See the previous article, to which this is a follow up. Do you think I was too harsh on O'Reilly? On the contrary, I was not harsh enough. Do you doubt that the O'Reilly "interview" of Santorum was a SMEAR from beginning to end--worse than anything I have seen CNN do recently? Then condiser what O'Reilly did NOT ask Santorum about:
1. Iran. Santorum has had some STRONG things to say about Iran, and what he would do to stopo Iran from having nuclear weapons. O'Reilly did not caer. O'Reilly was intrested in CONTRACEPTION (lol). Samle "tough" question: "Mr. Santorum, yu seem to have said that you would 'consult with Israel', and take military action to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Do you really think that this contry can afford another war right now, and that the American people will support one?" Not ONE WORD on the subject from O'Reilly, who was UNINTERESTED in giving the public actual, imorttant INFORMATION. That is why O'Reilly is not worth watching. He has NO interest in actual INFORMATION, or getting it to the American people O'Reilly is ALL aboutr "spin", as he spins in the "no spin" zone.
2. Tax policy. Santorum has a full tax plan, including going back to Reagan tax RATES (lower than Reagan on the "middle class"). Not ONE WORD froom O'Reilly as to Santorum's positions on this IMORTANT issue. Rick Santorum even has asomewhat controversial position that manuufacturers who comply with certain conditions should pay NO income tax. Sample, tough question: "Mr. Santorum, you criticizze government interference with business. Yet, you wold have a driscriminatory tax code that prefers manufacturers to other businesses, so long as the manufacturers are AMERICAN manufacturers and do some of the things you want them to do. Is this not 'picking winners and losers', and using the Tax Code to prefer some over others." You might guess thaqt this is one area where I DISAGREE with Santorum, although his overall tax program is pretty good. That is especially true in comparison with Romney, who is an ESTABLISHMENT COWARD on taxpolicy. I have said for a decade or more that we should go back to the Reagan rates, although a top rate of 25% (1 dollar in every four going to the government at the TOP) seems to be to be reasonable.--morally and as a matter of policy. SIMPLE is best, and Santorum would propose two SIMLE rates (and limited deductions). Not abd, although I think Santorum then turns around and COMPLICATES the Tax Code with a DIFFERENT rate for corporations, and a still different rate for certain manufacturers. That muddles the overall idea of simplicity, and indicatres that Santorum has not given up on the idea of "right wing social engineering" (to quote Newt's inapproriate comment in another context) using the Tax Code.
3 Deficits, Spending and Debrt. . Unlike Romney, who just uses the old Obama LIE of going through the Federal budget "line by line" to determine what Federal spending is really doing any good, Rick Santorum has said that he will "cut' FIVE TRILLON dollars from the Federal budget over something like the next five years (instead of the ridiculous ten years that now seems to be the "accepted" Washington LIE). Obvious tough question: "Mr. Santoru, where would you cut 5 trillion dollars? " Not so obviious tough question, but more to the point: "Mr. Santorum, the GOP contorols the House, and the House has to apporve ALL spending. Yet, the GOP controlled House has "cut" essentially NOTHING from this years spending, or over the past two years. What would you have done differently if you were in Congress. How would you have handled an Obama/Democrat threat to shut down the government if there were any real spending cuts. " Or, a somewhat simpler question: "Mr. Santorum, the Congress, including the GOOP contorolled House and a big enough minotiry in the Senate to stop any spending, have coooperated to pass bills which have ADDED to the deficit in the past two years, and have not managed to cut spending at all. Do you agree or disagree with the way GOP members of Congress have handled budget, spending and deficit maters." Again, not ONE WORD from O'Reilly on this subject--at least in the all imortant opening of O'Reily's program. I did not stay arond to see if O'Reilly might have a later installment. I got the impression he did not. But it doen't matter. Instead of owrrying about giving the American public INFORMATION on IMPORTANT things, O'Reilly was concentrating on the SMEAR. Then O'Reilly put on Karl Rove, and fed him lines to ATTACK Santorum as not a viable candidate. Rove, as well as teh GOOP establishment in general, are "all in" for Romney. As to Santorum, O'Reilly was 'interested" in such things as whether Santorum, ONCE (in a single sentence), had suggesteed that blacks are more concerned with wefare than whites. Santorum denies say;ing it (see previoius article), but this is the DEMOCRAT position :(that "cuts" in socialprograms hurt MINORITEIS most--ignroing the damage dependency does to everyone who is pushed into that PERMANENT state, as Democrats have done with minorities). Is it realy an IMPORTANT "issue" as to whether Rick Santorum MAY have ONCE suggested that "hand outs" hurt blacks more than they help htem (absolutely true, if not limited to blacks)? Not a chance. This is a SMEAR, and O'Reilyknows it. More imoratntly, how is this IMPORTATN? O'Reilly, you ARE a DISHONEST HYPOCRITIE (O'Reilly having comlained int he past about how his remarks have been taken out of contxt, or overhped, to suggest he is a racist).
4. Illegal immigration. Not one word in any question frfom O'Reilly. O'Reilly was more interested in the UNIMPORTANT questions of whether Santorum's positoins on gays int eh military, or gay marriage, are "too extreme". Again, O'Reilly is NOT intersted in giving the public IMPORTANT information. He was only intereseted in the SMEAR NARRATIVE whche he was pursuing.
5. Foreign policy in general--for instance Afghanistan. Again, NOTHING from O'Reilly, SMEAR MERCHANT. Yahoo/ABC did BETTER (yep, O'Reilly was WORSE than any mainstream media "journliast" I have seen recently) had this SUBSTANTIVE headline this morning (neutral to slightly favorable): "Santorum on foreign policy: combination hawk and--according to Bono--"defender of the vulnerable". Just how bad can O'Reilly and the unfair and unbalanced network get if they are WORSE than ABC/Yahooo (more about the SMEAR MERCHANTS from ABC/:Yahoo in the next article, but O'Reily was WORSE). O'Reilly was UNINTERESTED in Santorum's SUBSTANTIVE positions on foreign policy, or any other importatn substantive issue.
6. Payroll tax cut. Santorum has actually come out, correctly, against that FRAUDULENT 'payroll tax cut" (Social Security tax/funding cut) that UNDERMINES the very concept of self-funding Social Security. Sample "tough" queston: "Mr. Santorum, you have said that you oppose extending the payroll tax cuts. The GOP members of Congress appear to overwhelmingly FAVOR an extension of the payroll tax cut, as well as extened unemployment benefits. The vote in th eSeante was 89-10. Are you out of steop with the majority of the GOP members of Congress." (I, for one, turly hope so, but you could hardly call that a "softball" question. It is, however, a SUBSTANTICE question seeknig real INFORMAITON--soemting in which O'Reilly is uninterested.)
7. Jobs. "Mr. Santorum, do you believe that the government can even create jobs? What do you think government can do, beyond that manufactkuring tax cut you propose?" O'Reily uninterested.
8. Housing. 'Mr. Santoru, do you thinkthe Federal Government should do anyting to directly help peole facing foreclosure on their homes?" OiReilly, uneinterested.
9. Stimulus spending and infrastructure. O'Reilly uninterested.
10. More on taxes, from teh Democrat point of view. "Mr. Santorum, don't you think President Obama is right when he says that the American peole would prefer that taxes be raised on 'millionaires and billionaires' rather tahan see programs they LIKE cut." O'Reilly is uninterested.
11. Solyndra and "green subsidies". "Mr. Santorum, what do ou say to the ide that your prooposed subsidy to manufacturers is the SAME kind of government meddling in frfee markets that has led to the Solyndra scandal." O'Reily, uninterested.
12. Energy policy. MR. Santorum, what do ou propose to do about our energy policy, and don't you think that your proposed tough policy on Iran puts our eecoooomy at risk from a sudden spike in the price of oil if Iranina oil is disrupte, or Iran disrupts oil shipments int he region." O'Reilly uninteresteed.
13. Ben Bernanke and the Fed. "Mr. ?Santorm, some peole give Ben Bernanke credit for saving us--nt only in 2008, but by buying our own debt in a policy known as 'quantative easing"--which others have called printing money. What is your position on what Ben Bernanke and the Fed have done in the past, and are donig now?" Again, O'Reilly uninterested.
Oh, why go on. 13 is an appropriate palce to end this EXPOSURE of Bil O'REilly as a SMEAR MERCHANT, instaed of a person who, in good faith, wantws to give the American people information they NEED.
Why do I say that Bill O'Reilly and the unfair and unbalanced network have SOLD OUT THIS COUNTRY?: for the same reason that I said the same thiing about Dishonest Jack Cafferty and CNN. What is Bill O'Reilly really saying when he ignores what HE says ar the important issues to focus on UNIMPORTANT smear issues, and "social issues"? O'Reilly is saying that peoople will, and even SHOULD, be wiling to SELL OUT THIS COUNTRY by voting AGAINST Rick Santorum because of his positon on gays in the militarry, even if Rick Santorum will SAVE the country on the IMPORTANT issues that we face. It is NOT Rick Santorum who is saing that people should vote for or againt him based on his position on gays and the military. It is O'REILLY, and the media in general, who are taking that position that SELLS OUT THE COUNTRY. What else lan you call it when you are willing to have this country go down the drain because lyou think Rick Santorum is "too conservative" on "gay rights". What about Rick Santorum's positionon terrorism, by the way, and the recent bill signed by Obama that would authorize detention of American citizens without legal proceedings? O'Reilly, uninterested. You should be able to see why I say, with absolute accuracy, that O'REilly and the unfair and unbalanced network are SEeLLING OUT THIS COUNTRY by focusing on the UNIIMPORTANT.
"Wait a second, Skip. People may think Rick Santorum is wrong on the important things, too."
Ah, now you are finally getting th eont. Exactly right. O''Reilly , and the rest, are SUING these supposedly UNIMPORTANT issues (which Santorum is not saying are that imortant) as a SMEAR to avoid "debating" Santourum on the real issues. It is worse than that. The whole idea is to keep the American peole from even considereing what kind of President Rick Snatorum would make on the tinngs they CARE about most. The idea is to OPREVENT Santorum from getting his message out, so that the SUBSTANTIVE issues are NEVER JOINED. This is EVIL. It is DSHONEST. And it is SELLING OUT THE COUNTRY. Did I jsut call Bill O'Reilly an EVIL person? Darn right I did.
"But, Skip, O'Reilly would say that it is NOT HIM doing this smear, but that he is only testing" Santorum on how he will handle what OBAMA and the mainstream media will throw against him--not to mention his GOP opponents lol on this one)."
Ah. Do ou see lhow DISHONEST this i? BillO'Reilly, again, is a DISHONEST HYPOCRITE. The whole idea of these SMEARS is to keep the focus on THEM, reather than on the importtant issues. How is it any different for O'REILY to focus his interview solely on the SMEARS, and CNN to do so--with the diffrence that O'REilly was WORSE? It is no different. O'Reilly has made himself part of the SMEARS. As O'Reilly is wel aware, the only way for Santorum to DEFEAT the smears is to focus his campaign on the IMPORTANT issues. To the smear merchants, including O'REilly and the unfair and unbalanced network, it DOES NOT MATTER how Santorum "reponds" to the smears. Santorum can't win on that ground. The whole essence of the SMEARS is to make the Snatorum campaing all aobut "responding" to the smears, and NOT about informing the American people what kind of Preisdent he would make (the supposed "missioin" of "journalists", whchO'Reilly and the rest have abandoned long ago.
I repeat: I have watched my last minu;te of O'Reilly, and the entire prime time programming of the unfair and unbalanced network. I will continue to "surf" the unfair and unblanaced networkin the daytime, simply for purposes of this blog (and NOT to get any real information, whcih they don't give). I advocate that YOU BOYCOTT both O'Reilly and the unfair and unbalanced network, unless lyou watnt to surf a maxi=imum of two minutes a day--my policy for this new year--just to ssee how bad they have gotten.
P.S. No proofreading or spell ckhecking (bad eyesight). Remember this truest of axiooms, which applies to today's Muslims and yesterday's non-Nazi Germans): "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." O'Reily is NOT a "good man", but he and the unfair and unbalanced network have clearly embraked on a policy of ENABLING and ENCOURAGING SMEARS, as they SELL OUT this country. I have no respect for them. You can believe that Rick Santorum should nto be Presdient, based on his overall positions. For ou to try to PREVENT Santorum from even making his case to the peole is an EVIL thing, and it is DESTORYING this country (this idea that every conservative should be TORN DOWN without even having a chance to make his or her case on the merits).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment