08/03/2007
Senator Chris Dodd and Bill O'Reilly on DailyKos "Hate"
Senator Chris Dodd lets O'Reilly have it.
Americablog has dug up what O'Reilly actually said about San Francisco and al Qaeda:
"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
Posted 11:25 AM EST by Andy Towle in Bill O'Reilly, Chris Dodd, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
...and I hope Rupert Murdoch does for the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones what he does for cable news.
Posted by: Rad | Aug 3, 2007 11:32:16 AM
God save us.
Posted by: Rad | Aug 3, 2007 11:32:45 AM
LOL Bill got served!
Posted by: Jayden | Aug 3, 2007 11:59:39 AM
SOOO happy someone with a brain went on there, held his cool, and really showed how idiotic O'Reilly is.... man, that was one of the best videos I've seen in a long time!!!
Posted by: gabriel | Aug 3, 2007 12:29:54 PM
God, what a pig. Just goes to show that the majority of Americans will listen to whomever screams the loudest. Too many of our people are too intellectually stunted and profoundly selfish to be able to make our country into the republic that it was meant to be.
Every time I see Bill O'Reilly and his ilk, I'm filled with profound shame.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 3, 2007 12:41:01 PM
O'Reilly is right, though, when he admits some of the more sociopathic comments on both ultra-right and ultra-left (like the Kos) websites are just plants by the other side. The internet is very cloak-&-dagger that way.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 12:41:31 PM
I love the way conservatives and Republicans say the most vile and hateful things but accuse others who disagree with them of hate. And on O'Reilly it's all about him shouting people down--I'm glad Dodd didn't let him get away with it. O'Reilly also has the memory of a flea.
Posted by: db | Aug 3, 2007 12:45:26 PM
Then I guess O'Reilly's defending gays is a lot of bullshit too, huh, guys? Maybe some of you should actually watch the show.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 12:49:28 PM
Bill O'Reilly "defending gays"?? Where is that video?
Posted by: Queer Beacon | Aug 3, 2007 12:59:21 PM
Dodd was certainly tough here. The Internet is passive aggressive heaven though.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 3, 2007 1:02:45 PM
I don't watch the show because my life is full of enough hateful blowhards already.
I still have never seen anyone provide documented proof of this support from O'Reilly. I would be shocked if his support was anything substantive.
Frankly, I don't need someone like O'Reilly defending me.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 3, 2007 1:05:29 PM
I'm not a huge O'reilly fan but this Senator Dodd doesn't know anything about O'reilly or about what he's defending with the Daily Coast. He's here for political points from the far left. I don't enjoy insults on either side and I hate to see people justify bad behavior by pointing out another persons behavior as justification. To O'Reilly's credit he was referring to when San Francisco wanted to deny the military the right to recruit in their city, he was pointing out that if they want to deny the military then they should expect no military protection in the case of a terrorist attack. Let's keep things in context and keep our arguments valid so no one looks like a kool-aid drinking loon shall we?
Posted by: C.Williams | Aug 3, 2007 1:09:51 PM
No, the people of SF were talking about DADT and how it is inconsistent with the laws in that area. They didn't want to deny recruiters access to the city. They wanted to use the obvious legal hypocrisy to change the military's regulations and force them to treat GLBT soldiers with a modicum of respect. O'Reilly, on the other hand, did not say that we should expect no military protection in case of terrorist attack. He said, quoting from the above transcription, "You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." That's un-called for at best and un-American at worst. Further, even if SF had banned recruiters, they would still deserve full protection from the military because the people, city, and county of SF pay taxes that in turn pay for the military.
If anyone's a kool-aid drinking loon, it's O'Reilly. Further, I didn't see anything "far-left" about Senator Dodd. What did he say that was so out of line?
Posted by: Brian | Aug 3, 2007 1:19:36 PM
Probably the best counter-argument against O'Reilly yet. Bill flat out lied about not the San Francisco statement.
Dodd knew his stuff and Bill seemed to get pissed about that.
Posted by: damien | Aug 3, 2007 1:22:55 PM
Yeah, please provide the proof of Bill O'Reilly's support. If it exists, I don't want it. But I bet it's that typical right-wing watered down type of support--you know, love the sinner, hate the sin. What a lying gas bag. I love Dodd even more now for going on that joke of a show.
Posted by: Martin | Aug 3, 2007 1:24:06 PM
Well Joe T., you heard the people.
They want proof of O'Reilly's support of gays. Bring on that video clip!
The ball's in your court.
Posted by: soulbrotha | Aug 3, 2007 1:34:17 PM
Why would I lie about O'Reilly defending gays? Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I agree more with his guest with the opposing view. But I'll tell you what Towleroad won't tell you: actually watch the show sometimes. Or say you won't and...remain a willfully ignorant hick. One of the best moments was when he read a letter from a woman saying homosexuality was immoral, and that it wasn't up to him (O'Reilly) to say consenting adults can do what they want, only up to God, and that it wasn't O'Reilly's place to judge them...and O'Reilly answered "Like YOU'RE doing, madam?". Then he stated, on Falwell's death, that Falwell had been wrong to single-out gays for his attacks (this was in a discussion about whether the media should lay off the attacks on Falwell shortly after his death. O'Reilly's guests said Falwell deserved no delay in the attacks). Richard Chamberlain gave him an awesome interview (okay, that's just a celebrity, but I liked O'Reilly telling him "You and I are just fellow Americans to groups lke Al Queda). Tammy Bruce, the regular guest, is always awesome. Some crazy bitter black activist was going after Tammy Bruce once, when she mentioned solutions to crime amongst black youth (she was being nice, thoughtful, reasonable..) and this nut starts telling her, "Maybe YOU should worry about all the pedophilia in the gay community and at gay pride parades", and O'Reilly jumped in , "I see NO connection between homosexuality and pedophilia." Another time he came down hard on the ex-gay movement, though I was only told about it (didn't see it) so I can't give quotes. If I had more time I'm sure I'd think of more. The only thing I can vaguely perceive of being homophobic would be his stance on gay marriage (he's against it), though he's pro-domestic partnerships, etc. The funny thing here is, some of you will get furious at ME for saying these things, when I'm saying nothing different than "the sky was blue today." Again...I don't know why Towle has this obssession with O'Reilly. He's either being dishonest, or (more likely) never watches the show but gets his info. from dishonest O'Reilly-hating sites. It's getting silly. (You'll notice none of the anti-O'Reilly sites ever talk about his criticism of the Catholic Church, either, or his saying Bush f--ked up).
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 1:52:19 PM
O'Reilly doesn't end up supporting us any more than the watered-down Christians do... "love the sinner hate the sin", "judge not lest ye be judged", etc. That's nice that he chose to point out that we're not pedophiles, but is that really what we call support from public figures these days?
I will give O'Reilly credit for supporting me when he starts campaigning for marriage equality, advocating for equal rights for GLBT soldiers, and demanding that the international community take steps to stop the wholesale slaughter of GLBT people in the middle east. But since none of our viable presidential candidates are doing that, I doubt that O'Reilly will lead the charge.
O'Reilly continues to advocate for a wide variety of things that I find repugnant. He also is a tool and a bully, who makes it impossible to discern his message in the cacophony of hollering that is his program. He's going to have to do better than that if he expects me to ignore the rest of his platform in favor of lukewarm passing statements.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 3, 2007 2:05:22 PM
Well Joe at this point it's all here say, what Martin actually asked you for and others no doubt would like to see including myself, is the actual footage of 'O' Reilly backing up gay people. Not some long winded diatribe about something else like Falwell, Chamberlain and Tammy Bruce. So go on produce the video and back it up. It was a simple request. Reveal the source. We'll be waiting.
Posted by: Mac | Aug 3, 2007 2:10:53 PM
O'Reilly never said gays are sinners. That's just something you're pretending, Brian. And if you disagree with some of his other stances on other issues, that's fine. Does that mean you have to agree with every single thing about someone to accept their support for gay rights? And for all of those non-action stances you point out, if that's a reason to hate somebody then you must hate every Democrat candidate too. (O'Reilly also has at least mentioned that Iran executes gays, more than I can say for most TV journalists).
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 2:13:43 PM
So, Mac, you're basically accusing me of lying?
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 2:15:23 PM
O'Reilly is very ambiguous on his stance towards gay people:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200707130006
"O'Reilly: "[T]housands" of gays in one place "can be confusing to children""
and this is a source from the Traditional Values Coalition, which it pains me to provide a link to:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1211
"O'Reilly told Jennings that any kid who defines himself sexually in school will become a target of harassment. He noted, 'I don't want teachers in the public school to normalize homosexuality. I don't want them to say if you're married and have a family that's good and if you're living with a homosexual partner, that's good.'"
Posted by: Matt | Aug 3, 2007 2:17:16 PM
Probably taken out of context, Matt. Probably part of his overall stance that sex education doesn't belong in grammar school at all.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 2:19:55 PM
First link has nothing to do with grammar school, just a Padre's hat giveaway. Second link is part of an article by TVC that attacks O'Reilly being supportive to any degree of gay rights.
But I can dislike O'Reilly for any number of his views, including on sexual education, which I believe should be part of a middle school education (grammar school... really?). I also disagree with him on gay marriage; there are a number of problems with simply domestic partnerships. Just like you find more to agree with him on, I find the opposite. It doesn't mean that any of us here are completely ignorant of the fact that he may say things that we agree with occasionally.
Posted by: Matt | Aug 3, 2007 2:25:27 PM
I disagree with O'Reilly on gay marriage, too. But since he's more conservative-leaning (though definitely an Independent) I find his gay-supportive statements especially effective (as I'm sure they are to the general public) because you know it's not part of an "agenda" (like with someone like Katie Couric, who the public knows would just be reactionary in her gay-support...ho hum, what else is new?) His stance on gays comes across as more thought out and logical.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 2:31:53 PM