Comments: Bill O'Reilly gets called a "racist" for being anti-racist II

(We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)


Hmm...well, speaking of the media ignoring things, they failed to cover O'Reilly's infinitely more outrageous statement, as he unambiguously, unapologetically, and repeatedly likened the nation's most-trafficked political blog, Daily Kos, to a Nazi outlet.

Posted by colleague at September 30, 2007 10:17 AM

Which amply demonstrates just how far gone the "mainstream" Left is these days ...

Posted by Hube at September 30, 2007 10:34 AM

So O'Reilly's loathesome comment was accurate? Or perhaps you're trying to say it's "wrong-but-understandable?"

Posted by colleague at September 30, 2007 10:51 AM

O'Reilly made his case against Kos which, if you bothered to watch the shows he devoted to the matter, highlighted the non-moderated comments and "diaries" permitted (or used to be permitted?) at the site, not so much the actual main contribs.

Posted by Hube at September 30, 2007 10:58 AM

"... highlighted the non-moderated comments ...." ==> Hube

Were these non-moderated comments of such a nature that they should not have been permitted, or is this just one more example of the Right's obsession with control?

Furthermore, is a "Nazi outlet" an apt label for these comments?

I ask, because I find in general that O'Reilly's attitude toward those whose politics he does not like tend toward being fascist, or at least extreme hyperbole, something like his "Nazi outlet" characterization seems to be.

Posted by Perry Hood at September 30, 2007 10:39 PM

That said, I find John Edwards' statement to be atrocious, although I do understand the point that he was trying to make about our justice system regarding drug law enforcement. Instead, we need to focus more on white-collar crimes like fraud.

Posted by Perry Hood at October 1, 2007 09:48 AM

"Furthermore, is a "Nazi outlet" an apt label for these comments?"

Perry, read a Kos article and subsequent comments and substitute "Jews" where you see "Republicans" and you might see some rhetorical parallels. There's an article today, for example, excusing those Dem candidates whose campaigns will accept matching funds, on the grounds that the GOP has an unfair advantage in fundraising. You know, like, "The Jews have all the money, they control all the banking and businesses, etc."

As for Edwards' unfortunate comment, I'd say he's nominated himself as the poster boy for the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Posted by G Rex at October 1, 2007 02:40 PM

or is this just one more example of the Right's obsession with control?

Is this another personal attack by Perry?

Posted by Hube at October 1, 2007 05:54 PM

G,

I think I can say that you certainly have joined an elite club. The precious few, left or right, who will defend the likes of Rick Santorum, James Inhofe, Bill O'Reilly, Robert Byrd, Rush Limbaugh ("Hitlery Clinton") and Dick Durbin after inappropriate Nazi remarks.

As a Jew, I may be a bit more sensitive to this than you. But how can *anyone* believe there is a justification for Nazi references in politics? There is no excuse. None! Daily Kos isn't like the Nazis, George W. Bush isn't Hitler. Abu Ghraib isn't Auschwitz. Those who want to see an end to global warming aren't brownshirts.

You write:

Perry, read a Kos article and subsequent comments and substitute "Jews" where you see "Republicans" and you might see some rhetorical parallels.

OHHHH. So... anyone who employs what you feel is propaganda can be compared to the Nazis in that sense? And you see no complications with that? Nothing unfair or dangerous? Say, what about the U.S. Army? Some might say they mislead, mischaracterize all sorts of things, and employ a a variety of documented shady tactics to get folks signed up. So I guess there are rhetorical parallels there, too? So they too can be mentioned in the same breath as the Nazis?

No, they MAY NOT. Because it's freakin' warped.

Posted by dan at October 1, 2007 10:57 PM

G,

Correction: I don't know that you're not Jewish, and I didn't mean to phrase it that way. Meant to say "more sensitive than most."

Posted by dan at October 1, 2007 10:59 PM

Nope, I'm not Jewish, but I am a student of history. What I'm talking about is the whipping up of hatred against Republicans as a means to energize the base on the left, not the Shoah. To win the electoral victories by the NSDAP and then further consolidate political power, Hitler needed to channel the anger and discontent of the German people towards a perceived common enemy. The Nazis took care of their Communist political opposition, for example, with the burning of the Reichstag and subsequent scapegoating of Marinus van der Lubbe. Of course, to the diehard Kossack, 9/11 was GWB's Reichstag fire. The level of hate and vitriol in the rhetoric of the left is the same, in my opinion, as the pre-war Nazi agitprop, and all to the end of consolidating political power.

Posted by G Rex at October 2, 2007 10:30 AM

the whipping up of hatred against Republicans as a means to energize the base on the left

And you think this is any greater than on the Right, which has devoted an entire industry devoted to nothing but whipping up hatred by smearing the opposing political party via the airwaves? By calling them anti-Americans, Femi-Nazi's and "Hitlery Clinton?" What a joke.

Posted by dan at October 2, 2007 11:59 AM

I would hardly call conservative talk radio an obedient servant of the Bush admin. or the GOP; case in point being the vigorous opposition to Bush's comprehensive immigration reform plan and the prescription drug benefit. Admittedly, the Dems are target #1 for guys like Limbaugh and Hannity, but Republicans receive plenty of criticism themselves, mostly when they act like Democrats. Personally, I prefer Glenn Beck.

Posted by G Rex at October 3, 2007 12:41 PM