Bill O'Reilly likes Obama's 2012 presidential chances, considering weak GOP field
By Jeff MillsMarch 9th, 2011, 3:30 pmComments (10)
On Tuesday night's O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer weighed in on George Will's recent column contending that there are only five real GOP candidates for President in 2012: Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney. Will omitted Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich from his list of worthies, citing their deleterious "vibrations of weirdness." Sarah Palin is not believed to be running, or at least she's subtly being pressured not to by certain right-wing operatives and commentators who may see her as a potential distraction from more viable candidates. Krauthammer thought Gingrich was "undisciplined" and "has a lot of tread marks on him, unfortunately." O'Reilly noted that Romney was the only one with real name recognition among the five, and said "If I'm President Obama, I'm not quakin' over there," echoing widespread sentiment that it's Obama's election to lose, albeit we're at the Donald Trump/Alan Keyes stage of the cycle.
O'Reilly, in that clipped, bullet-point delivery of his, skirted the content of President Obama's character and mind in his remarks, saying:
"Barack Obama is a black man. I mean he's half black, half white, but his appearance is black. First black ever running, okay? Huge, huge advantage in the campaign. Enormous. Press loved him. Loved him, all right? Promoted him. Actively promoted him. NBC actively promoted his candidacy and so did their parent company General Electric. Two huge advantages. Nobody on that list has anything like that."
It appears that, at this moment, not even Ralph Nader's potential vote-siphoning is a threat when the perceived Republican frontrunner belongs to a magic-underwear cult founded by a shyster named Joseph Smith.
- Sex Advice From Topher Grace
- Ranked: R.E.M. Albums from Worst to Best
- Ten Illustrated Stories About First-Time Sex
- Fifteen Ineffective Pick-up Attempts
- Five Albums You Should Be Listening to Right Now: Elliot Aronow
- Sex Advice From Twins
- Tools of Attraction: Turn-Ons
- This Week In Sex: Sexual Healing
- The One Movie You Should See This Week
- Lady Gaga suing Baby Gaga, the ice cream made from human breast milk
- "Whoa, spring fever! Looks like I got my solo libido back. For a while there it was gone and I was worried I'd never get it back."
- "Just because I'm cheating on you doesn't mean I don't love you. I do, more than I ever have."
- "It's been two months since our break-up and now I really need to have sex, but I can't stand the thought of some other guy touching me."
Comments ( 10 )
I think it's too early to make that kind of call.
I'm not a Mormon, and I have a lot of issues with that church, but do you really think insulting some people's religion -- that is, simply calling names as opposed to leveling thoughtful criticism -- adds any value to the debate or credibility to your position?
Of course Mr O'Reilly wants Obama to win in 2012. Mr O'Reilly has made a good living complaining about Obama for several years. It stands to reason he would want several more years of the same.
I'm not knocking Mormons, Trey Parker and Matt Stone take care of that, I'm just pointing out the ridiculous origins of the religion. A friend of mine wrote a book on the subject, doing a ton of research, and hipped me to some of their weird history. If they want to traffic in polygamy with 13-year-old girls who aren't allowed to escape the community, that's their business. These are outliers of course, but I was just alluding to another example of the silliness that you find in organized religion sometimes. If you're going to follow a particular religion, you have to live with its doctrines and history.
OK, as long as you're also willing to mock people who believe a dead guy got out of his grave after three days, walked the earth for the next 40 and then ascended to heaven, I guess that makes you an equal-opportunity insulter. Every religion's creation/origin story seems fantastical if you're not brought up in it. As for politicians, I'm less concerned with what they believe about God/the Universe/Existence than what those beliefs may lead them to do in power. In other words, my concerns about Romney are not what kind of underwear he has on or what he believes Joseph Smith did or didn't do in the 19th Century, but whether he's going to restrict reproductive rights, oppose marriage equality and promote corporate interests at the expense of the American people. That's why he'd be a bad president; not because of what church he belongs to.
You took the words right out of my mouth, profrobert.
I'm perfectly willing to make fun of people who believe a dead guy got out of his grave after three days, walked the earth for the next 40 and then ascended to heaven. Being raised with silly dogma isn't a total pass for continuing to believe it once you're an adult with (one hopes) the full capacity for rational thought.
But also, Mormonism might seem even MORE ridiculous because it's only been around for 200 years.
@profrobert, I totally agree with you, it's ultimately about the pocketbook issues. Bill Maher already covered this in Religulous. But I'm not sure that what church you belong to is completely irrelevant. Can you imagine Fred Phelps as president? You mention reproductive rights and marriage equality. Don't these issues have a religious component?
We may be at the point of arguing angels dancing on the head of a pin, so to speak, but I'll take one more crack at this: I think you can belong to a church and not accept every bit of doctrine -- Andrew Cuomo self-identifies as a Catholic, but is pro-choice, for example. You can self-identify as a Muslim and abhor violence, or you can self-identify as a Muslim and fly planes into buildings. You can self-identify as a Christian or Jew and believe that you should not judge others, or you can so self-identify and seek to impose your beliefs on others. I've known and been friends with a number of Mormons in my life, and they have always been kind to me and respectful of the fact that I believe differently from them. Jeff, I don't think you're a bad person, and I'm sure you were just going for laugh, but please know that I think it's a laugh that would be hurtful to at least some decent people who simply happen to believe in something you and I don't . My bottom line: It's not the church or the beliefs that're the key to the issue; it's what an individual does with those beliefs that is important.
@profrobert, well said. I was, of course, being tongue-in-cheek, not trying to insult anybody. I respect your opinion, and happen to agree with you. We'll leave it at that.
Add a Comment