Tuesday Night 9-30-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - September 30, 2008 - 11:30am

The TPM was called - Broken Trust. O'Reilly talked about the financial crisis, cried more about how they never warned him, talked about COX and Frank. O'Reilly said Barney Frank became Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2006, which is a 100% lie, he became Chairman in January of 2007. Billy even read a quote by Barney Frank from 2003, a full 4 years before he became Chairman.

Then he misrepresented what Frank meant in what he said, when he said it in 2003, so it had nothing to do with anything he did after becoming Chairman in 2007. It was totally dishonest, O'Reilly tried to blame Frank for the financial crisis, and went back 4 years to show a quote to do it, when it had nothing to do with anything he did, and it was 4 years before he became Chairman. The financial crisis happened because Republicans deregulated the banking industry in 1999 in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Act John McCain supported 100 percent, and the Act his economic advisor Phil Gramm wrote.

Now O'Reilly and all the Republicans are trying to blame Democrats when the problem happened because the Republican party deregulated all the markets, and they were proud of it, until the whole thing came crashing down a couple week ago. Now they deny they are the party of deregulation, and they need a scapegoat, so they blame the Democrats.

The O'Reilly had Newt Gingrich on to spin out more right-wing propaganda, with nobody from the left to provide the counter point, or the balance. Newt and O'Reilly blamed Dodd, Frank, and Peosi for all the problems, when none of them had anything to do with any of it. The Republicans have had control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, since 2001, the time frame when all these problems happened.

The Democrats got control of the House and the Senate in January of 2007, and since then they have done nothing, nada, zip, zero. Because you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything and they only have 51, so they have not passed anything. It's total gridlock, and that's the way the Republicans want it. They filabuster every bill the Democrats try to pass, so it never even gets to the floor for a vote, let alone pass. And the 1 bill that did pass got a veto by President Bush, so nothing has passed in the last year and 9 months since the Democrats took over.

During the Gingrich segment O'Reilly never said a word about Newt whipping up no votes against the bailout bill, O'Reilly the great truth teller never said a word about it. Billy even attacked Andrea Mitchell at NBC news for reporting on Newt, when Newt has never denied her report was untrue, and never denied it on the factor either.

Then O'Reilly put another biased right-winger on from the FOX Business Network. His name is Dave Ramsey, he talked about the markets, the bailout bill, stocks, and then he trashed Obama. He also lied about the Obama tax plan and said Obama would raise you taxes to 75%, and just lied his ass off. O'Reilly never once disagreed with him, and never once corrected him. Nobody from the left to provide the counter point, or the balance.

Then O'Reilly had the biased (trash Obama to help McCain) 25 part Obama Chronicles. I believe it was part 9 or 10, I am not sure because I do not count them. O'Reilly had a biased right-wing guest on from Investors Business Daily, the guy hates Obama, and trashed him over and over during the segment. He lied about his tax plan, and said Obama would raise taxes through the roof. This guy hates Obama with a passion, and write articles full of lies about Obama all the time, and he even admitted he hates Obama.

His name is Tom Mcardle, he called Obama a socialist, and said if he wins the country will go into a depression because of his economic policies. It's all lies from a biased right-winger who hates Obama and loves McCain.

If you don't know about IBD, it's a business website with a total right-wing bias, it's like the FOX News of business websites. They hate all Democrats, and they really hate Barack Obama. O'Reilly knows that, and he still put the biased guest on to trash Obama with nobody from the left to provide the balance.

When Obama is going to give 95% of the people a tax cut, and the top rate will only go up to 38%, from the current 35%, for people who make over $250,000 a year, which is what it was in 2000 before Bush took office. Taxes will not go through the roof, so the IBD guest is a flat out liar, yet O'Reilly put him on the air to trash Obama and never disagreed with him, or correct him.

Then it was the total waste of tv time body language segment with the bimbo blonde in the glasses. She looked at Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton, no Republicans, and all her evaluations were negative. She said Pelosi practices her speeches, when there is no way she could know that, but O'Reilly agreed with her anyway.

Then O'Reilly said you know who else practiced their speeches, HITLER. Yes he pulled the HITLER card. O'Reilly mentioned that HITLER also practiced his speeches. Then he suddenly realized he compared the House Speaker to HITLER, so he said to all you far left loons with websites I was not comparing Pelosi to HITLER. After he just did, earth to Billy, that is exactly what you did, you can not un-ring a bell.

Bill O'Reilly said HITLER also practices his speeches, after the body language bimbo said Pelosi practices her speeches. This happened, O'Reilly used the word HITLER. When talking about the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Can you imagine what O'Reilly would say if a guest said HITLER also practices his speeches, just like George W. Bush does. O'Reilly would jump over the desk and attack the guy, cut his mic, call security, then the FBI, and have the guy cuffed and thrown in jail for life.

Yet he mentions HITLER, when talking about Nancy Pelosi. O'reilly did that with no proof that Pelosi practices her speeches, he was going by the speculation from the body language bimbo. And had no problem doing it, when he said he never speculates, and nobody should ever compare anyone to HITLER.


Then it was is it legal with Kelly and Wiehl, they talked about the possible fraud by CEO's at big wall street firms, Casey Anthony, OJ trial, and Heath Ledgers daughter suing the insurance company for $10 million.

Then the stupid (total waste of tv time) culture quiz on John Wayne, with dumb ass Doocy and Carlson. Then the pinheads and patriots tabloid garbage, and the phony highly edited e-mail segment that O'Reilly uses to promote his worthless book.

Republicans Now Admit Pelosi Speech Did Not Change Their Vote
By: Steve - September 30, 2008 - 10:30pm

Update - 10-1-08 -- O'Reilly has never reported any of these statements on the factor, at any time. He did not tell his viewers about any of this last night, or anytime.

Several House conservatives have retracted their talking points attributing their opposition to the bailout on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's “partisan” speech yesterday. Interviewed on the Dennis Miller radio show today, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) admitted that it was a “terrible mistake” to blame Pelosi’s speech:
McCOTTER: I think it was a mistake for House leadership to say that Pelosi's speech mattered to anybody on our side.

MILLER: Yeah, me too, me too.

McCOTTER: Because we yell at each other like this all the time. And so, what they've actually done is a victory for the American people, a victory for the institution of Congress, and a victory for Republicans and Democrats who voted against it. It's being counter-messaged by their own leadership, who didn't get it through. That is a terrible mistake and it's hopefully not going to impact our ability to get this done more quickly than we, as quickly as we need to.
Republican John Shadegg agreed, Shadegg said Tuesday that House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican leaders made a “stupid claim" by alleging that Nancy Pelosi's speech changed any minds on the bailout.

Shadegg said that he doesn't know of a single GOP vote that shifted because of the speech.

On Monday evening, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a lead opponent of the bailout, told the Crypt that the notion was "nonsense" and mocked the possibility that a Republican would be shocked or offended by the partisan nature of a Democratic speech.

Other Republicans said this today:

-- Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): “We are not babies who suck their thumbs."

-- Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO): “I think you don’t want to give too much blame to that speech."

-- Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): “That speech was not the reason I voted against the bill."

Peter Wehner, a former adviser to President Bush, wrote at the Corner this morning that the effort to “blame the outcome on the Pelosi speech was an embarrassment."

On Fox Business Live yesterday, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) said that Pelosi's speech "didn't" have any effect on his vote and that he "didn't" know of any lawmakers who turned against the bill because of the speech.

Not to mention a FOX News Producer reported the Republicans only had 40 to 60 votes an hour before Pelosi even gave her speech. And yet, last night Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove blamed the bill's failure on the Pelosi speech.

Karl Rove called it one of the most vicious speeches in U.S. House history:
"She had a huge impact on the vote. This was over five minutes of the most vicious partisan rhetoric. This is the kind of thing you expect to hear on the floor of the House from some insignificant partisan back-bencher. You do not expect to hear this from a leader. The Speaker of the House whose responsibility it is to set the bipartisan tone to get this bill passed. I was appalled by this."
O'Reilly agreed with Rove, and also blamed the Pelosi speech. When today almost all of them admit her speech had nothing to do with anyone changing their votes.

More Proof O'Reilly Lied About Pelosi Speech
By: Steve - September 30, 2008 - 3:50pm

Last night Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove both said the Bailout bill failed because of the Pelosi speech. When a FOX News producer reported an hour before the Pelosi speech even happened that the Republicans only had 40 to 60 votes. I guess O'Reilly don't even watch the reporting on his own network, and if he does, he ignored it to blame it on the Pelosi speech anyway. Even far right Republican Congressman Darrell Issa said it was nonsense.

Fox News senior House producer Chad Pergram reported nearly an hour before Pelosi's speech began that he was "hearing from the Republican side of the aisle, they may only have 40 to 60 of their members" supporting the bill. Sixty-five Republicans and 140 Democrats ultimately voted for the bill.

From the September 29 edition of Fox News Happening Now:
JON SCOTT: The crucial vote is just about an hour away now. Fox's senior House producer, Chad Pergram, is live from Capitol Hill. He joins us now by phone. All right, this vote, coming up in about an hour or so, Chad. Any guesses as to how it's going to go?

PERGRAM: I'm hearing that there are about 130 members of the Democratic caucus that would go for this. That's about 105 short, out of their total membership. But they need about 90 Republicans, if that's the case. And I'm hearing from the Republican side of the aisle, they may only have 40 to 60 of their members, and that leaves us very short there.
The Politico's Ryan Grim reported that Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, a "lead opponent" of the bill, dismissed claims that Pelosi's speech changed votes:
"To be honest, somebody finding out that Nancy Pelosi made a partisan speech? I'm shocked," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a lead opponent of the bailout package, who tells the Crypt that the idea that her speech shifted votes is "nonsense."
Congressman Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), who helped lead the Democratic whipping effort, adamantly rejected the GOP spin.
"They knew coming in how they would vote," Crowley said. "The bottom line is that we said we'd get a majority of our caucus, and we did it. They did not meet their obligation."
Boehner himself appeared to contradict the suggestion that Pelosi's speech caused conservative "support" for the bill to "evaporate." During an interview with Katie Couric, Boehner said that the members who purportedly changed their votes because of Pelosi's speech had not, in fact, been "committed to vote for" the bill in the first place but were simply those "we thought that we could bring along on the floor."

He said this to Katie:
House Minority Leader Boehner: Well, Katie, I was there on the floor today urging members to support this bill. But you have to understand that you've got members on both sides of the aisle who are getting thousands of calls from their constituents saying, "Don't ever vote for this."
FACT: O'Reilly and Rove just repeated the Republican talking points that blamed the Pelosi speech, when a FOX reporter told Jon Scott, they only had 40 to 60 votes an hour before Pelosi even gave her speech. The dishonesty on the issue came from O'Reilly, Rove, and the Republicans who blamed the Pelosi speech.

And the proof of their dishonesty comes from no less than a "FOX News Producer" who reported an hour before the Pelosi speech even happened, that they only had 40 to 60 votes on the Republican side. Republicans wanted to blame the Democrats for their failed vote, and O'Reilly was more than happy to join Karl Rove in spreading that ridiculous lie.

Just now on Hardball (Tuesday 9-30-08 4:10pm CST) the Republican Tom Delay said the Pelosi speech had nothing to do with the Republicans only getting 60 votes. He said some of them voted against the bill because they just don't like it.

O'Reilly Falsely Claims McCain Won The Presidential Debate
By: Steve - September 30, 2008 - 1:20pm

Last night Bill O'Reilly said John McCain won the first presidential debate. Even though every poll in the entire country says Obama won. Only O'Reilly and a few of his biased and partisan right-wing friends are saying McCain won, which just shows his right-wing bias.

From the Monday Night O'Reilly Factor TPM:
O'REILLY: Last Friday John McCain won the debate, but it was close. McCain came across a bit more authoritative on foreign policy and proved he understands the danger in the world. Obama did not hurt his cause at all. He was cool and articulate as usual.
1) A CBS poll of undecided voters found that 40 percent felt Obama won the debate and 22 percent said it was McCain who won.

2) The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, conducted shortly after the debate ended, showed 51 percent thought Obama did the best job, while 38 percent said John McCain won.

3) A snap poll taken by MSNBC, by 500 Independent undecided voters (right after the debate) said 40% for Obama, 38% a tie, and 32% for McCain.

4) A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Barack Obama did a better job than John McCain; 34% said McCain did better. Obama scored even better -- 52%-35% -- when debate-watchers were asked which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve the country's problems.

5) A focus group of 45 voters with a "Republican tilt" believed that Obama won the night. By a 38 to 27 margin these voters said that Obama won the debate. Before the debate, just 40 percent viewed Obama positively, but this skyrocketed to 69 percent after the debate - a remarkable 29-point gain despite the group's conservative leanings. He also made large strides on being seen as independent, from 44 percent to 65 percent.

Not one poll has McCain winning the debate, not one. Even a focus group with a conservative bias said Obama won. Only right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, newsmax.com, foxnews.com, and McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis said he won.

Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be an Independent, thinks McCain won, even though the real Independents voted for Obama in all the polls. At best, it was a tie, which is what I voted for. Yet O'Reilly still thinks his boy McCain won, when nobody except biased right-wingers think that is true.

And one last thing: An ABC/Washington Post poll released today asked who is to blame for the bailout bill failure. Asked to assess responsibility for the legislation's failure, 44 percent said Republicans were the reason, 21 percent said the Democrats and 17 percent said both sides were responsible.

So while O'Reilly blamed it all on the Democrats, everyone else in America knows the truth, that it failed because the REPUBLICANS did not provide the 109 votes they agreed to. Only biased conservatives are blaming it on the Democrats, so what does that tell you about Bill O'Reilly.

Factor Regular Newt Gingrich Partly to Blame For Bailout Bill Failure
By: Steve - September 30, 2008 - 11:00am

It looks like Newt Gingrich is also to blame for the bailout bill failure. And yet O'Reilly never said a word about it, and never blamed him at all. Newt Gingrich is a regular guest on the factor, and a favorite of Bill O'Reilly, who was even on late last week talking about how he opposed the bill. He is partly to blame for the failure of the vote and O'Reilly says nothing, then he blames it all on the Democrats, when his own regular guest is part of the reason why the vote failed.

O'Reilly reported in last night's TPM that Newt supports the bill now, but he never said a word about Newt going behind the back of the house minority leader to whip up no votes, or that he only put out a statement supporting it after he thought it would pass. So Billy covered for his right-wing buddy, when he knew the real story, just as I know it, and everyone knows it. And I will bet the farm that tonight when Newt is on, O'Reilly will not say one damn word about him being partly to blame for the bill failing.

Report: Gingrich Stabbed Boehner In Back, Whipped GOP Opposition To Bailout

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was working aggressively behind the scenes to defeat the Wall Street rescue plan minutes before he himself released a public statement in support of the package, NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported on Tuesday.

Gingrich was whipping up votes for the opposition, Mitchell said, apparently without the knowledge of the current GOP leader, John Boehner, who was responsible for recruiting enough support from his caucus to help ensure the bill's passage. Ultimately, the GOP was only able to rally roughly a third of its members.

Andrea Mitchell:
"I am told reliably by leading Republicans who are close to him, he was whipping against this up until the last minute, when he issued that face-saving statement. Newt Gingrich was telling people in the strongest possible language that this was a terrible deal, not only that it was a terrible deal, it was a disaster, it was the end of democracy as we know, it was socialism -- and then at the last minute he comes out with a statement when the vote is already in place."
Indeed, as Mitchell noted, shortly before the bill's failure, Gingrich "reluctantly" came out in favor of its passage:
"Therefore, while I am discouraged at the final collapse of the Bush Administration, and frustrated by the Democrats' passion for the taxpayer's money, I would reluctantly and sadly vote for the bailout were I still in office."
Morning Joe had some interesting takes on the story. Joe Scarborough (Republican) called Gingrich's backstabbing of John Boehner "undercutting his own."

Mike Barnicle offered his own bit of reportorial insight:
"Andrea, I could hug you for saying that, because I was told last night by two members of Congress that this was the opening salvo of Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign four years hence."
Newt Gingrich will be a guest on the factor tonight, will O'Reilly report this story, then blame Newt? Yeah, when hell freezes over he will. And btw, where is Dick Morris? He predicted the bill would pass, McCain would take credit for it, and that it will lead to McCain winning the election and being the next president.

I said Dick Morris is a partisan right-wing idiot who does not have a clue, and that he is a hooker toe sucking fool. I was proven right, and Morris was proven wrong. Obama is 8 points ahead in the polls, 50 to 42, and McCain looks like a massive flip flopping failure, who used the bailout bill for political reasons, and instead of showing what a smart guy he is, and putting Country First, his political stunt hurt him and maybe ruined his chance to be the next president.

I wrote this after the friday night 9-26-08 O'Reilly factor, notice that DICK MORRIS WAS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING HE SAID, any yet O'Reilly called him the smartest guy in American politics.
Morris said the Democrats will cave on the Bush bailout bill, the Republican house version will pass, and McCain will get credit for passing it. Morris also said the Democrats are scared to pass the Bush/Paulson/Bernanke bailout bill. We will see if Morris is right or not.

O'Reilly said with all the recent bad news you should do something fun, like buy his book and go read it on a beach, or buy the Morris book and read it, or buy both books. How in the hell would that be fun, I'd rather have a knife shoved in my eye. Morris agreed with O'Reilly and said don't worry the crisis will be over soon and everything will be just fine.

Then O'Reilly said Morris is one of the smartest guys in American politics, WHAT? The guy is a hooker toe sucking right-wing idiot, who is usually wrong, ask him about his Clinton/Lazio Senate race prediction. Morris is a partisan hack who now hates the Clintons and everything liberal, he gives his biased opinion on everything, and is wrong most of the time. Like calling McCain suspending his campaign a brilliant move, when it hurt McCain, and everyone knows it was a cheap political stunt to boost his poll numbers.

All Morris said was McCain is great, Obama is terrible, and all Obama does is stutter, then O'Reilly called him a super hawk, and thanked him for all his wisdom.
Where is Dick Morris Billy? HE WAS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING. Will you put him on and hammer him for being wrong, of course not, because you are a coward, and a partisan right-wing spin doctor who does nothing but spin and lie to the American people.

Monday Night 9-29-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - September 30, 2008 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Econony & Politics. O'Reilly said McCain won the debate and Newt Gingrich now supports the bailout bill, the same bill he opposed last week btw. Whats funny is only the Republicans are saying McCain won, all the polls have Obama winning. O'Reilly claims to be an Independent, then he agrees with the Republicans on everything. In every poll Obama won with Democrats and Independents, every single one. And yet, O'Reilly agrees with the Republicans that McCain won, when all the Independents say Obama won. If O'Reilly is an Independent, how come he does not agree with the actual Independents who all said Obama won.

During the TPM O'Reilly devoted about half the TPM to give advice to McCain on how he should have hammered Obama on his tax cut plan now that we have the financial crisis. While he only devoted about 5 words to tell Obama what he should have said in the debate. O'Reilly said the Obama tax cut plan is now dead because of the financial crisis. But O'Reilly has said in the past that what you need in an economic downturn is a tax cut, which is what Obama plans to do. So O'Reilly is disagreeing with his own economic policy advice because Obama is a Democrat.

Then O'Reilly had 2 Republican FOX business idiots on to discuss the bailout bill. With no liberal financial experts to provide any balance. Then the 3 of them sat there and agreed with each other about everything. Talk about one sided bias, that was it. During the segment O'Reilly got in a lie about how many people watch him every day on tv and the radio. What that has to do with the bailout bill, who knows. He said 10 million people watch or listen to him every day. WRONG! The factor averages 2 to 3 million viewers a night, the radio show gets roughly 3 million listeners, earth to Bill O'Reilly, that's 6 million at best, and 6 million is not 10 million.

Not once did O'Reilly say a word about the Republicans killing the bailout bill because they did not provide their 109 votes. Instead he blamed it all on the Democrats, when the agreement called for each party to provode 109 votes so it would pass with equal support from both parties. They needed 218 votes, so they agreed to 109 votes each, then the Republicans only came up with 65 votes, so they caused the bailout bill to fail, and they caused the 777 point drop in the DOW. But O'Reilly used the Republican talking points to blame the Democrats, when they provided their 109 votes, and more, they actually had 140 votes. And that's an Independent?

Then he said the Pelosi speech is why the bill failed. Which is just more Republican talking points, and only Republicans are saying that. The bill failed because only 65 house Republicans voted yes, and that is a fact. Anyone who tells you anything different is lying to you, and they are a biased partisan right-wing liar. That makes O'Reilly a 100% biased and partisan right-wing liar, he is lying to you.

Each side agreed to have 109 votes, to get to the 218 needed, before they took the vote. Then they had the vote, and the Republican failed to provide their part of the agreement. This is a fact, you can not deny it, we saw it with our own eyes, it was on all the cable news channels. The reason they agreed to the 109 votes for each side is so that it will pass with equal support from each party, making it a bi-partisan bill.

A lot of people on each side opposed the bill, so they were allowed to vote no, but each side had agreed to provide the 109 votes so it would pass. Then the REUBLICANS backed out of the deal, after they agreed to it, they changed their mind during the damn vote, after they had agreed to provide the 109 votes. They said it was because of the Pelosi speech, which is just a total load of bullshit, and anyone who says that is a biased and lying jackass.

The Republicans who voted no did it for POLITICAL reasons, they caused the bill to fail for POLITICAL reasons. So if you lost 7% of your 401k yesterday when the Dow dropped 777 points, it's because the REPUBLICANS backed out of the vote deal for POLITICAL reasons. They were getting flooded with e-mails and phone calls from the voters in their districts at a rate of 20 to 1 against the bill, and they were saying if you vote yes on the bailout bill we will vote you out of office in your re-election.

So these HOUSE REPUBLICANS who voted no, put their POLITICAL CAREERS ahead of the good of the country. And that is a cold hard fact. Then the biased piece of right-wing garbage BILL O'Reilly LIED to you, and blamed it all on Pelosi and the Democrats. When they provided more than the 109 votes they agreed to, then had 140 votes. Even if you believe the 44 REPUBLICANS changed their vote to no because of the Pelosi speech, the REPUBLICANS still caused the bill to fail because they did not provide the 109 votes they agreed to. And that is a FACT.

During the whole rest of the show O'Reilly put Republican after Republican on to agree with him and lie to the American people. He had one segment with a Democrat in the whole show, with John Kerry. In that segment Kerry hammered O'Reilly for being dishonest about the bill, and they got into a shouting match, where O'Reilly barely let him get a word in. Something he never does with a Republican.

O'Reilly and Rove, and all the other guests blamed it on Pelosi and the Democrats. Kerry told O'Reilly to stop lying, then he told him there was an agreement for each side to provide 109 votes, and O'Reilly did not want to hear the truth. So he talked over him and yelled so the people could not hear the truth. Because O'Reilly wanted to lie to the American people and blame it on the Democrats. Kerry did not back down, and he told him the truth, that the REPUBLICANS cause the bill to fail. Then O'Reilly got more pissed off and started shouting even louder.

Then after Kerry schooled him with the true facts, Billy pulled the Democrats have been in power for two years right-wing propaganda bullshit. Kerry would have none of that garbage either, and he informed the liar that you need 60 votes to pass anything, and the Democrats only have 51 votes, so they can't do anything, it's gridlock.

For one, it's a year and 9 months, not 2 years. The Democrats got control of the House and the Senate in January of 2007. But the president is a Republican and he has veto power. In the Senate you can not pass anything wthout 60 votes, so in that year and 9 months the Democrats have done nothing, zero, nada, zip. Because they can't, the Republicans filabuster every bill they try to pass, so it's total gridlock, because the Republicans block every bill that comes up for a vote.

Just as they caused the bailout bill to fail, the REPUBLICANS are blocking everything, and they are to blame for the problem in the first place, then they block the bill to fix the problem, and O'Reilly blames it all on the Democrats.

Watching this biased one sided right-wing propaganda, is like watching an episode of the twilight zone, it's all lies from O'Reilly and his right-wing guests. If lying was a crime, O'Reilly would get life in prison, everything he reported on the failure of the bailout bill was a lie, every word. In the entire show John Kerry was the only guy who said one word of truth.

Then O'Reilly tells you that he is the only one being honest about it, when he is lying about the entire situation. The REPUBLICANS have been in power for the last 8 years, and the REPUBLICANS had control of the house for 14 years before that, they deregulated all the financial markets over the last 20 years, including the king of deregulation John McCain, and they even admit to it, then they agree to provide the 109 votes, then back out of the deal and only come up with 65 yes votes, then O'Reilly blames it all on the Democrats. WTF?

Bill O'Reilly should get an award for being the biggest liar in the history of television. The REPUBLICANS caused the bailout bill to fail, by not providing the 109 votes they promised in the agreement between both party leaders, the DEMOCRATS even provided more than the 109 they agreed to, they had 140 yes votes, so the bill failed because the REPUBLICANS backed out of the deal and only provided 65 yes votes, and THAT IS A FACT.

O'Reilly denied it all to blame the Democrats, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bill O'Reilly is the biggest right-wing liar on television.

Breaking: House Republicans Cause Financial Bailout Bill to Fail
By: Steve - September 29, 2008 - 2:30pm

They said they bill was ready to pass today, Bush, Paulson, bernanke, the Democrats, and the Republicans, including Barack Obama and John McCain, all agreed on the bill. Then the House held a vote and only 66 Republicans voted yes, with 140 Democrats voting yes, well more than the 109 votes they promised to provide.

They needed 218 votes to pass the bill, and the agreement said at least 109 members of each party will vote yes to pass it with equal support from each party. The Democrats provided their 109 votes, then even had 140 votes, while the Republicans only came up with 66 votes, far short of the 109 votes they had already agreed to provide.

If the economy goes into a recession, and the stock market crashes because of this vote, there will be one party to blame, the Republican party. They should publish the names of the 43 House Republicans who failed to live up to the 109 vote agreement (in every newspaper in America) and vote every one of them out of office.

And don't let the media pundits fool you, right now they are saying the bill failed because 94 Democrats also voted no. That is not true, the agreement called for each party to provide 109 votes to get to the 218 needed. The Democrats came up with more than the 109 votes they agreed to, they had 140, it failed because 43 Republicans backed out of the deal at the last minute for political reasons. And now the Dow is down 600 points, because the Republicans did not provide enough votes.

If you are wondering why each party agreed to provide 109 votes, to get to the 218 number, it's so that if the bailout plan does not work each party will be blamed equally.

Update - 3:30pm: House Republican lawmakers blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for its defeat. In a press conference, the GOP leadership faulted Pelosi for giving a “partisan" speech prior to the vote. In the subsequent Democratic press conference, Rep. Barney Frank responded to their absurd charge:
Here's the story. There's a terrible crisis affecting the American economy. We have come together on a bill to alleviate the crisis. And because somebody hurt their feelings, they decide to punish the country. I mean, I would not have imputed that degree of pettiness and hypersensitivity.

We also have -- as the leader will tell you, who's been working with them -- don't believe they had the votes, and I believe they're covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes. But think about this. Somebody hurt my feelings, so I will punish the country. That's hardly plausible. And there are 12 Republican members who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America, but not if anybody insulted them.

I'll make an offer. Give me those 12 people's names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are and maybe they'll now think about the country.
Pelosi's speech only mentions the word “Republican" once -- in the context of praising them for bipartisanship:
“Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush Administration."
After looking at Pelosi's speech, CNN's Ed Henry said he couldn't “find the partisan thing that they say sort of inflamed Republican members."

View her full speech here: www.youtube.com/3ZlsmIkz4

A GOP staffer wrote into National Review's Rich Lowry and acknowledged that Barney Frank was right:
“Rich -- I'm afraid Rep. Barney Frank has a point on this one. Some feelings on the GOP side were hurt, so they voted against the economic well-being of the country."


John McCain became Bill O'Reilly in 1st Presidential Debate
By: Steve - September 29, 2008 - 9:30am

John McCain got so many things wrong in the debate, and put so much right-wing spin on everything, I thought I was watching Bill O'Reilly, instead of the so-called war-hero Maverick who runs the straight talk express. McCain got names wrong, or could not pronounce them, got facts wrong, lied about his positions, and positions by other people, and mostly mislead the American people.

And it showed, every poll taken after the debate had Obama winning, or close to a tie. Not one poll had McCain winning, in fact, the only people who thought McCain won, were some of the pundits in the media, which just shows how biased they are. The people all thought Obama won. And McCain was not even close, in most polls about 32% thought McCain won, while 40% (or more) thought Obama won.

Here are some notes from thinkprogress.org on the debate:
-- CNN's Roland Martin pointed out that John McCain did not use the word middle class in the entire debate.

-- Joe Biden was on every cable news network doing post debate interviews. Sarah Palin was hiding somewhere, afraid to do any interviews, probably in an undisclosed location with Dick Cheney.

-- McCain messed up the pronunciation of Ahmadinejad's name. He had to say it 3 times before he finally got it right, things like that happen when you're 72 years old.

-- New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called McCain’s claim that he has consistently supported alternative energy "a howler."

-- Conservative Pat Buchanan claims McCain was the winner because "he came off as tough." All the polls had Obama winning by 8 points or more.

-- McCain said all the Veterans support him and love him, wrong. McCain received a grade of "D" from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America. The Vietnam Veterans of America noted McCain had voted against us in 15 key votes. Both the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars criticized McCain for opposing Sen. Jim Webb's GI Bill. And active members of the military are giving money at a rate of 6 to 1 to Obama over McCain.

-- McCain called the President of Pakistan Zardari, it's Kidari.

-- McCain said offshore drilling is a “bridge” technique that would lower prices “in the short run.” In fact, the Bush administration’s own Energy Department has concluded that it could have no significant impact before 2030.

-- McCain mocked the idea that Kissinger supports talks with Iran without preconditions. Just yesterday, CBS News’s Katie Couric checked with Kissinger. “Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following her interview. He told us he supports talks with high level Iranian officials, without preconditions.” McCain moved the goal posts when he said Kissinger opposed (presidential level) talks without preconditions, when Kissinger never said that, so McCain was misleading, if not down right dishonest.

-- McCain said, “Look, we’re sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don’t like us very much.” McCain is confusing foreign aid with the amount of money that Americans spend on foreign oil. The U.S. only spends $39 bllion a year on foreign aid.

-- McCain’s view that Pakistan was a “failed state” when Pervez Musharraf launched his coup in 1999 is bizarre. Pakistan had a functioning government led by then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Sharif attempted to fire Musharraf as head of the Pakistani military and replace him with ISI Director Ziauddin Butt. Instead, Musharraf launched a coup, citing allegations of corruption against Sharif. Nobody on either side took the view that Pakistan was a failed state.

-- McCain now thinks any timeline is good for withdrawal from Iraq, but he used to be opposed to any timeline, despite the fact that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki endorsed Obama’s plan and ultimately agreed with President Bush to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011. And despite the fact that Bush has said, as they stand up, we will stand down. McCain even talked about keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years, if needed.

-- McCain said Obama was wrong to doubt the surge, when John McCain himself questioned whether the surge would succeed. In January 2007, he said, “I am concerned about it, whether it is sufficient numbers or not.” And this, “I am very nervous about this new strategy. I am very doubtful that we have enough troops. I don’t know if the Maliki government will be strong enough.” Not to mention some military and political experts are not sure the surge was the only reason for the decreased violence. They claim after 5 years of war and ethnic cleansing, the violence was sure to go down, with or without the surge.

-- McCain even warned that -- absent the surge -- we might have seen “increased sectarian violence.” In fact, the most up-to-date research indicates that one of the leading causes of the recent decline in violence is that the surge was followed by large-scale ethnic cleansing, and violence only dropped in Baghdad once mixed neighborhoods had largely been eliminated.

-- McCain claimed to have opposed Bush on climate change, torture, and Guantanamo Bay. In fact, McCain allowed his party’s platform to question the science of climate change, and he voted to allow the CIA to continue waterboarding, after he said he was opposed to the CIA waterboarding people.

-- McCain’s proposal for an across-the-board spending freeze in discretionary spending would entail large cuts in everything from education to the FBI and federal prisons to national parks, highway and bridge repair, food stamps, etc. The cuts would cause a contractionary impact on economic growth at a time when the country is in need of a second stimulus to forestall the risk of a deep recession. A generous estimate of the savings from the freeze would be $50 billion. This leaves McCain with a budget hole of about $650 billion.

-- McCain said that (now) he is 100% against ethanol subsidies. But in 2006, he said “I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects.”

-- While the U.S. technically has the second highest corporate tax rate on paper, the effective tax rate is in line with the rest of the world’s leading economies. And, two-thirds of American corporations pay no taxes at all.

-- McCain correctly points out that American workers are more productive than ever. Since November 2001, employee productivity has risen more than 15 percent. However, “the average wage for the typical American worker has increased just 1 percent (after inflation). … Some economists say this may be the first time in American history that the typical working household goes through an economic expansion without any increase in income whatsoever.”

-- McCain claims the U.S. is still the “greatest exporter," it is in fact Germany who is the greatest exporter.

-- McCain said he warned about the problems in the financial markets, repeating something he’s said several times since the extent of the problem became clear, after he recently said that he “did not” anticipate the crisis.
And this is the guy who want's to be the next president, if he is a foreign policy expert, and he has all this experience, why did he get so much wrong.

Update: Today on the Radio Factor O'Reilly said that John McCain won the debate, even though every poll has Obama winning. Which is just more proof that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing partisan who can not provide an objective analysis of anything political. The only people saying McCain won are conservative partisan pundits like Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc.

Report: Palin Concerns Grow in Republican Party
By: Steve - September 28, 2008 - 7:20pm

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, it's not just Democrats saying that Sarah Palin is a moron who is not qualified to be Vice President, try being an honest journalist for once and report it.

----------

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 (UPI) -- Concern is growing among Republicans and conservatives over U.S. vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's performance in media interviews, the Politico said Friday.
In the conservative National Review, political analyst Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote that it was not "a crazy suggestion" for Palin to step aside and said "something's gotta change."

GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio told Politico Palin's CBS interview -- which received largely negative reviews for her comments on the proposed financial markets bailout and her contention that Alaska's proximity to Russia bolsters her foreign policy experience -- was alarming.

"You can't continue to have interviews like that and not take on water," he said.
Full Story: www.upi.com/2008/09/26/Palin_concern_grows_in_GOP

John McCain Caught Lying Again (Strike Three?)
By: Steve - September 27, 2008 - 7:10pm

Three strikes and you're out, right?

McCain should re-name his "Straight Talk Express" bus the "Direct Lie Express." And btw, that bus is retired, he flies around the country now in his half a billionaire wifes private jet.

McCain said he would suspend his campaign on wednesday, then go to Washington and stay there until a bill is passed. He also said he would skip the debate if a bill was not passed by friday night, both lies.

Last wednesday McCain even said his presence was pivotal in Washington for the bailout negotiations, McCain also said he would return to Washington to help with the bailout negotiations immediately after the friday night presidential debate.

But today we find out he was lying about that too. John McCain never went to Capitol Hill today. In fact, McCain stayed in his Arlington apartment, leaving only to go to his campaign headquarters just around the block.

The New York Times reports:
Asked why John McCain did not go to Capitol Hill after coming back to Washington to help with negotiations, (McCain adviser) Mr. Salter replied that "he can effectively do what he needs to do by phone."
If that's true, why did he have to fly in to Washington on wednesday, the phones were working then too. It looks like the McCain campaign tells so many lies they can't keep them all straight.

Friday Night 9-26-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - September 27, 2008 - 12:10pm

This was presidential debate night, O'Reilly did a TPM called Who's Looking Out For You. O'Reilly said as you know he has documented the financial crisis over the last week or so. Yeah right, what he really means is he had a few partisan right-wing guests on to discuss it who work for FOX News. They mostly blame the Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who had nothing to do with the problem.

The problem is the Republicans who spent the last 20 years deregulating all the financial markets. Including Phil Gramm and John McCain, with the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. O'Reilly ignores all that to blame the Democrats, and he does blame Bush and the SEC head a little too. But he never mentions the Gramm Banking deregulation bill, not once, and he never mentions that McCain is the king of deregulation who supported removing regulations.

A new poll by CNN/Opinion Research says 47% blame the Republicans, and 24% blame the Democrats. Yet O'Reilly and the Republicans try to blame the Democrats, when they are the party that tried to pass more regulations, while the Republicans got rid of regulations.

The top story was about the bailout and the debate, with good ol Newt (far far right) Gingrich. Not only did O'Reilly use Newt to spin things to the right, he gave him 2 full segments to do it. Talk about bias, Newt is as biased as it gets. And he said there should not be a bailout, even the Republican O'Reilly disagreed with him. That shows how far right Newt is, you know you are far to the right when even O'Reilly disagrees with you.

O'Reilly and Newt agreed about everything else, like it's all the Democrats fault, and how the bailout bill is a Democrat bill. WHAT? The bailout bill is a Bush/Paulson/Bernanke bill, the Democrats had nothing to do with it, it's a Bush bill. The Democrats only made changes to it to make it a good bill, but the bill came from Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke, and it came out of the White House. Yet good ol biased Newt and O'Reilly said it was a Democrat bill, and that the Republicans would propose a different bill and it would pass, making the Democrats and Obama look bad.

WHAT? What planet are these morons living on, Mars? The bailout bill is from Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke, not the Democrats. Both segments with Newt were a joke, just total one sided right-wing bias, propoganda, and lies.

On a side note: a snap poll taken after the debate (by 500 Independent voters) has Obama winning the debate at 40%, a tie 38%, and McCain winning at 32%, then Larry Sabato, the non-partisan politics professor who is on all the shows, including the factor, said Obama won. But when you turn to FOX News, or read any right-wing blogs or websites, they are all saying McCain won. They are clearly blinded by their bias, everyone else thinks Obama won, or it was a tie. In my personal opinion I think it was almost a tie, McCain made a few mistakes, like getting the president of Pakistan's name wrong, and he could not say the president of Iran's name correctly. I'm an Obama supporter and I gave a slight edge to Obama, maybe 51 to 49.

After the 2 full segments with Newt O'Reilly had Karl (far right) Rove on. Even Rove disagreed with the crazy far right nut Newt Gingrich. He attacked Newt and partly blamed him for the financial crisis, he said Newt and the Republicans had control of Congress for 14 straight years, and they did nothing to prevent the crisis. But Rove misrepresented the real reason for the problem, and said it was not because of lack of regulation. Rove is wrong, and he's just trying to spin it to protect Republicans, too late Karl, everyone already knows the truth.

O'Reilly asked Rove who benefits when they talk about the economy, Rove said Obama, then O'Reilly asked how McCain can overcome that. Then Rove put out his advice to McCain (on tv) about how to win the argument on the economy. Neither Rove, or anyone on the show (even the one Democrat) was asked how Obama can overcome anything McCain says, and nobody gave any advice to Obama on how to beat McCain.

Fair and balanced? haha, now that's funny.

Then O'Reilly had a Democrat on, after 35 minutes of non-stop right-wing propaganda from Newt and Karl. Howard Wolfson was on to be the balance, even though he works for FOX News, some balance huh, a FOX News employee. That's the balance (O'Reilly claims he has) to 35 minutes of non stop Republican propaganda from Gingrich and Rove, 4 minutes with a FOX News employee. O'Reilly said Wolfson was in the Clinton administration in the 90's, WRONG. He was not, and he corrected Billy, he worked on the Senate campaign for Hillary in 2000, that great fact checking O'Reilly staff strikes again.

Then suddenly O'Reilly said he don't want to blame anyone for the financial crisis, and how he hates people who do that, after he spent 35 minutes with Newt and Karl blaming the Democrats. They talked about the debate and the bailout, Wolfson defended Obama and O'Reilly disagreed with him.

Wolfson said the Republicans were to blame, mentioned polls that show he is correct, and O'Reilly did not hear him right, and he asked if he said the Republicans are not to blame, and Wolfson said you have it wrong. Then Wolfson corrected him again, and O'Reilly said the scoundrels at media matters will report that, and you will be in trouble, haha, very funny, not. Media Matters reports the facts, in context, with video, and the transcript, O'Reilly just don't like it because they report the truth about him.

Then Dick Morris was on, and O'Reilly gave him 2 full segments also. O'Reilly asked Morris if he still thinks the McCain campaign suspension stunt was a brilliant move, and Morris said yes. Even though Rove did not think it was, and everyone knew it was just a political stunt, including most Republicans who admitted it hurt McCain and made him look weak and afraid to debate Obama. Then Morris started giving McCain advice on how to beat Obama, while at the same time trashing Obama.

Morris said the Democrats will cave on the Bush bailout bill, the Republican house version will pass, and McCain will get credit for passing it. Even though McCain has not said if he supports any version of any bill yet. Morris also said the Democrats are scared to pass the Bush/Paulson/Bernanke bailout bill. We will see if Morris is right or not.

O'Reilly said with all the recent bad news you should do something fun, like buy his book and go read it on a beach, or buy the Morris book and read it, or buy both books. How in the hell would that be fun, I'd rather have a knife shoved in my eye. Morris agreed with O'Reilly and said don't worry the crisis will be over soon and everything will be just fine.

Then O'Reilly said Morris is one of the smartest guys in American politics, WHAT? The guy is a hooker toe sucking right-wing idiot, who is usually wrong, ask him about his Clinton/Lazio Senate race prediction. Morris is a partisan hack who now hates the Clintons and everything liberal, he gives his biased opinion on everything, and is wrong most of the time. Like calling McCain suspending his campaign a brilliant move, when it hurt McCain, and everyone knows it was a cheap political stunt to boost his poll numbers.

All Morris said was McCain is great, Obama is terrible, and all Obama does is stutter, then O'Reilly called him a super hawk, and thanked him for all his wisdom. Then the show ended 10 minutes early to cover the debate.

The whole show was nothing but right-wing spin and propaganda from all conservative guests, except for one 4 minute segment with a Democrat who works for FOX News. And he is limited in what he can say, or they will fire him. So in reality, not one real Democrat was on the show, as in a real Democrat who could speak his mind freely, without fear of getting fired if he is too hard on O'Reilly, McCain, or the Republicans.

And That's what O'Reilly calls fair and balanced journalism.

O'Reilly Proves His Show is Biased With His Own Argument
By: Steve - September 26, 2008 - 4:50pm

Monday night (9-22-08) O'Reilly had a segment on liberal bias at Newsweek magazine. Billy had the editor of Newsweek magazine Jon Meacham on to discuss it. During the segment O'Reilly argued that because Newsweek has 8 liberal writers (defined by O'Reilly as liberal) and only 3 conservative writers, it proves they have a liberal bias. Let's assume O'Reilly is correct, then use that same argument for the O'Reilly Factor.

Look at the regular guest list, conservatives:
1) Karl Rove
2) Dick Morris
3) Laura Ingraham (Regular & Fill-in Host)
4) Margaret Hoover
5) Monica Crowley
6) Dennis Miller
7) Amanda Carpenter
8) Megyn Kelly
9) Lis Weihl
10) Bernie Goldberg
11) Newt Gingrich
12) Terry Keenen
13) Dagen McDowell
14) Tony Snow (Fill-in Host Before he Died)
15) Michelle Malkin (Former Fill-In Host)
16) John Kasich (Fill-in Host)
17) E.D. Hill (Regular & Fill-in Host)
18) Mary K. Ham
19) Ann Coulter
Now compare that to the so-called liberals who are regular guests:
1) Dr. Marc Lamont Hill
2) Juan Williams (FOX News Employee)
3) Jane Hall
Now if we use O'Reilly's own standards you see 19 conservatives, and only 3 liberals, with 2 of them barely qualified to be called liberals, especially when they agree with O'Reilly 90% of the time. And O'Reilly himself said on Tuesday night of this week that Hill, Williams, and Hall are the balance on the factor, in answer to an e-mail saying his show had a right-wing bias. Is 19 conservatives to 3 liberals fair and balanced?

Every regular weekly segment O'Reilly does is either one or two conservatives, except one. The culture warriors are both conservatives, the legal segment is two conservatives, the business segment is two conservatives, the culture quiz has two conservatives, the internet cop is a conservative, all the fill-in anchors are conservatives, and the regular weekly political analysts are all conservatives, Morris, Rove, Miller, and Ingraham.

While the 3 so-called liberals are not a regular in any weekly segment, except one. The media segment with Bernie and Jane, but sometimes it's only Bernie and Jane is not there, while you never see Jane there without Bernie, or another conservative to counter her views, every other regular weekly segment is all conservatives, all the time. In most shows there is only one liberal on the whole show, and some nights the entire show is nothing but conservatives with no liberal guests at all.

So if we use O'Reilly's own standards for rating media bias, his show is 90% biased to the right, far more biased than Newsweek magazine, or any other media source in America.

McCain Flip Flops on Presidential Debate
By: Steve - September 26, 2008 - 1:30pm

Wednesday John McCain said he would suspend his campaign and return to Washington to work on the bailout plan. He also said he would not go to the Presidential debate unless a deal was reached by friday night. Now he says he will go to the debate, even if a deal is not made.

And he never did suspend his campaign anyway, so he was lying. Nothing stopped, all his campaign ads were still running, and everyone working on his campaign stayed working on the campaign. All he did was fly to Washington for a photo-op, and now he is leaving for the debate, he did nothing when he was there, and the campaign was not suspended. The whole thing was a cheap political stunt. Probably masterminded by Karl Rove, as Dick Morris stated on the O'Reilly Factor.
CNN anchor Tony Harris points out that McCain had originally said he that he would suspend his campaign “until a deal is done on this."

CNN's Rebecca Sinderbrand writes, "The difference between a suspended campaign and a full campaign is starting to look a lot like the distinction between a speed walk and a slow jog: to the untrained eye, the pace seems about the same."
McCain is leaving Washington to debate Barack Obama with no deal, and without even stating his position on the bailout plan. So his trip to Washington was just a cheap political stunt to try and get his poll numbers up.

The whole episode left even conservatives admitting that the McCain campaign looked erratic and a bit foolish with no apparent direction or guiding principle.
"It just proves his campaign is governed by tactics and not ideology," said Republican consultant Craig Shirley, who advised McCain earlier in this cycle. "In the end, he blinked and Obama did not. The "steady hand in a storm" argument looks now to more favor Obama, not McCain."
Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee called McCain's debate ploy a "huge mistake."

In Mobile, Alabama last night, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee called John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign and possibly skip tonight's debate a “huge mistake." Saying that he “still backs McCain's candidacy," Huckabee said McCain shouldn't have paused the campaign because a president has to “deal with the unexpected."

Huckabee said the Arizona senator should not have put his campaign on hold to deal with the financial crisis on Wall Street. He said a president must be prepared to “deal with the unexpected."

“You can"t just say, 'World stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything,"' Huckabee said.

Bob Geiger points out that while a select few Republican bobbleheads in the media (like O'Reilly and Hannity) would be only too happy to defend McCain’s hesitation to debate, the public was not so impressed and it was too big a gamble for even McCain to risk.

On a side note: Obama never once thought about pulling a cheap political stunt to skip the debate and suspending his campaign, and he never flip-flopped on it either. That's what a real leader does, where McCain tries to use cheap political stunts to increase his poll numbers. Hey John, what happened to Country First? Cheap political stunts to increase your poll numbers is not putting the Country First.

GOP Aides: McCain Not Familiar With Details of Bailout Plan
By: Steve - September 26, 2008 - 1:20pm

Bailout negotiations “dissolved into a verbal brawl" at the White House yesterday, as some House Republicans, led by Eric Cantor (R-VA), said they would not back a bipartisan negotiation on the package. The House GOP faction stunned the participants at the meeting yesterday by announcing their own plan which “advocates tax cuts and relaxed regulations."

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the House GOP proposal would not work. “Democratic leaders questioned McCain’s involvement in the House Republicans opposition to the plan." McCain met with House GOP leaders before heading to the White House, but none of them seemed to know what they were talking about:
Boehner and McCain discussed the bailout plan, but Republican leadership aides described the conversation as somewhat surreal. Neither man was familiar with the details of the proposal being pressed by House conservatives, and up to the moment they departed for the White House yesterday afternoon, neither had seen any description beyond news reports.

At 1:25 p.m., McCain left Boehner's office through a back door, walking across the Capitol's rotunda. Graham conceded the group knew little about the plan the nominee had come to Washington to try to shape.
At the bipartisan White House meeting that McCain “didn’t speak until 43 minutes into the meeting." He “sat silently for more than 40 minutes, more observer than leader, and then offered only a vague sense of where he stood, said people in the meeting."

Sen. Chris Dodd said, “Instead of being a rescue plan for our economy it was a rescue plan for the McCain Campaign." Sen. Chuck Schumer urged Bush to “respectfully tell Sen. McCain to get out of town. He's not helping." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added, “We had Republican Senator Bob Bennett, a high ranking official, who said these are the principles. And then, guess who came to town? McCain, And it all fell apart."

McCain's handling of the negotiations serves to underscore his comment in Dec. 2007 that he is “not an expert on Wall Street" and “not an expert of some of this stuff." McCain still won't say what his position is on the bailout. As Fox's Carl Cameron reported, McCain has “studiously not taken a position."

It's Official: Sarah Palin is a Braindead Moron
By: Steve - September 25, 2008 - 7:40am

In her interview with Katie Couric Sarah Palin said when Putin rears his head and gets in the air space over America he goes to Alaska. WTF?

What in the sam hell is she talking about, this woman is out of her moose loving mind. She is not qualified to be a dog catcher, let alone Vice President. Keith Olberman said watching her interview with Katie Couric was frightening to watch, meaning it was scary how stupid she is. His guest (Margaret Carlson) said Palin was so bad she does not even want to read the transcript from the interview, that it makes her cringe just thinking about it.

No wonder the McCain campaign is afraid to let her talk to the media, she is dumber then we even thought, and every time she opens her mouth she makes herself look even more dumber. Read this partial transcript from the interview, and remember this is not from a comedy skit on SNL, these are Palins real answers.
COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with--Canada. It--it's funny that a comment like that was--kind of made to--cari--I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our--our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We--we do--it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where--where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is--from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to--to our state.
All I can say is OH MY GOD, is she stupid. How in the hell did she get elected Governor, I would not let her pick up my garbage, let alone be the Vice President. The woman is stupid, as in dumber than a rock, and that's putting it kindly. And these frauds like O'Reilly have the nerve to defend her, which just goes to show how far in the tank they are for MCain and Palin. If she were the Democratic VP pick, O'Reilly and FOX News would rip her to pieces for how dumb she is, but she runs as a Republican and they fall all over themselves defending her, when they know she is as dumb as a brick.

Remember that Sarah Palin did not even have a passport until 2007, and she has never met with any world leaders, so she has no foreign policy experience, none. And she even claims that you can see Russia from Alaska so that is foreign policy experience. Now if a 5 year old said that, I could let it slide, but this is a grown woman who is running for the office of Vice President of the United States of America. She is an embarrassment, and now we know why the McCain campaign is refusing to let her talk to the media. Because every time she opens her mouth, she proves how dumb she is.

Thursday Night 9-25-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - September 25, 2008 - 11:40pm

The TPM was called Wall Street Bailout. O'Reilly bitched and moaned again about the greedheads and the politicians who did not warn us about the crisis. If you ask me O'Reilly seems more pissed off that he lost a lot of money in the market then he is about the actual financial problem. He bitches and moans about it every night, but he never has any financial experts on to talk about what should be done to fix the problem. He just cries to some FOX News stooge about how much money he lost.

The top story was on the bailout with the right-wing loon John Stossel, this guy is clueless right-wing moron, and O'Reilly puts him on the air as a financial expert. What Gary Coleman was not available, he knows about as much about it as Stossel. O'Reilly and Stossel both blamed it on Congress and Barney Frank, but neither one of them mentioned the real problem.

The 1999 Phil Gramm Banking Deregulation bill, that McCain and all the Republicans supported. And they never said a word about how the Republican party has Deregulated everything for 20 years, and that is what caused the problem. Instead they blamed it all on Barney Frank, when he had nothing to do with it, and even tried to pass a bill to put more regulations on them, and the Republicans blocked it. This moron Stossel is opposed to any bailout, he said let the free market work, when that is what caused the problem, he is dumber than a rock, and O'Reilly puts this tool on the air as a financial expert, I bet he can't even spell financial.

Then the far right conservative Laura Ingraham was put on the air with nobody from the left to provide the balance. Ingraham said the problem was too much regulation, my God is she stupid. The problem was not enough regulations, the insurance companies and wall street were allowed to do whatever they wanted with no regulation, that was the problem. She said it was not a failure of the market, ummm, yes it was, what planet has she been living on, Mars? Earth to Laura Ingraham, please seek mental help now.

She trashed Obama and said he was not doing anything to solve the problem, then praised McCain for suspending his campaign and going back to washington, when everyone knows it was a cheap political stunt. O'Reilly and Rove even admitted it was a political stunt on the Wednesday night factor. Everyone knows it was a political trick to try and get his numbers up in the polls. Then they both predicted the bailout bill will pass friday and McCain will do the dabate friday night.

Then O'Reilly had the one Democrat for the night on, Dr. Lamont Hill. He said both O'Reilly and Ingraham were wrong, and that Barney Frank was not to blame, it was the Republican Deregulation bills. O'Reilly defended Ingraham and said it was Barney Franks fault, when he had nothing to do with it. He has only been Chairman of the house Finance Committee for a year and 9 months, and most of this stuff happened before he became Chairman. The majority of it happened from 2004 to 2006, a year before Frank was even the Chairman.

On tuesday night Dr. Hill said O'Reilly has overstated how far left Obama is, O'Reilly denied it, and told Hill to show him proof on Thursday when he is back on. Hill said no problem, he can prove it, and he will show him. Then O'Reilly went through the whole segment and never said a word about that proof Dr. Hill was going to show him, he just ignored it, and never said a word about it. Even after he said Tuesday that Dr. Hill should show him on thursday, it never happened, and O'Reilly never said a word about it.

Then in the Kelly Files O'Reilly cried like a fricking baby about a tv ad some liberal ran about McCain. It showed close up pics of the cancer scar on McCain's face, and the band-aid over it. They talk about how McCain had cancer 4 times and that he could die as president from cancer, then you would have the unqualified president Palin. The ad was 100 percent accurate and I had no problem with it.

Billy screamed bloody murder and gave a viewer warning, what a joke, it was an ad that ran on tv, so there was no need for a viewer warning, O'Reilly flipped out over nothing. It was a simple and accurate ad telling people that if you elect McCain, he might die from cancer, and then were stuck with the Moose Hunter creationist (witchcraft believer) from Alaska, who thinks foreign policy experience is being on the border with Russia.

The funniest part is O'Reilly calling for the FBI to investigate it, FOR WHAT. The ad was 100 percent legal, and accurate. O'Reilly kept rambling on and on about calling the FBI, when even Megyn Kelly was laughing at him, and told him no way, it's a perfectly legal ad. Billy is probably on the phone to the FBI right now, they say to him, you want us to investigate a tv ad about McCain having cancer, are you nuts, then they hang up on his crazy ass. She told O'Reilly it would be a waste of taxpayer money, and he said not to him. Billy should check into that mental ward with Ingraham.

Then it was the weekly Culture Warrior segment, where they discuss American culture. Here is my question, how can you do a culture segment with 3 conservatives, and no liberals. It's O'Reilly and 2 right-wing women who work for FOX News. It's just another biased one sided conservative propaganda segment, with nobody from the left to provide any balance. You can not do a segment on American culture without a liberal, it's impossible.

At the end they all predicted McCain will show up for the debate, what does that have to do with culture?

Then the reality check segment that has no reality. Only right-wing spin from O'Reilly on what other people have said. O'Reilly played a clip of the Couric/Palin interview and showed how the Moose killer can not even answer a simple question. She has been running around for weeks talking about all the reform bills McCain has passed. So Couric asked her to name one, just one, which is a perfectly valid question, and yet the Moose killer had no answer, she said I'll check and get back to you.

O'Reilly called it an unfair gotcha question, when it was not unfair, and a valid question, he just don't know real journalism when he sees it, because he has no clue what real journalism is. If you run around for weeks talking about all the reform your running mate has done, then it's a fair question to ask you to name one of the reform bills your running mate has passed. But in O'Reilly world, that's an unfair gotcha question. How did this guy get a journalism degree, from a box of cracker jacks?

Then he cried about Sarah Silverman doing a joke about Palin, it even said COMEDIAN on the screen under the video he was showing. Earth to O'Reilly, she is a comedian, and not part of the media, let it go sparky, your bias is showing big time. Most of the reality check was just whining about the Palin attacks, except for his lame book promotion at the end. We get it, you have a new book out, we don't need to hear about it every damn night.

Then it was pinheads and patriots, liberal = pinhead, conservative = patriot. Then the phony edited e-mails.

Tonight O'Reilly got an e-mail saying his show had a right-wing bias. He was like, how dare you, do you even watch the show. I have Hill, Williams, and Hall on all the time for the balance. What a joke, that's the balance?

Dr. Hill is on once a week, if he's lucky. Juan Williams is an O'Reilly ass kissing fake Democrat who works for FOX News, and agrees with O'Reilly 90 percent of the time. He gets on once or twice a week, mostly only once a week. And Jane Hall is another fake Democrat who gets on once a week, if she's lucky, and when she is on she agrees with O'Reilly 90 percent of the time, and kisses his ass to keep from getting thrown off the show, because it's the only show that will put her dumb ass on the air.

Dr. Lamont Hill is just about the only real Democrat O'Reilly puts on the air on a regular basis. And he is lucky if he gets on more than once a week. While the rest of the regular guest list is 99% right-wingers, from Morris, to Rove, to Ingraham, to Hoover, to Crowley, to Carpenter, to Kelly, to Weihl, to Goldberg, to Miller, to Gingrich, to Keenen, to McDowell, and on and on. Most nights he has 4 or 5 segments with right-wingers and 1 segment with a liberal, just as he did tonight, and some nights it's all right-wingers with no liberals, if that's balanced, i'm Dick Cheney.

Sarah Palin Had Witchcraft Protection Prayer in 2005
By: Steve - September 25, 2008 - 2:40pm

Do you want a Vice President who still believes in witchcraft. A person who has a witchcraft protection prayer to protect her, I sure don't.

A YouTube video surfaced Wednesday showing Sarah Palin being blessed in her hometown church three years ago by a Kenyan pastor who prayed for her protection from "witchcraft" as she prepared to seek higher office.

The video shows Palin, standing before Bishop Thomas Muthee in the pulpit of the Wasilla Assembly of God church, holding her hands open as he asked Jesus Christ to keep her safe from "every form of witchcraft."

Palin does not say anything on the video and keeps her head bowed throughout the blessing. A spokesman for the McCain campaign declined to comment. A person who answered the phone at the Wasilla church confirmed the video was from May 2005 but declined further comment.



On a visit to the church in June 2008, Palin spoke fondly of the Kenyan pastor and told a group of young missionaries that Muthee's prayers had helped her to become governor.
"Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he's so bold," she said. "And he was praying 'Lord make a way, Lord make a way' ... He said, 'Lord make a way and let her do this next step.' And that's exactly what happened."
The Rev. Zipporah Ndiritu, who studied under Muthee in the Kiambu, Kenya-based Word of Faith Church, said in a phone interview from Mombasa, Kenya, the church doctrine focuses on ridding the world of demons -- and witches.

People should e-mail O'Reilly at ([email protected]) and ask him when he plans to do a month long investigation of Palin, her church, and her Pastor, as he did with Obama's church and his Pastor.

Neil Cavuto And His Financial Experts All Got it Wrong
By: Steve - September 25, 2008 - 1:10pm

Before you ever listen to any financial advice from Neil Cavuto, or anyone on the FOX News Business shows read this. They were all wrong about the crisis, and almost all of them predicted 16,000 to 18,000 on the Dow by the end of 2009.

In July of 2007 the Dow hit 14,000, Cavuto did a show about it and gave the credit for it to George W. Bush. In fact, so did two other guests, Patricia Powell and Charles Payne.
Neil Cavuto: We have seen the Dow at 14,000 and reports are showing that the economy is not too hot, not too cold, so we're told, just right!

Neil Cavuto: Charles on the notion that the markets are either dismissing problems like that, or just going on because they see something else?

Charles Payne: I think that this is the Bush rally! Here's the key. The markets around the world have exploded since March, 2003, when the war began. It's not about the war winding down. It's about peace and prosperity around the world. We're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and we're keeping terrorists at bay, which creates a certain calm that allows the rest of the world to enjoy comfort and security.

The adoption of American style capitalism is one of the keys to this thing. If anyone's going to take a bow, I think President Bush has to take a bow -- not just for the U.S. economy and the stock market, but for the global economy.

Neil Cavuto: Well, I don't see Bush getting much credit. Patricia?

Patricia Powell: I don't see him getting much credit either. And I think that's really a shame because we've had a very business-friendly administration that has really helped both the economy and the rally. The tax-cutting Congress also added to the overall robust economy and the robust stock market. And I think that we really have to look at this in the context of really long term. When you let free markets decide your economic issues, you get the most efficient possible solutions. These are the kinds of things that central planners can't even imagine what it would be like.
Payne predicted the Dow would hit 15,700 by the end of 2007, and 17,000 to 18,000, in the next three years, 07, 08, 09.
Neil Cavuto: What are you saying? Where does it go?

Charles Payne: I think it'll go for another three years.

Neil Cavuto: Alright, but to what levels?

Charles Payne: Well, this year I said 15,700, but I think over three years, 17 or 18 thousand.
Payne also said this:
Charles Payne: I don't think this is going to be a problem for Wall Street. But for the average person out there who's struggling to buy a home, it's a disaster. All the big quality names are getting out of this business. There are just a lot of snakes left lying around.

As far as the economy is concerned, everything is talking about subprime as being a problem, but no one's saying Alt A or Prime. This is not going to be a problem.
On the same day (in July of 2007) David Asmen said this on another FOX Business Show:
David Asman: Well, forget 14,000. Get ready for Dow 18,000, which is what Rich Karlgaard is predicting.

Rich Karlgaard: There are four reasons: 1) greatest global boom ever; 2) the world is awash in liquidity; 3) the Dow 30 stocks are all great multi-national players that are all benefiting from the global boom; and 4) treasury Yields are so poor that nobody wants to go into those and so they go into stocks.

Dennis Kneale: We will get to 18,000, but not before we first get to 16,000, and then go down and have a correction and rebuilds. We'll be at 16,000 within a year and a half.

Steve Forbes: Rich is right. After November of 2008 when Giuliani, who I'm backing, wins the election in 2008 and when people realize that there will be tax cuts, tax simplifications, we're going to get the Fed in line. Then in a couple of days the market will go up 4,000 points!
These are the fools Cavuto and FOX put on their Business shows, they are partisan hacks who had no clue what they were talking about. And anyone who watches these idiots for financial advise needs their head examined. They never say a word about how wrong they were, and they put the same idiots back on the air today to give you more financial advise, without telling you they were wrong about everything a year ago.

Charles Payne also said the Iraq war has led to less terrorism in the world, when terrorism attacks around the world went up since the Iraq war was started, in 2006 the State Department said terrorist attacks were up 25 percent, and suicide bombings were up 50 percent. And that does not even count the terrorist attacks in Iraq by Al-Qaeda, which the Bush administration does not count, even though they call them terrorist attacks, they just don't count them, or worldwide terrorism would be up more than 50 percent, so he was wrong about that too.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About 60 Minutes Interviews
By: Steve - September 25, 2008 - 11:45am

During the September 22 broadcast of the radio factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that in interviews conducted by 60 Minutes with John McCain and Barack Obama, correspondent Steve Kroft, who interviewed Obama, "didn't ask Obama ...about this financial disaster, OK? But they did ask McCain."

O'Reilly then aired an audio clip in which correspondent Scott Pelley said to McCain, "You place a great deal of responsibility on this current emergency on the administration," and asked: "Are you saying that the Bush administration has failed?"

After airing McCain's response to Pelley's question, in which McCain stated that the Bush administration and Congress had both failed, O'Reilly stated: "OK, and he's right."

REALITY CHECK: Bill O'Reilly is a liar, a 100 percent lying piece of right-wing garbage. Contrary to O'Reilly's claim about the Obama interview, Kroft did ask Obama several questions about the financial crisis on Wall Street, including, "What caused it? and Who's to blame?"

From the September 22 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: All right, here I am. Now, John McCain was on 60 Minutes along with Barack Obama last night. They didn't ask Obama -- Steve Kroft did not -- about this financial disaster, OK? But they did ask McCain. Roll the tape.

PELLEY: You place a great deal of responsibility on this current emergency on the administration.

McCAIN: Yes, yes.

PELLEY: This is the president of your party.

McCAIN: Yes it is.

PELLEY: Are you saying that the Bush administration has failed?

McCAIN: I say the Bush administration has failed. I say the Congress has failed -- Democrats and Republicans. I remind you the Democrats have had the majority in Congress for the last two years. So, everybody's failed. And the cozy, old-boy special interests that have prevailed in Washington have harmed the American people, frankly, in the most terrible fashion.

O'REILLY: OK, and he's right. And then they asked him, "Well, who would you put in charge?" He said Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic Attorney General of New York state, which is a good -- you know, Cuomo's a tough guy, and that was a good answer. So, I thought his answer on that was good. But the key is, look, these guys are human beings. This is a complicated matter. Everybody's gonna blame everybody. But what is undeniable -- undeniable -- is that nobody warned the folks. Nobody warned the folks.

And I'll make the comparison again -- you got tainted food, the federal government, it's their responsibility to come out and say, "Don't eat that." You got a tainted financial system, it's their responsibility to come out and say, "Don't buy that." That's it. Because you can't know. I can't know. No one can know with 401s and all of that stuff.
-------------- And now The Proof O'Reilly Lied:

From the September 21, 2008 edition of CBS 60 Minutes:
KROFT: This is the biggest financial crisis this country has had, a lot of people say, since the Great Depression.

OBAMA: Right.

KROFT: What caused it? Who's to blame?

OBAMA: Look, there were a lot of factors involved, but I think there is no doubt that if we had had a regulatory system that had kept pace with the changes in the financial system, that would have had an enormous impact in containing some of the problems that are out there. I mean, you've got greedy CEOs and investors who are taking too much risk, but that's why we set up rules of the road, to prevent that from spreading into the system as a whole. And, unfortunately, we had a lot of deregulation, and instead of modifying rules for this new economy, we just eliminated them. So, we've got to change our regulatory system. But, Steve, there's a bigger problem, and that is that the economy has not been working for ordinary Americans.

KROFT: Senator McCain made some of the same noises this week, blaming Wall Street greed, promising reform and oversight. What's the difference between the two of you?

OBAMA: Well, the difference is, I think, that I've got a track record of actually believing in this stuff. And, you know, Senator McCain, fairly recently, said, "I'm a deregulator." It's one of his top chief economic advisers was former Sen. Phil Gramm [R-TX], who was one of the architects of deregulation in this sector. And he's always taken great pride in believing that we have to eliminate regulations.

KROFT: Really, in some ways, this has been -- this past week has been historic.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

KROFT: Do you think that Secretary of the Treasury Paulson has done the right thing?

OBAMA: I think by the time Secretary Paulson and the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke were looking at these problems, they had no good options left.

KROFT: Should the government be bailing out all of these banks and insurance companies? We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.

OBAMA: I think that our basic principle has to be that you don't bail out shareholders. You don't bail out CEOs who are getting golden parachutes and $100 million bonuses. That you are doing everything you can to protect taxpayers, making sure that people are able to stay in their homes, and that their mortgages don't go overboard because of bad decisions that other people make.
-------------

There it is in black and white, O'Reilly is caught flat out lying about 60 minutes, and not asking Obama about the financial crisis. When they clearly did ask him, and you can see it with your own eyes. Notice that O'Reilly not only lied about the questions 60 minutes did not ask Obama, he lied about who is to blame, he said everyone is to blame. When we all know Bush, McCain, Gramm, and the Republican party is to blame for deregulating everything over the past 20 years. Now who wants to tell me that O'Reilly is not a biased liar who is trying to help John McCain win in November.

Wednesday Night 9-24-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - September 25, 2008 - 10:55am

The TPM was called Obama retakes the lead. O'Reilly said the polls show Obama taking a lead and mentioned that with the bailout, his health care plan is now dead, and the McCain tax cut plan is dead also.

Then the top story was on the bailout, the debate, etc, with Karl Rove as the only guest, no Democrat to provide the balance. O'Reilly said McCain suspending his campaign to go back to washington was a smart move. Then he predicted McCain will go to washington for 2 days then show up at the debate friday night, Rove agreed. Then Rove said he is not so sure it was a smart move to suspend the campaign.

Then both Rove and O'Reilly agreed it was just a political stunt because he was going down in the polls, and it probably won't work. Which is odd, because 2 minutes earlier O'Reilly said it was a smart move, then he admits it was just a political stunt. O'Reilly said if he were president he would fire the SEC head Chris Cox, but there is one problem with that, the SEC head is nominated by the president, then approved by the Congress. So the president can not fire him, Congress has to remove him, or he would have to resign, so the Genius O'Reilly don't even know how the Government works.

Then O'Reilly showed a partial video clip of Palin doing an interview with Katie Couric. Basically he was promoting the Palin interview, and making sure his viewers knew it was going to be on, and when. Then Billy put Dick Morris on to praise McCain and trash Obama. The first thing Morris said is that McCain suspending his campaign was brilliant. So O'Reilly and Morris think it was a brilliant move, even though they both know it was just a political stunt.

Morris trashed Obama, saying he was not doing anything to help on the bailout bill, that he was not even going back to washington, and that McCain was so he will get the credit for the bill passing. Morris said McCain is a genius, because he will go back to washington for 2 days, then the bill will pass, and McCain will get all the credit for it passing.

About 30 seconds after Morris said that biased propaganda, I switched the channel to MSNBC and it said: Breaking News - Obama will return to washington and meet with Bush and McCain to work on the bailout bill. So the great Dick Morris did not have a clue what he was talking about. And his whole propaganda speech was garbage. Because now if the bill passes Obama and McCain will both get credit for it passing. At the end of the segment, Morris said the political stunt by McCain to suspend his campaign was probably a Rove Idea. Which is also odd, because Rove has denied he is an advisor to the McCain campaign.

Then O'Reilly had 2 FOX News stooges on to discuss the FBI investigating some of the companies involved in the wall street crisis. Keenan and McDowell, they basically sat there and agreed with everything O'Reilly said. Billy cried about having 3000 shares of Merrill Lynch stock, and how he lost a ton of money, haha, too bad sucker. Looks like Karma to me. O'Reilly also used the segment to trash GE and Jeffrey Immelt for his company losing money, when it's an economic downturn and a lot of companies have lost money. In fact, GM lost billions this year, but you don't hear O'Reilly trashing GM, or the CEO of GM.

Then we had the one sided biased and partisan part 8 of the Obama Chronicles. O'Reilly played video of Rev. Pfleger and then tried to link him to Obama, why, because he knows Obama and he supports Obama for president, guilt by association. O'Reilly knows Ann Coulter, and she is a frequent guest. So using his argument he is linked to Ann Coulter, in the same guilt by association. It's crazy, and just another biased attack on Obama by O'Reilly. I am sure John McCain knows a bad guy or two, that support him, but O'Reilly does not link them to McCain just because they know him. Yet he does with Obama, it's bias, and unfair.

Then it was the waste of tv time Dennis Miller segment, who is just a has been comedian who used to be a liberal until his career ended, then he became a conservative, because they were the only people who would listen to him anymore. He is a joke, and so is O'Reilly for putting him on the air. O'Reilly puts him on the air to make fun of Democrats and trash them, but it's just another biased one sided segment, that's not even funny.

Then O'Reilly had another segment crying about unfair attacks on Sarah palin, he found some lame ass video about her on the internet. O'Reilly said some smear merchant did the video, then named him. Billy was outraged, yet he is never outraged about any of the smear stuff on the internet about Obama, and he never reports any of it. O'Reilly and Carpenter sat there and trashed the guy who made the video, and Carpenter tried to link the guy to Obama, but even O'Reilly didn't buy that. There was no link, and O'Reilly said so. It was another biased one sided segment with a conservative internet cop, no liberal internet cop, just Amanda Carpenter from townhall.com.

Then it was pinheads and patriots, where every night the liberal is a pinhead and the conservative is the patriot. Then the fake e-mail segment that O'Reilly uses to read edited e-mails and promote his book.

On a side note, I wonder when O'Reilly is going to do a month long investigation of Sarah Palin, and her crazy Pastor in Alaska. He sure had time to spend a month talking about the Obama Pastor, and yet he has not done one segment on the Palin Pastor. He is a far right nut who does witchcraft sermons on Palin and all kinds of crazy stuff, there is even a video of it where the Palin Pastor calls on God to protect her from witchcraft, yet O'Reilly has ignored it all, even though he spent a month investigating Pastor Wright.

Lame Duck Bush Playing Politics to Help McCain
By: Steve - September 24, 2008 - 9:55am

George W. Bush is refusing to declassify the NIE on Afghanistan before the election because it is not good news, and it will hurt John McCain politically. Even as Bush serves out his last 4 months in office (as a lame duck president) he is still putting politics ahead of the people's right to know the real situation in Afghanistan. ABC News reports that the Bush administration has "no plans to declassify" the forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan before the election:
U.S. intelligence analysts are putting the final touches on a secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Afghanistan that reportedly describes the situation as "grim", but there are no plans to declassify any of it before the election, according to one US official familiar with the process.

According to people who have been briefed, the NIE will paint a "grim" picture of the situation in Afghanistan, seven years after the US invaded in an effort to dismantle the al Qaeda network and its Taliban protectors.
The plan to cover up the grim reality of the war in Afghanistan is not surprising given the Bush administration's history of "selectively declassifying" such reports for political gain.

McCain Campaign Manager Paid by Fannie And Freddie
By: Steve - September 24, 2008 - 9:35am

This is the NY Times story O'Reilly is refusing to report, because it hurts McCain. But he had the time to attack the Times for reporting it, even though the story is true, and the McCain campaign does not deny it.

The New York Times reports that, until last month, Freddie Mac paid $15,000 a month to the lobbying firm owned by Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager:
Freddie Mac paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain's campaign manager , according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

They said they did not recall Mr. Davis doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than speak to a political action committee composed of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the coming midterm congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis's firm, Davis & Manafort, was kept on the payroll because of Mr. Davis's close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who was widely expected by 2006 to run again for the White House.

Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafort for the duration of the campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to share in its profits.
On Sunday, when asked about Davis's lobbying activities, McCain claimed, "My campaign manager has stopped that, has had nothing to do with it since 2006, and I'll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it."

Tuesday Night 9-23-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - September 24, 2008 - 9:15am

The TPM was called Don't Panic, O'Reilly pointed the finger at Hillary, Bush, and Barney Frank, but as usual he ignored the real problem, the Phil Gramm Banking Deregulation bill in 1999, and the fact that McCain and all the Republicans got it passed. O'Reilly just will not discuss the real problem, because he is a Republican, and if he reports on all the Deregulation bills the Republicans got passed, he will have to show they are the reason for the financial crisis America is in today. Hillary and Barney Frank had nothing to do with it.

If you want to know exactly how the current financial crisis facing America today happened, read this, it's very long and very detailed, but it shows the real truth.

The Real Truth About The Wall Street Crisis

After you read that, think about this, O'Reilly is not reporting any of that.

The top story was more whining and crying about the media reporting on Palin, give it up already, nobody cares, and crying about it every night is not gonna stop it. This is what O'Reilly does with tv time on a national news show, what a waste of time. What he should be doing is have economic and financial experts on to explain the current problem and explain how to fix it. Instead Billy whines about the big bad media reporting on Palin for the millionth time, get over it already and report on real news.

With all the problems in America, and the world, O'Reilly reports on the media going after Palin every night, what a joke. The reason Billy refuses to have the experts on to talk about the financial crisis is because they all blame the Republicans, Bush, Gramm, McCain, etc. for deregulating all the Banks and insurance companies. And if they talk about the reason for the problem it hurts McCain, because he was the king of deregulation.

Then we had more tabloid garbage, O'Reilly talked about Chris Rock saying things about Clinton when he was on Letterman, which were not true btw, and he was joking, but O'Reilly never pointed any of that out. Chris Rock joked about Clinton not saying the name Obama on Letterman, O'Reilly played a partial clip of it, and let people believe it was true. When Clinton said Obama 3 or 4 times, and Rock was joking.

O'Reilly never pointed out any of that, and he misrepresented that it was true. If O'Reilly were an honest journalist he would have played the clip of Clinton saying the name Obama, and pointed out that Rock was wrong, and that he was joking. Instead O'Reilly let his viewers believe Clinton never said the word Obama, when he did.

Then O'Reilly attacked the NY Times for reporting on McCain and the lobbyist campaign manager he has, Rick Davis. But he never told his viewers that the story the NY Times reported is true. And he never said a word about the story, because he knows it is true and it would hurt McCain. What they reported is McCain saying he welcomes anyone to investigate his campaign manager, so the Times did, and they found out he has been paid $30,000 a month for 5 years to lobby for less regulations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And yet, O'Reilly never reported a word of that. He went after the Times for biased reporting and played a clip of a McCain spokeman crying about the article, when it was 100% true, and there was no bias. McCain said he welcomed anyone to check his campaign manager out, so they did.

McCain even lied about it, he said his campaign manager stopped lobbying in 2006, when he took a leave of absence from his lobbying company, but they were still getting paid up until last month, when McCain said he stopped getting money from them in 2006, and he stopped lobbying. Talk about bias, look in the mirror O'Reilly, you are the most biased person in the media.

Then O'Reilly did part 7 of the Obama Chronicles, the biased and partisan one sided investigation of Obama. No McCain Chronicles, just Obama, yeah that's fair and balanced, not.

Then it was tabloid garbage to the extreme, Billy had the blonde russian bimbo on to flirt with, and talk about the meaning of words. Billy sure loves her, I guess he has a thing for russian blondes with big boobs. She is basically a good looking big boob blonde airhead put on to get ratings, her website has sexy pics of her, and she also talks about words there. On a scale of 1 to 10 as a waste of tv time on a national news show it's a 10.

Then it was is it legal, where Billy puts 2 more blonde bimbos on to talk about stupid legal cases. They talked about Casey Anthony, how cell phones can kill you, and a private sex club in a home somewhere. Can someone tell O'Reilly he has a national tv news show, not a tabloid tv show. All this stuff is crap you expect to see on Inside Edition, not a so-called real news show.

Then it was the culture quiz with 2 FOX News morons, Doocy and another blonde bimbo. Billy asked 5 questions about Angelina Jolie, then the dummy and the bimbo try to get them right. HOW IS THIS NEWS?

The pinheads and patriots segment was O'Reilly on GMA pimping his worthless book, he asked, am I a pinhead or a patriot. This is real simple, you are a giant PINHEAD. It was just another way to promote his stupid book, then he promoted it even more in the e-mail segment.

Basically, almost the whole show was worthless tabloid garbage, with a segment or two on politics. O'Reilly ignored all the big news, where were the economic experts, where were the financial experts. After the TPM on the wall street crisis it was not talked about again, then we got 55 minutes of tabloid garbage that nobody cares about. This is what O'Reilly does with an hour of national tv news time, waste our time.

Fannie & Freddie Lobbyist Running McCain Campaign
By: Steve - September 23, 2008 - 10:15pm

When will O'Reilly report this, probably never. To this day Bill O'Reilly has not reported any of this, and he never will, because he is a Republican who wants John McCain to win, and he is doing everything possible to make that happen, including ignoring important news like this, among other things that will hurt McCain.

Sunday, in an interview with John McCain he said he'd be "glad to have Davis's record examined." In a portion of the interview on CNBC, Harwood asked McCain about his campaign manager's former lobbying activities:
HARWOOD: You mentioned cronyism and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. How do you square that with the fact that your campaign manager, Rick Davis, was involved in some lobbying activities on behalf of Fannie Mae?

McCain: My campaign manager has stopped that, has had nothing to do with it since, and I'll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.
In McCain world you are not a lobbyist anymore just because you stop lobbying to run his campaign, even though Davis has been a lobbyist for years, owns a lobbying company, and will return to lobbying when the campaign is over. Note to McCain, that's a lobbyist.

Yesterday, the New York Times published an article in which it examined the lobbying record of Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager. Based on interviews with current and former officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and public records, the Times found that over a period of five years, Davis made nearly $2 million lobbying for the two mortgage giants:
Senator John McCain's campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

The McCain campaign's response to the article was surprisingly vicious. On a conference call with reporters, McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt called the New York Times a “pro-Obama organization" and said, “it is not today -- by any standard -- a journalistic organization." Davis claimed, “I never lobbied a single day."
None of this has ever been reported on the factor, while at the same time O'Reilly does a biased one sided 25 part Obama Chronicles investigation that smears him with every un-proven rumor in the world, and then O'Reilly wonders why people think he is biased and unfair to Obama. No McCain Chronicles, not even one part, let alone 25 parts, and all negative news about McCain is ignored by O'Reilly.

Monday Night 9-22-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - September 23, 2008 - 9:15pm

The TPM was about Government Failure. And of course O'Reilly mostly blames the Democrats, he played a clip of McCain on a sunday morning show saying the Democrats have been in power since 2007 so they are partly to blame. And Billy the dishonest right-wing hack agreed with McCain. When it's a lie, and he knows it.

Let me explain this one more time. The Banking/Insurance/Subprime Loan/Wall Street Crisis started in 1999 when Phil Gramm and the Republicans (including John McCain) passed the Banking Deregulation Bill on a party line vote, 55 to 44, with every Democrat voting no.

Yes the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate in January of 2007, one year and nine months ago. A year after most of the bad subprime loans were given out, which happened from 2004 to 2006. Since then the Democrats in Congress have done nothing, zero, nada, zip. Because they do not have the 60 votes needed in the Senate to stop a Republican filabuster, and because George W. Bush has either threatened to veto anything they pass, or actually did veto what they passed.

So let's get this straight, the Democrats can not do anything without that 60 votes as long as George W. Bush is still in the White House. The Republicans even admitted the Democrats have done nothing in the last year and 9 months (which they keep saying is 2 years) and now they blame them for the problems they created, you can't have it both ways.

Which is exactly what O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are doing. For almost two years they said the Democrats in Congress have done nothing, then a financial crisis happens and they blame the Democrats, it's ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. When they can not do anything without 60 votes in the Senate, and they know that, so it makes them 100% dishonest partisan liars, with O'Reilly being the king of the dishonest partisan liars.

The first story was about a poll that showed 25 percent of white Americans may not vote for Obama because he is black. Billy had one Democrat and one Republican on to discuss it. They all agreed we will not know if the poll is accurate until after the election, and they all hope the poll is not accurate. And btw, Dr. Hill was the only Democrat on the entire show.

At the end of the segment Dr. Hill said O'Reilly lies about Obama being far left, Billy told Hill to prove he has said that, he told him to show him proof on thursday, Hill said no problem, and told O'Reilly he has the goods to prove it.

On a side note: All during the show I was thinking how O'Reilly has never once mentioned the 1999 Phil Gramm Banking Deregulation Bill, or that McCain supported it 100 percent, or the fact that McCain's current campaign Manager Rick Davis was a lobbyist who was paid $3 million dollars over 5 years to lobby Congress for less regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Then Billy reported on the rumor that Al Franken wrote part of the skit about McCain on SNL. He claims Franken had some part in the skit, when that is all an internet rumor, and he has no proof. O'Reilly put Bernie Goldberg on to discuss it, with nobody from the left to provide the balance. It was just another one sided biased segment with nobody from the left, that O'Reilly does so well.

Keith Olbermann said Al Franken claims he had no part in writing anything for SNL recently. He reported that Franken may have suggested the idea for the skit, and that Franken had no part in it, writing it, or anything else. So O'Reilly is reporting rumors, from the very internet he claims is full of nothing but lies, and after he said he never speculates and only reports the facts.

Then he did a segment hammering Newsweek magazine, he claims they have moved far left, and had the editor Jon Meacham on to discuss it. Meacham disagreed with O'Reilly and gave examples of their balance, O'Reilly told him he can't deny they have moved to the far left, and yet Meacham did deny it, many times, but O'Reilly would not listen to him. O'Reilly just kept saying you are biased, and Meacham said no we are not.

O'Reilly said they only have 3 conservative writers, while they have 8 liberal writers, so that proves they have a liberal bias, but at least they have 3, that's better than the right-wing media who have no liberals, including FOX. Meacham also pointed out how people can see a bias in their own mind, that may not be there, Billy had no comeback to that one. He was telling O'Reilly in a kind way that the bias is in his mind, and that over the year if you read Newsweek and judge them on the whole year you will see it balances out. O'Reilly ended the segment by saying you are wrong and I am right, and we will let the folks decide.

Meacham is right, O'Reilly thinks any media operation that is not as far right as he is, or FOX, has a liberal bias, to O'Reilly that means every other media source in the world is left wing, unless it's Rush Limbaugh or someone like him. In O'Reilly world, any media operation that does not have a right-wing bias is a far left smear machine, note to Billy, it's all in your mind, please seek mental help.

Then more Obama Chronicles, part 270 I think, as usual it was biased one sided garbage with only a right-wing guest. More William Ayers crap, and the guy even admitted there is no evidence Obama even knew the guy before 1995, so they proved nothing.

Then we had the nightly, media is unfair to Palin segment, but it turns out that media is not the media. O'Reilly played video clips of Charlie Rangel, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewert, Howie Mandel, and other hollywood celebs making fun of Palin. Earth to O'Reilly, they are not in the media. He said the Democrats and the media were still attacking Palin, when it is the Hollywood celebs, and one Democrat Charlie Rangel, who only said she was not qualified to be the VP, when everyone knows that is true, and he never smeared her at all.

Billy had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on. O'Reilly cited 4 or 5 state presidential polls, he read a few poll results with McCain ahead and he said it was good news for McCain, then he read a couple state polls where Obama was ahead and he did not say it was good news for Obama. That was very biased, somehow in O'Reilly world it's good when McCain is ahead, but not when Obama is ahead.

Then he did the ridiculous reality check segment, where none of it is a reality check, it's O'Reilly putting his right-wing spin on what someone else said. He plays a video of a statement by someone, then the so-called reality check of what they said is told to you by O'Reilly. When he puts his right-wing biased spin on what they said, so there is no reality from O'Reilly, just his spin on the statement made.

Then it was pinheads and patriots, and the phony and edited e-mail segment. Neither of which is even worth writing about, it's filler for O'Reilly to make himself look good and for him to promote his dumb book.

O'Reilly Being Dishonest About Barney Frank
By: Steve - September 22, 2008 - 6:55pm

In a September 18 column, Bill O'Reilly claimed that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) "sat by as mortgage brokers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made bad loans" and asserted that "instead of demanding responsible business practices from Fannie and Freddie, Frank continued to pound the table to extend even more credit to 'low income' families."
O'REILLY: Congressman Barney Frank also sat by as mortgage brokers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made bad loans even though Frank, as head of the House Banking Committee, certainly knew the score. Instead of demanding responsible business practices from Fannie and Freddie, Frank continued to pound the table to extend even more credit to "low income" families. The mortgage companies were happy to accommodate him, giving big money to folks with little collateral.

That could happen this time around. Poor leaders like [Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Christopher] Cox and Frank are just a small part of a corrupt system that is now harming honest Americans. Whoever the next President is must put an end to this.
Basically O'Reilly partly blames Barney Frank for the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that happened before he was even Chairman. He claims that Barney Frank sat by and did nothing, as if here were Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for 8 years and did nothing. That is what O'Reilly claims, but there is one problem with that, it's all lies.

Hey O'Reilly, let's look at the facts, the real facts:
1) The Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee was a REPUBLICAN until January of 2007. In fact, most of the subprime home loans were made from 2004 to 2006, when Republicans had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. About 21 percent of all mortgage originations from 2004 through 2006 were subprime, up from 9 percent from 1996 through 2004, says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's Investors Service.

The problem started in late 2006, before the Democrats gained control of the House or the Senate, and before Barney Frank became the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

During that two year period the subprime mortgage industry entered what we now refer to as the meltdown. A steep rise in the rate of subprime mortgage defaults and foreclosures has caused more than 100 subprime mortgage lenders to fail or file for bankruptcy, most prominently New Century Financial Corporation, previously the nation's second biggest subprime lender. The failure of these companies has caused prices in the $6.5 trillion mortgage backed securities market to collapse, threatening the U.S. housing market and economy as a whole.

2) Barney Frank DID NOT pound the table to extend even more credit to "low income" families. He passed legislation to do the exact opposite, and he passed it less than three months after becoming the Chairman.

3) Barney Frank has only been the Chairman since January of 2007. Almost all the bad loans made by Fannie and Freddie were made before Barney Frank became Chairman of the Committee. And btw, it's the House Financial Services Committee, not the House Banking Committee. O'Reilly did not even get the name of the committee right.

4) In March of 2007, less than three months after Barney Frank became Chairman, Frank introduced legislation to put stricter regulations on Fannie and Freddie, it was titled the "Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007."

The bill directed the FHFA director to "ensure" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "operate in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls" and to establish standards at those two entities for "management of credit and counterparty risk" and "management of market risk."

5) The bill was introduced on March 7, 2007, and the House Financial Services Committee passed it on March 29, 2007, less than three months after Frank assumed the chairmanship of the committee when Democrats took over the House of Representatives in January 2007.
The full House passed it by a vote of 313-104 on May 22, 2007. The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said were "similar" to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which the president signed into law on July 30.

The White House Office of Management and Budget described the bill in a May 16, 2007, Statement of Administration Policy, which noted objections to some provisions but nevertheless "supported House passage of H.R. 1427."

So Frank has only been the Chairman for 1 year and 9 months, when most of the bad loans were made before he even became the Chairman. And less than 3 months after taking over, as soon as he got in he passed a bill to regulate Fannie and Freddie more, so he did do something, not just sit by and do nothing as O'Reilly claims.

All the problems at Fannie and Freddie happened under Republican control, from 2001 to 2007, then Frank takes over in January of 2007, passes a bill to regulate them more, less three months later, and O'Reilly blames it all on Barney Frank. It's ridiculous, and just more right-wing spin from O'Reilly.

O'Reilly is using partisan propaganda to blame Barney Frank while ignoring the real problem, the 1999 Phil Gramm Banking Deregulation Bill. Which he says nothing about because the Republicans passed it on a party line vote of 55 to 44 in the Senate, and John McCain supported that bill 100 percent. And while the Republicans have spent the last 9 years deregulating the banking industry, which led to all the problems we have now.

Barney Frank had nothing to do with it, he is the current Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which had nothing to do with the 1999 Senate Banking Deregulation Bill that caused all the financial problems we are facing today. And the Fannie and Freddie bad loans were given out before Barney Frank even became the Chairman. O'Reilly is so dishonest about this, it's shameful that he even calls himself a Journalist.

New Poll Shows Republicans Out of Touch With Reality
By: Steve - September 22, 2008 - 11:55am

No wonder John McCain thinks the economy is still strong, he is as out of touch with reality as half the Republican party. In a new poll by the American Research Group, "no Americans say that the national economy is getting better," while 82 percent say it is getting much worse.
-- Only 17 percent approve of President Bush's handling of the economy, with 78 percent disapproving.

-- Among Democrats, 97% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy and 2% approve.

-- Among independents, 87% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy and 8% approve.

-- Bush's overall approval rating fell to 19 percent, from 30 percent last month, with 76 percent disapproving.
And yet Among Republicans, 46% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 48% disapprove. What planet are these people living in, it's sure not planet earth. How can any Republican (let alone 46%) approve of the way Bush is handling the economy. That poll shows how clueless and out of touch with reality John McCain and half the Republican party are. They are so partisan they vote in a poll saying Bush is doing a good job on the economy. When the rest of the country know he is not doing a good job.

Basically half the Republican party is lying to defend Bush, for partisan political reasons. And they know they are lying, they voted to give Bush an approval rating on the economy, even when they know he has done a terrible job. And what good does it do to lie in a poll, everyone with a working brain can see the economy is in trouble. So they are lying to make Bush look better, when it's never going to work when we can see with our own eyes the economy is bad. That is how dishonest almost half the Republican party is, even when their dishonest poll vote will not fool anyone, they still do it.

That 46% are the same partisan fools who will vote for McCain in November, even though they know the Republican party has been a disaster for America (and the world) for the last 8 years, they still plan to vote for McCain only because he is a Republican. McCain has a slogan (Country First) and yet half the Republican party is going to put political party first, and Country second, so his slogan is meaningless and worthless, it's just a catchy slogan to fool people.

Paul Krugman Tells Congress to Pause And Think
By: Steve - September 22, 2008 - 11:30am

The Princeton Economics professor Paul Krugman wrote this op-ed in the NY Times yesterday, and I think Congress would be wise to take his advice, after all he has been right about most of this, while Bush and his advisors have been wrong.

Cash For Trash

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 21, 2008

Some skeptics are calling Henry Paulson's $700 billion rescue plan for the U.S. financial system “cash for trash." Others are calling the proposed legislation the Authorization for Use of Financial Force, after the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the infamous bill that gave the Bush administration the green light to invade Iraq.

Everyone agrees that something major must be done. But Mr. Paulson is demanding extraordinary power for himself -- and for his successor -- to deploy taxpayers money on behalf of a plan that, as far as I can see, doesn't make sense.

Some are saying that we should simply trust Mr. Paulson, because he's a smart guy who knows what he's doing. But that's only half true: he is a smart guy, but what, exactly, in the experience of the past year and a half -- a period during which Mr. Paulson repeatedly declared the financial crisis “contained," and then offered a series of unsuccessful fixes -- justifies the belief that he knows what he's doing? He's making it up as he goes along, just like the rest of us.

So let's try to think this through for ourselves. I have a four-step view of the financial crisis:
1. The bursting of the housing bubble has led to a surge in defaults and foreclosures, which in turn has led to a plunge in the prices of mortgage-backed securities -- assets whose value ultimately comes from mortgage payments.

2. These financial losses have left many financial institutions with too little capital -- too few assets compared with their debt. This problem is especially severe because everyone took on so much debt during the bubble years.

3. Because financial institutions have too little capital relative to their debt, they haven't been able or willing to provide the credit the economy needs.

4. Financial institutions have been trying to pay down their debt by selling assets, including those mortgage-backed securities, but this drives asset prices down and makes their financial position even worse. This vicious circle is what some call the “paradox of deleveraging."
How does this resolve the crisis? Well, it might break the vicious circle of deleveraging, step 4 in my capsule description. Even that isn't clear: the prices of many assets, not just those the Treasury proposes to buy, are under pressure. And even if the vicious circle is limited, the financial system will still be crippled by inadequate capital.

Or rather, it will be crippled by inadequate capital unless the federal government hugely overpays for the assets it buys, giving financial firms -- and their stockholders and executives -- a giant windfall at taxpayer expense.

The logic of the crisis seems to call for an intervention, not at step 4, but at step 2: the financial system needs more capital. And if the government is going to provide capital to financial firms, it should get what people who provide capital are entitled to -- a share in ownership, so that all the gains if the rescue plan works don't go to the people who made the mess in the first place.

That's what happened in the savings and loan crisis: the feds took over ownership of the bad banks, not just their bad assets. It’s also what happened with Fannie and Freddie. (And by the way, that rescue has done what it was supposed to. Mortgage interest rates have come down sharply since the federal takeover.)

But Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a “clean" plan. “Clean," in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached -- no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review “by any court of law or any administrative agency," and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal.

I'm aware that Congress is under enormous pressure to agree to the Paulson plan in the next few days, with at most a few modifications that make it slightly less bad. Basically, after having spent a year and a half telling everyone that things were under control, the Bush administration says that the sky is falling, and that to save the world we have to do exactly what it says now now now.

But I would urge Congress to pause for a minute, take a deep breath, and try to seriously rework the structure of the plan, making it a plan that addresses the real problem. Don't let yourself be railroaded -- if this plan goes through in anything like its current form, we'll all be very sorry in the not-too-distant future.

Note: This about this, how corrupt is a system that gives a $100 million dollar bonus to a CEO (in a year) when the company he ran LOST $74 Billion dollars. And yet, that is how the system works, a CEO can run a company into bankruptcy and he still gets a $100 million dollar bonus. And Paulson is opposed to limiting the incomes of these bums. I say get even tougher, no bonus at all unless the company makes money, and if the company loses money (while you run it) you take a salary cut, now that is how it should work.

O'Reilly Caught Lying For Sarah Palin Again
By: Steve - September 20, 2008 - 1:30pm

During the "Culture Warriors" segment on 9-18-08 O'Reilly said this:
"If I interview Sarah Palin, obviously I'm going to ask her whether she wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure whether she does or not. I've never heard her say that."
In fact, during her September 12 interview with Charles Gibson on ABC News, Palin stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Gibson asked Palin: "Roe v. Wade: You think it should be reversed" Palin responded:
"I think it should, and I think that states should be able to decide that issue."
During the interview, Gibson also asked: "John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger" Palin replied: "That is my personal opinion."

During the factor segment, which featured Fox News Margaret Hoover, O'Reilly also said of Palin:
"But while she governed Alaska, she wasn't some anti-abortion zealot in the sense of pushing very tough state laws. I mean, she's obviously pro-life, and that's her opinion. And she is an American, and she reflects half the country that is pro-life. And so, we're not supposed to have anybody pro-life in any position of power, even though half of the country is pro-life. That's absurd. That's fascism."
There are so many lies in there I hardly know where to start. First, Palin has said she would overturn Roe v. Wade, so that's one lie from O'Reilly. Second, she has been an anti-abortion zealot, she want's to ban all abortions, unless the mother might die, including cases of rape and incest, she even wants to make the victim of rape pay for the rape kit.

Earth to O'Reilly, that is an anti-abortion zealot, so that's 2 lies from O'Reilly. Third, half the country is not pro-life, the highest percentage I could find in any poll was 47 percent. [From an NBC/WSJ poll taken 9-8-08]. So that's 3 lies from O'Reilly.

If you ask people whether abortion should always be legal, or not, 49 percent say it should always be legal, while only 10 percent say it should always be illegal. A CNN/Opinion Research Poll taken 8-31-08 says 53 percent of Americans are pro-choice, while 44 percent are pro-life.

And when you ask people if they agree or disagree with Roe v. Wade, 63 percent agree, while only 33 percent disagree. That puts O'Reilly and Palin in that 33 percent minority. So O'Reilly lied about not knowing she would over-turn Roe v. Wade, he lied about her not being an anti-abortion zealot, and he lied about the percentage of Americans who are pro-life. Palin even said she would oppose an abortion if her own daughter were raped, who was 14 years old at the time she said that.
"This is absolutely outside the mainstream. Even in South Dakota they rejected (outlawing abortion in cases of rape) in 2006 because it has gone too far and everyone can identify that in a case of rape or incest a woman should have the chance to make the decision with their family or doctor," said Nancy Keenan, president of Pro Choice America."
In O'Reilly world that's not an anti-abortion zealot, in the rest of the world where everyone else lives, it is.

The Lying Game (Republican Party Politics)
By: Steve - September 20, 2008 - 9:30am

Ask yourself this question: If conservative policies are so great, how come McCain and Palin have to lie about everything. Because if they told the truth about their policies, they'd lose the election. Like George W. Bush, McCain and Palin have to lie.

Eight years after the travesty of the 2000 election, in which the media were prone to emphasize Al Gore's exaggerations while letting George W. Bush off the hook, Republican politicians are finally being called out on their dishonesty.

"The biggest liar in modern political history," writes Michael Tomasky, the editor of the Guardian America, talking about John McCain.

There are indeed so many lies associated with the Republican campaign that one can pick and choose at random. My favorites are the efforts by the McCain campaign to portray Obama as being in favor of teaching sex education to 5-year-olds and the Spanish language ad accusing him of opposing immigration reform. Your favorites might include McCain's claim that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class or his statement to the women of "The View" that Sarah Palin never requested earmarks.

McCain's propensity to lie has become what political junkies call a meme, an idea or behavior that runs, seemingly unstoppably, from one media outlet to another. Some bloggers offer daily counts of how many falsehoods McCain tells. Even the mainstream press has gotten into the act. One of the pleasures of the 2008 campaign -- I admit they have been few and far between -- is watching all those who once admired John McCain for his truthfulness realize the true depths of his moral depravity. When McCain is linked to Palin, moreover, as he so frequently wants to be, lying experiences something of a multiplier effect. These candidates lie so much that they have taken to lying about their own lies.

Before we get carried away with enthusiasm about all this, though, we should keep two things in mind. One is that we are so quick to label McCain a liar that we tend to forget how much, and with what horrendous consequences, George W. Bush possessed the same character flaw.

The other is that Republicans lie so frequently, not because the party just happened to settle upon one serial liar after another to run for high office, but because the form of conservatism to which they all adhere demands that if they are to win they have no choice but to lie.

Read The Rest Here: www.salon.com/feature/2008/09/18/lies

Former Bush Adviser on Working For Bush
By: Steve - September 20, 2008 - 8:30am

Being a member of the Bush administration can be hazardous to your WEALTH. In the Texas Observer yesterday, Anthony Zurcher describes how "no one's been rolling out the red carpet" for Bush administration officials as they return to Texas.
"For every Karen Hughes who lands a highly paid consulting gig, there's an Alberto Gonzales, who seems condemned to wander the Earth in search of gainful employment."
Former Bush pollster Matthew Dowd explains why the Bush association makes it difficult "to make a go of a political career":
If any of Bush's Texas crowd wants to make a go of a political career, they're going to have to do it in spite of their ties to the administration and not because of them.

"Bush is an anchor," Dowd said. "I don’t think you can take your experience in Washington working with the Bush administration and emphasize that on your resume."
After leaving the administration in disgrace, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales found it difficult to find a job. Gonzales has only been able to find work recently, providing assistance to a special master on a patent case.



Friday Night 9-19-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - September 19, 2008 - 10:25pm

The TPM was all about illegal immigration. Billy played 2 campaign ads, one by Obama and one by McCain. Then he said both ads are dishonest, and speculated they were trying to trick spanish only speaking people into believing their ads.

Then he had Democrat Tanya Acker and Republican Kellyanne Conway on to discuss the ads and illegal immigration, but mostly the ads. For once it was almost a fair and balanced discussion and I had no problem with it because it was balanced. I say almost fair and balanced, because O'Reilly agrees with the conservative position, so it was actually a 2 on 1, but that's about as fair and balanced you will ever get on the factor.

Then O'Reilly had a segment on a liberal college professor who hates Sarah Palin, and I guess he talked bad about her in his class. He had 2 conservative students on to discuss it, once again no fairness and no balance, because nobody from the liberal side was put on to discuss it. I wonder what the point of this kind of segment is, it was clearly meant to show how liberals hate Palin, what a shocker, she is a pro-life Republican and a creationist nut job, so what did it show anyone that we don't already know.

We found out liberals hate pro-life Republican creationist women, tell me something I don't know. It was just a red meat segment for the conservative base who watch the factor, they love that kind of crap. But in this time of big problems for the economy and the markets is it really the time for this tabloid crap. Should tv time on a national news show be wasted on this garbage?

Then the bogus Dr. Luntz was on again to put out more right-wing spin. O'Reilly fails to mention the guy is a discredited and corrupt Republican pollster who basically works for FOX News, and that he has no credibility with anyone outside of the braindead idiots who watch O'Reilly and the FOX News network. And that if FOX did not put him on the air nobody would, the quack of a Doctor would be out of work, or maybe working at a red carpet car wash.

O'Reilly and Luntz love them some Sarah Palin, they get all giddy just talking about her, get a room already. The Dr.? fell all over himself saying how great she is, and O'Reilly could not agree more, he even said she was great on Hannity. How hard was it to be great when the interview was a total softball, with no hard questions and no follow up questions. The same kind of softball interview O'Reilly hammers so-called liberal journalists for doing with Obama. Yet he loved the softball interview of Palin by Hannity, can you spell hypocrisy and double standards boys and girls, I can.

Then Billy had the great Geraldo on, the guy who used to be a liberal until the money was right to be a conservative. They talked about the Casey Anthony missing baby case, like they care, they just want to exploit the story for ratings like the cable news whores they are. O'Reilly said he thinks the woman killed the girl, hey Billy, what happened to innocent until proven guilty, and you never speculate. You just convicted her on tv with no evidence, and you speculated that she killed the child, when there is no body. What happens if the child is found alive, remember Elizabeth Smart, you said the handyman killed her, then she turned up alive.

They talked about O.J. and Geraldo gave him a 50/50 chance of being found not guilty. Then we got to see Geraldo fall in a wave during the hurricane, best video of the night, too bad it didn't knock some sense into him.

Then the far right Laura Ingraham was on to spew out more one sided right-wing propaganda with nobody from the left to provide the balance. She talked about Palin getting her e-mail hacked. She compared the hypocrisy for liberals who believe in privacy rights to Democrats who support free speech rights for porn companies, ummm, HUH?

Earth to Ingraham, name one Democrat who supports the guy who hacked into Palins e-mail account, just one, anyone. Where are they, who are they, name one. I do not know one liberal who supports anyone hacking into her e-mail account, not one. They talked about the hate by women for Palin because of her pro-life positions. And they should hate her, pro-lifers are just like Nazis, they want to impose their beliefs on other women. In America you are supposed to be free, but the pro-life Nazis want you to do what they say, just like Hitler tried to control everyone and everything in Nazi Germany.

The whole abortion issue is just a red herring, it's a right-wing diversion trick to get people talking about abortion, instead of real issues. You see what happens when McCain talks about real issues, he drops 4 points in the polls in 2 days. Very few abortions are performed in America each year, and nobody supports abortion, including me. I am opposed to abortion, but I am pro-choice, because I believe in a free country it is not my place to tell a woman what to do with her body. You see, I actually believe in freedom, I don't just say I do, then try to tell a woman what to do with her body, when it's none of my damn business, or anyones business.

O'Reilly even mentioned Obama was 5 points ahead of McCain now in the daily Gallup tracking poll, I admit I was surprised. He asked Ingraham about it, and she said McCain is still gonna win. Hey Laura, contact me, I will bet you all the money I have, he don't.

Then Billy went to the tried and true method to get ratings. Do 5 minutes on the Baywatch babes and where they are now. It's not news, and it has no place on a so-called real news show, but it sure gets ratings, and I loved it. The segment was pretty much non-stop photos and videos of Baywatch babes half naked in bikinis and lifeguard swim suits. Billy and some guy (no idea who) talked over the photos and the videos, I don't really know what they said, I was too busy concentrating on the boobs and butts on the screen.

Then it was time for pinheads and patriots, R. Kelly was the pinhead. FYI, he was found not guilty of porn charges with the underage girl. Even after Billy had numerous legal segments where he predicted R. Kelly would be found guilty, of course you never heard that reported on the factor, because he only reports on a follow up legal story when his prediction was right.

Then the usual phony and edited e-mails, which is just more of a waste of tv time, it's only done to let O'Reilly pretend like he cares about the e-mailers. Mostly it's just time for him to promote a book, or factor gear, or read phony letters about how great he is, and how great his lame books are. When only right-wing nuts read that garbage, including guys O'Reilly don't want to talk about who kill people at liberal churches after reading his books.

Don't be Fooled: Bushonomics Caused the Current Economic Crisis
By: Steve - September 19, 2008 - 2:25pm

The current financial crisis is a direct result of Bushonomics and should not be dismissed as just another unanticipated tragedy. As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Scott Lilly noted, for the past eight years "we have papered over the fact that American consumers do not have the purchasing power to sustain economic expansion." Why? Bush's economic policies have done nothing for the majority of Americans:
Nearly three quarters of a century after the 1929 stock market crash, George W. Bush began gathering his economic advisors to prepare the policy agenda for his incoming administration. There seemed to be little appreciation of the lessons of either Henry Ford or the Great Depression. The first orders of business were massive tax cuts focused heavily on corporations and the wealthy to foster economic growth through assistance to the "supply side" of the economy.
But not only did the Bush administration push these destructive policies, officials failed to step in and aggressively address the financial crisis's warning signs. Stephanie Pomboy, the founder of the economic consulting firm MacroMavens, works in forecasting the housing and credit crises. She told Barron's:
We can't resist pointing out had Paulson and his bailout crew used their powers for good from the beginning, they could have saved a lot of time, energy and, most importantly, money. Had they simply established a fund to buy up the surplus housing inventory, presently valued at just over $1 trillion, they could have stitched up this wound for less than they've spent layering Band-Aid after Band-Aid on top of it.
Unfortunately, the only way the current situation can be compared to a natural disaster is in the government's response. Commenting on Bush's lack of engagement, Chris Matthews made a great observation, he said, “Where's the President? He's pulling a Katrina again."

Bush in Hiding to Avoid Hurting McCain Campaign
By: Steve - September 19, 2008 - 2:00pm

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that Bush has not taken questions from the press in over seven weeks because he wants to make sure this election remains fully focused on the two candidates:
PERINO: If you guys had him in here, almost everything would be geared towards the election, and he is cognizant of that. He wants to make sure that this election remains fully focused on the two candidates. The President is reluctant to be in a place where there's going to be a lot of competition for questions that get him involved in the 2008 campaign.
This morning, however, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer argued that Bush is instead simply trying to avoid damaging McCain's political fortunes:
LAUER: Dana Perino is saying we haven't heard the President out there answering questions from the press over the last several weeks and months because he doesn't want to get into campaign politics. Where do you fall on this?

FLEISCHER: Well remember Bush hasn't taken questions since early August, Matt -- well before this crisis really hit. And I think it comes down to campaign politics. He doesn't want to get in the middle of the questions that would hurt John McCain more than anyone else.
By his own declaration, Bush is more than willing to inject himself into the 2008 campaign. But as Dee Dee Myers comments in response to Fleischer, "the problem is the President has no credibility. It's his economic philosophy, his economic team, and I think the White House realizes that and is trying to help McCain by keeping him off the media stage."

Indeed, GOP candidates in congressional races around the nation have distanced themselves from Bush, believing his record could hurt their election chances.

Thursday Night 9-18-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - September 19, 2008 - 12:45pm

The TPM was called voting angry, O'Reilly admits Obama is now leading McCain by four points because many voters are furious that the federal government allowed speculators and short-sellers to damage the economy, and failed to oversee greedy companies like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, which trafficked in bad loans, hurting millions of investors.

He also admits a big contributor to the chaos is SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, a Bush appointee. And he admits that under the Bush administration, rules about short-selling and speculating were under-enforced, to say the least. And now we, the people, are paying the price. The economy is a mess.

Yet he still blames Democrats like Barney Frank, when the Republicans de-regulated everything over the last 8 to 10 years. Including John McCain, who is the king of de-regulation.

After the TPM it was right back to attacking the media for reporting on Palin, it was O'Reilly and two of his right-wing friends, radio host Melanie Morgan and Tim Graham from the biased Media Research Center. With no Democrat in sight to provide the balance. We know Melanie Morgan is a biased Republican, and O'Reilly even called MRC a conservative media watchdog group. So where was the balance O'Reilly, how is it fair for 3 right-wingers to do a discussion on media bias with nobody from the left, answer that one smart guy.

And remember this, there are a ton of liberal media watchdog groups, like media matters, fair, alternet, cjr, etc. So O'Reilly could have people on from those groups to provide the balance if he wanted to, he just don't want to, because he is a biased Republican who only wants to give one side of the story. If you do a segment on media bias you must have someone to represent both sides, that is Journalism 101, and the fair thing to do. And yet O'Reilly refuses to do that, his idea of fairness is 3 Republicans and 0 Democrats.

Then O'Reilly had a new segment on the culture war, he says he will do it every thursday. And of course the two culture warriors were both Republicans who work for FOX news, Margaret Hoover and Monica Crowley. It was just another one sided biased weekly segment for O'Reilly and his 2 right-wing friends to say conservative culture good, liberal culture bad. How does anyoe actually believe the factor is non-partisan, after watching this biased one sided propaganda.

Then we had part 4000 or something like that of the waste of tv time Obama Chronicles. It's just a one sided biased attack on Obama meant to try to scare people into not voting for Obama. No such Chronicles will be done on McCain, Barr, or Nader.

After that we had more Sarah Palin, about her e-mail being hacked. O'Reilly made the stupidest argument I have ever heard about the guy who runs the website that published the hacked information. Even Megyn Kelly disagreed with him ,but he screamed and talked over her so much you could barely hear what she was saying. She said once information is in the public domain anyone can publish it without fear or prosecution.

It's called free speech, and freedom of the press, it's in a little thing called the constitution, in the 2nd amendment. O'Reilly wants the website owner put in handcuffs by the FBI and thrown in jail. When he did not hack the information, he just published it after it was made part of the public domain. He compared it to stealing an envelope from a mailbox with a check in it and cashing it. Only the hacker can be prosecuted, once something get on the internet it's public domain and covered under the 2nd amendment. Only an idiot does not know that, and it's funny how O'Reilly never said a word about Michelle Malkin doing the same thing to a Democrat, he only cries about it when it happens to a Republican.

And this guy is a Harvard graduate with a masters degree, how? Megyn Kelly even tried to clue him in to the law and the free speech rights on it, but he would not listen. Then he moved on to another issue and declared he was right, HUH?

Then we had the reality check segment with no reality, it's all O'Reilly world spin on an issue he wants to report on in a quick 30 second sound bite, and his reality is usually just the spin he put on it. There is rarely any reality, just more right-wing spin on whatever issue he was talking about.

Then the usual pinheads and patriots garbage where no liberal is ever named a patriot, only conservatives get that honor in O'Reilly world. Then the phony, edited, cherry picked e-mails O'Reilly hand pics to read. Funny how none of my e-mails ever get read on the air, even though I have sent him hundreds of e-mails over the last 8 years.

Hell Has Frozen Over: O'Reilly Admits Bush a Failure
By: Steve - September 18, 2008 - 2:25pm

For seven and a half years Bill O'Reilly has supported and defended everything George W. Bush and the Republican party have done. Now he has finally seen the light. As they say, hell has frozen over.

On his radio show yesterday, O'Reilly concluded that the current "economic chaos" on Wall Street spells "the end of President Bush's legacy." Citing Bush's "poor leadership," O'Reilly declared:
He's done. He's through. He will now go down in history as an ineffectual leader. And I'll tell you the reason why, it's poor leadership on his part. The people that he picked to run certain things have been disastrous. And no leadership and now Americans are getting hurt.
What gets me is why it took him 8 years to figure it out, the Democrats and the liberals have been saying it for at least 7 years. Only a partisan fool would deny it. The rest of the country knew he was a failure about a year after Bush took office. Actually before that, we knew he was a failure on 9-11-01 when he did nothing to stop the terrorist attacks, after he had a PDB saying Bin Laden to strike in the USA using hijacked jets.

John McCain: The King of De-Regulation
By: Steve - September 18, 2008 - 11:25am

For 20 years John McCain has been the champion of de-regulation, he supported less regulation of every financial sector in the American economy. He has been the #1 supporter of less Government regulation for decades. But now that the de-regulation he supported has caused the entire American financial sector to crash like a house of cards, suddenly John McCain supports more regulation.

The Republican presidential nominee is scrambling to recast himself as a champion of regulation to end "corruption and unbridled greed" on Wall Street. He said this yesterday.
"Government has a clear responsibility to act in defense of the public interest, and that's exactly what I intend to do," McCain said at a rally in Tampa yesterday. "In my administration, we're going to hold people on Wall Street responsible. And we're going to enact and enforce reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place."
Don't fall for it, he is saying anything to get elected president, look at his record, don't believe what he says now, believe what he has done for the last 20 years.

-- 1993 - McCain Supported A Banking Bill: While speaking in favor of bank deregulation on the floor of the senate, John McCain said, “This legislation takes a small but important step toward eliminating the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions.[Congressional Record, 11/19/93]

-- 1997 - The Journal of Commerce reported, “A McCain aide notes in the past he has supported deregulation of other industries. ‘Any time you can deregulate, Sen. McCain wants to deregulate,’ the aide said.” [Journal of Commerce, 1/6/97]

-- 1999 - McCain: “I’ve Been A Good Party Member. I Agree On Most Issues, Fundamentals Of Lower Taxes, Less Regulation.” [CNN, “Crossfire,” 9/13/99]

-- 1999 - McCain: During an interview on PBS’s “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” John McCain said, “, I would argue that I have 17 years of legislative experience with a clear voting record of a strong conservative. I believe in smaller government, stronger defense, lower taxes, and less regulation. And most importantly, I voted on them.” [PBS, “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” 10/15/99]

-- 1999 - In 1999, McCain Supported Phil Gramm’s Banking Deregulation Bill. John McCain voted for passage of the Senate version of a bill that would eliminate current barriers erected by the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and other laws that impede affiliations between banking, securities, insurance and other firms. The bill passed 54-44. [S. 900, 5/6/99]

-- 2000 - McCain: “Keep The Regulation Of The Government As Much As Possible Out Of People’s Lives.” During an appearance on PBS’s “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” John McCain said, "keep the regulation of the government as much as possible out of people’s lives.” [PBS, “NewHour with Jim Lehrer,” 2/2/00]

-- 2002 - McCain: During an appearance on CNN’s “Wolf Blitzer Reports,” John McCain said, “I Continue To Believe In A Strong National Defense, Free Trade, and Deregulation.” [CNN, “Wolf Blitzer Reports,” 5/8/02]

-- 2003 - McCain: The St. Petersburg Times quoted McCain at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing as having said, “I have a long voting record in support of deregulation.” [St. Petersburg Times, 6/5/03]

-- 2003 - McCain: During an appearance on CNN’s “On the Money,” John McCain said, “I am a deregulator. I believe in deregulation.” [CNN, “In the Money,” 7/13/03]

-- 2006 - McCain: When asked how the Republican Party can recover after the losses in the 2006 election, John McCain said, “By returning to the basic core principles of the Republican Party, less government is the best government, less regulation, lower taxes, strong national defense, community and family values.” [CNN, “CNN Newsroom,” 11/8/06]

-- 2008 - McCain: During an appearance on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” John McCain said, “I can make a case that a less government, lower taxes, less regulation, safer America is what I can give America."[CBS, “60 Minutes,” 3/9/08]

-- 2008 - On ABC’s “Good Morning America,” John McCain said, “Our economy is in terrible shape, we’ve got to take specific actions, keep taxes low, less regulation, and start exploring and exploiting offshore oil deposits.” [ABC, “Good Morning America,” 7/2/08]

-- 2008 - McCain: As shown on PBS’s “Washington Week,” John McCain said, “We need to return to the Reagan years. We need less government. We need less regulation."[PBS, “Washington Week,” 1/25/08]

-- 2008 - McCain: While speaking about the economy in St. Louis, Missouri, John McCain said, "Let’s reduce regulation." [CNN, “Ballot Bowl, 3/15/08]

-- 2008 - McCain: During a McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, John McCain said, “I don’t think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and higher taxes has any real understanding of economics and the economy and what is needed in order to ensure the future of this country.” [McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, 4/23/08]

John McCain Voted to De-Regulate Banks in 1999
By: Steve - September 18, 2008 - 10:15am

Progressive Accountability fact checks John McCain's stance as a de-regulator and guess what? He loves to deregulate. McCain Supported A Banking Bill Because It Eliminated "The Tremendous Regulatory Burden Imposed On Financial Institutions."

In 1999, McCain Supported Phil Gramm’s Banking Deregulation Bill:
In 1999, John McCain voted for passage of the Senate version of a bill that would eliminate current barriers erected by the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and other laws that impede affiliations between banking, securities, insurance and other firms. The bill also would exempt small, non-urban banks from the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), revise the Federal Home Loan Bank system and require that owners of ATMs provide notice on the screen of any charges imposed for the use of the terminal. The bill passed 54-44. [S. 900, 5/6/99]
And that is not the only de-regulation bill McCain voted for, there are many more, he is the king of de-regulation. Write to Bill O'Reilly at ([email protected]) and ask him why he does not report this.

That bill in 1999 caused the current financial crisis we are in now, and the McCain economic advisor Phil Gramm sponsored it. And btw, Phil Gramm is the moron who said the economy is in great shape, and that Americans are just a bunch of whiners. Tell O'Reilly to have Phil Gramm on the factor and ask him if he still believes that. And while you are at it ask O'Reilly why he blames Democrats, when the Republicans sponsored and passed the 1999 bill, and the country has been run by Republicans for the last 8 years.

Republicans Trying to Pretend They Are Not Republicans
By: Steve - September 18, 2008 - 9:15am

Last night on Hardball Chris Matthews accused Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and his conservative allies of taking off your uniforms, pretending they're not Republicans, and running against President Bush. "I'm not going to let anyone get away with that kind of foolery," Matthews said. He asked Cantor at least five times whether he supported the job Bush is doing -- and all five times Cantor refused to answer.

Noting that a "normal president" would be more visible during such a crisis, Matthews compared Bush's response to the current financial turmoil to his handling of Hurricane Katrina:
MATTHEWS: I'm just asking you where's the President of the United States tonight? You got Paulson out there. Where's the President? He's pulling one of these Katrinas again. Where is he? The country’s worried like hell when you lose this amount of value in the wealth of this country in a matter of days. You'd think the President would come on television and explain the situation to the American people. I’m just asking where he is. That's all I'm asking.

CANTOR: Chris, you'll have to ask -- I don't know where he is. I assume he's in the White House.
Matthews was visibly frustrated, telling Cantor, You have to take responsibility, sir, for the policies of this Administration that have gotten us into this mess. You can't walk away and say, Oh we had nothing to do with this, can you? Say it if you want to. It's your right.

Matthews noted Cantor's refusal to even mention the President:
"You haven’t used the word Republican tonight, your party didn't use it in the acceptance speech," he said. "John McCain never said the word Republican, he never said the word Bush. You’re trying to take off your partisan uniforms and run from the field of political battle and claim you're not Republicans."
The GOP steered clear from both Bush and Cheney at their convention last month, mentioning Bush only once and never mentioning Cheney.

And it's not just Chris Matthews saying that, Bloomberg writes, "There is an invisible man in the 2008 election: the president of the United States. Republican candidates have all but shunned him, except those who need him to help raise money."
'We haven’t even discussed it,' said Corry Bliss, campaign manager for Virginia U.S. Representative Thelma Drake, when asked about a Bush visit. 'This campaign is about next year and the future.'

"Asked whether the nominee would be appearing with President Bush this fall, McCain's campaign chief Rick Davis gave an emphatic no, saying we've turned that page."
Former Bush spokesman, Ari Fleischer, admitted that the President's presence would "hurt the party and hurt John McCain."

Republican Senator Admits Sarah Palin Not Qualified
By: Steve - September 18, 2008 - 9:00am

In an interview with the Omaha World-Herald, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) questioned whether John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, has the experience to be president of the United States:
"I do think in a world that is so complicated, so interconnected and so combustible, you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world," Hagel said. "I think that's just a requirement."
So is Palin qualified to be president?
"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Hagel said.
In a recent interview with ABC News, Palin explained her national security credentials by claiming, "You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." Hagel said that such answers are "insulting to the American people":
"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia, he said. "That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."
Hagel, who is retiring from the Senate, concluded that Palin "doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials." You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? he asked. "I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

Hagel has traveled to Iraq six times. While on the trip, Hagel repeated his calls for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. "It is now time for the United States to start accepting the sovereignty of that country in ways that are real," he said. "And that means for us to responsibly start unwinding our military presence."

Note: Notice that Bill O'Reilly never has any of these Republicans on the factor. Because he wants you to believe that only Democrats are saying she is not qualified. That way he can spew out the right-wing talking points that say it's a partisan opinion only shared by Democrats, when many Republicans have also stated she is not qualified.

John McCain Attacks Wall Street Greed
By: Steve - September 17, 2008 - 10:10pm

While 83 Wall Street Lobbyists Work for His Campaign!

In the past few days, as the economic crisis has deepened, Senator John McCain has been decrying the excesses of Wall Street. At a campaign rally in Tampa on Tuesday, he vowed that he and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, if elected, "are going to put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street." He noted that the "foundation of our economy...has been put at risk by the greed and mismanagement of Wall Street and Washington."

He blasted CEOs who "seem to escape the consequences." He denounced Wall Streeters who "dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand" and who used "derivatives, credit default swaps, and mortgage-backed securities" to try "to make their own rules." He excoriated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for gaming the system. And he slammed financial industry lobbyists for misguiding members of Congress. "I can promise you the days of dealing and special favors will soon be over in Washington."

McCain has been quick with fiery, populist-tinged speeches. But one thing has been missing: any acknowledgment that McCain's own campaign has been loaded with the type of people he's been denouncing. Former Senator Phil Gramm, McCain's onetime campaign chairman, used a backroom maneuver in late 2000 to slip into law a bill that kept credit default swaps unregulated. These financial instruments greased the way to the subprime meltdown that has led to today's economic crisis. Several of McCain's most senior campaign aides have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the Democratic National Committee, using publicly available records, has identified 177 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign as either aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers.

Of those 177 lobbyists, at least 83 have lobbied for the financial industry McCain now attacks. These are high-paid influence-peddlers who have been working the corridors of the nation's capital to win favors and special treatment for investment banks, securities firms, hedge funds, accounting outfits, and insurance companies. Their clients have included AIG, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Washington Mutual, the banking giant that could be the next to fall. Among these 83 lobbyists are McCain's chief political adviser, Charlie Black, McCain's national finance co-chairman, Wayne Berman, the campaign's congressional liaison, John Green, McCain's veep vetter, Arthur Culvahouse, and McCain's transition planning chief, William Timmons Sr.

When cable news shows air footage of McCain railing against greedy execs and the lobbyists who rig the rules for the benefit of Wall Street dealmakers, there ought to be a crawl beneath him listing these lobbyists. Here's the list of the McCain aides and bundlers who have worked for the high-finance greed-mongers McCain has pledged to take on. So far, it seems, none of them have been cast out of the campaign.

The John McCain Campaign Lobbyist List

Wednesday Night 9-17-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - September 17, 2008 - 9:20pm

The TPM was all about wall street chaos. Billy called it the do-nothing Government and blamed the financial crisis partly on Barney Frank, and actually indentified him as a Democrat.

O'Reilly also blamed Chris Cox at the SEC for not warning the folks about the possible wall street meltdown. He even put a picture of him on the screen, and named him. But O'Reilly never mentioned that Chris Cox is a former Republican Congressman from California, never said a word about that, never put an (R) next to his name, never told you that George W. Bush nominated Cox to be the SEC Chairman in June of 2005, never told you any of that. I guess it was just an honest mistake, and if you believe that you probably also believe the earth is flat.

O'Reilly never once mentioned how all the Republicans in Congress, including John McCain has spent the last 20 years de-regulating all these markets. In 1999 with a de-regulation bill, and again in 2002, it was all done by the Republicans. Yet O'Reilly ignores it all, and when he does blame a Republican, he does not mention the guy is a Republican who was put in the SEC in 2005 by George W. Bush.

O'Reilly said Barney Frank (The Democrat)was partly to blame because he supported more people getting home loans, HUH?

Everyone supports more people getting home loans, I support that, you support that, George W. Bush supports that, everyone supports more people getting loans to buy a home. But I do not support people getting loans when they can not afford them, and I do not support banks giving out loans without disclosing the fine print terms in the loan. And Barney Frank did not support these banks giving out bad loans, nobody does.

Yet O'Reilly implied Barney Frank did something wrong, when he had nothing to do with banks giving out bad loans, in fact, he opposed it, and supported more regulations on them. And of course O'Reilly did not have Frank on to defend himself, or anyone from the left to defend him. He had two right-wing idiots from FOX News on to agree with every lie he put out.

Then Dick Morris was put on to give his spin on the issue. O'Reilly asked Morris who gets the blame for the wall street crash, Morris said Bush, the Republican party, and partly McCain. Which is almost the first time Morris has ever been right about anything. Then O'Reilly said the Democrat Congress is to blame too. When they have done nothing for almost 2 years because they don't have the 60 votes in the Senate, and the Republicans filabuster everything so nothing gets passed. O'Reilly even admitted it was a do-nothing Congress over the last 2 years, then 5 minutes later he blamed the Democrat Congress for the crisis. Talk about spin, that is off the charts spin.

Then he had a story on Palins e-mail being hacked, Dennis Miller to spew his unfunny right-wing lies, Amanda Carpenter from townhall.com, nobody from the left to provide balance. The totally biased waste of tv time Obama Chronicles, with right-winger David Freddoso on to spin lies about Obama, a preview of the Hannity/Palin interview, O'Reilly called it journalism, haha now that is funny. Then the pinheads and patriots nonsense, of course liberals are always the pinhead, then the phony and edited e-mail segment.

The whole show was pretty much defending Palin and McCain, while attacking Obama and the Democratic Congress. When a Republican was mentioned, he was never identified as a Republican, and it was not mentioned that Republican was appointed by Bush in 2005. No mention that Bush has been in charge of the country for the last 8 years.

No mention of all the de-regulation laws Bush, Gramm, McCain, and the entire Republican party passed over the last 20 years, mostly in the last 8 to 10 years. In O'Reilly world it's all the Democrats fault, except for one un-named and un-identified Republican at the SEC, the fricking Chairman of it. In O'Reilly world no Republican had anything to do with it, Billy tries to cover up the facts, then just don't identify him as a Republican and hope nobody notices.

Billy, we noticed, you biased right-wing stooge. The Republican party de-regulated all the financial markets, they said the free market would police themselves. Let the free market work, they said, when you strangle them with regulations you block the market from working, they said, this is what we heard from Bush, Gramm, McCain, and every Republican in America fr 20 years.

They got what they wanted, total de-regulation, which led to the current financial crisis we are in now, and then they blame it on the Democrats, when the Democrats wanted to keep those regulations on the markets that had been in place for 50 years. One of them lies and the other one swears to it, and they hope someone is stupid enough to believe it. Earth to McCain and O'Reilly, we are not that stupid, we know what happened. And the head cheerleader in this right-wing spinfest is Bill O'Reilly, he also thinks we are stupid, wrong Billy.

John McCain is Lying to The American People
By: Steve - September 17, 2008 - 3:30pm

John McCain now says you should vote him into the White House, so he can reform the financial system, and put more regulations in place to prevent a crash of the market like the one we see today. This is crazy talk, John McCain is part of the reason why we have the trouble we see today. As the Washington Post reports today.

A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace.

Now, as the Bush administration scrambles to prevent the collapse of (AIG), the nation's largest insurance company, and stabilize a tumultuous Wall Street, the Republican presidential nominee is scrambling to recast himself as a champion of regulation to end "reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed" on Wall Street.
"Government has a clear responsibility to act in defense of the public interest, and that's exactly what I intend to do," McCain said at a rally in Tampa yesterday."

"In my administration, we're going to hold people on Wall Street responsible. And we're going to enact and enforce reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place."
McCain hopes to tap into anger among voters who are looking for someone to blame for the economic meltdown that threatens their home values, bank accounts and 401(k) plans. But his past support of congressional deregulation efforts and his arguments against "government interference" in the free market by federal, state and local officials have given Sen. Barack Obama an opening to press the advantage Democrats traditionally have in times of economic trouble.

In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by Republican Sen. Phil Gramm, who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.

That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.

McCain now condemns the executives at those companies for pursuing the ambitions that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act made possible, saying that "in an endless quest for easy money, they dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand."

Yesterday, Barack Obama seized on what he called McCain's "newfound support for regulation" and accused his rival of backing "a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy." In a speech in Golden, Colo., Obama blamed the economic crisis on an "economic philosophy" that he said McCain and President Bush supported blindly.
"John McCain has spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers," he told a crowd of about 2,100 at the Colorado School of Mines. "So let's be clear: What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed."
And Barack Obama is exactly right, John McCain voted to de-regulate the financial markets, that led directly to the problems we have today. Now he want's you to make him the president so he can fix it, when his votes and the Republican party de-regulation laws that were passed over the years are what caused the problem in the first place.

You can read more of the Washington Post story here, it's a must read, and I suggest anyone who plans to vote in November read it.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/html

Neil Cavuto is a Biased Tool For The Right
By: Steve - September 17, 2008 - 10:40am

This guy Cavuto at the FOX News Network claims to have a business news show, and he bills it as the #1 business news show on cable. Then he does a segment on the Change to Win protest at one of John McCain's houses. What does that have to do with business?

Answer: Not one damn thing

It's politics, not business. My God man are you pathetic. The change to win people protested at McCain's house because he is a multi-millionaire Republican who opposed the housing relief bill. And you were a pathetic joke for showing the pics of the Obama house and asking them why they do not protest him. He supports the housing relief bill you right-wing moron. That's why they did not protest at his house, the same with Kerry, and Gore. The did not oppose the bill, and Gore is not even in politics anymore.

What part of that don't you understand. You're head is so far up McCain's ass you cant think straight. Do you not understand how biased you are?

Cavuto asked the two guests from Change to Win a question, the woman said people are suffering because they were tricked into a bad loan and now they are losing their house. Then the low life Cavuto used the McCain was a POW line to claim he knows suffering, it was one of the lowest and biased cheap shots I have ever seen in my 48 years of life. And I actually saw him say that, I just happened to be watching Cavuto at the time, so I did not just read about it on the net, I saw it happen.

The level of your right-wing bias is off the charts, you are right up there with Hannity, Rush, and O'Reilly, maybe even worse, because you are supposed to be doing a business show, not a political show. You advertise the show as the number one business news show on cable, and yet you use the show for partisan political reason about half the time.

I also saw Cavuto on the factor defending the oil companies, and Jesus Fricking Christ are you a joke. The oil companies are legally robbing us, they should be regulated and the people running them should be put in jail for price gouging.

Let me tell you about real life out here in the real world, after serving this country in World War II as an infantryman in the 3rd division, my Father worked his ass off for 35 years in a factory on a shipping dock. In fact, 63 years later he still has nightmares about the war, and recently he fell out of bed during a WWII nightmare, he hit his head on a side table and had to be rushed to the emergency room to get 18 stitches. He retired about 15 years ago. The most he ever made was $11.00 an hour, and the company did not have a pension plan. He even worked to the age of 70, a full 5 years past the retirement age. He did that to get a little extra on his monthly social security check.

He was married with 2 kids and he did his best to raise a family on that small income, and he did it the best he could, but he had to spend every dime he made just to buy food and keep a roof over our heads. Now he lives alone, because my Mother passed away in December of 1998 from a brain anurism. He lives on his social security income, which is about $1,200 a month, that's $300 a week.

After he pays the monthly bills, and pays for his medicine, he has $500 left to spend on food and gas, for the entire month. He spends about $60 a week on gas, which is $240, so that leaves him $260 a month to live on. That's $65 a week for food, and that does not count other expenses, like paper towels, toilet paper, etc. So he is left with about $50 a week for food, which is about $7 a day. Just one prescription he has cost him $74.00 a month, and medicare does not cover it, so he has to pay that out of his pocket.

His daily food budget is about what it cost for a Big Mac value meal at McDonalds. Basically, he can only afford one meal a day. Could you live on $7 a day for food?

Now every time gas goes up he has less money to live on, when gas was $2.00 a gallon, it only cost him $120.00 a month, and he was ok, now that it's $4.00 a gallon, and it cost him $260.00 a month, he can barely live on his small monthly income. That is no fault of his, he was fine until gas went up to $4.00 a gallon. It's the greedy oil companies who gouge people to make record profits. Not to mention food prices have went up 15 percent in the last few months, which makes it even worse.

The Government needs to step in and regulate these crooked oil companies, they need to limit their profits, and control the price of a gallon of gas. WWII veterens who live on fixed incomes deserve better than this, it's ridiculous. They can not afford to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas, and it's a fact that the oil companies are gouging them to get record profits.

And btw, I have no problem with the oil companies making a profit, I support that, but I do have a problem with them making excessive and record profits on the backs of working Americans who defended this country during WWII. If not for guys like my Father the oil companies might not have a country to make record profits in.

The oil companies say the price of a gallon of gas is directly related to the price of a barrel of oil. A few months ago oil was $148.00 a barrel, and gas was $3.99 a gallon here, now it's $94.00 a barrel, and gas is still $3.99 a gallon, it has not went down one cent, explain that Cavuto. Tell my WWII veteran Father why he is still paying $3.99 a gallon for gas when the price of a barrel of oil has dropped $54.00.

Please explain that to me and my Father, he fought for this country so he deserves that explanation, don't you agree?

P.S. Most days my Father eats toast with butter and jelly on it, or a can of soup, because he can not afford to eat a real breakfast or lunch, he has to save his daily food budget money to pay for a dinner, which is usually the only meal he has every day. Are you proud of that Cavuto, this brave WWII veteran lives on toast and soup sometimes so the gas companies can make a record profit. Now do you have a fricking clue what real life is like out here for some people.

Monday Night O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 16, 2008 - 9:40pm

The first story was the wall street 500 point loss, of course O'Reilly had 2 Republicans on from FOX News to discuss it. And of course one of them blamed it partly on policies Clinton put in place in the 90's. Nothing is ever Bush's fault in FOX world, even though he has been president for 8 years, and none of this stuff happened while Clinton was president.

The current wall street problems we have now are the fault of Georgw W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republican party. For years the Republicans have either de-regulated everything, or refused to add more regulations to businesses that needed it. That and the fact that when Bush and Cheney took office in January of 2001, they sent the signal that there are now 2 oil men/businessmen in the White House, who will let the corporations do whatever they want without fear of any regulation.

And remember this, the Republicans had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House from 2001 to 2007, and they did nothing to regulate these dishonest financing companies. The Democrats only got control of the House and Senate in January of 2007. And they were blocked from doing anything by the Republicans because they do not have 60 votes in the Senate, or Bush said he would veto any bill they passed so they could not get anything passed.

And of course O'Reilly and all his Republican friends dishonestly blame it on Bill Clinton and the Democratic party. When none of this happened during the 8 years Clinton was president, and the Democrats are the party who wanted to regulate the financial companies more, while the Republicans blocked any new laws to regulate them more.

The next segment was Palin Hysteria, O'Reilly did the TPM on it, and trashed the media for daring to report on her, when she is unknown and has only been in the spotlight for 10 days, and nobody knows her. Billy attacked the NY Times and 5 NY Times reporters for reporting on her, when that is their job, that is what a real news company does, they report on people. O'Reilly is so biased he considers actual journalism on her an attack, and he just wants everyone to stop reporting on her.

Now think about this, only biased and partisan Republicans are crying foul over the reporting on Palin, so what does that tell you about O'Reilly. It's pretty clear O'Reilly loves Sarah Palin, her political views on almost everything mirror his views, and he can not stand to see the media report on her, because he wants McCain and Palin to win.

Then he had Newt Gingrich on to continue the attacks on the media for reporting on Palin. Newt put his right-wing spin on it, and agreed with all the spin from O'Reilly. At one point O'Reilly told Newt the media is trying to destroy her, and Newt agreed. When the media is only reporting on her, as in doing their job, by exposing her lies and her corruption, in O'Reilly world honest reporting on someone he likes is trying to destroy her.

Then O'Reilly started his biased and unfair 25 part series on Obama called the Obama Chronicles. The first part was about his parents, when who cares, what do his parents have to do with him running for president, and how will that help anyone decide if they will vote for him. Now we only have 24 more parts to go, and btw, no such 25 part investigation will be done on McCain, Palin, Barr, Nader, or anyone else, only on Obama, can you spell bias.

Then we had the great body language garbage, of course she did Obama, and of course O'Reilly said he was going to do McCain but they did not have time, haha, yeah right. Billy said he would do McCain next time, any bets that never happens?

After that O'Reilly did a reality check segment on political attack ads, he played an ad from Obama and McCain, then he had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to discuss them. Williams mentioned the lying lipstick on a pig ad McCain ran, and O'Reilly gave some lame excuse for not using that ad. The Obama ad talked about McCain being out of touch because he did not know how many homes he has and he does not know how to e-mail or go online. When all that is true, yet O'Reilly and Ham and even Williams said it was an untrue ad.

Mary K. Ham said the funniest thing I have ever heard in defending McCain, she said he can not go online because of war injuries, HUH?

Did he have his arms and hands cut off. His hands and arms seem to be there, and they seem to work, so what injury prevents him from clicking a mouse, are all his fingers broken. Only Mary K. Ham knows that, and then she said he does go online so the Obama ad is a lie. Which is it, one minute she says he can't go online because of war injuries, then the next minute she says he does go online.

McCain has even admitted he does not know how to use a computer or send e-mail, he said his wife helps him get online, but it has nothing to do with war injuries, Ham just made that up. And McCain is out of touch, he don't know what middle class is, he said $5 million, and he admitted he don't know how to use a computer. A simple google search proves it, do these idiots like Mary K. Ham even google anything before they lie about it?

In January of 2008 McCain admitted he does not know how to use a computer. So it turns out both the Obama claims are true, and the McCain ad O'Reilly used was the least negative ad he has run, O'Reilly ignored the 5 other ads that are worse and bigger lies.

The McCain ad was about him saying Obama wanted sex-ed for 5 year old kids, O'Reilly said it was a lie. One thing that was not discussed is how McCain started the negative ad wars, because he was losing to Obama, then Obama only responded to the negative ads, yet none ofthis was mentioned by O'Reilly, Williams, or Ham. And McCain is the guy who promised to run an honest and respectful campaign, then he goes negative with lie filled ads because he was losing.

Then O'Reilly attacked the media again for going after Palin, did the reality check crap that is not reality, and should be called fantasyland check. Then pinheads and patriots, Billy called Chevy Chase a pinhead for saying the SNL skit on Palin was not hard enough on her. Earth to O'Reilly, he is a comedian, he was making a sarcastic comment to get laughs, and it did get laughs, SNL is a comedy show, THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE MEDIA.

And neither is Letterman, Leno, Conan, Kimmel, and Maher, they are comedians who tell jokes, they are not in the media, try to remember that.

During an e-mail that criticized O'Reilly, he admitted the Obama interview was edited, but he said it was only slightly edited, yet a while back he said nothing is ever edited on the factor. Since then I have seen many interviews that have been edited, the transcripts even say this has been edited for clarity, and O'Reilly even admits that some of the show is edited.

O'Reilly did make one good point during the show, he showed how oil prices have dropped 37% while gas prices at the pump have only dropped 7% during the same time. And he asked for someone who defends the oil companies to explain to him how that works, I would also love to hear that one. When oil was $147 a barrel and gas was $4 a gallon, they said it was due to the oil price. Now oil is $95 a barrel and gas is still $4 a gallon, so nothing changed.

I actually agree with O'Reilly when he said it's time for the Government to put a stop to this price gouging and regulate the oil companies. The problem is, all the Republicans are in the back pocket of big oil and they keep voting to block that regulation.

Lipstickgate Proves O'Reilly Wrong About The Media
By: Steve - September 15, 2008 - 3:20pm

As everyone who watches the factor on a regular basis knows, O'Reilly rails on and on almost every night about the bias (in what he claims) is the liberal media. To prove his claim he will cherry pick one example of liberal bias and claim it's proof the media has a liberal bias. What he don't tell you is that anyone who actually watches the media, can also cite a hundred examples of conservative bias from that very same media. So in reality it balances out, but O'Reilly ignores all the conservative bias, to only reports on the isolated incidents of liberal bias.

This is called cherry picking, and it's what O'Reilly does every time. Recently we had lipstickgate, it was a made up story pushed by the McCain campaign, the Republican party, Drudge, Hannity, FOX News, and the NY Post. Even Howard Kurtz described the lipstick controversy on the CNN media watchdog show Reliable Sources, as a "ridiculous trumped-up phony story" and asked, "Why, exactly, did the mainstream media go hog-wild over a manufactured story that was pushed by the right?"

Kurtz also said, "Just about everyone knows it was essentially pushed along and made up by Drudge, Sean Hannity, and the New York Post. Surely the media wouldn't fall for this," adding, "And even as they [the media] were saying, 'Well, you know, this isn't quite the way it happened,' it didn't matter. They'd still do segment after segment on it."

Frank Sesno, and Houston Chronicle White House correspondent Julie Mason also criticized the media for its reporting. During the segment, Kurtz asserted: "No one really seriously believes that Barack Obama was talking about Sarah Palin when he used the well-worn barnyard phrase. Just about everyone knows it was essentially pushed along and made up by (Internet gossip) Matt Drudge, [Fox News host] Sean Hannity, and the New York Post, which endorsed McCain, by the way, in a front-page editorial.

Sesno said of the media's coverage of Obama's comments: "You know, we've talked about it before, this echo chamber that we're in. Turn a catchy phrase, put out a nasty enough attack, have something personal and specific enough, and we can't resist it." Kurtz replied, "We're like addicts," to which Sesno said: "We're like addicts. And make it -- as I say, make it catchy and nasty enough, and everybody jumps on. It's a feeding frenzy."

Further, when Kurtz aired a video clip of Obama's assertion that the McCain campaign "seized on an innocent remark, try to take it out of the context, throw up an outrageous ad, because they know it's catnip for the news media," Mason responded: "It's true. I hate to say it. It might be a new low for the news media this late in the game for us to become so distracted with something as trivial as this. And we're not talking about the issues.

What they are talking about is the right-wing echo chamber, it starts with Drudge or some other phony journalist (or blogger) then the right-wing media picks it up and it spreads out to all the so-called non-partisan journalists. Then before you know it every media outlet in America is reporting a phony made up story by the right-wing of the Republican party. And now, if we actually had a liberal media as O'Reilly claims none of that would happen. The fact that it does happen destroys the claim from O'Reilly that the media is liberal.

For every example of liberal bias in the media O'Reilly reports about, I can show you 3 examples of conservative bias from the very same media. But he never reports on the conservative bias, he cherry picks an isolated example of what he claims is a liberal bias and claims that is proof the entire media has a liberal bias. It's a lie, a fraud, and dishonest journalism, from O'Reilly.

It's the same thing the Media Research Center (MRC) does, they claim to be an Independent media watchdog group, they they cherry pick examples of liberal bias in the media, they never find any conservative bias, and then they even say FOX News is truly fair and balanced, and that they have no conservative bias. In one report they put out MRC cited a negative statement about Bush from a Senator who was on MSNBC, as an examples of liberal bias against Bush, they counted it as liberal bias, when a Republican Senator said it. That's how dishonest they are, and O'Reilly does the same thing, he even cites the biased MRC reports as evidence of the liberal bias in the media. When they are a fraud of a media watchdog, and they have a partisan bias.

Bush And McCain Did Nothing to Prevent Current Economic Crisis
By: Steve - September 15, 2008 - 12:30pm

A new ad released this morning by the McCain campaign states, "Our economy in crisis. Only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix it." In a statement today, McCain said he will "replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington" and bring "accountability to Wall Street." That promise rings hollow considering he has the former lobbyists from AIG, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and Bank of America on his campaign staff.

On Bloomberg Television this weekend, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank noted that, as a leader in the Senate Republican caucus, McCain did nothing for years to deliver reform in the face of the impending credit crisis.
Years of right-wing economic policies have created this moment of financial crisis. The mortgage bubble resulted when Fed chief Alan Greenspan kept interest rates at historic lows, and the government failed to regulate questionable practices in the financial sector.

This fact was underscored recently by Republican Mike Oxley, the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Oxley noted that the House passed a bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis by issuing stronger regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
"All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this," he says. "What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute."

"We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we're facing now, if we hadn't had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed."
And yet John McCain is still in denial, speaking in Florida this morning -- the very day that two of Wall Street's major banking institutions collapsed -- McCain declared he still believes "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

McCain did note that "these are very, very difficult times," but he seemed oblivious to today's evidence of the crumbling foundations of the economy, with the Dow dropping 300 points in the first 15 minutes of trading this morning. Yesterday, former Fed chief Alan Greenspan said this economy is the worst he has ever seen.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney was asked if he agreed with McCain's assessment. Sweeney replied, "McCain is wrong":
I think John McCain is wrong. He doesn't even know how many homes he has. We've seen the McCain position as just a continuation of the Bush Administration. It's President Bush's policies that got us into the mess that we have now. And it's not only a short term crisis, it's long term and it has to be addressed. Workers are having a tough time.

The wage inequality that's out there is unbelievable, and health care and retirement security are threatened. Those are some of the reasons that we're not supporting John McCain.
What happened is the FOX was in charge of the henhouse for 7 of the last 8 years, that FOX was George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republican party. They de-regulated everything and sent the message to Wall Street and the Oil Companies that you have two Businessmen and two Oil men in the White House, so you can do whatever you want without fear of regulation. Now we have the Mortage crisis, the Bank crisis, the Bear Stearns crisis, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, the stock market crash, gas at $4.00 a gallon, etc.

This is what happens when you let Republicans run the country for 8 years with full control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency. And if you vote for John McCain things will only get worse. Because he plans to continue the same failed Bush fiscal policies, and some of the McCain policies are even worse than what George W. Bush put in place.

O'Reilly is Ignoring Bob Barr For Partisan Reasons
By: Steve - September 15, 2008 - 10:20am

O'Reilly demanded Barack Obama do his show, mostly because he knew it would get big ratings, which it did. But there is another guy running for president, a guy that O'Reilly has totally ignored, even though he agrees with 99% of his positions. That man is Bob Barr, he is running for president as a libertarian, which is just a Republican who does not want to admit he is a Republican, or be linked to the corrupt Republican party. Bob Barr is a former Republican Congressman, and his views are 99% conservative.

In May, Barr announced he was running for president, but since then O'Reilly has not even mentioned the name Bob Barr one time, let alone have him on the show as a guest, or to do an interview. Even though almost every other news show on tv has had him on, including Hannity and Olbermann. While O'Reilly has gone out of his way to ignore Bob Barr, he has never been a guest on the factor, and his name can not even be spoken, basically O'Reilly has blacklisted him.

The reason Bob Barr is never mentioned, and not allowed on the factor is simple, he is a conservative, a conservative who takes votes away from John McCain. O'Reilly has seen polls like this:
Poll finds Barr siphoning votes from McCain

A poll released in June by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg showed Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr drawing 3 percent of the vote, the data shows that much of that is coming at the expense of Republican candidate John McCain. The national poll showed McCain trailing Democrat Barack Obama by 12 percent, when the race is just between the two major party candidates.

But when Bob Barr, a former Georgia congressman, is added to the mix, Obama’s margin jumped to 15 points. And Barr is continuing to gain media attention, which could result in a rise in the polls.
So as you can see O'Reilly knows that Barr is taking 3 percent of McCain's vote, and you know he has seen these polls and he refuses to have Barr on the factor, and refuses to even mention his name, because any media attention he gets will help him get more votes, and those votes will be from McCain voters. What's funny is when Ralph Nader ran in 2004 O'Reilly mentioned him all the time and even had him on the show as a guest, because he was a liberal who would take votes away from Kerry.

It's just one more example of right-wing bias from O'Reilly, by ignoring something. If he were an actual non-partisan moderate Independent as he claims, he would talk about Bob Barr when he does a political segment on the race for president, and have him on the show as a guest. Insead he totally ignores him, and refuses to even mention his name, let alone interview him or do a 25 part series investigating him, like he plans to do with Obama. It's total Republican bias, and another exampe of how O'Reilly is trying to help John McCain win.

O'Reilly Ignores & Denies Right-Wing Racism Against Obama
By: Steve - September 14, 2008 - 9:30am

O'Reilly has talked about racism in the presidential campaign, but he claims there has been no racism, by him or any Republicans. He said there has been race baiting, by people who try to use race to keep him and other Republicans from attacking Obama for anything. To believe that you have to suspend reality and ignore all the racism by O'Reilly and other Republicans. O'Reilly has even made racist comments himself, the lynching party comment about Michelle Obama comes to mind, and he has also denied FOX News has made any racist comments about Obama, when it is well documented that they have, and many times.

Here are some examples of that racism, funny how O'Reilly can't seem to find any of it, let alone report on any of it.

Conservative Forum sells 'Obama Waffles' with racial stereotype

By JOAN LOWY (AP)

WASHINGTON -- Activists at a conservative political forum snapped up boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap.


Republicans Mark Whitlock and Bob DeMoss are the two right-wing racists who created the mix. They sold it for $10 a box from a rented booth at the summit sponsored by the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.

The Obama Waffles box plays off the old image of the pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.

On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for "Open Border Fiesta Waffles" that says it can serve "4 or more illegal aliens." The recipe includes a tip: "While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?"

Wearing white chef's aprons, Whitlock and DeMoss were doing a brisk business at noon Saturday selling the waffle mix to people crowded around their booth. Two pyramids of waffle mix boxes stood several feet high on the booth's table.

"It's the ultimate political souvenir," DeMoss told a customer.

Asked if he considered the pictures of Obama on the box to be racial stereotypes, Whitlock said: "We had some people mention that to us." The conservative public policy groups American Values and Focus on the Family Action co-sponsored the summit.

They even have a website to sell that racist garbage, and it is still online as of today 9-14-08. And the website has been online since July 15, 2008, so it's been online for 2 months and O'Reilly has not said a word about it, on the current website is says this:
SARAH PALIN SPECIAL: BUY TWO GET ONE FREE!

Now you can have Obama Waffles and eat them, too! Every box of delicious, nutritious Obama Waffles features three lampooned recipes sure to change the way you eat breakfast.

* Amaze and mystify your liberal friends
* Great conversation starter for your desk at work
* Serve for breakfast after the election . . . especially if your candidate wins!
* The souvenir conservatives crave . . . and liberals dread
* The perfect gift for a liberal friend who has everything . . . given to him by the government, of course.

Whether you're clinging to God and your guns in Pennsylvania or just hungry for a change in one of the other 57 states, Obama Waffles are what the world is craving. Don't delay. Order today! Only $9.99 each!

Get this Limited Edition 2008 edible election souvenir while he's still hot. Before long you, too, will be saying with Barack Obama, "Can't I just eat my waffles?"

Bon Appétit!
-------------

And the so-called Independent Lou Dobbs even got in on the action, not only was Lou Dobbs at the conservative forum, he bought a box of the racially-charged Obama Waffles and exclaimed "My wife will love this" And they even got a photo of him holding one of the boxes. Now we know why Big Lou hates Obama and lies about him constantly, he is a right-wing racist who goes to convervative forums and buys racist products.



NOTE: The Values Voter Summit organizers cut off sales of Obama Waffles boxes on Saturday, saying they had not realized the boxes displayed "offensive material." The summit and the exhibit hall where the boxes were sold had been open since Thursday afternoon.

And the earth is flat too, how can anyone look at that box cover and not know it's racist. O'Reilly said there have not been any racial attacks on Obama from the right, and he claims Republicans are not racist, he also said there is no proof of it. When there is proof, and lot's of it, O'Reilly just ignores it all.

You have FOX News saying Michelle Obama was Baracks baby mama, you had the Republicans selling the Obama monkey sock puppet, the head of the National Young Republicans resigned after it was discovered he had racist Obama coments on his facebook page, at another GOP convention sold a button saying if Obama is the next president will he paint the white house black, a Republican Congressman even called him uppity, when asked if he wanted to retract that statement, he said no.

It goes on and on and on, not to mention that is just a partial listing of racism by Republicans against Obama, there is much more I am not reporting. And yet O'Reilly claims there has been no racism against Obama from any Republicans, yeah if you close your eyes, stick your head in the sand, and ignore it all. And btw, O'Reilly has even called for people to send him evidence of racism against Obama, saying he will report it. I have sent him that evidence many many times, and he still denies it is out there, and refuses to report it, even after asking for the evidence of the racism.

O'Reilly Sucks Forum Member Talks To O'Reilly
By: Sandman - September 14, 2008 - 8:00am

Note: A member of the O'Reilly Sucks Forum actually got past the biased screeners at the Radio Factor and talked to O'Reilly, here are the comments he made about that phone call.

----------------

I actually got through to the "Radio Factor" this past Thursday and talked with O'Reilly himself!

He has been saying that he will still do the "Obama Chronicles" because he feels that his job is to "inform the people about those that are seeking power!" I challenged him on that statement.

Earlier in the show he played a clip of Matt Damon saying that he "didn't know anything about Gov. Palin because she has only been on the scene for 10 days and she won't do interviews!" O'Reilly did the usual "hollywood Liberal" that "doesn't know anything" routine, which was unnecessary because Damon Said "I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HER!"

I told Billo that in June he told one of his hysterical callers, who said that she didn't know anything about Obama, that "with his campaign going on for 15 months, and 22 Democratic debates, and all the print and TV coverage of Obama; if you don't know what he stands for by now-lady you're crazy!" Then he decides to do the "Obama Chronicles" because he says he doesn't know what he (Obama) stands for! I know, that's crazy!!

After I gave Billo this background, so he wouldn't say I was out of context, I asked him "why are you making fun of Matt Damon for not knowing anything about Sarah Palin given the fact that she has only been in the spotlight for 10 days and isn't doing any interviews? His answer surprised me! He agreed with me and said I made a good argument.

Before he cut me off, I snuck in the comment that "I think it would be fair and informative to your audience if you did say a 5 or 10 part "Palin Chronicles" since there are only about 50 days left in the election!?!? SHOCKER!! He said he would do that; have a "Palin Chronicles!"

Now let's see if he holds to his word. By the way, he is much more partisan on the radio, and even more defensive of his so-called Independent label.

O'Reilly Spins The Obama Interview Ratings
By: Steve - September 13, 2008 - 1:45pm

Last night Billy said he had 20 million viewers for the Obama interview. There is just one small problem with that statement, it's a LIE. Here are the ratings for all 4 nights of the 4 part interview.
-- Thursday - part 1 --- 6.6 million total viewers
-- Monday - part 2 --- 4.5 million total viewers
-- Tuesday - part 3 --- 4.3 million total viewers
-- Wednesday - part 4 --- 4.2 million total viewers
The most he had in one night was 6.6 million, and that was the first night. In O'Reilly world 6.6 million is 20 million. In the real world 6.6 million is 6.6 million. The only way you can get to 20 million is if you add all four nights, which they don't do in the ratings game because the same people might have watched every night. So you could have the same person counted 3 or 4 times, so they just don't do it. The ratings are only counted for one night, they do not add them for each night, or re-runs.

It would be like cutting the Super Bowl into 4 quarters, and show 1 quarter each night on 4 different nights. Then each nights quarter gets you 80 million viewers, then you claim you had 320 million viewers. It's crazy, and not how ratings are measured. If the same 80 million people watched each quarter every night you had 80 million viewers, not 320 million. And yet O'Reilly has 6.6 million one night and turns that into 20 million, when that 20 million is only in his head, it's called fantasyland.

I watched every night, so I am one of the 6.6 million, that means I can only be counted one time, but if you use O'Reilly world math I was counted 4 times. The way they calculate the ratings for a 4 part interview is by adding the total for the 4 nights and publish an average. That average is 5 million, the total was 20 million, divide by 4 and you get 5 million. So the total viewer average for the Obama interview is 5 million, not 20 million. Only in O'Reilly world are you counted 4 times for watching something one time.

Obama Makes Firm Tax Cut Pledge
By: Steve - September 13, 2008 - 7:50am

Barack Obama made this statement in Dover, N.H. on September 12, 2008:

"[McCain's] plan gives absolutely nothing to about 100 million American households. I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

My opponent can't make that pledge, and here's why. For the first time in American history, John McCain wants to tax your health-care benefits. Apparently, Senator McCain doesn't think it's enough that health care premiums have doubled, he thinks that you should have to pay taxes on them, too. That's a $3.6 trillion tax increase potentially on middle-class families. And that would eventually leave tens of millions of you paying higher taxes or losing your benefits. That's his idea of change.

Barack Obama

Friday Night Factor (Spinning For Sarah Palin)
By: Steve - September 13, 2008 - 7:30am

O'Reilly was spinning like a top for Sarah Palin last night. He started with the Gibson interview, he said Gibson cheap shot her with the Bush Doctrine question. Then he said there is no Bush Doctrine because it's not written down. Talk about spin, I thought it was the no spin zone, guess not. There is a Bush Doctrine and pretty much everyone knows what it is, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.

Billy said there is no Bush Doctrine because it's not written down, that he did not know what it is, and he could not find it. When I know what the Bush Doctrine is, just as almost everyone knows what it is. It's the policy Bush put out saying he can do a preemptive strike on any country he thinks might attack us, and it's the policy he cited to invade Iraq. Everyone with half a brain knows that. And if you type "Bush Doctrine" into google you get 734,000 matches, there is even a wikipedia page called the Bush Doctrine, and they say exactly what it is. But somehow O'Reilly and Palin do not know what is is, and can't find it, because it's not written down.

O'Reilly said it was understandable that Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine is because he don't know what it is either. If that is true, he should not have a news show, because I know what the Bush Doctrine is, and I do not even have a news show. And if you do not know what the Bush Doctrine is, especially when you are in the Republican party, and a Republican Governor, then you are a moron, plain and simple. And yet O'Reilly defended her not knowing, and attacked Gibson for asking the gotcha cheap shot question.

I am pretty sure that if Gibson had asked Joe Biden what the Bush Doctrine is, and he did not know, O'Reilly would not be defending him. Now does anyone think Joe Biden would not know what the Bush Doctrine is, of course not. O'Reilly also defended Palin over the religious comments about God wanting the pipeline etc. O'Reilly was outraged and said it was attacking her religion. Which is just ridiculous, and it was a fair question to see if she plans to use God to make Government decisions. People have a right to know if God told her he wanted an oil pipeline. Because what if McCain wins and he has a heart attack, and she becomes president, maybe God will tell her to drop a nuke on Russia. So we need to know what part of her religion she would use in Government.

Funny how O'Reilly spent a month going after Obama over his Pastor and his church, but he don't say a word about her church or her Pastor, and even says her religious views are being attacked. Talk about hypocrisy and a double standard, this is it. Somehow it's ok to attack Obama for what his Pastor said and for the church he went to, but it's not ok for Palin, and if you report on it you are attacking her religious views, what a joke.

Then Rove was brought on to agree with O'Reilly and say how great Palin did in the Gibson interview. What a shocker, Rove thought she did great, and downplayed the Bush Doctrine mistake. During the segment O'Reilly asked Rove about the Obama interview, and of course Rove trashed it, and at one point O'Reilly lied about the Obama position on the missile defense system. He told Rove Obama supported it, but he never said only if it works.

O'Reilly and Rove talked about the delegate count, Billy said McCain was ahead, but neither guy had the 287 delegates needed. Then Rove corrected the dumb ass, and told him it's 270, not 287, and this guy has a masters degree from harvard? How?

Then Dr.? Luntz the corrupt right-wing pollster was put on to trash Obama again. He said he did a focus group on the Obama/O'Reilly interview, and told Billy it was all undecided Independent voters. Yeah and I'm Elvis, they are about as Independent as O'Reilly is. When he showed the lines that chart approval or disapproval it said Dems and GOP, the green line were Dems, and the red was the GOP.

I thought they were all Independent voters?

If you have Dems and GOP then they are not Independents, duh. O'Reilly even caught it, and asked Dr.? Luntz about it. The Dr.? said oh ummmmm, we forced them to pick a side, yeah right, and I'm Dick Cheney. If he forced them to pick a side how can the Dr.? claim they are Independents, if they picked a side then they are not Independents.

Earth to Dr.? Luntz, if they picked a side then they are not Independents. This whole focus group crap is totally bogus, and they always hate Obama, even though everyone but Republicans like him. It's just a scam to give Luntz publicity for his stupid book, and to use the bogus focus group garbage to make it look like the people hate Obama, when the only people who hate him are Republicans that pretend to be part of a crooked focus group run by a partisan right-wing fake doctor.

And O'Reilly gives this corrupt partisan hack a national forum on tv to spew his right-wing garbage. So what does that tell you about O'Reilly, that he is biased for using him, and only FOX News let's him on the air, just as they do with Ann Coulter.

Then O'Reilly claimed there is growing anger over celebs attacking Palin. BY WHO? Name these people, where are they, and what are their names. Then he attacked Letterman and the other late night comedians for doing Palin jokes, funny how he never attacked them for doing the thousands of Clinton jokes, or any other jokes about Democrats, he only has a problem with them doing jokes about Palin and Republicans.

He called Pam Anderson and another hollywood woman celeb pinheads for telling Palin to suck it, and cried like a baby because the big bad celebs make jokes about Palin and criticize her. What a joke, and that is news how?

Only one Democrat on the whole show, and she was only allowed to talk about the attacks on Palin, she never mentioned Obama or McCain. Plus she was put on with a Republican at the same time, E.D. Hill. So it was 2 on 1 and the Democrat barely got a word in. E.D. Hill said Palin should have turned down the VP job offer because of the situation with her pregnant 17 year old daughter, and O'Reilly said nothing. But when a Democrat says the same thing he calls them a biased and sexist idiot, who is attacking Palin, yet when FOX News E.D. Hill said the same thing O'Reilly was silent as a mouse.

It was just more hypocrisy, double standards, and right-wing bias from Bill O'Reilly, but in O'Reilly world it's how things work.

Blizzard of Lies
By: Steve - September 12, 2008 - 1:30pm

Here is a great article that details the McCain campaign lies, and how the so-called liberal media helps him spread those lies as if they are true. So much for that liberal media O'Reilly claims we have.

Blizzard of Lies

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks" when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they're all claims recently made by the McCain campaign -- and they're all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 - my first year at The Times - trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign's claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can't think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign's lies in 2000 were artful - you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn't say "no thanks" -- she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative."

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn't righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin's alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

And then there's the claim that Mr. Obama's use of the ordinary metaphor "putting lipstick on a pig" was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they're probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being "balanced" at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn't say that he's wrong, it reports that "some Democrats say" that he's wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They're probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being "McCain campaign lies," it becomes "Obama on defensive in face of attacks."

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues -- on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

---------

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I'd argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Full Story: Blizzard of Lies

McCain Puts Another Lobbyist on The Payroll
By: Steve - September 12, 2008 - 8:50am

The number is now 135, that's the number of lobbyists working for the McCain campaign. Time.com reports that A prominent Washington lobbyist who has worked for every Republican president since Richard Nixon has been tapped by the McCain campaign to conduct a study in preparation for the presidential transition, should John McCain win the election.

William E. Timmons, Sr. is a Washington institution, having worked in the Nixon and Ford administrations as an aide for congressional relations, and assisted the transition teams of both Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George W. Bush in 2000. He was also a senior adviser to both Vice President George Bush in 1988 and Senator Bob Dole in 1996.

Timmons is the chairman-emeritus of Timmons and Company, a small but influential lobbying firm he founded in 1975, shortly after leaving the White House. According to Senate records, he registered to lobby in 2008 for a wide range of companies and trade groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, the American Medical Association, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Visa USA, and Anheuser-Busch.

His registrations include work on a number of issues that have become flashpoints in the presidential campaign. He has registered to work on bills that deal with the regulations of troubled mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae; a bill to provide farm subsidies; and bills that regulate domestic oil drilling.

By tapping Timmons, McCain has turned to one of Washington's most senior inside players to guide him in the event of a victory — but also to someone who would represent the antithesis of the kind of outside-of-Washington change he has recently been promising. One Republican familiar with the process said the decision to involve Timmons could become a political liability for the campaign's reformist image, especially in the wake of the controversies over the lobbying backgrounds of other McCain staffers, including campaign manager Rick Davis.

Under the McCain campaign's conflict of interest rules, announced in May, lobbyists who volunteer for the campaign must disclose their clients, agree not to lobby the campaign or McCain's Senate office, and refrain from "involvement in any campaign policy-making on the subjects for which they are registered."

McCain campaign communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, said in an Email that the campaign would not comment on news stories about the transition process. Messages left at Timmons' office and home Thursday afternoon were not returned. A spokesman for Lehman referred questions to McCain campaign manager Rick Davis.

Wednesday Night O'Reilly Factor Bias
By: Steve - September 12, 2008 - 8:00am

After the Talking Points Memo, and part 4 of the Obama interview this happened in the rest of the show. O'Reilly put Dick (The Hooker Toe Sucker) Morris on to trash Obama and everthing he said in the interview. Morris said the interview showed that Obama was weak. Huh? What interview did he watch, Obama did great, when he could get a word in. O'Reilly also talked more about the attacks on Palin, Billy and Morris said the Democrats attacks on her actually hurt them. When it's the media who is attacking her, the Democrats have hardly said anything about her, and Obama has said almost nothing about her, except to mention her positions on issues and her lies.

O'Reilly said the media started the lipstick on a pig stuff, when it was started by the internet ad the McCain campaign posted on the web, hours after Obama said the McCain policies were like putting lipstick on a pig. He was not even talking about Palin, yet they put out a dishonest campaign ad saying that he called her a pig. They spliced it together to dishonestly make it look like Obama called her a pig, and they used a Katie Couric clip to confirm it. The ad was later pulled by youtube for copyright violations.

The whole ad was a dishonest cut and paste lie that took everything out of context, they left out the first part that showed Obama saying the comment was about the McCain policies, not Palin. Then they had a graphic saying Obama on Palin, then they played the lipstick on a pig comment, but only the partial out of context quote part. O'Reilly even admitted Obama was not calling Palin a pig, and he admitted Obama was talking about the McCain policies. But he did not condemn McCain for the dishonest ad, and he lied about the media starting it, they just reported it, which is their job, and they only reported on it after the McCain campaign put the dishonest ad out on the internet.

Then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Jane hall on to comment on the Obama interview and the lipstick on a pig crap. Of course Crowley trashed the Obama interview, just as Morris did. Hall said it was ok, O'Reilly mentoned the AP story on the interview that said O'Reilly shouted Obama down, then Billy asked Hall and Crowley if he did, of course Crowley said no, but so did the so-called Democrat Jane Hall. WHAT?

Hall said O'Reilly did not shout Obama down. Which is a lie, Jane Hall is the biggest O'Reilly ass kisser I have even seen, and she is supposed to be on to give the liberal view, if she is a liberal I'm Newt Gingrich. Just watch the interview, O'Reilly was constantly shouting at Obama, many many times, and Hall still denied it, her lips must be chapped from kissing O'Reilly's ass.

After Hall admitted O'Reilly did not shout at Obama, he said it proves AP was lying, and told Her she should talk about it with her Journalism students, and show them how it proves that AP is biased. WOW, I don't know what is more scary, that Hall agreed with O'Reilly, or that she is a Journalism professor. If she can not even admit O'Reilly shouted Obama down, when there is video to prove it, what in the hell is she doing teaching Journalism. And btw, other than the fake Democrat Jane Hall, there was no Democrat put on the show to give analysis of the Obama interview. It was all Republicans.

O'Reilly also got a shot in on MSNBC when he was talking about the AP bias. He said you know MSNBC is corrupt because everyone over there is voting for Obama. So the O'Reilly argument is that if everyone watching a news network plans to vote for one guy they are corrupt. That means FOX is corrupt, and more corrupt than MSNBC. Because 87% of FOX viewers plan to vote for McCain, while only 9% plan to vote for Obama, and that is a higher percentage than CNN or MSNBC. Which have 23% who plan to vote for McCain. So using O'Reilly's own standards, FOX is more biased and more corrupt than CNN or MSNBC.

After Crowley and Hall it was Dennis Miller on to trash Obama and everything liberal. He also did one segment on the case of the missing girl. Billy cried about fights outside her home, and said it was out of control, no wonder, the cable news networks are camped outside her house 24/7 saying she killed her own child, even though there has not been a trial, and she has not been indicted, let alone convicted. What happened to innocent until proven guilty, Greta is on the air every night saying the woman is guilty. Then he wonders why trouble starts?

O'Reilly blamed the trouble on the cable news networks, but never mentioned that FOX has done more coverage on it than any of them. Esecially Greta, her show is on it every night, with multiple guests who have already convicted her in the media. Then he did the internet cop spin with the right-winger Amanda Carpenter from townhall.com. As usual it was total one sided right-wing spin segment with no internet cop from the left.

They blamed the fake pics of Palin in a bikini holding a machine gun on Dailykos, when they had no evidence, and she even admitted they had no idea where the pics came from. Hey Billy, what happened to you never speculate, and you only deal in the facts? O'Reilly gave a viewer warning before showing the pic, when it was just a girl in a bikini holding a machine gun, with Palins head photoshopped on the body, stuff you would see on any beach in America every day. O'Reilly acted like it was x-rated or something, when it was pg-13.

Billy admitted he did not know what right-wing blogs there are on the internet, and then he asked Carpenter what big right-wing blogs are on the net, and she said townhall.com. This proves that O'Reilly never looks to see if the right-wing blogs are spewing out hate and racism, because he admits he don't even know what right-wing blogs are on the net.

She admitted she is a right-winger, and O'Reilly said nothing. And she would not mention any other right-wing blogs or websites, because then people might go visit them and actually see the hateful and racist stuff they write every day. I want to know where the liberal internet cop is, the only one he has is a conservative. So all you get is right-wing spin about what is happening on the net.

The whole show was a biased and one sided right-wing joke. But in O'Reilly world that's what he claims is a fair and balanced, non-partisan, moderate Independent news show.

O'Reilly/Obama Interview (Part 4)
By: Steve - September 11, 2008 - 7:00am

Part 4 was about alternative energy, diplomacy, and drilling in ANWR. O'Reilly started the interview with a very sarcastic tone about the Obama energy plan. First he said he does not have a plan, which is a lie, and Obama said yes I do. Then he said go to my website and read it, O'Reilly sarcastically said yeah yeah $150 billion for alternative energy. So if he has no plan how did O'Reilly know about the $150 billion, which is only part of the Obama energy plan.

If you type "Obama Energy Plan" into google the very first listing is www.barackobama.com/issues/energy so if he has no energy plan why is the Obama energy page listed at google as the first listing. So O'Reilly sarcastically mocked the Obama energy plan and claimed he had no plan, when Obama tried to explain the plan, O'Reilly cut him off and never let him go into details, the details he claimed he wanted and needed to hear. O'Reilly ridiculed it and started the Republican cry for drilling. Drilling that will not do us any good for 5 to 8 years. Even the Republican T. Boone Pickens admits we can not drill our way out of the problem.

Then he moved on to the next question, if you can call it a question, he told Obama he is opposed to Nuclear energy, and asked him why, Obama said he is not opposed to Nuclear energy. So that was just more lies from O'Reilly. And btw, the McCain campaign has been mocking the Obama energy plan, and claiming that Obama is opposed to Nuclear energy, just as Bill O'Reilly has been doing. It's like O'Reilly is working for the McCain campaign. He says the same thing the McCain campaign does, and supports every position McCain does. Then before Obama could explain any of his energy plan O'Reilly cut him off again and asked him about NATO and Afghanistan.

He said things are getting worse in Afghanistan, and that he was worried about it. Which is funny, because when the Democrats said Afghanistan was getting worse, O'Reilly said we have won in Afghanistan and the Democrats are lying, now he admits things are getting worse there, which shows how dishonest and partisan O'Reilly is. When the Democrats say something, he denies it and calls them liars, then a month later he says the same thing.

Despite widespread reports of the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan, Bill O'Reilly baselessly claimed that it is a "myth" that "Afghanistan's going backwards" and declared that "the Bush administration has won a victory in Afghanistan." O'Reilly also asserted that "10 years ago, nobody had even heard of" Iraq, when in fact, the United States led a coalition against Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

In October of 2006, O'Reilly said this about Afghanistan:
O'REILLY: See, I'm not a partisan as far as telling anybody who to vote for. I think you're smart enough to know who to vote for. But I'm looking at the unintended consequences. And this is all about Iraq.

Isn't it interesting that Iraq now -- this Muslim country that 10 years ago nobody even heard of, all right, is now impacting on how we live in America.

O'REILLY: No, I think that's vital. But look, we were successful in Afghanistan. And nobody thought --

SEWALL: Well, the jury's still out on Afghanistan, though.

O'REILLY: -- we would overthrow the Taliban in that way. So we were successful.

SEWALL: Unfortunately, Afghanistan's going backwards --

O'REILLY: That's a myth.

SEWALL: -- which I think speaks --

O'REILLY: That's a myth.

SEWALL: -- to part of the problem with the focus of effort on Iraq. We risk losing the progress that had been made in Afghanistan.

O'REILLY: Now you're just -- that's not true. Our information is that there's no danger at all of the Taliban reclaiming that country, none. They'll be annoying. There'll be guerrilla warfare. It will not happen, and I believe that. The Bush administration has won a victory in Afghanistan, I believe. And they've also decimated Al Qaeda.
O'Reilly said NATO is weak because a lot of countries will not send troops, and asked why the Germans will not fight the Taliban, Obama said because Bush has pissed all the foreign countries off with his cowboy insults and tough talk. And said when he is president he will mend those fences and use Diplomacy to get the foreign countries to work with us again. O'Reilly pulled out the sarcasm again and mocked Obama, saying yeah yeah you're gonna talk to them and have meetings and be their friend. The sarcasm level was a 10, off the charts. When Obama is exactly right, you can not insult and piss off a foreign country then expect them to work with you. You attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

He mocked the Obama diplomacy approach and said yeah yeah you're gonna change everything with a magic wand. Basically dismissing diplomacy as the way to get other countries to work with you, when that is exactly how you do it. Bush proved that his tough guy (do not talk to other countries) policy was a massive failure. And it worked pretty good for Reagan and Clinton. If O'Reilly had been president in the 80's we would have had a Nuclear war with Russia, and most (if not all) of us might not even be here now. Not to mention the Bush administration has learned their no-Diplomacy policy was wrong, and that more Diplomacy is the way to go, yet O'Reilly still mocks that idea and dismisses it as garbage.

Then he asked Obama about the missile shield, Obama said if they ever get it to work he will support it. Right now it does not work, they have to rig the tests to hit the target missile, and the system can be defeated with simple balloon decoy's. O'Reilly basically supports a system that does not even work, and mocked Obama for not supporting it, when Obama said he will support it when it works. O'Reilly supports it even when it does not work because Bush and the Republicans are for it. Billy also hammered Obama for being opposed to drilling in ANWR, when almost everyone is opposed to drilling in ANWR, even John McCain. Only far right Republicans like O'Reilly want to drill in ANWR, so look in the mirror pal, because you are in that group, and you are a far right Republican.

The tone of the interview was one of total doubt and massive sarcasm, O'Reilly either lied or put his spin on all of the Obama policy positions. The whole four part interview was disrespectful and insulting. And now you see why O'Reilly and FOX News are seen as biased right-wing stooges, because they are. Compare the Obama interview to the McCain interview. With McCain, O'Reilly was like Mister Rodgers Neighborhood, with Obama, O'Reilly was like Charles Manson.

O'Reilly was respectful to McCain with no sarcasm, no mocking, no shouting, almost no interruptions, no smart ass disrespectful magic wand comments, nothing. He never shouted at McCain one time, and he let him answer the questions without cutting him off before he could finish his answer. With Obama, O'Reilly disrespected him, mocked him, made constant smart ass sarcastic comments, shouted at him, doubted everything he said, constantly cut him off, and never let him finish his answer to one question. It was the worst interview I have ever seen in my life. And as I said before, this should be shown to every Journalism student in America, as an example of how not to do an interview.

John McCain Lied About Running a Respectful Campaign
By: Steve - September 10, 2008 - 7:55am

John McCain recently said he is "proud" of the campaign ads he ran that include outright lies about Barack Obama, and sadly, voters are listening. The high road has reached a dead end. Early on there was talk from McCain about how the 2008 presidential race would be different, and not just because of the history-making face-off between Senator Obama, who, if elected, would be the first black president, and Senator McCain, who, if elected, would be the oldest person to take the White House.

The public was told this would be (in McCain's own words) a more "respectful" campaign. He said he understood that the American people were tired of the negative ads, the lies, and the mud-slinging. Because he had been on the receiving end of an ugly attack from George W. Bush during the 2000 Republican primaries. The American people have been lied to, and McCain did not keep his word.

McCain's campaign has released new spots that prove he is not afraid to break his promise and go negative. Instead of discussing the issues facing America, the attack ads go after Obama for being too popular, flashing images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. They include flat out lies, and one really offensive ad has Obama in religious imagery, and includes a clip of actor Charlton Heston as Moses parting the Red Sea.

Everyone in America (and the people of Arizona) the state McCain represents, should be embarrassed by McCain's decision to go for the dirty tricks. Especially after he promised to run a clean and respectful campaign. McCain spent months promoting his image as a maverick, a politician who will do the unpopular thing if it's the right thing to do. But when push came to shove, he has resorted to the same shameful garbage used against him in 2000 by George W. Bush. And btw, McCain has hired the same guys who smeared him in 2000 to run his campaign. The same guys who smeared him in the 2000 campaign for George W. Bush, are now workng for him and smearing Obama.

No politician would swim in the slime if it didn't work -- and that is an indictment of the shallowness of the American public as much as a revelation about the particular politician dealing the dirt. It's so much easier to pick up phrases or images and form an "opinion" about a candidate based on nothing, than it is to sort through real issues, real plans, and real ideas.

American voters are capable of listening beyond soundbites and comprehending complex ideas. But the public settles for bite-sized pablum and, because of that, that's what we get. Political messages deal in emotions, not facts -- and that's why the latest McCain ads go to the worst parts of human nature, instead of talking about his plan for the future, he makes up lies and attacks his opponent with misleading tabloid campaign ads.

McCain has not lived up to the image of the man he presented himself to be early in the campaign -- the man who promised to run a clean, "respectful" campaign. Instead he has defended the cheap-shot ads by saying, "All I can say is we're proud of that ad, and I'm proud of the campaign we've run."

If McCain is telling the truth, and he is proud of his campaign, that tells the voters more about his true nature than any misleading campaign ad ever could. Obama wants to talk about issues and have a respectful campaign, McCain wants to talk about Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, and make jokes about Obama being Moses. McCain is doing that because he knows he loses on the issues, so he has to use dirty tricks to win, I just hope the American people are smarter than that, and they do not fall for this dirty campaign that wants to distract you from the issues and make it personal.

The sad thing is that these are the same dirty tricks George W. Bush used on McCain in 2000, with the same guys who did it to him, and yet he has sold his soul to the devil to get elected in November. He has hired the same dirty tricks guys who cost him the election in 2000, so you know he was lying when he said he wanted to run a respectful campaign. Otherwise he would not hire the dirty tricks guys, and not allow the lying non-issue campaign ads. They can not win discussing the issues, so they call in the dirty tricks dogs. When you lay down with dogs, you get fleas, and John McCain has a lot of fleas.

O'Reilly/Obama Interview (Part 3)
By: Steve - September 10, 2008 - 6:55am

If you thought the O'Reilly/Obama interview could not get any more ridiculous, you would be wrong. O'Reilly started with the association portion of his interview with Obama. He brought back the Wright, Pfleger and Ayers garbage, O'Reilly only mentioned them to remind people that they should be scared and worried about Obama because of people he knows that have nothing to do with his campaign, or him. It didn't really matter what Obama said because Billy made sure to remind his viewers exactly what to think.

About a month ago, O'Reilly told Bernie Goldberg that McCain should make a campaign ad using the theme from Friends with shots of Wright, Pfleger and Ayers, then O'Reilly did it for him, and you can bet that clips of it will be used 24/7 on FOX News. When Obama claimed he never heard Jeremiah Wright utter the offensive comments while he was there, Billy acted like he didn't believe it. Once again accusing Obama of lying, with no proof he was lying. Obama said that he did hear Wright talk about racism and O'Reilly tried to get him to say he hated white people, Obama said no. O'Reilly is trying to promote the message that has been put out by FOX that Obama and his wife are angry black people who you should worry about.

O'Reilly tried to link Ayers with Obama, even though when Ayers did his bombing crap it was 40 years ago when Obama was 8 years old. Then many years later Obama met Ayers because he lived in Chicago, but they were never friends, and they never did anything together. Ayers straightened out his life and got a job as a professor at a college, and then later he was put on a board that Obama was on. But they had no association with each other. O'Reilly implied they were good friends who were going out to dinner and making plans to bomb things, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Obama did not even know the guy, and there was no association. It would be like living in a city with a guy who robbed a bank when you were 8 years old, then 40 years later when you are 48, you end up on a board with that guy, which you have no control over, and then some nut links you to his bank robbery. When you had nothing to do with it, you did not know him, and you were never friends with him. Then O'Reilly said "but he supports you" and Obama said hold on, that's not fair. The O'Reilly even admitted it was not fair, and said he was sorry.

I am sure many evil people have supported George W. Bush, but it's not fair to link someone to you because they support you. A mass murderer somewhere probably supports McCain, but is it fair to link the murderer to McCain just because he wants to see you become the president, of course not, it's ridiculous. And it shows how biased O'Reilly is against Obama, only a totally in the tank for McCain supporter would even imply such a crazy thing. Do you think O'Reilly would try to link some criminal from 40 years ago to McCain, and claim there is a link because he supports you, of course not, because it would be insane, yet he did just that to Obama.

Can you imagine anyone trying to link something to you, from 40 years ago (when you were 8 years old) well that's what O'Reilly, FOX News, and the Republicans are trying to do, it's beyond ridiculous. Ayers did that crap 40 years ago when Obama was 8 years old, and he did not even know him. Then O'Reilly tried to link Obama to left-wing blogs and websites. Obama hit back saying that he can not be held responsible for everything left-wing blogs say, just like O'Reilly can not be held responsible for everything said by Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. O'Reilly tried to dismiss it with the they do commentary garbage, then Obama pointed out that blogs are commentary too.

Notice that O'Reilly never links McCain to anything said on the right-wing blogs or websites, ever, not once, he only tries this garbage with Obama. It's a total double standard, and flat out right-wig bias by O'Reilly, and the whole thing is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the issues, the issues O'Reilly claims should be talked about. When a Republican is attacked for something other than the issues, O'Reilly cries foul, and says the election should be about the issues. But when it's a Democrat, suddenly attacking him for tabloid garbage is ok, and O'Reilly even does it himself, after he has said the election should be about the issues.

The issues are the economy, gas prices, the mortage crisis, health care, taxes, national security, etc. But when O'Reilly interviews Obama he spends 7 minutes of national tv time on tabloid garbage that has nothing to do with the issues. When O'Reilly interviewed John McCain it was a whole different story, there were no attacks over people he knew, or didn't know, 40 years ago when he was 8 years old. He talked about the issues, and respected him, unlike the Obama interview where O'Reilly does not respect him, and he uses the interview (like a McCain campaign ad) to attack Obama and link him to every liberal blog and website in America.

And then O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan moderate Independent, who has been fair to Obama. And if anyone believes that, write me, I have some gold bars to sell you real cheap.

Example of The Clueless People Who Watch O'Reilly
By: Steve - September 9, 2008 - 10:25am

O'Reilly claims that his viewers are smarter than anyone, if that's true why are all the people who e-mail me about O'Reilly, clueless morons who can not even spell his name, who most of the time have all the facts wrong. What does that say about his viewers, when they do not have the facts right, and can not even spell his name.

I got this e-mail the other day from a clueless misinformed O'Reilly lover:
From: "Ed B"

What caught my attention about your website was your "proof" of orieilly something or other based on the results of a Rasmussen poll. Since polls report only opinions, a gunny sack full of opinions doesn't add up to a fact. Facts can be easily proven. Opinions are like buttholes. Everone has one. The majority opinion is not always right, which is why have a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

For instance, some 900 "scientists" at the United Nations "agree" that global warming is a serious issue. Most of them never read the actual UN report before it was issued. Some 60,000 degreed scientists from a wide variety of backgrounds think that global warming is simply fear mongering designed to get government grants and scare enough of the population into demanding government do something about it. I don't know about you, but I can neither create nor stop a thunderstorm, a hurricane, a tornado or a volcanic eruption from spewing thousands of tons of C2, SO2 and dirt into the atmosphere. Why should I think government can change the temperature of the planet by 3 degrees? I don't buy it.

Keep reading a variety of things. Your country is not your enemy, but there are a lot of people in the world who would destroy your way of life.

Ed B
1) It's O'Reilly, not orieilly.

2) This O'Reilly lover is basically clueless and misinformed. Hint: You can tell it's a right-wing nut (who listens to O'Reilly every day) when they make up numbers about global warming, and claim you think your country is your enemy.

He claims 900 scientists at the UN agree that global warming is real, while 60,000 disagree. Now that's funny, out of all the climatologists in the world, about 200 disagree that global warming is real, and those 200 are on the payroll of oil, gas, and coal companies.

The latest IPCC/UN report, which represents the consensus view on global warming, contains references to 4,617 scientists, not 900. Scientific American puts the number of global warming skeptics worldwide at perhaps 200 (out of thousands of climate scientists worldwide). A search of Wikipedia found less than 40 scientists who say global warming is not real.

3) I replied to Ed B. with the above facts, but I never heard back from Ed. Which is what happens 99.9% of the time when I reply to these misinformed morons. When confronted with actual facts, they run away and never reply.

4) The Rasmussen poll asked who you plan to vote for based on what News Network you watch. In the poll 87% of FOX viewers said they plan to vote for McCain, while only 9% said they plan to vote for Obama. The same poll showed that CNN and MSNBC were less biased than FOX, because roughly 23% of their viewers plan to vote for McCain.

The only claim I made is that CNN and MSNBC are less biased than FOX, based on those poll results. I never said it was proof of anything about O'Reilly, I only pointed out that it proves CNN and MSNBC are less biased than FOX.

That e-mail represents about 90% of the e-mails I get from the people who watch O'Reilly. Half of them can not even spell his name right, and the other half have the facts wrong, or both. They believe the spin and lies put out by O'Reilly as if they are facts. Then they think they are informed with the truth, and they write me to tell me I am the liar. When most of the time their facts turn out to be O'Reilly's biased opinions that they repeat like robots.

O'Reilly/Obama Interview (Part 2)
By: Steve - September 9, 2008 - 7:15am

A few things stood out for me.

1) O'Reilly kept saying how total revenue went up 20% under Bush. But revenue increases do not really measure how good the country is doing, Obama nailed him on it, yet O'Reilly just kept saying it as if it was true. He must have thought he was still talking to the kool-aid drinkers who believe everything he says.

Contrary to a popular assumption, a disproportionate share of income taxes is paid by wealthy households, and their incomes are based much more on the swings of the stock market than on wages and salaries. About one-third of all income taxes are paid by households in the top 1 percent of income earners, who make more than $300,000 a year. Because those households also earn the overwhelming share of taxable investment income and executive bonuses, both their incomes and their tax liabilities swing sharply in bull and bear markets.

"These people have incomes that fluctuate much more rapidly, so when the economy is doing well and the stock market is doing well, tax revenues will be up," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation."

Compared with the size of the economy, tax revenues are still below historical norms and far below what the Bush administration predicted as recently as 2003. And federal debt has ballooned to $9.6 trillion, up from $5.6 trillion when Bush took office in 2001.

Basically the rich and the Corporations made so much more money under Bush that they paid more taxes and that led to increased federal revenue. But that mostly benefited the wealthy, and the economy is worse now than it was under Clinton. O'Reilly put a right-wing spin on the numbers, he claimed that because revenue went up we all did better. When in fact, most of us did worse, and only the wealthy did better under Bush.

Obama should have pointed out that total revenue is meaningless, and that you measure how well people are doing by wage growth, inflation, energy prices, spending, etc. for the average American worker, not by how much more money the wealthy and the corporations made. The people at the top made out like bandits so the total tax revenue went up because they pay the most taxes, while the other 95% of us lost money and had a wage decrease, so we got screwed.

O'Reilly tried to claim that because total federal tax revenue went up, the Bush tax cuts were great for America. When it was really only great for the top 5 percent of Americans, everyone else suffered. And Obama tried to say that, but O'Reilly cut him off every time he tried to talk. Ask yourself this, is the average working man better off now under Bush, with $4.00 a gallon gas, higher food and energy prices, etc. or was he better off under Clinton, that answer is easy, he was better off under Clinton, even though total federal revenue went up under Bush.

2) O'Reilly would spew out a right-wing spin question then Obama would try to correct him and answer it, but he could never finish an answer. Every time he tried to answer a question O'Reilly would cut him off and spew out more right-wing spin and claim Obama was wrong. He would make some crazy claim about the Obama tax plan and Obama would say you're wrong, and O'Reilly would say no i'm not. So he would deny reality, and try to get you to believe his spin on it, when Obama was sitting right there telling him he did not have his facts right.

O'Reilly is so used to talking to right-wingers and putting his spin on everything liberal, that when he has to interview someone who says he is wrong, he can't comprehend that the person is saying he is wrong. He just keeps spewing the spin out as if it's true, when they guy who created the tax plan is sitting right there telling him he is wrong.

It was like watching a comedy skit on MadTV, or SNL. O'reilly says you want me to pay 50 percent in taxes, Obama says no I don't, then O'Reilly just keeps going as if Obama agreed with him. When he only pays 35 percent, and under the Obama plan it would go from 35 to 38 percent, not 50 percent. Then he said Obama wants to raise the payroll tax cap to infinity, then Obama said no I don't. But O'Reilly kept saying yes you do, when they guy was sitting right there telling him he don't.

He was basically calling Obama a liar, when he never does that with McCain. Billy had his right-wing talking points to spew out to make Obama look bad, and he was going to stick with them even when Obama said they were wrong. He would say a lie, Obama would say you're wrong, then try to explain how he's wrong, then O'Reilly would cut him off half way through his answer, and before Obama could show how he was wrong, then O'Reilly would make the false claim again and move on to a new question.

It was a joke, and very bad journalism, in fact, calling it journalism is an insult to all journalists.

3) O'Reilly still plans to do the one sided biased 25 part series on Obama, even after he said the reason he was not doing one on McCain is because he knows McCain and he has talked to McCain. So I thought he would cancel it after he talked to Obama, because now he knows him and he has talked to him, but he still plans to do it. If you have two candidates running for president, one Democrat and one Republican, and you interview both of them, then you do a 25 part investigation on one of them, but not the other, that's just flat out 100% bias. If that's not bias there is no such thing.

4) One last point: Only a total right-wing nut (Bill O'Reilly) would claim that the American people have done better under the Bush administration in the last 8 years. And use the total federal tax revenue paid as a basis for that claim. Even most Republican economists would not make that claim, so O'Reilly is on that island all alone.

Total tax revenue is not how you measure the health of the economy, you measure it by inflation, job growth, unemployment, yearly wage growth, gas and energy prices, food prices, health care prices, etc. Not by how much tax revenue the Government took in. It just shows how much of a biased Republican O'Reilly is for even trying to make those ridiculous claims. And if anyone disagrees with my analysis, e-mail me and tell me why, I need a good laugh.

And btw, factcheck.org agrees with what I am saying, and they claim that total tax revenue would have been even higher without the Bush tax cuts. Tax revenue grew by $625 billion between 2003 and 2006 according to the Congressional Budget Office. However, what Billy neglected to mention is that revenues would have been even higher if Bush had not cut taxes. Notice that both O'Reilly and John McCain are putting out the same talking points on the revenue. It's called right-wing supply side spin.

From factcheck.org:
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have "increased revenues." He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading.

In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been - even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.
www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

John McCain Has 134 Corporate Lobbyists Running His Campaign
By: Steve - September 8, 2008 - 8:45am

The McCain campaign and the Corporate media have helped spread the myth that John McCain is a straight-talking moderate Republican maverick who is feared by lobbyists and special interest groups. However, the reality is very different. The McCain campaign has more current and former lobbyists on staff (or working as advisers) and more current and former lobbyist fundraising bundlers than any other candidate in the history of America.

Campaign Money Watch, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group, recently announced the results of a new analysis of the fees Sen. John McCain's lobbyist bundlers, advisors and staff members have collected from clients over the past decade.

The total, A staggering $931 million dollars.
"The McCain campaign relies on big money lobbyists, and they'll rely on him," said David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch. "In the 'you-scratch-my-back, I’ll-scratch-yours' world of Washington, $931 million gets the special interests the best government money can buy. But just think of the payday these lobbyists might expect in a McCain Administration."
Campaign Money Watch's analysis of data provided by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org) also found that employees and Political Action Committees of these lobbyists clients have donated $11,750,051 to McCain's campaigns, a fact that raises its own set of problems, Donnelly said.
"How can John McCain say he'll reduce the influence of special interests in Washington, when he's so fully dependent on lobbyists and their clients to finance his campaign" Donnelly asked."
To highlight the connections between John McCain and his lobbyists, a new website called wwwMcCainlobbyists.com was launched last month, it focuses on 40 of the most prolific lobbyists around John McCain. It shows how much money their clients have given to McCain, as well as how much money those lobbyists have earned off those clients.

I would like to know how the McCain campaign (and the mainstream media) can claim that John McCain is anti-lobbyist when he has 134 lobbyists working for, and running his campaign.

-- Richard Davis is the current campaign manager for John McCain, he is a telecommunications lobbyist who founded the lobbying firm Davis Manafort Inc.

-- Christian Ferry is the deputy campaign manager for McCain. Ferry previously worked as a lobbyist for Davis Manafort from 2003 to 2005. His clients included SBC Communications and Verizon Communication Inc.

-- Charlie Black is the chief political adviser for the McCain campaign. Black is a lobbyist and chairman of BKSH & Associates. While working for McCain, Black has continued to work as chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses. His current clients include "General Motors, United Technologies, JPMorgan and AT&T."

-- David Crane is the McCain campaign senior policy adviser. Crane is a lobbyist and president of Quadripoint Strategies who previously worked as a lobbyist and senior vice president for Global USA and The Washington Group. His clients have included Bank of America, the Financial Services Roundtable, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The top four guys running the McCain campaign are all lobbyists, and 130 other current or former lobbyists work for McCain, yet he claims to oppose lobbyists, while they are running his entire campaign. If you elect John McCain to be the next president, every Corporate lobbyist in America will be running the country. Just as they did for the last 8 years with George W. Bush as president.

And think about this, how come Bill O'Reilly has never said a word about any of this, ever. If he is a non-partisan moderate Independent who is fair to both sides, as he claims, why is he keeping this information a secret. Why is the non-partisan Bill O'Reilly keeping this information from you. He says that you need to know everything about Obama so you can make an informed vote, while at the same time he is hiding all this information about the lobbyists who run the McCain campaign. As yourself how that is being non-partisan and fair to both sides.

Palin Called Obama "Sambo" And Hillary The "Bitch"
By: Steve - September 7, 2008 - 6:00pm

"So Sambo beat the bitch!"

This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.

"It was kind of disgusting," Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the "lower 48" about life near the North Pole.

Then, almost with a sigh, she added, "But that’s just Alaska."

Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N'-Fetch-It, "darkie musical" swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as "Arctic Arabs" -- how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description -- as well as the more colourful "mukluks" along with the totally unimaginative "fucking Eskimo’s," according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.

It’s not easy getting people in the 49th state to speak critically about Palin -- especially people in Wasilla, where she was mayor. many people in Alaska, and particularly Wasilla, are reluctant to speak or be quoted by name because they’re afraid of her as well as the state Republican Party machine. Apparently, the power elite are as mean as the winters.

"The GOP is kind of like organized crime up here," an insurance agent in Anchorage who knows the Palin family, explained. "It’s corrupt and arrogant. They’re all rich because they do private sweetheart deals with the oil companies, and they can destroy anyone. And they will, if they have to."


NOTE: Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (Republican) is currently under indictment for taking Bribes from the Alaska oil company VECO.

"Once Palin became mayor," he continued, "She became part of that inner circle." Like most other people interviewed, he didn’t want his name used out of fear of retribution. Maybe it’s the long winter nights where you don’t see the sun for months that makes people feel as if they’re under constant danger from "the authorities." As I interviewed residents it began sounding as if living in Alaska controlled by the state Republican Party is like living in the old Soviet Union: See nothing that’s happening, say nothing offensive, and the political commissars leave you alone. But speak out and you get disappeared into a gulag north of the Arctic Circle for who-knows-how-long.

Full Story: www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak

Myth vs Reality: Why You Should Not Vote For John McCain in 2008
By: Steve - September 7, 2008 - 1:15am

Think back to the year 2000, George W. Bush ran for president against Al Gore. Now remember what Bush said during his campaign. He said he was a "Reformer With Results" and a "Uniter Not a Divider" who would restore "Honor And Integrity" to the White House. He also said "I'm a Compassionate Conservative" who will be "President of All The People, Not Just Those Who Voted For Me."

George W. Bush promised tax cuts for everyone, then it all went to the top 5% who make over $250,000 a year, he promised to fix Social Security, nothing happened, he promised no Nation Building, then he illegally invaded Iraq and now he is re-building their Nation, at a cost of $10 Billion dollars a month to the American Taxpayer.

Bush promised an energy plan, then it was leaked that Cheney and Bush had secret meetings with the oil and energy companies, and nobody from any consumer groups were in the meetings, and we found out they had written their energy plan, when asked what that plan is they refused to tell us, and to this day we still don't know what it is, and that was 7 years ago. They refused to say who was in the meetings, or what their plan is, even though it was an energy plan for the American people, they would not even tell us about our own plan.

He said he would overhaul Medicare, and public education; cut taxes; reinvigorate the military; restore civility to the political system; and help the poor with tax credits for health insurance, assistance buying homes and charitable-giving incentives. "We will use these good times for great goals," he said. "We will confront the hard issues."

In that entire list of promises only two things happened, he passed a tax cut, and a medicare prescription drug bill. The tax cut all went to the wealthy, and they lied about the cost of the drug bill to get it passed, and threatened to fire anyone who disclosed the true cost of it. They said it would cost $400 Billion, when they knew it would cost $800 Billion. Most members of Congress said they will vote for it if it cost $400 Billion or less, so Bush had their people say it cost $400 Billion. So both things he passed was passed using lies to get it into law.

Basically everything Bush said in his 2000 campaign was a lie, they just lied to the American people to get elected, then they moved far to the right and broke every promise they made. The religious right, the neo-cons, the special interest groups, the corporations, the lobbyists, and the far right of the Republican party took control of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and ran the country into the ground doing everything possible to advance their far right agenda. They said to hell with the people, we are going to do everything possible to get the Republican party more power.

Their entire agenda was to stack the Supreme Court with far right judges so they would make rulings favorable to the Republican party agenda, and change as many laws as possible to make the Republican party more powerful. And that is exactly what they did. They put their partisan agenda ahead of the will of the people, they did nothing to help the majority of Americans. Every law they passed, and every move they made was done to benefit the people who donated money to get them elected.

The right-wing special interest groups, the religious groups, the corporations, the wealthy, and the lobbyists, lined up at the White House doors with a laundry list of things they wanted done. Bush and Cheney welcomed them all with open arms, and said ask and you shall recieve. Then over the next 8 years the Bush administration was just a tool for all those partisan groups to make America more of a right-wing country. Which led to endless scandals, from Attorneygate, to CIA leakgate, Hurricane Katrina, Illegal NSA Wiretaps, Torture, Gitmo, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Editing NASA Global Warming Reports, and on and on, the current scandal list is endless, up to 300 so far, you can read it here.

Hugh's List of Bush Scandals

www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html

Those same people who ran the Bush White house are now running the McCain campaign, and if he wins they will be part of the McCain administration. John McCain is George W. Bush with a different face, but the same old Republican agenda. McCain is #1 in contributions from big oil, then his tax plan comes out and he plans to give the oil companies a $400 Billion dollar tax cut, what a coincidence. He claims to be a maverick who shuns the lobbyists and if you elect him he will represent the people, but his campaign has 57 lobbyists running it. Somhow I don't think they are doing it for nothing, you ever hear of a lobbyist doing something for nothing.

If elected, the McCain administration will be nothing more than a continuation of the Bush administration with a different face on it. John McCain supports 95% of the Bush policies, the same policies that got us where we are today. Record Deficits, Housing Crisis, Mortage Crisis, Credit Crisis, Bank Failures, Mortage Company Failures, Govenrment Bailouts, high unemployment rates, lower wages, higher food prices, illegal wars, and on and on. In 8 years the Bush administration has not done one thing to help middle class America, and the average working man, nothing, zero.

Every single thing the Bush adminitration has done was done to benefit the wealthy, the corporations, the special interest groups, the far right, the religious groups, and the lobbyists who work for the corporations. Yes he passed a small tax cut for the average American, $600 and $300, it's called throwing a bone to the little people to make them happy. How far did that $600 go, especially with $4.00 a gallon gas, and $4.00 a gallon milk, not very far. And notice that the Republicans in the House and the Senate blocked 4 bills that would have lowered gas prices now.

They protected the profits of big oil, so you would have to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas. Then those same oil companies give them a kickback from their excessive profits to elect more Republicans and re-elect the Republicans in office now. It takes 60 votes to pass anything, and the Democrats only have 51, so the Republicans can block everything that will help the people, which they did.

While the wealthy got $80,000 tax cuts and a 3 percent lower federal tax rate that made them millions. The average working man lost $2,000 a year in real wages, adjusted for inflation, so that $600 tax cut only lessened your yearly wage losses. Not to mention the federal cuts to states money, so the states raised taxes to make up the difference and the average working man paid for it so millionaires could get $80,000 tax cuts.

That is why you need to say no to John McCain, and tell him we don't want 8 more years of failed Bush policies. You need to vote for Barack Obama, he will get the country back on track and help the people. We can not live with 8 more years of John McBush, the last 8 years have almost ruined the country, and we can not afford 8 more years of Republican control.

So when you vote in November, remember what Bush and the Republicans promised, and what they actually did, not the lies and spin they put out saying what they would do, and will do, remember what they did in the last 8 years. Then vote for Obama, he may not have all the answers, but he is smart, and he wants to help all Americans, not just the wealthy and the corporations, and he will sure be a hell of a lot better than 8 more years of corrupt Republicans running the country.

Summary of O'Reilly at The RNC Convention
By: Steve - September 5, 2008 - 11:45pm

Before I discuss the factor at the RNC let me tell you what happened at the DNC. O'Reilly spent the entire week attacking Obama with 99% Republican guests. The usual right-wing crew, Rove, Morris, Ingraham, Gingrich, Carpenter, Miller, etc. etc. etc. It was a week long Obama attackfest with almost all right-wing guests. Only one Democrat a night was allowed on the factor to give the liberal point of view.

Now we get to the factor at the RNC. To be fair you think O'Reilly would do the same thing he did at the DNC. Fill the show with left-wing guests to attack McCain non-stop for a week, WRONG!

O'Reilly spent the entire week filling the show with right-wing guests who did nothing but attack Obama and praise McCain and Palin. Not one Democrat was put on the friday night show to give an analysis of theMcCain speech. Probably because most people thought the speech fell flat. Even Karl Rove said it was not a great speech, and said McCain is not good at giving speeches and reading teleprompters.

So O'Reilly did not have anyone on who would even get close to any criticism of the McCain speech. While on the friday night show after the Obama speech it was nothing but right-wingers with criticism of Obama. O'Reilly said the Obama speech was annoying, and not very good. What speech did he watch, everyone else said it was great, even Brit Hume gave it a B+ grade.

The worst O'Reilly could say about the McCain speech is that is was a little boring and a little too long. There was no detailed analysis by critics of the McCain speech, as there was by critics of Obama at the end of the DNC convention. O'Reilly played clips of the Obama speech and criticized it all, no such clips were played of the McCain speech, and nobody was there to criticize it.

O'Reilly spent the whole show saying how great McCain and Palin are, it was like a McCain campaign ad. He even had two pollsters on from Rasmussen and Gallup, then O'Reilly said Obama had no bounce from the DNC convention. What a lie, on August 27th Gallup had it 45 for Obama and 44 for McCain, then on September 2nd Obama went to 50 percent. Earth to Billy, that's a bounce, Obama went up 5 points from 8-27-08 to 9-2-08.

Somehow in O'Reilly world that's not a bounce, it's good he is the only person in that world. O'Reilly is so biased for McCain he can not even admit Obama got a 5 point bounce from the DNC. And yet on Monday if McCain is up 3 or 4 points O'Reilly will go nuts over it and claim Obama is in trouble. Tonight O'Reilly even said the trend is positive for McCain, and claimed it's bad news for Obama, when Obama has been ahead of McCain in the polls ever since the Democratic primary ended.

The reporting from O'Reilly at the DNC and the RNC shows just how biased O'Reilly is, it was attack Obama all the time, and praise McCain all the time. In O'Reilly world Obama can not win, while McCain is praised as great, and this is a fact. I challenge anyone to dispute these facts, I watched the show every night, and took notes. I even counted the ratio of Republican to Democrat guests on the factor at both conventions.

But somehow O'Reilly still thinks he has been fair to Obama, I guess he don't watch his own show. Because it has been very unfair to Obama, and it's not even close. He either don't watch his own show, or he can't comprehend what he does on his own show, or both. I personally vote for both.

Joe Biden Comments on The RNC Convention
By: Steve - September 5, 2008 - 10:45pm

Biden gave a great speech today in Pennsylvania, where he responded to some of the attacks at the Republican Convention:
“It's not merely a lost job, it's a lost sense of identity. I don't think my Republican friends -- and this is not your father's Republican party, by the way. So folks, when I listen to the parts of the Republican convention I can hear...it's not what I heard, it's what I didn't hear."

The silence of the Republican party was deafening. It was deafening on jobs, on health care, on the environment, on all the things that matter to the people in the neighborhood's I grew up in. Deafening! Their America is not the America I live in. They see something different than I see.

“Rick Davis, John's campaign manager, said 'this election is not about issues.' Everything I saw at the convention demonstrated that.

“What do you talk about about when you have nothing to say? What do you talk about when you can’t explain the last eight years of failure?"
Biden makes a great point, the McCain campaign is talking about everything but the issues and the state of the economy. Because when you talk about issues you are reminded that we are where we are because of 8 years of failed Bush policies. The same failed Bush policies McCain supports 95% of the time. So if you want 4 more years of those failed Bush policies, vote for McCain because he is the same as George W. Bush.

Women Should be Insulted by The Sarah Palin Pick
By: Steve - September 5, 2008 - 9:15am

John McCain clearly picked Sarah Palin for political reasons, to try and get votes from Hillary Clinton Supporters and women in general. He insulted all womens intelligence, by thinking if he just put a woman on the ticket he would get their vote. I have read many comments from women about the Palin pick, and it looks like McCain was wrong, and that he made a bad decision to pick an unknown woman who is not qualified to be the Vice President. Most women are offended and insulted that McCain would think they will vote for him just because he picked a woman to be his VP.

Here are some comments from women and some quotes from news articles:

Evidence so far shows that Palin is not drawing a lot of support from voters outside the Republican base. An ABC News poll released Friday found the selection of Palin makes people likelier to vote for McCain by just 6 points -- half the 12-point margin by which Joe Biden makes them more likely to support Obama. As for Clinton supporters, according to a new Gallup Poll, 81% said they'd vote for Obama in November, that's an 11 point increase just since McCain announced his selection of Palin last friday.

Gloria Steinem on Palin:

"Selecting Sarah Palin...is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters," Steinem wrote this week in the Los Angeles Times, arguing that McCain's running mate is seriously underqualified. "Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton." In an e-mail to The Associated Press, Steinem added: "I have yet to meet one single human being who was for Hillary and is now for McCain, with or without Palin, but some must exist somewhere."

Historically, women vote on the issues, not by the gender of the candidate, and since 1980 they've trended Democratic for that reason, says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "I wouldn't expect that the McCain-Palin ticket will pull in Clinton supporters," says Walsh. "They were supporting her on the issues. Her gender just added to the appeal."

The Washington group EMILY's List, which backs female candidates who support abortion rights, says its own polling shows that a majority of Clinton supporters -- 55 percent -- say Palin's presence on the ticket makes them even less likely to vote McCain. Only 9 percent say it makes that more likely.

"There really couldn't be more of a distance between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton on the issues and the agenda that Clinton fought so passionately for," the group's executive director, Ellen Moran, said in an interview. "The more (Clinton supporters) are learning about Palin, the more they are coming to the Obama-Biden ticket."

Sandy Goodman was deeply disappointed when Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't get the Democratic nomination, then again when she was bypassed for the VP spot. So Goodman, a longtime Florida Democrat, flirted with thoughts of shunning Barack Obama, and perhaps even voting Republican.

Then John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, and suddenly things became clear to Goodman: The Republicans had no place for her. "Boy, you are sure not talking to ME!" Goodman, 61, says she thought when she heard Palin's views on issues like abortion rights. Now, Goodman is volunteering for Obama.

For Goodman, the Florida voter who's shifted to Obama, there will be no such indecision. She'll work to convince fellow Clintonites that they shouldn't be swayed by the woman on the Republican ticket.

"I was insulted when she referred to Hillary and the 18 million cracks in the ceiling," Goodman says, referring to Clinton's line that her primary votes put that many cracks in the glass ceiling that has held women back. "I don't believe Hillary was making those 18 million cracks for Sarah Palin."

O'Reilly/Obama Interview Analysis
By: John - September 5, 2008 - 1:45am

Instead of giving you my analysis of the O'Reilly/Obama interview I thought I would let you see what John at crookandliars.com said about it. Just to show you that I am not the only one who sees the same bias from O'Reilly that I do.

O'Reilly Treats Obama With no Respect

I just started watching the first part of BillO's series of interviews with Obama and I have to say that Bill attacks Obama with a mean spirited and nasty viciousness that he has never used against McCain, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration that he feels are in good standing. It was sickening to watch him interrupt Obama with a scowl on his face every time Barack tries to finish a point he was trying to make.

I thought it was a bad idea to go on with Bill because O'Reilly would never have respected the position that Obama holds as he runs for President. Instead of treating him like the Democratic nominee, he treats him like he has a vendetta against him. Search his interviews with Bush and McCain and see how he respects them. That respect was lacking...

It's fine to ask what the "Factor" considers tough questions, but O'Reilly tries to make guests that are threatening to him and Republicans look weak next to his huge ego and he's good at that. I thought Obama held his own against this Republican hypocrite, but make no mistake about it, BillO is very good at what he does-especially when he had Obama in his sights. I imagine in the next segment Bill will be bashing left wing bloggers and MoveOn furiously because he fears them, but not as much as Obama. Barack represents the changing of the guard that we so desperately need if we're going to help our country.

After the segment was over-he had a little nasty grin on his face as he berated Jane Hall when she tried to analyze Bill's question about if she bought the idea that Obama was a terror warrior. You see to Bill, Obama has to scream and jump up and down like Republicans do about terrorism instead of actually doing something about protecting America. O'Reilly's into the words instead of the actions.

After he cut off Hall and tried to embarrass her, he moved over to winger Monica Crowley and asked is she thought Obama was a terror warrior and the Republican shill gave Bill the answer he wanted. She said "no" and O'Reilly laughingly approved. This is the way he will proceed for the next few days. He'll applaud Obama for coming on and then do the best he can to help McCain and the tired and ineffective conservative movement.

The Republican Party has failed miserably on national security and McCain wants to use the same Bush policies in the extreme, but he talks tough so that's fine with Billy. Let's ask BillO if Bush is a terror warrior and how did he do? He failed horribly and so has the Republican Party, but Bill needs to protect his own.

O'Reilly Bias & Double Standards at The RNC
By: Steve - September 5, 2008 - 10:15am

As I predicted the Factor coverage at the RNC was totally biased, one sided, and all right-wing spin to make Palin and McCain look good. O'Reilly filled the show with 99% Republican guests who were put on the air to say nothing but positive things about Palin and McCain. Every night O'Reilly had a steady stream of right-wing guests, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Laura Ingraham, Dick Morris, Dennis Miller, Amanda Carpenter, Republican Congressman and women, Republican Governors, etc.

When O'Reilly covered the DNC he filled the show with the same list of right-wing guests, in the whole week at the DNC only 5 segments (out of roughly 35) had a Democrat guest. He had a non stop parade of right-wing guests on to trash everything Obama said, and everything the Democrats said at the DNC. So to be fair he should have filled the show with Democrat guests to criticize McCain and everyone at the RNC convention. That never happened, it was all the same guests he used to trash everyone at the DNC.

That proves how biased O'Reilly is, and it proves that he is doing everything in his power to help John McCain win. A real non-partisan moderate Independent would not have done that. A real non-partisan Independent Journalist would have used an equal number of Republican and Democrat guests at each convention. If he did 7 segments a night at the DNC convention, 4 of them should have had Democrat guests, with 3 for the Republicans. If he did 7 segments a night at the RNC convention, 4 of them should have had Republican guests, with 3 for the Democrats.

Instead, roughly 6 factor segments a night had Republican guests at the DNC. While 6 factor segments a night at the RNC also had Republican guests. There was no fairness, it was total one sided right-wing bias at both conventions. For the whole week at the DNC O'Reilly only had 5 segments with a Democrat guest, and no Democrats were on the friday show, which was the night after the big Obama speech. That is a violation of Journalism 101, be fair to both sides. It is not fair to stack the deck with 99% Republican guests at both conventions, but that is exactly what O'Reilly did. Now if he ever claims to be a non-partisan moderate Independent you can cite this blog posting as evidence that he is lying.

The Big Republican Propaganda Lie O'Reilly Ignores
By: Steve - September 5, 2008 - 7:00am

All week at the RNC, the Republicans keep saying that Obama will raise taxes, when that is a lie, and O'Reilly never corrects that lie. When a right-wing guest says Obama is going to raise taxes O'Reilly agrees with them. When he knows it's a lie, and he knows that the Obama tax plan will give 95 percent of the people a tax cut. O'Reilly just let's them lie because he wants McCain to win. A real Journalist would correct them and say you are wrong, the truth is Obama will give a tax cut to 95% of all working Americans.

There will be a slight tax rate increase of 3% for the people at the top, the 5% of Americans who make over $250,000 a year, but the vast majority of Americans will get a tax cut. Yet O'Reilly and all his Republican friends keep putting out the RNC propaganda that Obama is going to raise your taxes. Then people hear that, and actually believe Obama is going to raise taxes, when in fact, 95% of all Americans will get a tax cut.

It proves how biased and dishonest O'Reilly, John McCain, and all the Republicans are. THEY ARE LYING TO YOU, ALL OF THEM. It's a lie, and O'Reilly helps them spread that lie. That makes him a dishonest and biased partisan right-wing hack of a pretend Journalist, and that's a fact. In the Hitler/Goebbels propaganda books it says you can fool the masses if you repeat a lie, and do it often enough, and that is what O'Reilly, McCain, and the Republicans are doing, using Hitler/Goebbels propaganda tactics to make you believe their lies.

Obama is not going to raise your taxes, he is going to give you a tax cut. That is a cold hard fact, and anyone who says different is a dishonest partisan right-wing liar. In fact, Obama wants to do another tax rebate of $1,000, and pay for it from a fund that would get the money from the oil companies who have gouged the American people on gas prices, from over-priced oil bid up by crooked speculators on Wall Street.

Then on top of that Obama plans to give 95% of all Americans a permanent tax cut that would give them at least a $1,000 tax cut. So if Obama is the next president you will get a $1,000 rebate, and a $1,000 tax cut, which is $2,000.

On the other hand, if McCain is the next president 95% of you will get a $300 tax cut, and that's it. Because most of the McCain tax cuts go to the wealthy, the Corporations, and the Oil companies. The oil companies alone would get a $400 Billion dollar tax cut, when the last thing they need is another tax cut, especially after making record profits on the back of working Americans.


Follow Up: Bush/Cheney Mentions at The RNC: 1
By: Steve - September 4, 2008 - 10:25am

Last night, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Gov. Sarah Palin addressed the Republican National Convention. Between the four of them, there was only one reference to President Bush. Mitt Romney praised "George Bush" for labeling "the terror-sponsor states the axis of evil."

On Tuesday night, Bush was never mentioned by the RNC speakers. Dick Cheney will not even speak at the RNC, how bad is it when your own party convention does not even mention their presidents name, or let the Vice President give a speech.

The Truth About Obama & His Experience
By: Steve - September 4, 2008 - 9:15am

O'Reilly and his right-wing friends claim Barack Obama has no experience, and that he has not done anything as a Senator. Those claims are partisan lies put out by Republican spin doctors who want John McSame to win in November. Read this, and then ask yourself how much of this O'Reilly has reported to you, the answer is almost none of it.

Barack Obama has been in politics for 12 years. He went through 21 debates with Hillary Clinton, he was in the Illinois State Senate for 8 years, and the U.S Senate for 4 years. He has seen classified Government intelligence for 4 years now. He is a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, and the Foreign Relations Committee, as a member of those Committees he has visited Russia, Iraq, etc. etc.


Note: Did you know Sarah Palin did not even have a passport until 2007. Of course you didn't, because O'Reilly and his right-wing friends have not told you that information, they keep it secret hoping you will never find out.


Obama gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, delivered while he was still an Illinois state senator. He studied for two years at Occidental College in California, before transferring to Columbia University in New York City. There he majored in political science, with a specialization in international relations. Upon graduation, he moved to Chicago.

He left Chicago for three years to study law at Harvard University, where he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated Magna Cum Laude. While in Chicago, Obama organized an aggressive voter registration effort that aided in the election of President Bill Clinton and Senator Carol Moseley Braun. The campaign registered over 100,000 voters.

Soon after, his talents earned him a position at a local civil rights law firm, and he became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, where he served as a professor until his election to the U.S. Senate. The April 18, 2005 issue of TIME Magazine listed the 100 most influential people in the world. Barack Obama was included on the list under the section of 'Leaders and Revolutionaries' for his high-profile entrance to federal politics.

Obama has sponsored or cosponsored 3 Senate bills that passed, The Global Poverty Act (S.2433), The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act (S. 230), and The Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation.

In the 109th Congress Obama sponsored 152 bills, in the 110th Congress he sponsored 113 bills, and that does not include the bills he cosponsored. The problem is this, Republicans have blocked or voted down all the bills Obama sponsors, then they say he has not done anything as a member of the Senate, when they are the people who block him from doing anything.

The Republicans realized in 2004 (after Obama gave that great speech at the 2004 DNC) that he would run for president some day. So they blocked or voted down every bill he sponsored or introduced. Then they could say he has not done anything as a Senator, as they do today, when the reason he has not done very much is because the Republicans block or vote down almost every bill he is involved in.

It's the same thing they did on gas price bills, they blocked a vote on a bill that would have lowered gas prices now. Then they blamed Democrats for not voting on a bill to lower gas prices, and said they refuse to have a vote. When they tried to have a vote, but the Republicans blocked it. They are doing the same thing to Obama, they block or vote down every bill he tries to pass, then claim he's done nothing.

And O'Reilly does not report any of this, he just spews out the RNC talking points that Obama has no experience, and he has done nothing as a Senator. When the facts show different, you just don't know it because O'Reilly and most of the media refuse to report it. Compare that to Sarah Palin, she was on the city council, then the mayor of a city in Alaska with 6,000 people, then a year and a half ago she was elected Governor. How does that compare to the experience Obama has, it don't, yet O'Reilly and all his friends claim it does.

O'Reilly Double Standards on Teen Pregnancy
By: Steve - September 4, 2008 - 7:25am

Bill Oreilly ran with the GOP talking points about Sarah Palin, saying this:
O'REILLY: "Millions of families are dealing with teen pregnancy, and as long as society doesn't have to support the mother, father or baby, it is a personal matter. It's true that some Americans will judge Governor Palin and her family, and she will have a hard time running for vice president if there is much more chaos. For the sake of her and her family, we hope things calm down. This country needs a vibrant policy debate, not a soap opera."
However when Jamie Lynn Spears was pregnant he said this:
O'REILLY: "Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves. And by the way, the mother, Lynne Spears, has reportedly already sold pictures of the upcoming baby of her 16-year-old for a million bucks. Incredible pinhead."
So isn't Sarah Palin, given his logic, an incredible pinhead? Isn’t she to blame for Bristol's pregnancy? How hypocritical is it for O'Reilly to talk about 'policy debates' over issues, when from Pastor Wright to Nas to Ludacris, to Jamie Lynn and Britney Spears, O'Reilly has made a living off soap opera segments? How much time has he given on his show to legitimate policy debate?

O'Reilly did not denounce the pregnant 17-year-old daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, or blame the parents. Instead, he greeted the news of her pregnancy as evidence of the strong moral fiber of Palin and her husband, citing the fact that they have offered Bristol their comfort and support.

O'Reilly even attacked the media for reporting the story, and said the media should not report it because it's a private matter, when he himself talked about the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy, and blamed her parents. So when the young girl is the daughter of a Republican (who has a mother trying to be the Vice President for John McCain) it's a whole different story in the no spin zone.

In O'Reilly World, the Palins reside inside the magic circle of conservative approval, so, naturally, they are judged less harshly. But others in similar positions have not been shown the same mercy. Instead, they are denounced as irresponsible, foolish, and immoral.

Number of Times Bush Mentioned at The RNC Monday night: 0
By: Steve - September 3, 2008 - 10:15pm

Not only did the speakers during Monday night's Republican National Convention fail to discuss the economy at all, they never once mentioned President Bush.

TPM Election Central searched the texts of the speeches and found no mention of the words "Bush" or "president" when connected to Bush. It also notes, "The GOP's page of speeches, which included the orations of a bunch of unknowns, didn't even bother including the speeches given by the president or Laura."

Bush Never Mentioned at The RNC Monday

In fact, neither Bush, Cheney, or the economy were ever mentioned on Monday night.

O'Reilly Ignores Story Showing Republicans Criticising Palin
By: Steve - September 3, 2008 - 9:15pm

For the last two nights O'Reilly has hammered the so-called liberal media, he claims they have been unfair to Sarah Palin in calling her unqualified etc. He basically said only the liberal media is saying she is not qualified. But here we have examples of two Conservatives also calling her unqualified, and O'Reilly says nothing. He totally ignored it, because it kills his only the liberal media thinks she is unqualified garbage.

This is what most Conservatives really think about her, they just don't say it in public. They got caught talking when they thought the mics were turned off, so you know what they really think, which is just what the rest of the media is saying, that Palin is not qualified. Yet Billy (the spin doctor) claims that only the liberal media thinks she is not qualified. And to justify his spin he plays clips of people in the media saying it, while ignoring the Republicans who are saying the same thing.

Conservative pundits caught criticising Palin

Two senior Republicans were unaware that microphones were still running after a TV interview

Two senior Republicans, unaware that microphones were still running after a TV interview, let loose today with harsh criticism of Sarah Palin as their party worked to defend its vice-presidential nominee. A tape of the exchange between Republican strategist Mike Murphy - who worked for John McCain during the 2000 election - and conservative columnist Peggy Noonan quickly made the rounds on the internet, creating the latest in a series of Palin-related distractions.

Noonan says "it's over" because McCain picked Palin, and Murphy agrees. This is one video you will never see on the factor, or FOX News.

Video:



Rough Transcript:
MURPHY: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state government work. Angler, Whitman, Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. And these guys, this is all how you want to (inaudible) this race. You know, just run it up. And it's not gonna work.

NOONAN: It's over.

MURPHY: Still, McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

NOONAN: I saw Kay this morning.

MURPHY: They're all bummed out. I mean, is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

NOONAN: The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives and (inaudible) the picture.

MURPHY: Yeah, but what's the narrative?

NOONAN: Every time the Republicans do that because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at and they blow it.
Noonan published a Wall Street Journal column earlier today that praised Palin as "powerful" and "a clear and present danger to the American left, and to the Barack Obama candidacy". Murphy echoed Noonan's candid assessment, asking Todd on the live microphone, "You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical."

So here we have two Conseravtives admitting she is not qualified, and O'Reilly ignored the story, then reported that only the left is saying she is not qualified, when everyone is saying it, but some of them only say it in private, while they praise her in public.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Gallup Tracking Poll
By: Steve - September 3, 2008 - 8:15am

Last night on the 9-2-08 O'Reilly Factor, Billy told Newt Gingrich that the Daily Gallup Tracking Poll has Obama 6 points ahead of McCain. There is one problem with that, it's wrong, and he lied. Here is a screen capture to prove it.



O'Reilly at The RNC (Day Two)
By: Steve - September 3, 2008 - 6:15am

The TPM was an attack on (what Billy calls) the liberal media for going after Palin, and her daughter. O'Reilly claims the media is trying to smear her to help Obama win. This is the same media that spent a month going after Pastor Wright to smear Obama. I guess O'Reily forgot that already, yeah right. And they are not going after the Palin daughter, they are criticizing the mother for her hypocrisy, and her positions on abortion and abstinence only sex education.

He might have a point if that same media had not spent a month reporting on Pastor Wright. This is what the media does, they don't care who it is, left or right, they just want tabloid crap to get ratings so it pleases their corporate masters. Yet O'Reilly only cites examples of when the media goes after a Republican, somehow he forgets all the times they go after a Democrat.

After the TPM it was Karl Rove to praise McCain/Palin and trash Obama. Then O'Reilly had one Democrat on, Wolfson, and he works for FOX, so you know he is not going to be too tough on McCain or Palin, or he loses his job. Then it was Dr.? Frank Luntz, of course all his focus group stooges said McCain/Palin was great, and Obama stinks. Then he had the Republican Governor on to talk about a few protesters. Then Kelly and Wiel were on with some legal crap, and then Newt Gingrich was on to praise McCain/Palin and trash Obama/Biden.

O'Reilly was caught lying about the daily Gallup tracking poll, he said today it has Obama 6 points ahead, that's a lie, it has him 8 points ahead at 50 to 42, he was 6 points ahead yesterday, not today. It's the highest Obama has polled, and 1 point from his highest lead of 9, yet O'Reilly had to lie and say it was only 6 points, when it's 8 points.

Part of the show had some happy talk about McCain, defending him for his VP pick, and defending Palin. But most of the show was an attack on the media for reporting on Palin. O'Reilly called it outrageous biased reporting. That's funny, him calling someone else biased, when he is more biased than anyone, except maybe Hannity.

As I predicted last week, the whole show was not filled with Democrats to trash McCain, as it was with Republicans at the DNC. O'Reilly filled the whole show with Republicans to attack Obama at the DNC, but he did not fill the whole show with Democrats to attack McCain at the RNC, what a surprise, NOT!

What a great example of the right-wing bias from O'Reilly, the tape of it should be shown to Journalism students, as an example of how not to do Journalism.

Sarah Palin Rewrites History
By: Steve - September 2, 2008 - 10:00am

In 2006, the Eagle Forum Alaska sent a questionnaire to all the state's gubernatorial candidates, including Sarah Palin. From Palin's response about the Pledge of Allegiance:
11. Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

PALIN: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
Fact Check: The founding fathers had nothing to do with the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1892 the Baptist Minister Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, 116 years after the country was founded in 1776. The words "Under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.