Skip to comments.Mr. O'Reilly Takes Issue with Mr. Colmes
Posted on 03/06/2013 8:56:47 PM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: I'm not crazy about doing nine and ten, but... (interruption) Well, those are the O'Reilly/Alan Colmes sound bites. You know, Mr. O'Reilly went off on Mr. Colmes last night over Obama and the sequester and the budget, which is fine. I don't have a problem with that per se. I don't have a problem with anything.
Well, I actually do, but it may not even be worth it to bring it up. I'm still thinking about it. In the meantime, greetings and welcome back. (interruption) Well, look, O'Reilly starts out -- Mr. O'Reilly starts out -- with his Talking Points Memo. I want one of those, by the way. I want to have a memo that talks in points. I've been working on it. I've got a program on my computer called Text to Speech, and what you do is you highlight the text, and you hit a keystroke, and it speaks to you.
So I've been writing memos, my own memos just to me to remind myself of things, and they talk back to me. So I have a talking points memo. Anyway, in setting up the segment that was to come with Mr. Colmes, Mr. O'Reilly said that he had a big, big problem with President Obama. But he made the point of telling his audience that it wasn't ideological. The translation for that is Mr. O'Reilly was saying to his audience, "Don't confuse me with these conservatives.
"I'm not coming to you here as a right-winger. Don't think of me as a right-winger! Don't think of me as a conservative. I'm not one of those loudmouths. My problem with Obama is substantive. My problem with Obama is over his performance. But I don't have an ideological problem." Well, I don't know how you separate the two, is my problem. Obama is who he is because of his ideology and if you oppose what Obama is doing, there has to be an ideological component.
But if you don't want to be known for that, if you don't want to stand for that, I think that's one of the problems. We have too few people... See, this is why I'm about to step in it. There's nothing to be gained here. There's literally nothing to be gained. (laughing) So, anyway, that's coming up.
This is last night on Fox News Channel, The O'Reilly Factor, Mr. O'Reilly speaking with syndicated radio host (everybody's a syndicated radio host) Alan Colmes about President Obama's agenda, and O'Reilly said he's not being ideological. His problem with the president is not ideological. Do not accuse him of being a conservative! His problem with Obama is substance and procedure and behavior. So then he said to Mr. Colmes, "The president is willing to have Americans suffer for the greater good of trying to have Nancy Pelosi be the new Speaker of the House," and you'll also hear syndicated radio host Monica Crowley in this bite.
COLMES: It's one thing to say he wants to flip the House. It's another thing to say he purposely wants the American people to suffer. I don't believe that for a second.
O'REILLY: He's making it impossible to get anything to done. Do you agree with that?
COLMES: I disagree with what's being said here. He's offered $2.50 in tax cuts for every dollar in tax increases.
CROWLEY: What are you talking about?
COLMES: He's offered cuts in Medicare. He's offered cuts in entitlements.
O'REILLY: No! That's not specific. Hold it, because now I'm getting teed off at you.
COLMES: (nervous chuckle)
O'REILLY: Give me ONE DAMN PROGRAM he said he cut.
COLMES: He said --
COLMES: He has cut entitlements. It's --
O'REILLY: (banging table)
COLMES: -- and Medicare.
O'REILLY: (screaming) NOT ENTITLEMENTS!
COLMES: W-why are you yelling?
O'REILLY: ONE PROGRAM!
COLMES: What do you want to yell at me?
O'REILLY: Because you're lying.
COLMES: I'm not lying, Bill. Don't call me a liar.
O'REILLY: You are lying here.
COLMES: Don't you sit there and call me a liar.
O'REILLY: No, you're lying.
COLMES: I'm not lying!
O'REILLY: Hey, here's the proof. Here's the proof.
COLMES: You don't like the president.
O'REILLY: No! No!
COLMES: We can have a disagreement without you calling me a liar. That's not necessary. That's a personal attack.
RUSH: And that's how it went. "You don't like the president. We can have a disagreement without you calling me a liar. That's not necessary. That's a personal attack." That's what Mr. Colmes said to Mr. O'Reilly. Now, Mr. O'Reilly was naturally upset because Colmes either was lying or saying stuff he has no clue about. Obama's not cutting anything. Obama's not cutting entitlements.
There are no $2.50 in cuts for every dollar in new taxes. None of that. And Mr. O'Reilly was admittedly frustrated to have to hear all this, because Mr. O'Reilly is right, Obama is inflicting pain. I think people miss the point. At least the people that sent me e-mails about this. I think Mr. Colmes was the target, but what set Mr. O'Reilly off is that he has suddenly realized that the president is willing to let the folks suffer in order to gain politically. And you don't hurt the folks. And Mr. Obama is willing for the folks to suffer. He just figured that out. And that is undeniable, folks. In fact, people suffering is almost a required aspect.
Don't forget the e-mail that we shared with you yesterday from the guy at the department of animal and fish welfare, whatever the hell it was. He was in North Carolina somewhere, some satellite office outside of Washington, and he sent them a note in Washington asking them what the proper procedure was here during the sequester and the answer he got back was, "Whatever you do, don't contradict what we're saying about the severity of the cuts. We're saying they're severe, so don't you go telling anybody it doesn't mean anything. Don't you go saying it isn't any big deal." Washington told the local guy, the satellite guy, follow our lead on this.
They are purposely wanting the news to be bad. They want this sequester to be reported, they want people to think that it is Draconian out there and that there is mass suffering going on because of these minuscule -- you couldn't find these cuts with the Hubble telescope. And you know why? Because there aren't any cuts. All there are, even with the sequester, is reductions in the rate of spending. Even with the sequester, folks, the government's gonna spend more money this year than last.
So I guess Mr. Colmes is saying that he's lying is a personal attack. Anyway, it continued. We just paused it there to break this up. But the high energy between Mr. Colmes and Mr. O'Reilly didn't end there. It kept going.
O'REILLY: Come on.
COLMES: You're accusing the president of wanting the people to suffer in this country. That's absolutely untrue.
O'REILLY: You think that sitting in an Oval Office for five years with a $17 trillion debt and refusing to say one program that hed cut. You don't think that's putting the burden on the American people?
COLMES: What do you call Medicare? I keep telling you --
O'REILLY: No, you're not telling me anything. It's jack what you're saying. There's another word for it, but it's an upsetting one.
COLMES: We'll just have to disagree.
O'REILLY: No. It's not about a disagreement. This is just bull-blank.
COLMES: We're cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals.
O'REILLY: No. You're wasting our time.
COLMES: That's what he's talked about.
O'REILLY: This is bull-blank.
COLMES: Bill, I'm answering your question.
RUSH: Okay, so that's how it went, and it happened with Mr. O'Reilly yelling at Mr. Colmes and Mr. Colmes was lying, talking about all the massive budget cuts the president is engaged in. That's like what's on Twitter, we talked about earlier, that's the kind of crap that's out there on Twitter, all these massive things Obama supports, budget cuts. He's proposed this. He's agreed to that. When none of the sort has happened. Folks, this is exactly my point. These people cannot get into a debate on ideas. They will lose each and every time. They can't do it. They are the ones that make things up or lie or what have you, in order to advance their position. They have no choice, because their ideas cannot stand on their own or by themselves. They don't hold up.
It was all show. They probably went out and had a beer afterwards.
Rush is part of the show. If he were serious about pushing back the socialist agenda, then he’d pick an office to campaign for and win (FL US Senate?) instead of chortling from the sidelines for 25 years. He has enough name recognition and money to knock out any opponent.
O’Reilly is angry because Colmes lied to HIM... Not to America..
Which (( IS )) O’Reillys problem..
If a guest does the backstroke when talking to O’Reilly you’re OK.. even if you spend 100% of your time lying to America..
Bill seems to have zero actual principles..
For those that don’t know, Alan Colmes is Monica Crowley’s brother-in-law.
I've always laughed at all of these guys: Congress, the President, O'Reilly, Hannity, Brian Williams, Rush, Colmes, Ingraham, et al.
Why? Because of Fridays.
Our nation has Monday through Thursday crises and on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, these guys take off, play golf, go on jaunts, etc., etc.
"The sky is falling. The sky is falling.....uhhhh....see you Monday, with my guest host being Dr. Milton Frizzbee, former associate deputy undersecretary of energy."
CRISIS! CRISIS! (see you next week)
O’Reilly is part of the problem. A RINO and gun grabber
For those that dont know, Alan Colmes is Monica Crowleys brother-in-law.
With that genetic makeup I hope that a little ugly baby won’t pop out to carry on the Colmes tradition of making offspring that visually offends everyone’s eyes and does so verbally too.
If he were serious about pushing back the socialist agenda, then hed pick an office to campaign for and win
His place is in radio...not active political office.
Why? It’s very simple: The RINO-E will immediately quash him and make him toe the line as a junior member of their society. They have done this with every junior Congressman (or the politically correct statement...Congressperson) that has come along.
In radio, he has the total freedom to say what he wants. In political office (especially the GOP) he has to go along to get along. Worse yet, his daily exposing of Government fraud, criminality, and downright treasonous operation by the government will not be heard by the public any longer.
We live in an increasingly crazy world.
Well, what do you expect from that liberal?
“Well, what do you expect from that liberal?”
I guess you’re right, but there are enough of them around that sometimes I feel like it’s a scene from invasion of the body snatchers.
O’Reilly is not as bad as he’s often made out to be. He’s solid on a few conservative issues, but too often soft on others. But as you said, he’s a self-described Independent.
As Miller pointed out the other night on O’Reilly’s program, it’s time for Bill to wake up and stop referring to Obama as a “nice guy”. Miller was rather candid about O’Reilly’s political ignorance.
100% true. He does not have any principles. I can't stand to watch him anymore because one day I realized he doesn't believe his own words. If he doesn't, why should I?
He's far more, explicitly conservative in person, on his traveling dog-and-pony show. On TV, he pulls his punches. That's why I no longer watch him.
Beyond "soft." He's a full-throated liberal on gun control and the death penalty.
He was right about Obama, but he substituted shouting for reasoned debate & detailed questions.
It was a poor performance. Bullying Colmes is no was to convince anybody of anything. Calling him a liar is a bit much given Colmes was shouted down when he tried to respond. It might have been good theater for people who hate Colmes, but that is all it was - theater.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have much respect for someone whose job it is to be O’Reilly’s whipping boy. I guess the pay is good.
Monica Crowley looked like an innocent bystander caught in a crossfire. But she made a good point that any cuts Obama has alluded to are just lies.
Yeah, I am as mad at WDC as O’Reilly seems to be, yet adults know that shouting only works at ballparks & riots.
So, O’Reilly & about a million of us need to go to a good ballgame, then surround the Whitehouse & shout until our throats are raw. That kind of shouting is far more likely to get results.