has been sentenced to 5 months in prison.

Are you trying to misdirect for the recent sentence or is this just this month's get-Rush meme.

One genuine soldier is worth twenty marijuana induced, parasitic lefties.

Posted by Keemo | September 30, 2007 9:02 AM

People are not that stupid...

Obviously you don't read some of the comments here! There are PLENTY of people who are that stupid... and they vote democrat. Even worse, I think they breed.

And then "right on cue", the bong-boy proves this point. Good points Doc.

I'm not an O'Reilly regular, but I might become one now that I'm becoming aware of "who and what" this man does with his job. I've been reading up on O'Reilly the last few days; this man has taken a stand against Liberal Judges who allow "safe haven" for Pedifiles and other sicko's who attack and harm our children; taken a stand against Soros and the far left radicals who threaten the American way of life; taken a stand against illegal immigration, while pointing out the facts about the harm illegals have brought to American communities; on and on. I'm just now getting to know O'Reilly and the good work he's doing for us. This man takes on the tough topics with a display of some manliness.

Rock on O'Reilly; keep on doing the work most Americans refuse to do...

Posted by Fox Noose | September 30, 2007 9:19 AM

LGF eloquent? Ha. Ha. You made a funny.

So what's up with the GOP presidential candidates giving black forums and debates the shaft? No mother-effin' iced tea?

Spin away white folks.

Posted by Keemo | September 30, 2007 9:34 AM

Spin away white folks.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Love keepin that "Black vs White" thing going, don't you Fox Noose. BTW: how exactly do your comments relate to the topic?

Posted by the fly-man/bong boy | September 30, 2007 9:43 AM

Keemo, I brought up a legitmate point and didn't imply that anyone was stupid. Call me stupid to my face please don't hide behind someone else's comment.

Posted by the friendly grizzly | September 30, 2007 9:49 AM

I heard the entire Rush segment on MacBeth. So, FoxNoose, unlike you, I listened to the segment. ONE man was pointed out as the phoney soldier.

Another commenter above went on about how insulting one troop (sic) insults them all. First of all, that is not a prejudgement anyone with a grain of sense would engage in.

In years past, I accepted what was said about Rsh Limbaugh. Then, I tuned in. Quite a difference. Do I accept everything he says as gospel? No. What I find so interesting is that he has an incredible sense of humor, often at his own expense.

This is compared to those who either take themselves entirely too seriously (Air America hosts), or the over-wrought, hand-wringing, sniveling, woe-is-me types (Michael Savage).

Posted by Keemo | September 30, 2007 10:07 AM

Bong Boy,

Um, I'm not quite sure I can get to your face from here. In this case, some one else's comment fit my own rather well. Your "point" is a mystery to me; I'm assuming one would have to be of a "Liberal mindset" to understand exactly what your point is/was, and how it relates to this topic. The transcript of Rush's statements are posted on the "Rush thread"; nothing can be disputed with this. The facts have been presented; media matters cherry picked "cut and pasted" to fit an agenda of "smear and destroy" in the most unethical manners available. This has become too familiar with the leftists of today. Can't fight with ideas and solutions, therefore these folks seek to smear and destroy with lies and distortions.

Posted by Jeff | September 30, 2007 10:30 AM

How can we stand by while militant leftists rape our language to gain victim-power?

We're talking about a category of disingenuous criticism analogous to the case where a guy says "I didn't finish it" and the prude says "whaaa, oh my god you said 'shit'!!".

This is the path leftists are on. Just look at the malicious smear piece last week about President Bush "claiming Mandela was killed." They're trying to legitimize a very disgraceful tactic of political demonization that doesn't require the speaker to have actually said the thing they accuse him of saying. A situation where what the speaker actually said is irrelevant.

Thus, the well-financed leftist hate-sites scour the airwaves looking for any syllable, any scrap that can be used to construct the rhetorical equivalent of an improvised explosive device.

How could any true intellectual vote democrat?

Posted by Cardinals Nation | September 30, 2007 10:40 AM

What all of this shows, and sadly so, is that there can be no constructive discussions about the inherent likeness and differences of the many races and cultures in this country. Both are used to score political points and advance separatist agendas and our nation is worse off for it being so.

Posted by the fly-man/bong boy | September 30, 2007 10:55 AM

My point was that Capn Ed presented as an accompanying and I assuming a supporting analogy, the idea that Rush's phony troop comment was taken out of context. Rush crosses the line when he wants to and no one seems to care that he's made a fortune off of telling people where the limits are. His pro troop alignment has been front and center from day one and he more than anyone has held their honor as nothing but pure sanctimony. He crossed the line this time by attacking a real veteran, which he is not, nor ever will be, and now has to live up to his exception to his gospel. How Ed figures that into the Oriely situation only deals with his perception of how the media, hyperbolic or cherry picking, either one, split hairs over Rush's suggestion. Rush said something blasphemous about our troops, this is like the second amendment to folks on the right, ask DocJim, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE YOU DON'T SLANDER THE TROOPS. This is bait and switch on Rush's part plain and simple.

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 30, 2007 11:13 AM


Telling the truth about winter soldiers isn't slander.

Posted by the fly-man/bong boy | September 30, 2007 11:37 AM

Mr. Limbaugh deserves no allowable exception to HIS understanding of combat warfare. His is regulated to cheerleader. I can't wait for his criticism of the President to start. Maybe he'll call Bush a Phony President. Rush's political expediency is his Diva style attention grabs that he constantly uses to compete with Mr. Oriely. Both are political thugs, who apparently people like Keemo, appreciate what they say from the sidelines. Now where is that Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oriely perfect GOP candidate? Has Rush ever been elected to anything? Has Bill? Why does it even matter what these people say? If the truth was so evident as they proclaim it, why can't there be a political party that runs with their mantras? Immigration,yes it takes manliness to correct this situation doesn't it. Well what Manly stand did Congress take against their, well I guess, Girly President?

Posted by burtsb | September 30, 2007 12:05 PM

Thank God for our leftist enemies like Media Matters, Pelosi brain dead Dems, , CNN , MSDNC .
There is nothing better to fire up the base before an election than Baseless attacks on our conservative or moderate talk radio hosts or the President.
The more they attack , the more the base rightfully fears for our right to free speech by the Left which will shut us up once they gain power.
Thats why its so odd to see these brain dead DUers and Kos KIds trying to justify these attacks on this website.
Please peddle you propaganda to your own kind since there are the only ones stupid enough to beleive it ! You leftists are dangerous usefull idiots who will shut us up at this website and all others once once you gain the White House ! That the way the Left alway takes care of debate !

Posted by Carol Herman | September 30, 2007 12:17 PM

Of all the mistaken ideas, there's the one where "once the Bonkeys gain the White House," they'll go in overdrive, "to shut things up."

Hardly likely.

IF the Bonkeys gain the white house, I'd bet they first find a way to disgorge Hillary from the race.


Anybody who thinks DC functions, is out of their minds!

Today, in the malfunctioning universe of DC you don't see crowds of people gathered.

But I can give you a comparison. To LBJ.

People gathered! And, terrified the guy inside the white house! You thought LBJ just got tired? Nah. Truman didn't get "tired" either ...

The public, however, turned on them. And, they couldn't LEAD.

So, far, the last Bonkey who could lead was FDR.

Bubba? You call the man with the cigar for a baton a leader? He was just a porn act. At the end of the performances by vaudeville. Vaudeville died, ya know? And, it died before 9/11.

Anyway, the senate, by and large, is not run well. It's still a pork fest, for men who prefer wearing prom dresses.

It's not gonna produce presidential timber anytime soon. Not for either party. Not in my estimation.

And, I don't mind going back to 1860. Abraham Lincoln had to dump the WHIGS label. And, even then, he enters the "teepee" in Decatur with 3 men who thought of themselves as "contendahs."

What happened on stage?

Besides Lincoln's brilliance?

Let me put Lincoln's brilliance FIRST. Because he had his in-law HANKS bringing in SPLIT RAILS ... into the auditorium. So people would see Lincoln as a RAIL SPLITTER.

He also developed linoleum YELLOW overcoats. Worn by the men, at night. Carrying TORCHES. He gave the journalists, there, stuff to write about.

While the 3-ahead of Lincoln, hating each other's camps, so, they kept throwing insults ...

To Lincoln's OBVIOUS assertion that he held NATIONAL recognition, and positions, on the "topics of his day." And, he did this with words.

Lincoln was, in fact, quite a wordsmith.

Well, so was Shakespeare.

The left is actually leaderless. Among themselves they can't even come up with one good leader, to sell "retail." Where the public's gonna buy their song and dance.

Heck, they can't even re-tread Jimmy Carter!

Every single headline works against them.

Just like, during the 1970's, every single attack headline against Nixon, STUCK.

While Bush? Other than the ones who haven't discovered boomerang, yet; BDS made the Bonkeys sick. They haven't even recovered from 2000!

CLUE: If you're stuck in 2000. You're missing the events of 9/11.

Most people, today, operate on the souped up manual of the Internet.

Which is a good thing. Because there's nobody with talent running anything for the Bonkeys.

Oh, yeah. the leftoids that drop by, here.

All it proves is that we know the "talking points."

Sure. Some of us wait around for the New Yuk Times to come to terms with their losses.

While the one thing affirmative action does; just like the unions did. Keeps the deadwood around forever.

Posted by docjim505 | September 30, 2007 1:29 PM

Did somebody say my name?

the fly-man/bong boy: Rush said something blasphemous about our troops, this is like the second amendment to folks on the right, ask DocJim, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE YOU DON'T SLANDER THE TROOPS.

As it happens, I heard the segment live on Rush's show. I knew who he was talking about even before he said the name: J-j-jesse McB-b-b-beth, a stammering idiot who tried passing himself off as a Ranger who'd done all sorts of horrible things in Iraq ON ORDERS. He was quite the darling on some lefty sites for a short time... until REAL soldiers started looking at his "official" photograph and quickly realized that he was a charlatan and a transparent charlatan at that. McBeth is the sort of phony soldiers that Rush was speaking about.

It might interest you to know that several people claiming to be active or retired military called Rush's show right after his remarks about McBeth. Incredibly, they weren't offended by what Rush said. It seems that, unlike sophisticated, intellectual lefties, they knew that he was talking about charlatans and not about real soldiers. Anybody who's listened to Rush for more than twenty seconds will tell you that he ALWAYS speaks with great respect and admiration for our armed forces. It presses the bounds of credulity to believe that Rush would use the word "phony" to talk about the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that he has routinely venerated for years.

You're right about one thing, though: I am QUITE sensitive to slurs against the military, because (A) I and most of the men in my family have worn the uniform and (B) I've seen plenty of people (all lefties) slur and slander out armed forces ever since I was a kid in the post-Vietnam era. It makes me furious when they do so. If anybody would be offended at Rush said, it would be me. That I WASN'T offended should be a clear enough indicator that there was nothing offensive in what he said.

That is, unless you're an exposed phony like Jesse McBeth or Scott Beauchamp, trying to make a name for yourself by pretending to be a soldier and then lying like hell about your "experiences" to impress your lefty friends. I'm sure they were QUITE offended by what Rush said.


Posted by runawayyyy | September 30, 2007 3:53 PM

I just love these leftist trolls....bongboy is actually claiming to want to stick up for the troops....tell me, does anyone take him seriously on this subject? This is the same bongboy who frequently bashes the military....and watch him deny this, should be fun....then go back into the archives and see what the little turd said to defend the moveon ad....remember, by his (her?) standard, slandering ONE peron in the military is equivalent to smearing ALL of them.

Bongboy's problem seems to be that he's pissed about something O'Reilly said, even though it's been pointed out to him repeatedly that Bill said exactly the, we can pass this off as simple leftist ignorance, but after so many repeat performances of what Bill actually said, it can now only be blatant lies on the part of the little turd bongboy....and the really funny thing is that he still thinks anyone, anywhere believes anything he says.

Posted by jaeger51 | September 30, 2007 4:47 PM

Leftists are so irrelevant now, and so disproven by history, that they have been reduced to making no logical arguments whatsoever. Ever notice how much time they spend lately going after right wing talk show hosts to try to personally smear them out of existence? The hosts are not policy deciders, they are merely commentators. If their comments made no sense, noone would be interested. So where's the popular leftist pundit? Where's the popular leftist talk show host? All they have is a bias in the MSM, which they continually deny exists, and pretend that the MSM is objective above all things. If you can't come up with any ideas that work, and can't win any arguments intellectually, and are reduced to personal attacks and attempts at subconscious psychological manipulation to get your way, you are about done in the marketplace. Maybe we will finally see the end of the 60s soon....we can only hope.

Posted by njcommuter | September 30, 2007 5:29 PM

As long as they can gain support of the electorate, they are not irrelevant. If we want them to be irrelevant, we will have to work for it.

Post a comment