Go off, Bill!

[Rob67]

Rob


Bill O'Reilly, Talking Points
___________________

Don't be a Kool-Aid (search) person. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points" memo. In 1978, more than 900 people committed suicide in Guyana (search) by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid at the behest of a religious nut named Jim Jones. Thus the term "Kool-Aid people."

They are folks who do not think for themselves. They are true believers committed to a political ideology or other belief system. And no matter what evidence is presented to them, they are incapable of change.

You see, Kool-Aid people most often in the political arena on both the right and the left. Don't be one. Think independently.

That brings us to some of the 9/11 people, who have chosen to use the tragedy that befell them to promote their ideology. About 100 of these people, less then 1 percent of the folks directly affected by 9/11, have joined a group called Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. The group's goal is "to promote a safe, open dialogue on alternatives to war" and is an avowed left-wing organization.

Peaceful Tomorrows is partially funded by the Tides Foundation, an activist non-profit group that gives big money to liberal organizations. Tides has donated more than $300 million to groups "working for social change."

Peaceful Tomorrows is also associated with the Fentons Communications PR firm, which books people on radio and TV and generally provides their clients with national media exposure. Fenton also represents moveon.org and the new lib radio deal.

It is Fenton which advises the Peaceful Tomorrow folks, who have become increasingly involved in high-profile situations like protesting President Bush's terrorism ads and criticizing Condoleezza Rice and other Republicans at the 9/11 Commission hearings.

The problem is that few, if any, of the news programs identify these 9/11 people as belonging to a left-wing cabal. dedicated to defeating President Bush for ideological reasons. Most Americans thought and still think that these people who booed and applauded during the commission hearings were just plain folks.

Now you know. "Talking Points" believes that using dead relatives to advance ideology is very disturbing. If conservatives were doing this, we'd say the same thing. There's something tawdry about it. And the deception that's been going on in the media is staggering. To be fair, some editors and producers didn't know, but some did and chose not to honestly identify this Peaceful Tomorrows bunch.

Now we contacted a number of these people to come in here and tell their side of the story. They all declined, even though it was this program who went to their rescue during the 9/11 charity debacle.

Constitutionally, these people have a right to support any ideology they want and I respect that right if it were done independently of the terror action. But to use dead Americans in a stealth attempt to influence a presidential election is flat-out immoral in my opinion. The families for Peaceful Tomorrows should be ashamed.

And that's "The Memo."

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

I don't single people out for personal criticism very often, but tonight I'm making an exception because it's important for you to know the truth about people who can influence public policy.

Richard Ben-Veniste (search) has been the most partisan of the 9/11 commissioners, with the possible exception of Bob Kerrey. Now I like Ben- Veniste's tough questioning. What I don't like is the fact that he is selective in doing it. He only goes after Republicans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE (D), 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: Did you tell the president at any time prior to August 6 of the existence of Al Qaeda cells in the United States?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: First, let me just make certain...

BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question because I only have a very limited time.

RICE: I understand, Commissioner...

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president?

RICE: ... but it's important that I also address -- it's also important, commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised, so I will do it quickly, but if you'll just give me a moment.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you told the president...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will -- if you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions you have asked.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: But he cupcakes the Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN-VENISTE: I just wanted to say that having sat in on two days of debriefings with you, Mr. Clarke, and having seen excerpts from your book, other than questions you weren't asked, I have not perceived any substantive differences between what you have said to us and what has been quoted from your published work. Having said that, I'll cede my time to Congressman Roemer, if he'll give me his time with Condoleeza Rice.

(LAUGHTER)

RICHARD CLARKE, FMR. WHITE HOUSE COUNTERTERRORISM CHIEF: That may not be a good deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

All right, so I want to ask Ben-Veniste about this. I mean, he thinks it's cute. I don't. But his people said his schedule did not permit it. He was far too busy. However, last night he somehow made time for "Larry King." Talk about cupcakes. Ridiculous? Richard Ben-Veniste qualifies.

Hey, you are afraid to come on here, Counselor. You are afraid to come on this program, sir.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by Rob67

"Don't be a Kool-Aid person...

They are folks who do not think for themselves. They are true believers committed to a political ideology or other belief system. And no matter what evidence is presented to them, they are incapable of change.

You see, Kool-Aid people most often in the political arena on both the right and the left. Don't be one. Think independently."

I watched the other night when Mr.O brought up this subject, And after the many times I have watched his show this is the most true statement I have ever heard spoken from his lips...Thus I salute him!

I once was a person who somewhat believed (Though apprehensively) what the American political world said, Until April 19,1995 & the following (And still ongoing in the state courts of Oklahoma) fiasco there-after that changed my mind and opened me to a more independent way of thinking without being influenced by Anyone...Kool-Aid person? I'm no longer in that catergory.

[Johnny Stew]

Don't be a Kool-Aid person.
They are folks who do not think for themselves. They are true believers committed to a political ideology or other belief system. And no matter what evidence is presented to them, they are incapable of change.

You see, Kool-Aid people most often in the political arena on both the right and the left. Don't be one. Think independently.

Think for yourself. Always good advice.
And yet, if millions of people weren't hanging on his every word, and buying his vanity-piece books, and saying, "attaboy, Bill," whenever he said something they agree with, he'd be out of a job.

He included "the right" in there, but I haven't noticed him leveling this same criticism at the folks who blindly follow the President simply because it's "war-time" and who claim that to do otherwise would be anti-American, or those who follow only because he knows how to order the bombing of a country.

I don't single people out for personal criticism very often, but tonight I'm making an exception because it's important for you to know the truth about people who can influence public policy.

Richard Ben-Veniste has been the most partisan of the 9/11 commissioners, with the possible exception of Bob Kerrey. Now I like Ben-Veniste's tough questioning. What I don't like is the fact that he is selective in doing it. He only goes after Republicans.

Ironic comments coming from Mr. O'Reilly, seeing as how he has always reserved his sharpest criticisms for Democrats and liberals.

He's taken folks like George Clooney to task for perceived hypocrisies in their opinions and their political allegiances, and yet, I've never seen him rake someone like Bruce Willis over the coals.

Sure, he'll throw in the occasional comment about a Republican leader... but it's just that: occasional. And even then, the criticism is usually rather soft.

Talk about selective.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Think for yourself. Always good advice.
And yet, if millions of people weren't hanging on his every word, and buying his vanity-piece books, and saying, "attaboy, Bill," whenever he said something they agree with, he'd be out of a job.

He included "the right" in there, but I haven't noticed him leveling this same criticism at the folks who blindly follow the President simply because it's "war-time" and who claim that to do otherwise would be anti-American, or those who follow only because he knows how to order the bombing of a country.

Ironic comments coming from Mr. O'Reilly, seeing as how he has always reserved his sharpest criticisms for Democrats and liberals.

Seems he never criticises the Republicans & Conservatives as much as he wants to slam the Democrats and liberals...He says a bit about how those on the right (The Republicans) dropped the ball but never slams 'em as fully as he does those on the left (The Democrats), Which brings me to a point, Just who was it that decided which group is on the left & right anyways?

I do agree that alot of people hang on his word, But I am glad I'm NOT a blind Kool-Aid follower of a person who hangs on those words (Though I do like the Kool-Aid statement)...

As George Carlin once said, "I have this moronic thing I do, It's called thinking. Thus, I am able to form and make my own opinions."

[strandinthewind]

Like all of the talking heads, Billy O. is there to sell his product.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Think for yourself. Always good advice.
And yet, if millions of people weren't hanging on his every word, and buying his vanity-piece books, and saying, "attaboy, Bill," whenever he said something they agree with, he'd be out of a job.

Ironic comments coming from Mr. O'Reilly, seeing as how he has always reserved his sharpest criticisms for Democrats and liberals.

Gee, Johnny, there you go and preempt my whole spiel. Now I have nothing to say except that I agree wholeheartedly.

Do you suppose if there were a liberal counterpart to Fox, and O'Reilly had gotten a job there, that he wouldn't be taking the very same tact against the Republicans? He's for sale.

O'Reilly has won how many Peabodys? Oh, yeah, none. He just lied about it. He's slime.

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Gee, Johnny, there you go and preempt my whole spiel. Now I have nothing to say except that I agree wholeheartedly.

Do you suppose if there were a liberal counterpart to Fox, and O'Reilly had gotten a job there, that he wouldn't be taking the very same tact against the Republicans? He's for sale.

O'Reilly has won how many Peabodys? Oh, yeah, none. He just lied about it. He's slime.

Well the Liberal counterpoints are CNN, ABC, CBS & NBC.

Besides...O'Reilly is in the entertainment news business. It's not his job to be fair to everyone...it's his job to speak his mind and look at current events from his perspecitive. Yes...he leans a little right from center. But, he doesn't always go with the party lines. He calls a spade a spade. I disagree with him sometimes as well. But this was one of the most dead on things he has ever said.

And...he tends to take a more conservative view because it's right!

Rob

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by Rob67

And...he tends to take a more conservative view because it's right!

I been searching and looking and digging around for that "puke/upchucking" emoticon and, dammit, I just can't find it!!!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Rob67

Well the Liberal counterpoints are CNN, ABC, CBS & NBC.

I must disagree. I have never seen such blatant and gleeful bias on any of those networks, as I've seen displayed on Fox News.
And what's worse is the fact that Fox claims to be "fair and balanced."

But you hit the nail on the head when you said "entertainment news," because that's exactly what it is.

O'Reilly pondered this past week why it is that Fox News is "beating the pants off of CNN," and I wanted to email him and reply that it's because Fox News, much like the ever-popular realityTV genre (specifically shows like 'Fear Factor,' 'Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire,' and 'Extreme Makeover'), tends to pander to the lowest common denominator.

It's all sensationalistic and bombastic, because that's what draws in viewers, and Bill O'Reilly has more in common with Jerry Springer, than he does with folks like Lou Dobbs or Aaron Brown.

So he can gloat all he wants about having higher-ratings, but the victory is a hollow one, given the nature of how Fox News draw in most of their viewers.

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by The Tower

I been searching and looking and digging around for that "puke/upchucking" emoticon and, dammit, I just can't find it!!!

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I must disagree. I have never seen such blatant and gleeful bias on any of those networks, as I've seen displayed on Fox News.
And what's worse is the fact that Fox claims to be "fair and balanced."

But you hit the nail on the head when you said "entertainment news," because that's exactly what it is.

O'Reilly pondered this past week why it is that Fox News is "beating the pants off of CNN," and I wanted to email him and reply that it's because Fox News, much like the ever-popular realityTV genre (specifically shows like 'Fear Factor,' 'Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire,' and 'Extreme Makeover'), tends to pander to the lowest common denominator.

It's all sensationalistic and bombastic, because that's what draws in viewers, and Bill O'Reilly has more in common with Jerry Springer, than he does with folks like Lou Dobbs or Aaron Brown.

So he can gloat all he wants about having higher-ratings, but the victory is a hollow one, given the nature of how Fox News draw in most of their viewers.

That's an opinion...and I would assume that people who are regular Fox viewers would probably disagree. And...using those arguments from the other side, you could say the same thing about CNN. It's all subjective.

Comparing O'Reilly to Springer is definitly off base though...have you ever seen a panel of rednecks who sleep with their immediate family members on O'Reilly?

As far as the liberal bias on the networks.....take a glance at this site for MANY examples...http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Rob

[Johnny Stew]

I forgot to mention that Fox News employs a WWE wrestler as their financial analyst.
I think that says it all.

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I forgot to mention that Fox News employs a WWE wrestler as their financial analyst.
I think that says it all.

Is he qualified?

I would assume he isn't wearing a speedo and a cape...

Rob

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Rob67

That's an opinion...and I would assume that people who are regular Fox viewers would probably disagree. And...using those arguments from the other side, you could say the same thing about CNN. It's all subjective.

As far as the liberal bias on the networks.....take a glance at this site for MANY examples...http://www.mediaresearch.org/

yes, of course it's my opinion, but I'd like to see how anyone could claim that CNN is sensationalistic the way that Fox News is.

It's interesting that you included a link for a website that is lead by a conservative group, and has Rush Limbaugh's seal of approval. That says a lot, doesn't it?

To be truly balanced, why not also suggest Fair.org?

Originally Posted by Rob67

Comparing O'Reilly to Springer is definitly off base though...have you ever seen a panel of rednecks who sleep with their immediate family members on O'Reilly?

When his ratings start sinking, it'll only be a matter of time.

(By the way, I resisted the urge to make a crack about the homophobic Southern Republicans he has on his show from time to time.)

[strandinthewind]

I agree the Bill O'Reilly show is biased toward old school conservatism. The Fox News Network on the other hand is a joke. It is so far to the right it is scary. I mean many times when I have visitws their sebsite, a pop up window asking for online support for the Pres. Bills comes up. That NEVER has happened at CNN or the NYTimes' sites. Moreover, Cavuto (sp.?) openly conspired a few monts ago to get the R Senators to try to block the jusdicial nominee filibusters - he essecntially promised huge amounts of coverage. He did not dop that for the left. Finally, in the industry, Fox is notorius for being a joke - a masquerade of serious journalism. So, I take it for what it is worth.