The Friday 11-30-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 1, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What the heck is President Obama doing? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama is doing something very strange right now. He knows we're a divided nation and he also knows we have a budget situation that could send the country into bankruptcy. So it is on the President to solve the problem!

This week Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner offered the President's plan, which would raise taxes on high earners by $1.6 trillion over the next decade. But on the spending front, there isn't anything substantial on the table. The President is basically saying, 'I'm not going to cut much and blank you if you don't like it!'

I think President Obama wants the Republicans to oppose him, believing the American people will become angry with the GOP. It's a political strategy that is putting the entire country at risk. Many Republicans have already said they'll go along with some tax hikes, so why is the President being so in-your-face about this?

He's doing the same thing with the Susan Rice situation; earlier this week he said he thinks the U.N. Ambassador is doing a great job. Are you kidding me? So it doesn't seem like Mr. Obama wants to run the country efficiently. Maybe he'll compromise in the end, but now we have a 'my way or the highway' situation. The American people deserve better.

We have huge financial problems in this country, problems that every single one of us will feel if the dollar tanks. C'mon, Mr. President, put forth something reasonable and get off the politics.
To answer your stupid question, what the heck is Obama doing? He is doing what the people re-elected him to do, pass liberal policies to fix the debt, etc. Jerk!

So what does O'Reilly do then, have a fair and balanced debate on it like a real journalist would, of course not, he had the biased right-wing hack Lou Dobbs on to spin it.

Dobbs said this: "The first thing they have to do is set the parameters. Right now the top 2% of the country is paying about 40% of the taxes, so what percentage does the president want? Speaker John Boehner needs to stand up and say everything is on the table, including taxes and entitlements. We have to raise the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare and we have to get serious about reducing the deficit by $500 billion a year."

O'Reilly joked that Speaker Boehner and President Obama must sit down and "they don't get to go to the bathroom until they get a deal."

Then the Republican Ben Stein was on with his assessment of the so-called 'war on Christmas.'

Stein said this: "I'm Jewish and all of my ancestors are Jewish, but I don't mind people saying 'Merry Christmas' to me and I like calling it a 'Christmas tree.' It's a holiday marking a man who said 'peace on earth and good will towards men.' What can possibly be wrong with celebrating the ideas of a person who said that?"

O'Reilly added this: "Jesus of Nazareth was the most influential human being who ever lived, so of course you would honor a person like that."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about Federal Judge Barbara Jones, who has sentenced three terrorists, all of them convicted of aiding Al Qaeda, to five years each. Geraldo defended the judge and what O'Reilly said were light sentences.

Geraldo said this: "Our biggest fear, is that terrorists will become drug dealers and fund their violent activities against the West with the proceeds. The newest Al Qaeda organizations are budding in northern and western Africa, and the fear is that they'll become drug dealers."

Geraldo also said this: In this case these three men from Mali were caught in a sting run by a DEA informant. They were transported here, where the judge imposed five years because of the weakness of the case. There was no real drug deal, this was a 'fake crime' and I have a real beef because 95% of all our terrorism arrests are these fake terrorists in fake crimes. The judge in this case did exactly the right thing."

Then Prosecutor Kathleen Rice was on to talk about the Long Island couple who is facing charges after their 17-year-old son crashed his car and killed four of his friends. Rice, the prosecutor in the case, explained why the parents are liable.

Rice said this: "They bought a car for their son, even though they knew he didn't have a license to drive. When they handed him the keys, that was a recipe for disaster, it was like handing him a loaded gun. These four young lives would not have been lost but for the fact that his parents bought him that car and gave him the keys. They're being charged with unlicensed operation of a vehicle."

Rice also explained why she vigorously prosecuted various teens who were caught cheating on SAT tests, saying this: "If we don't teach kids the difference between right and wrong, we're looking at the next generation of corrupt politicians and Wall Street executives."

Then O'Reilly had two students from Harvard on to talk about a club that was started at the school devoted to bondage and other "alternative" activities. Which I will not report on because this is not real news, it's tabloid garbage to get ratings.

Then O'Reilly played re-run clips from the segment he does with Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk. Which I also will not report on because they were re-run clips.

And finally, O'Reilly had the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: Mary Ann Melleby wrote in and described the best present she ever received: "My mother retrieved several dolls I played with as a child and restored them. I felt like I was ten years old again."

Megyn Kelly Caught Spinning Out GOP Talking Points (Again)
By: Steve - December 1, 2012 - 10:00am

Factor regular, and one of the so-called objective and impartial anchors at Fox was caught spinning out Republican talking points again.

Discussing current budget negotiations on America Live, Kelly claimed President Obama's budget proposal received zero votes when the Senate voted on it earlier this year. Kelly said this: "The Democrats in the Senate didn't have the courage to pass it. What makes you think the Republicans would?"

She also said this: "A proposal's meaningless unless you have support for it. He can't even get support from his own party."

Basically, she pushed the false GOP narrative that President Obama's 2013 budget proposal received zero votes in the Senate. In reality, the Senate did not vote on Obama's actual budget, they voted on a bogus budget bill introduced by Republicans (That they knew would never pass) in order to "embarrass" Democrats.

Kelly's claim is a deceptive and dishonest revision of history, and something only a biased right-wing idiot would ever report. Here is what really happened, that Kelly never told you.

In May, the Senate did vote 99-0 against a nonbinding budget resolution, but this was not Obama's budget. It was a Republican budget, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions introduced his own plan, a much shorter version of Obama's plan, which included some of the same figures as Obama's plan for spending, revenue, and deficits, but none of his specific policy proposals.

As ABC's Jake Tapper reported: "The Sessions legislation was 56 pages long; the actual budgets from President are closer to 2,000 pages long."

Republicans then forced the Senate to vote on the Sessions version of Obama's plan to "embarrass Democrats and the White House," as Jason Linkins put it:
This vote, on a Potemkin "Obama Budget," is not intended to be taken seriously. It's a stunt designed to get a slag into the newscycle, and they tend to work.

What happens is a Republican legislator presents a "budget proposal" that's designed to be a satirical presentation of an "Obama budget."

Democrats don't vote for it, because they recognize that it bears no resemblance to their budgetary preferences.
Tapper also quoted a White House official saying that "the Sessions proposal was a shell that could be filled with a number of things that could hurt our economy and hurt the middle class."

For example, "rather than ending tax breaks for millionaires his budget could hit the revenue target by raising taxes on the middle class and rather than ending wasteful programs, his budget could hit its spending target with severe cuts to important programs."

In other words, Megyn Kelly is just like every other Fox News employee, a biased right-wing stooge who does nothing but put out right-wing propaganda and spin. No matter how many times O'Reilly says she is not biased, the facts show otherwise.

The Thursday 11-29-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 30, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The War on Christmas - The Big Picture. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Whenever the far left viciously attacks, you know you're on to something. Every year when we report secular progressive assaults on the traditions of Christmas, the crazy left loons begin a vitriolic campaign to diminish me and this program. No intelligent person can possibly see a secular display of Christmas as an imposition of religion.

When the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree was lighted here in New York City last night, no one threw themselves to the ground screaming about Jesus. It was just a fun occasion! Also, you heard an atheist on this program last night saying the federal holiday of Christmas imposes religion on him. What religion would that be? Does the atheist think the government is promoting Mormonism, Lutheranism, Catholicism?

After that interview the crazy website people emerged, screaming that I'm wrong and Christianity is indeed a religion. But Christianity is a philosophy; you don't have to believe Jesus is God in order to admire his view on life. If you are stone-cold dumb and don't understand the difference between an organized church and a philosophy, I can not help you.

The more intelligent far left people realize that what I am telling you is absolutely correct, but many of them don't care. They want any hint of spirituality out of the public square. The secular progressives want a new America and traditional Christmas is not a part of it!
O'Reilly is an idiot and a fool, Christ is right in the name Christmas, does he not know that? Have your Christmas trees, in your own home, but the Government should not be promoting Christmas or saying Merry Christmas, because of all the other religions, and the people who are not religious. Say Happy Holidays instead, and nobody cares but O'Reilly and a few right-wing loons. What part of that does O'Dummy not understand?

And the funny part is that O'Reilly claims it's only a far-left thing, but Lincoln Chafee is a Republican, and he did it too.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee on, who attempted to have the state's Christmas tree called a "holiday tree" instead.

Chafee said this: "Somehow this has erupted into some kind of controversy, but I did what the previous governor did, which is to call our tree a 'holiday tree.' The main thing is that it's a happy time of year, but we also have to be conscious of changing times. You generate these controversies but they should not be controversies. The tree is in a public building paid for by everybody."

Bingo, Chafee is right, but somehow O'Reilly does not understand that and he is offended that he called it a Holiday tree, and I say who cares what they call it, move on to some real news, jerk!

O'Reilly then advised Governor Chafee that he is barking up the wrong tree, saying this: "There's a tradition to the Christmas tree that supersedes the Governor of Rhode Island, but guys like you come in and say, 'We don't want that tradition any more.' That's what tees people off. You say you want people happy, but they're not happy with you. They want you to call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree!"

And the only people who complained are Republicans who watch the Factor, nobody else cares and it is a non-story with the rest of the country.

Then the far-right loon Laura Ingraham was on with her reaction to Governor Chafee's interview.

Ingraham said this: "This is the Chafee who stole Christmas. This is supposed to be a time when the entire community in Providence can get together, but the people of Rhode Island think this is ridiculous. This has been going on for about five decades because traditional Christianity and the churches, for the most part, have been resisting the sexual revolution. So the secular progressives and the elites have sought to diminish traditional religion in the public square. In the interview with you, Governor Chafee did what most on the left do - rather than debating the facts, he says everyone who doesn't agree with him needs to evolve and get with the program. There is a very powerful group of elites who are very hostile to conservative Christianity."

Ingraham is just stupid, Chafee did not steal Christmas, all he did was call it a Holiday tree, as the past Governor did, that's not stealing Christmas, moron! Not to mention, he is a REPUBLICAN, and not part of the far-left at all.

Then the two right-wing Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on to talk about Sweden's leading toy company that has a new catalogue featuring little girls brandishing toy guns and little boys with blow driers and vacuum cleaners. Which I will not report on, because it happened in Sweden, not America. Earth to idiots, this is not a news story any Americans care about.

Then the fool O'Reilly had two lottery winners Steven White and Sandra Hayes on to cry about how bad it is to win millions of dollars in the lottery. Are you kidding me? Give me a break, shut up you rich cry babies and go spend your money!

Then another Republican, Megyn Kelly was on to talk the Supreme Court's possible ruling on same-sex marriage.

Kelly said this: "I think the Supreme Court will take up at least one case, because there are about nine that they have to consider. Some involve Proposition 8 in California and some involve the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. But these cases aren't necessarily going to force the court to face the larger issue of same-sex marriage. The court will deal with little disputes, they're not going to do the big dispute yet."

Kelly also talked about Arkansas, where atheists are objecting because a public school wants to take its children to a production of "A Charlie Brown Christmas" at a local church. Kelly said this: "I don't think this legal challenge will survive. Courts have already held that school assemblies with Christmas songs are legal. This isn't an endorsement of Christianity, it's an educational field trip."

And of course no Democratic legal analyst was on for balance, just two right-wingers putting out one sided opinions on it.

In the last segment O'Reilly brought back the ridiculous waste of time Factor News Quiz with the two right-wing morons Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy. Which I do not report on, and never will.

And finally, O'Reilly had the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "A visit to JibJab.com enables you to put your own face - or anyone else's mug - on all kinds of music videos."

Crazy O'Reilly Says Christianity Is Not A Religion
By: Steve - November 30, 2012 - 10:00am

O'Reilly: Those Who Think Christianity Is A Religion Are "So Stupid It's Painful" -- "Christianity Is A Philosophy"

Here is the video:



Now I am by no means an expert on religion, so I did a google search and here is a couple things I found that disagree with O'Reilly, and one is from the Grace Family Baptist Church.

1) Wikipedia says this: Christianity (from the Ancient Greek: ???st?a??? Christianos and the Latin suffix -itas) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.

The mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human and the savior of humanity. Because of this, Christians commonly refer to Jesus as Christ or Messiah.

Christianity represents about a third of the world's population and is the world's largest religion.

Christianity is the state religion of several countries. Among all Christians, 37.5% live in the Americas, 25.7% live in Europe, 22.5% live in Africa, 13.1% live in Asia, 1.2% live in Oceania and 0.9% live in the Middle East.

Now call me crazy, but it looks to me like Christianity is a religion.

Here is what the Grace Family Baptist Church says about it:

There is a common mantra that has been around for a while, but which seems to be picking up steam. It goes like this: "Christianity is not a religion; it's a relationship."

We've all heard it before. However, how many of us have bothered to evaluate this ubiquitous saying? I believe we must do just that. We must evaluate this mantra, and the syllogism by which it is frequently accompanied:
Religion is man's attempt to reach God Christianity is God's attempt to reach man Therefore, Christianity is not a religion.
I believe this syllogism is not only invalid, but patently false. If for no other reason, this syllogism must be rejected on the grounds that it contains at least one false premise. Religion is much more than man's attempt to reach God.

And Christianity is indeed a religion.

Moreover, I believe it is dangerous -even foolish- to argue otherwise. The argument that Christianity is not a religion has many inherent problems. Most importantly, this line of reasoning is at odds with the English language, the history of the church, and good old common sense.

The first problem with the argument that Christianity is not a religion is the fact that it is a linguistic/grammatical fallacy. This in turn exposes an unavoidable logical fallacy in what is ultimately a question-begging argument.

In order for the statement –Christianity is not a religion- to be true, one has to assume a certain definition of the word religion that does not exist (i.e., "religion is man's attempt to reach God").

The Encarta World English Dictionary defines religion as:
People's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

A particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

A set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

An object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
Not only is the contemporary attitude toward religion at odds with the English language, it also stands at odds with the history of Christianity. Throughout the history of the church, Christianity has not only been viewed as a religion; it has been considered the only true religion.

One cannot read Christian literature from any period prior to our own without encountering the routine use of the word religion in reference to the Christian faith.

Now let me add this, I believe O'Reilly knows that Christianity is a religion. And he is just saying this crazy nonsense to get publicity and increase his ratings, the ratings that have been dropping ever since the end of the election.

The Wednesday 11-28-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 29, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: America needs leaders. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In order to turn the country around good leadership will have to step up. That means politicians who put you ahead of their own welfare, elected officials who are honest, intelligent, and daring. The American media discourages bold leadership because it attacks politicians based on ideology.

Many strong leaders don't even bother running, not wanting to punish themselves and their families. When thinking about leadership it's instructive to look at Time magazine's nominees for 'person of the year.' The nominees include Sandra Fluke, rapper Jay-Z, and Jon Stewart.

You can see that we are living in a very shallow time in America; the truth is that we have very few dynamic leaders. Where's Abe Lincoln when we need him? Just like 1860, America is a divided nation - there is a culture war raging and we need someone to bring us together to solve complicated problems and stop all the nonsense. Lincoln could have done it!
What a joke, O'Reilly is being disrespectful to President Obama and everyone in Congress and the Senate. Because they are our leaders, that is why we elect them. To say we need leaders to turn the country around implies the leaders we have are not doing it, when they are. O'Reilly is such a partisan hack he just will not admit it, or he does not understand it is happening.

Then he had the Republican Kristen Soltis and Democrat Kirsten Powers on to pick their own "person of the year."

Powers said this: "Using Time magazine's criteria. I think Mohammed Morsi had real impact. He is the first democratically elected President of Egypt and it was a very important moment in the Middle East."

My God Kirsten Powers is dumber than O'Reilly, if that's possible. The Time magazine person of the year should be an American in America, idiot! And btw, I am a political junkie who reads 5 to 10 News websites a day, and I had never even heard of Mohammed Morsi, or care what he was elected to in fricking Egypt.

Soltis said this: "I think Paul Ryan would be a good choice. He's the one guy in the United States who is really trying to solve these long-term fiscal problems that countries around the world are facing."

Now that's funny, because Paul Ryan is a total right-wing idiot who should not be named anything, but right-wing loser.

O'Reilly said this: "Morsi is a minor figure right now, but he may emerge as a major figure in a good or a bad way. If he's the 'person of the year' on this planet we're in bad shape. Paul Ryan hasn't accomplished the things he wants to accomplish, and he couldn't even carry his home state."

Then Marc Lamont Hill was on to talk about a wealth tax. Billy said that some left-wingers are urging governments to raise money by enacting a tax on an individual's wealth. So O'Reilly debated that proposal with professor and self-described progressive Marc Lamont Hill.

Hill said this: "I think it's exciting and innovative, and if it's done properly it could actually make this country even more democratic and fair. Right now the wrong people are paying taxes, so a wealth tax would target people who may not have a ton of income but have substantial wealth. One number that's been tossed around by experts is one percent of wealth and that would probably make the tax burden of most Americans lower."

And of course the wealthy right-wing stooge O'Reilly ridiculed the idea, saying this: "This is way beyond anything George Orwell ever imagined, this is into 'Brave New World' stuff and it's a seizure of private property."

Which is not only insane, it's a lie. Taxing someone is not a seizure of property, and anyone who says that is a fricking idiot! A tax is not a seizure of property, and if it is, everyone in America who pays taxes is having their property seized, it's ridiculous.

Then the (total fool) Factor Producer Jesse Watters paid a visit to Rhode Island, where Governor Lincoln Chafee has reportedly given consideration to ending the state's annual Christmas tree lighting. After talking with a sampling of residents, Watters reported that another Christmas controversy is the last thing Rhode Islanders want.

Watters said this: "The state's economy is third-worst in the country, and Governor Chafee just unveiled a proposal to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens. So this guy is inundated and now he declares this 'war on Christmas.' He's in a lot of trouble and people here think Chafee has kind of lost it."

Watters added that while most Rhode Islanders favor the traditional "Christmas tree," there is one enclave dominated by secular progressives. "Everyone I spoke to at Brown University was pro-'holiday tree,' I couldn't believe it."

Then O'Reilly had David Silverman on, who heads an organization devoted to promoting atheism. O'Reilly said he has nothing against him and that he will be respectful to him, then he screamed at him and called him a fascist. O'Reilly even said it is a fact that Christianity is not a religion, it is a philosophy, which is just laughable.

Silverman said this: "We're stopping the government from preferring one religion over another. You can celebrate Christmas but our government can not take sides and say this is a good religion and this is a bad religion. It's not cool for you to try and cloud this issue, this is about religious neutrality from the government. The government has to be fair, we demand equality from the government!"

Silverman said he would be just as upset if a public figure promoted atheism. "Jesus Christ," O'Reilly said, then apologized. He added that Christmas trees had nothing to do with Christianity and were a secular symbol.

Silverman responded that he was not against Christmas celebrations, he was only against the government favoring Christianity over other religions.

O'Reilly said Silverman's views were insane and that he should get his merry band of fascists together to re-vote on Christmas being a federal holiday. After Silverman objected to being called a fascist, O'Reilly again reiterated the point by saying he was a fascist because he wanted to banish Christmas.

Which Silverman said he does not want to do, so much for being respectful to him and reporting the truth, O'Reilly was disrespectful and lied about what Silverman wants to do.

O'Reilly even disputed Silverman's basic premise, saying this: "If you want to be an atheist, that's why we have America, but why are you messing around with my tradition? Just leave it alone. You and your merry band of fascists should try to get Christmas revoked!"

Then Dennis Miller was on to talk about the so-called, made up war on Christmas, which I will not report on, because Dennis Miller is just a lame right-wing has-been comedian, and nobody cares what he thinks about anything, except Bill O'Reilly.

Then Juliet Huddy was on for the stupid did you see that segment, she talked about Angus Jones, who plays the half on "Two and a Half Men," who trashed the hit show as filth, then recanted and apologized.

Huddy reacted to the incident, saying this: "He makes about $8 million a year, and he's been on the program for ten years. He's a Seventh-day Adventist church member, but everybody on the set says they never heard him talk about religion before this video popped up. 'Two and a Half Men' is an edgy show, it's funny, but it's not loved by the parental commissions."

And what she really said is that the show is not loved by the loons on the religious right, she just refused to say it. Nobody else cares because it's a tv comedy show and everyone else thinks, so what, if you do not like it, do not watch it.

O'Reilly advised Jones to follow his principles, saying this: "The kid's 19 and we have to cut him some slack, but he has to decide whether he continues to take this check. If he's being paid to do this role and he thinks it's garbage, he should get out of there."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Some viewers wrote in to describe the greatest presents they've ever received. Among them - a towel warmer and a photo album documenting a person's life."

Are you for real O'Reilly? On what planet is a towel warmer and a photo album a good gift, Mars? A good gift is cash, a car, a tv, a stereo, etc. My God you are a right-wing fool.

Another White Man Kills Unarmed 17 Year Old Black Kid
By: Steve - November 29, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has totally ignored the story, because it involves a white man killing a black kid. His great crime? Being in a car of a person who was playing loud music.

Less than nine months after Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in central Florida, another black teenage student was killed under very suspicious circumstances.

Michael David Dunn, a 45-year-old vice president of Dunn & Dunn Data Systems in Vero Beach, was in Jacksonville this past weekend for his son's wedding. The Orlando Sentinel details what happened on Friday when Dunn, a gun collector, encountered Jordan Russell Davis, a student at nearby magnet school Samuel W. Wolfson High:
Jordan Russell Davis, 17, and several other teenagers were sitting in a sport utility vehicle in the parking lot when Dunn pulled up next to them in a car and asked them to turn down their music, Jacksonville sheriff's Lt. Rob Schoonover said.

Jordan and Dunn exchanged words, then Dunn pulled a gun and shot into the car eight or nine times, striking Jordan twice. Jordan was sitting in the back seat and no one else was hurt.

Dunn's attorney Monday said her client acted responsibly and in self-defense.
Schoonover also said that there were words exchanged between the two, and Dunn claims to have felt threatened before opening fire.

According to his father Ron Davis, the teenager died in the arms of his friend in the car. Ron said his son was unarmed.

Dunn was arrested at his home on Saturday and charged with murder and attempted murder. He is being held without bail.

The funeral will take place on Saturday, Dec. 1 and his parents plan to create a foundation for children that suffer from tragedies, in his memory.

Since Dunn is claiming self-defense, Florida's Stand Your Ground law, which earned infamy after Trayvon Martin's killing, could be at issue in this case.

After Martin's death, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) appointed a task force to review the law that authorizes the unfettered use of deadly force in self-defense, but the panel didn't recommend any changes.

And O'Reilly never says a word about it, but if it was a black man shooting and killing an unarmed 17 year old white kid over loud music in a car, O'Reilly would spend a week reporting on it with follow up reports.

The Tuesday 11-27-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 28, 2012 - 11:00am

Billy opened the show with the Top Story about Susan Rice called: "Republican senators meet with UN Ambassador Susan Rice." So what does O'Reilly do, he had the biased right-wing hack Charles Krauthammer on for his biased opinion on it, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "A complete whopper was told to America by Susan Rice, because the real story would have gone against the narrative. This was just after the Charlotte convention when Democrats were dancing on the grave of Bin Laden and proclaiming Al Qaeda dead. After saying that as a way to fend off all attacks on their otherwise feckless foreign policy, they were suddenly faced with the murder of an ambassador and they had to find a cover story. They decided to say this was caused by a video rather than being a terrorist attack."

And that is a lie, because all she did was report the information they had at the time, and that information said the video was part of why they were attacked.

O'Reilly then added to the spin saying that the false narrative may have involved the pillars of American security: "The CIA and the Defense Department would have to go along with the charade, so you'd have two huge agencies compromised by party politics. That gets into the fabric of our democracy."

My God this is ridiculous, it's all nonsense from O'Reilly and the right. And only right-wing stooges are saying this garbage.

Then O'Reilly had his lame TPM called: Christmas Chaos in Rhode Island. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Last year Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee wanted to ban the word 'Christmas' from the tree lighting at the state house; he wanted to call it the 'Holiday Tree.' He got his butt kicked as Rhode Islanders reacted furiously.

This year Chafee's spokesperson announced there would be no tree lighting at all, even though the tradition dates back about twenty years. But less than a day later, the spokesperson recanted, saying she made a mistake. So there is again a controversy in Rhode Island and Governor Chafee is again behind it.

This is insane and there's no reason to mess around with the word 'Christmas.' President Grant signed a law in 1870 making Christmas a federal holiday. It celebrates the birth of Jesus and therefore images of Jesus are appropriate under the law.

Secular progressives don't like public displays of Jesus because Christians believe he's God and Christians are the 'enemy.' This has been going on for about ten years, and misguided politicians like Lincoln Chafee are still trying to use their power to diminish Christmas.

We are looking forward to the Christmas Tree lighting in Providence, which should be a joyous occasion that honors a man of peace. And peace be with you, Governor Chafee.
And what O'Reilly fails to mention is that nobody cares about this call it Christmas or Holiday nonsense, but Republicans, and they are the people that complained, nobody else cares about any of it, including me.

Then the Rhode Island state representative Doreen Costa was on, and she was asked why Governor Chafee and his staff changed their minds after initially saying there would be no tree this year.

Costa said this: "They backed away because of the publicity they were getting. The Governor's office got bombarded with phone calls again, and I got hundreds of calls from people saying we can't let this happen and we have to protect what we believe in."

Tom Brejcha, head of a group that defends religious freedom, pointed out that Rhode Island is not an isolated case, saying this: "In Arlington Heights, Illinois there is a wonderful holiday display, and our client called them up and said he'd like to put up a privately-sponsored nativity scene. The response was, thanks, but no thanks."

O'Reilly expressed bewilderment at the situation in Rhode Island, saying this: "Governor Chafee has to know that his position here goes against the vast majority in Rhode Island and America. I want to encourage everyone across the country to send the Governor a Christmas card with Jesus on it."

Then O'Reilly had another bogus war on Christmas segment with Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley.

Colmes said this: "People like Lincoln Chafee, good-heartedly believe they should reach out and be as inclusive as possible. Inclusiveness is what it's all about, it's in the Christmas spirit."

But of course the far-right Monica Crowley agreed with the insane O'Reilly and reached a totally different conclusion, saying this: "If Governor Chafee really felt the spirit of good will, he wouldn't go down this road. Every year you clobber him and every year he backs down, so I'm beginning to think he likes the publicity. But there is something bigger going on - for decades the far left has been waging an assault on all organized religion. Their ultimate objective is a Godless society."

O'Dummy then said this: "Anybody who opposes the word 'Christmas' at this time of year is a loon!"

Then the far-right moron John Stossel was on, who has a special about food. Stossel said this: "A lot of what we think we know about food is not so, and people think without government food wouldn't be safe. The Agriculture Department has rules that help somewhat, but the primary reason food is safe is because companies worry about their reputations. The food companies have lots at stake, so why do you assume government has to do it?"

O'Reilly then answered Stossel's stupid question, saying this: "Conditions in grocery stores and restaurants have to be monitored, just look at how many restaurants have to be closed down because there are rats running around the kitchen!"

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case that challenges a portion of the health care reform legislation.

Wiehl said this: "Liberty University, the private Christian university in Virginia, challenged Obamacare and the individual mandate in 2010. That was thrown out, but there is another claim that this university should not be forced to provide abortion and contraceptive care."

Guilfoyle talked about a new law that bans most public nudity in the city of San Francisco, saying this: "There were nude men in San Francisco sitting in a restaurant eating a taco next to children. When city supervisors voted 6 - 5 to ban this, people freaked out and threw their clothes off. They're a very vocal minority."

Then for some insane reason O'Reilly had the right-wing stooge doctor Keith Ablow on to talk about the South Korean rapper named "PSY" who has a video on youtube that has 800-million views.

Ablow said this: "People will dismiss this as having no meaning, but I won't be one of them. When you approach a billion views, perhaps you're tapping into something. And this fellow PSY is tapping into the fact that people don't want any meaning right now. The most popular music apparently is without intelligible words and doesn't try to convince you of anything, doesn't try to raise your emotions. It's just like a drug and that's what people seem to want right now."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Send an email and tell us the absolutely, positively best gift you've ever received. Bill will read some of them on the air, thus providing gift-giving tips to everyone else."

So his tip of the day is to help him with a tip of the day because he can not think of any good tips of the day, what a fool.

Fox Ends Interview After Guest Tells Truth About Fox
By: Steve - November 28, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is more proof Fox News is an arm of the Republican party, and what's really funny is what they did provided even more proof they are biased for the right, by stopping the interview when Ricks said they are biased to the right.

Tom Ricks, author and Pulitzer prize winner who has reported for the Washington Post, slammed the Fox News coverage of the Benghazi attacks in an interview with the network on Monday. Ricks, who has written extensively on the American military, said Fox is "operating as a wing of Republican Party" and that they have hyped the Benghazi attack.

During the interview, which lasted only 1 minute and 45 seconds, Ricks responded to a loaded question with a remark that surprised the anchor Jon Scott:
SCOTT: Senator John McCain said in the past he would block any attempt to nominate Susan Rice to become U.N. - I'm sorry, Secretary of State. She's currently the U.N. ambassador. He seems to be backing away from that. What do you make of it?

RICKS: I think that Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially, and that now that the campaign is over, I think he's backing off a little bit. They're not going to stop Susan Rice from being secretary of state.
After Ricks called Fox the operating wing of the Republican Party, Scott suddenly ended the interview:



And Ricks assessment of Fox's role in what they themselves are calling Benghazi-gate is accurate. Since the Sept. 11 attack that killed four U.S. citizens, Fox has pushed a constant stream of conspiracy theories and easily countered facts claiming that the Obama administration lied to the public in their response.

Even Fox's own Geraldo Rivera has had trouble accepting the push at times, but Ricks blunt statements caught the network off-guard.

The interview apparently didn't sit well with Fox, because a news staffer told Ricks that he was rude while he was on air. Ricks segment, according to an interview he gave with the New York Times, was about half as long as planned.

Ricks said this: "I told the producer before I went on that I thought the Benghazi story had been hyped. So it should have been no surprise when I said it and the anchor pushed back that I defended my view," Ricks told Politico.

Ricks also told the New York Times that he was going to discuss the "lack of combat readiness of some Army units" but he never got the opportunity, saying this: "They seemed to lose interest in that," he said.

Then they dug the hole even deeper by lying that Ricks had said he was sorry for what he said about Fox. Politico reports that despite a claim by Fox that Ricks has apologized in private for slamming the network, Ricks says no such thing has happened.

Ricks said this: "Please ask [Fox News Vice President Michael Clement] what the words of my supposed apology were. I'd be interested to know," he wrote in an e-mail to The Hollywood Reporter. Ricks also said this: "Frankly, I don't remember any such apology."

And why would he, when he was telling the truth. In fact, Fox should apologize to Ricks for cutting the interview short and not letting him have his say, especially when they claim to be a fair and balanced News Network.

The Monday 11-26-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 27, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A Tale of two Americas - Texas and California. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's fascinating to compare Texas and California because they signify the clash that is taking place in America right now. Texas voted for Romney by about 1.3 million votes; California voted for Obama by about 2.3 million votes. The overriding tradition of Texas is that self-reliance rules, and most voters there don't want government telling them what to do.

They don't have a lot of social services, there is no income tax, and debt in the Lone Star State is about $40 billion. By contrast, California owes an astounding $167 billion and is running an annual deficit of about $9 billion. What is California getting for all that? The high school graduation rate is 37th out of 50 states, the unemployment rate is 10.1%, and there are more prisoners than any other state.

Texas' high school graduation rate ranks 44th, the unemployment rate is 6.6%, and it has more prisoners than any state other than California. So there's not a big difference in economic and social status, but there is a big difference in mindset. California has many more social welfare programs and business regulations. Texans basically want government out of their lives while Californians embrace big government.

When San Francisco proposes to ban goldfish, you know you have an intrusive situation. Texas citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons, but in California only vicious drug cartel people carry guns. So you can see there's a stark difference between living in Texas and California and the question for all Americans is, which place do you think is better? There comes a point where each of us has to decide what kind of country we want.

Certainly President Obama is a big government progressive guy and now he has a second term. Talking Points doesn't expect the President to change his philosophy; he's going to spend an enormous amount of money on 'social justice' and he's going to take money away from successful Americans to finance his vision.

In Texas, the government does not believe that redistributing income is its responsibility, nor that it should micromanage the lives of its citizens. Trust me, nobody is banning 16-ounce soft drinks in Waco! If California and the federal government continue to spend at the rate they're spending, both will go bankrupt before Barack Obama leaves office.
My God O'Reilly is a biased right-wing idiot who must be on drugs. To begin with, O'Reilly is spinning his ass off. Because if you look at polls of the best states to live in America for quality of life California is 35th, and Texas is way down at 45th.

So only 5 states in the country are worse to live in than Texas, and yet, O'Reilly acts like it's a great place to live and better than California. When California is 10 states higher in the quality of life ranking (35th) than Texas (45th). But of course O'Reilly never mentioned any of that.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it, and neither one of them mentioned the quality of life state survey, that has Texas at 45 and California at 35.

Williams said this: "On paper it sounds like Texas is the place to live, but when you mention that people on motorcycles don't have to wear helmets it reminds me of the health care debate. I don't want to have to pay when that person goes smush on the street. California invests far more in higher education, Texas has the most people on food stamps, and Texas kids lack health insurance."

Ham left no doubt which state she'd prefer to call home, saying this: "Democrats have had control of the state legislature in California since 1997 and spending has doubled while the population has gone up 15%. When it comes to 8th grade standardized testing for white, black, and Hispanic students, Texas is above the national average and above California. California is an experiment for liberals, yet two million people have left over the last decade."

Not to mention this: Only a total right-wing stooge would claim that Texas is a great place to live and California sucks, when California is 10 spots higher in the quality of life survey. I do not know one person who would rather live in Texas than California, especially Southern California.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican fool Senator John McCain on, who has been harshly critical of United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice for her incorrect assertions about the attack in Libya. McCain claimed that Rice's false witness could be a disqualifying factor if she is nominated to be Secretary of State.

McCain said this: "We are all responsible, when we are talking to the American people on behalf of the government or Congress. She had access to classified information that clearly contradicted what she said, and she also said that Al Qaeda was 'decimated.' Al Qaeda is not decimated, it's roaring back in most parts of the Middle East."

What a joke, when Condi Rice lied about the WMD's in Iraq and also lied that the Bush administration had no warning about Bin Laden using planes to attack America in 2001 McCain gave her a pass. Even though she had seen a PDB titled Bin Laden to strike in the U.S.

O'Reilly, who says he never speculates, said that he speculates Rice was simply protecting the administration: "She was just a mouthpiece, she was sent out with talking points and she just spouted them off. I don't think she did anything deceitful."

Earth to right-wing idiots, all she did was give a press conference saying what they knew at the time, backed by what the intelligence people were telling her. She even said things might change as they know more, and it may not be all true. And yet McCain and the right are slamming her anyway, for nothing.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing stooge Adam Carolla on to talk about actor Tim Allen, who said that government assistance doesn't actually help its intended beneficiaries, Billy asked if his career will be harmed?

Carolla said this: "This is no big deal for Tim Allen, because he has enough money that he doesn't have to worry about who he offends. But movie stars do have to win over the populace and not seem out of touch. Look at Michael Moore, who has $50 million and dresses like an out-of-work lesbian trucker. Does he own an article of clothing that doesn't have a hood attached to it?"

O'Reilly added that Allen won't suffer consequences because "the working class folks who like him are generally in tune with his view."

Are you kidding me O'Reilly? You are clueless, the working class folks do not think that, and they do not agree with Tim Allen, only right-wing stooges believe what Allen said, like you and Carolla.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to cry about the Washington Post, who pointed out that many of Susan Rice's critics are white men, many of them from the old Confederacy.

Goldberg said this: "There is a strategy by some people in the media and in politics, to portray anyone opposed to Susan Rice as racist and sexist. The sleaziest by far is that editorial, which is really off-the-charts. They're saying white, male, Southern representatives must be racist. This is nothing but a contemptible smear and the Post really should be ashamed. This is a way to shut people up because nobody wants to be called a racist."

And what a shocker, NOT! O'Reilly agreed, saying this: "When they demonize people because of their skin color and where they live, it really gets to be extreme."

Not when they are telling the truth, idiots!

Then the right-wing Factor Producer Jesse Watters visited an auto race in Florida and took the pulse of some NASCAR fans. Why? Who knows, but here is what he found: "You have all these cars going around and around the track, it's excitement" ... "Women are in the skimpy stuff, which is what I like to see" ... "This is about America"

The racing aficionados also opined on President Obama: "It seems like every word out of his mouth is a lie" ... "He did a good job cleaning up what came before him" ... "He's taken away our liberties and rules by executive decree."

Back in the studio, Watters said this: "This was Romney territory by about two-to-one, but Romney didn't really appeal to these folks because he's a one-percenter. These weren't Obama-haters, they just don't like the direction of the country, especially all the handouts."

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Keep in mind that drinking a glass of water with some lemon juice a half-hour before a meal will curb your appetite."

The Fiscal Cliff Facts O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - November 27, 2012 - 10:00am

The economist Robert Kuttner wrote an article with details about the economy, the deficit, jobs, and the fiscal cliff garbage, and of course O'Reilly ignored it all. Because O'Reilly does not want you to know the truth, he wants you to believe the right-wing spin and propaganda he is putting out about it.

Notice that O'Reilly does not have Mr. Kuttner on the Factor to discuss it, because then it would kill the nonsense O'Reilly is putting out. Here is the article. ----------------------------

The Fiscal Myth by Robert Kuttner

As President Obama gets closer to making his deal with the Republicans on the budget, the most important thing to keep in mind is that the fiscal cliff is an artificially contrived trap. Were it not for the two Bush wars and the two Bush tax cuts and the House Republican games of brinksmanship with the routine extension of the debt ceiling, there would be no "fiscal cliff."

Rather, there would be a normal, relatively short-term increase in the deficit resulting from a deep recession and the drop in government revenues that it produces. When the economy recovered, the deficit would return to sustainable levels. In the meantime, these deficits are necessary and useful to maintain public spending as a tonic to the economy.

In addition, there are two entirely extraneous questions that do not belong in this debate -- whether Social Security requires any long-term adjustment to assure its solvency, and if so, what kind; and how to restrain the long-term growth in Medicare spending.

In fact, if we get can get back to full employment, there is no Social Security crisis, because Social Security is financed by taxes on payrolls. In the Clinton era, when we had full employment, the crisis kept receding. If we want a little extra insurance, we can lift the cap on income subject to payroll taxes.

Medicare spending is a long-term problem that requires major structural reforms. Reducing benefits or raising the eligibility age in the heat of an artificially contrived fiscal crisis is the wrong way to proceed. Obama's Affordable Care Act will keep Medicare at roughly its present level of spending relative to GDP -- too high, but not an imminent catastrophe.

The strategy of the right-wing has been to blur these several distinct issues into a single grand fiscal crisis, the better to reduce government spending and especially to cut Social Security and Medicare. The right-wing, in this case, is a two-headed beast.

The Republican right-wing is mainly interested in defending tax cuts for the rich and reducing social spending generally, while the deficit hawks of the center-right want to achieve budget balance and weaken Social Security and Medicare. And since Social Security and Medicare are phenomenally popular, so much the better for the Republicans if they can trick the Democrats into sharing responsibility for the deed.

A further piece of mischief is the premise that we somehow need a 10-year budget deal that reduces the projected deficit by something like $4 to $5 trillion. We don't. What we need is an economic recovery. If we get a recovery with something close to full employment, the deficit naturally comes down as revenues do and current levels of public spending are entirely sustainable -- especially if we go back to the pre-Bush tax levels on the wealthy.

So if we limit the debate to the real subject at hand -- namely how to avoid a massive fiscal contraction next year when all the Bush tax cuts expire, President Obama holds a very strong hand. He has made it clear that he will not tolerate extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent at a cost of cutting back valued government outlays for everyone else. But he does want to extend the lower tax rates for the bottom 98 percent.

This puts the Republicans in the position of allowing everyone's taxes to increase in order to preserve the cuts for the top two percent. Not a happy position politically. And Obama has said he is willing to play hardball -- let the economy go "over the cliff" of a general increase in rates in order to force the Republicans to back down.

The Republicans have been tying themselves in knots in order to find other sources of additional revenue to plug the budget gap so that they can keep their pledge to Grover Norquist never to increase tax rates. (Funny how the Norquist pledge is a one-way ratchet. Republicans can vote to cut tax rates on the premise that the economy needs the temporary stimulus, but then if they vote to restore the old rates they are in violation of the pledge. You can see where this leads.)

But there is just not enough money for this budget deal unless a rate hike on the rich is part of the package. Restoring the pre-Bush tax rates on the top 2 percent would raise about $1.2 trillion over a decade. Raising capital gains rates to those of ordinary income and closing other loopholes that benefited mainly the wealthy would raise at most less than another trillion.

Even with those tax hikes, Obama and the Republicans would be more than $2 trillion short of the stated goal of cutting the deficit by at least $4 trillion over a decade.

And there is where the deeper mischief of the $4 trillion goal and its relation to Social Security and Medicare comes in. Neither party wants significant budget cuts in the next year or two, when the recovery is too fragile to stand even a smaller fiscal contraction. So the Republicans, Obama and the Democratic budget hawks like Erskine Bowles and retiring Budget Committee chairman Senator Kent Conrad all want to "back-load" the spending cuts -- have them bite late in this decade.

It just happens that Social Security and Medicare cuts fill that bill perfectly. Cut social insurance several years from now, and you delay the political outcry until Obama has left office. You also delay the fiscal impact, and you leave room for a bit of other government spending.

But cutting Social Security and Medicare for the sake of an arbitrary and needless budgetary reduction of $4 trillion and as a "solution" to an entirely contrived fiscal crisis is bad policy. It is bad economic policy and worse social policy. And for Democrats, it is dumb politics.

If Republicans want to be the ones to attack America's two most valued social programs, Obama should let them go right ahead -- until they march off their own fiscal cliff.

Great Article On O'Reilly By Robert Elisberg
By: Steve - November 26, 2012 - 10:00am

I recently found this great article on O'Reilly about the traditional America garbage O'Reilly has been spewing out, check it out, it nails O'Reilly for all his right-wing spin, lies, and racism.

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

Bill O'Reilly: A Much Whiter Shade of Pale

by Robert J. Elisberg

"Obama wins because it's not a traditional America anymore. The white establishment is the minority. People want things." -- Bill O'Reilly, on Fox News, election night.

On election night, when it became clear that the Republican Party was not going to win the White House, nor take control of the Senate, and lose seats in the House, Republican analysts began their hand-wringing of what in the world happened.

Of all the many grasping theorists, Bill O'Reilly jumped out early, trying to sound important, profound. Instead, he sounded like Mitt Romney when Mr. Romney didn't think he was being recorded.

It was difficult to take Mr. O'Reilly seriously. After all, President Obama didn't win because "it's not a traditional America anymore." He won because he got more electoral votes. A lot more, in fact. 332 to 206. He got over half the popular votes, too. That's why he won.

And the white establishment isn't actually "the minority." In fact, according to the U.S. Census, white people make up 63.4 percent of America. Only in Bill O'Reilly world is that a minority, apparently because it allows for far too many of those pesky "others." The white establishment in the U.S. is doing just fine. Honest, 63.4 percent is a seriously impressive minority. And four-times the next largest group.

(On the other hand, if Mr. O'Reilly really does consider himself a minority, the good news is that he is now eligible for all those wonderful social welfare programs he has lamented!)

Bill O'Reilly was right about one thing, though. People do want things. Everybody does. Even the white establishment, even rich people. They want the government to give them lots of things. They want lower tax rates. They want corporate subsidies. They want tax write-offs. They want protective tariffs. They want tax shelters. They want stricter immigration laws. They want forced vaginal probes. (Well, not personally. I don't think. But for others.)

Everyone wants things.

Initially, I was willing to be gracious, and chalk up Bill O'Reilly's election night cry for help to his being dazed by the results. After all, if Mitt Romney could be "Shell-shocked," why shouldn't the whole "Fox News" team? If crack Fox analysts could be so disoriented by basic numbers that a hall monitor had to be sent off by a feverish Karl Rove to confirm reality, then why shouldn't Mr. O'Reilly be just as befuddled?

So, I sighed and let it pass. Until a week later when Bill O'Reilly, with plenty of time to calm down, turned out to be on the same wavelength as before and again told his audience:

The far left was a "...dangerous outfit, bent on destroying traditional America and replacing it with a social free-fire zone that drives dependency and poverty."

Obviously, he had meant it on election night. It wasn't just a moment of temporary insanity. This was something Bill O'Reilly wants you to actually believe.

It's so easy to dismiss what Bill O'Reilly said as the mere rantings of someone trying to sound analytical and wise but coming across as far more crazed than he realizes. And it's easy to paint it as racist or at least unknowingly pandering to racists. Or knowingly.

But rather than dismissing it out of hand and entering an accusatory world of misinterpretations, it's far better to just ask questions and let Mr. O'Reilly explain himself. And dig his own hole deeper.

Because in the end, stripping away all the hyperbole, Bill O'Reilly's statements boil down to one thing they have in common -- his unbending defense of a lost "traditional America."

It's one thing for others to assume what his "traditional America" is, but it's incumbent on Bill O'Reilly to explain what he means. To explain this Grand "traditional America" that must be cherished at all cost. And in doing so, hang himself.

What exactly is this "traditional America" that Bill O'Reilly longs for? Specifically.

Is it the "traditional America" of just 50 years ago -- during the lifetime of many Americans today -- when black people were disenfranchised from voting?

Is it the "traditional America" only 40 years before that, in 1919 -- still during the lifetime of today's Americans -- when women didn't have the actual right to vote.

Is it the "traditional America" before Social Security and Medicare existed to assist the elderly and needy? Are those part of the social free-fire zone he wants gone that have no place in a real, "traditional America?"

Is Bill O'Reilly's "traditional America" the America whose long tradition was no child labor laws and no 40-hour work week?

Or are all those too recent? He has to let us know. Is the "traditional America" that Mr. O'Reilly longs for the America of Our Founding Fathers, when the "traditional America" of our nation's roots legally led black people to be slaves?

Is Bill O'Reilly's "traditional America" the America where black people were prohibited from playing Major League Baseball, the American National Pastime? When they were blocked by law from drinking at the same water fountain as white people? When married women couldn't own property?

What?

What "traditional America," specifically, is Bill O'Reilly bemoaning that doesn't exist any longer? What tradition, specifically, has been destroyed? Destroyed dangerously, no less.

Let's be clear: Bill O'Reilly wasn't complaining about laws he didn't like. He complained it's not a "traditional America" anymore." He said "traditional America" is being destroyed.

What is the "traditional America" that Bill O'Reilly wants back? Specifically. What is that world?

Because without him explaining, it looks like all he's saying is that it's an America where white people have the final say in everything, because 63.4 percent of America just isn't enough.

The tradition of America is change. That's why it's long been called, proudly, the "American Experiment."

The Friday 11-23-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 24, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no Factor review for Friday because it was the day after Thanksgiving. Which is great, because then we got one less day of hearing O'Reilly spin out right-wing propaganda and lies with his 95% right-wing guests.

And frankly, after doing this show review for 12 years, I gave thanks on Thanksgiving that O'Reilly took most of the week off so I did not have to watch his right-wing garbage for a few days.

I also gave thanks for my 89 year old Father still being alive and out of the Hospital after his storke in January, and I also gave thanks for all the people who read this website and make donations to keep it online.

O'Reilly Slammed Blacks For Not Embracing American Exceptionalism
By: Steve - November 24, 2012 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly has not handled the results of the presidential election very well. because he is a Republican who supported and tried to help Romney, and he is mad that the people did not agree with him and vote Romney into the White House.

If you tuned in to FOX News's unintentional comedic coverage on election night, you would have heard the conservative O'Reilly crying about the shift of the electorate with a big dose of racism.

O'Reilly said this:
The demographics are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff, they want things. And who is going to give them things? President Barack Obama.
So then Jon Stewart from the Daily Show decoded traditional voters on his show for what it is (racism) and O'Reilly then responded with more racism.

O'Reilly said this on Monday:
If you look at the exit polling, you'll see that a coalition of voters put the President back into the oval office. That coalition was non-tradition, which means it veered away from things like traditional marriage, robust capitalism, and self-reliance.

Instead, each constituency that voted for the President - whether it be single women, Hispanic Americans, African Americans, whatever - had very specific reasons for doing so.

Traditional American voters generally want a smaller government in Washington, more local control, some oversight on abortion, and believe in American exceptionalism.
You would think that the so-called history expert O'Reilly would point out how it's White people that take up the biggest share of welfare benefits, but that would take away from the old school 1950's white Republican male view of Black people that he holds near and dear to his heart.

Remember this, when O'Reilly joined Al Sharpton for dinner in Harlem, he mentioned how he simply could not get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. He said this: "I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by Blacks, with primarily Black patronship."

Then O'Reilly also said this: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'Motherf_ _ _er, I want more iced tea!'"

Proving that O'Reilly had the idea in his head that in black restaurants all the blacks were running around screaming profanities asking for more Tea. And the worst part is that he denied that it was a racist statement, which shows that he does not even know when he makes racist statements.

And btw folks, O'Reilly's racist statements are not surprising, because he is certainly becoming more overt with it. I could pretend to be shocked about his most-recent example of racial stereotyping by ranting and raving about how disgusting and insane his comments are, but we already know that, so why bother helping him stick his foot in his mouth when he's doing a fine job of it himself.

What is really interesting is the fact that O'Reilly can not understand why certain groups (women, Blacks, Latinos, gays, and the poor) would not agree with his idea of what American exceptionalism is, and not vote for Mitt Romney.

O'Reilly even claims to be a part-time historian, yet he can not seem to understand why such a sentiment might not resonate with people who have long been ostracized in this country, with people who can read things like statistics that show how far behind America is when compared to other industrialized nations on matters like education and health care.

Which is the joy of being a Republican White rich guy living in a bubble, and evidently, the pain of realizing that sooner rather than later, that bubble is going to bust.

In fact, I hope O'Reilly keeps spinning out his prejudices. Mobilize the troops Billy. Allow what David Frum describes as the conservative entertainment complex to continue to soil any chances Republicans have at gaining the control they long yielded over national politics.

Let O'Reilly cry all he wants about the future. Because he's not going to stop it, he's actually helping it come faster. And once these cultural and political shifts increase and take hold, maybe then America might finally be as exceptional as some people claim it is.

The Thursday 11-22-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 23, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no Factor review for Thursday because it was Thanksgiving and O'Reilly ran a re-run. And of course the clips he choose to run were all with Republicans slamming President Obama or some other liberals.

Because O'Reilly is a biased right-wing fraud of a journalist, in fact, it's ridiculous to even call him a journalist. He is not a journalist, he is in the business of infotainment, and 90% of what he says has a right-wing bias with 90% right-wing guests who are simply on to agree with O'Reilly to make it look like he is right all the time.

Fox Idiots Make Jokes About Living On Food Stamps
By: Steve - November 23, 2012 - 10:00am

And O'Reilly wonders why everyone but Republicans hate Fox News, here is one reason why.

On the day before Thanksgiving, Fox News pundit Andrea Tantaros mockingly dismissed the plight of hungry Americans, claiming that she would love to live on a food stamp budget because she would "look fabulous" if she were forced to live on a food stamp diet.

Tantaros commentary came in response to Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Cory Booker's pledge to accept the food-stamp challenge and try to subsist on $133 for food per month for an extended period of time, just as food stamp recipients in New Jersey do.

After Fox Business panelists speculated whether Booker's pledge is an effort at "positioning himself for a run for the presidency as a man of the people," Tantaros joked: "I should try it because, do you know how fabulous I'd look. I'd be so skinny. I mean, the camera adds ten pounds."

The Tantaros comments are appalling and uninformed. While most of us feast on turkey and yams, stuffing and cranberries, on Thursday, millions of Americans will go hungry, just as they do every day. The food stamp challenge exists to demonstrate the struggles that food shorted families face trying to live on their monthly allotment of food.

Despite the difficulty in subsisting on food stamps, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), which was formerly known as food stamps, helped keep millions of families out of poverty in 2011.

Tantaros commentary continues a long and extensive Fox campaign to dismiss hunger-related issues and to demonize SNAP recipients.

In May, when celebrity chef Mario Batali took the food stamp challenge, Fox's Greg Gutfeld asked this: "Does this make you want to slap him around?"

Around that same time, Sean Hannity encouraged those with food stamps to get rid of their SNAP benefits and instead eat more rice and beans, which he said could be purchased "for relatively negligible amounts of money."

Notice that Sean Hannity is not living on rice and beans, or that anyone at Fox has taken the food stamp challenge. How low can you get to make jokes about people on food stamps, and then tell them to live on rice and beans. Ask the jerks at Fox, they did it.

The Wednesday 11-21-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 22, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no Factor review because O'Reilly took the night off and did not have a fill-in host. He ran a re-run clip show of him doing interviews with right-wing idiots from Hollywood. Now here is what gets me, O'Reilly tells us to not listen to these Hollywood pinheads, then he has them on his show all the time.

But he almost never has liberals from Hollywood on, he only has conservatives from Hollywood on. That's because he is a biased hypocrite with double standards. In O'Reillyworld the liberals in Hollywood are idiots and pinheads you should not listen to, but if the person is a Hollywood conservative O'Reilly wants you to listen to them, and he even puts them on his show to give them a forum to spin out their partisan ideology.

O'Reilly Makes More Racist & Stupid Comments
By: Steve - November 22, 2012 - 10:00am

Since the night of the election, Bill O'Reilly has been looking for a scapegoat that he can blame Romney's loss. He seems to have found one in African American, Latino, and female voters.

Before all the votes were even cast on November 6th, O'Reilly came out with the theory that "The white establishment is now the minority, and that women, black, and Latino voters are non-traditional voters who feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?"

On his show Monday night, O'Reilly responded to comedian Jon Stewart's criticism that mourning traditional voters is racism. But in his rebuttal, O'Reilly explained that the mass turnout of voters of color signaled an end to traditional American voters. The new voters, he argued, don't understand traditional American values:
O'REILLY: If you look at the exit polling, you'll see that a coalition of voters put the President back into the oval office. That coalition was non-tradition, which means it veered away from things like traditional marriage, robust capitalism, and self reliance.

Instead, each constituency that voted for the President - whether it be single women, Hispanic Americans, African Americans, whatever - had very specific reasons for doing so.

Traditional American voters generally want a smaller government in Washington, more local control, some oversight on abortion, and believe in American exceptionalism.
So in O'Reillyworld, if you are not a white pro-life Republican (like him) you are not a real American, and you only vote for blacks because you are black. Not to mention, just the use of the word "colored people" is racist.

Basically O'Reilly is just mad that all the non-white people got out the vote and re-elected Obama, making the white Republicans like him suddenly realize that America is changing, and it's not the America we had in the 1950's when Leave it to Beaver was the norm. Which is what O'Reilly wants, he is stuck in 1950 and he wants America to be it was when Leave it to Beaver was on.

And O'Reilly is clearly not new to making racially charged comments. Just days before the election, he speculated that Sec. of State Colin Powell only endorsed and voted for Obama because they are both black, even though he claims to have a no speculation rule. He has also claimed that Democrats made black people dependent on the government.

The Tuesday 11-20-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 21, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: How entitlement society makes America weaker. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night I told you that the committed left is furious that people like me are telling Americans the truth, that the USA is becoming an entitlement society and that helped President Obama win reelection. Why should you care? Because the entitlement culture weakens the country.

In 1991 the U.S. government spent 9% of the budget on means-tested entitlements, things like food stamps, housing, and welfare. Now the number is 16% and an astounding 107 million Americans live in a household receiving some kind of entitlement other than Medicare or Social Security.

Anybody can see that the entitlement society is exploding in America, yet liberals will deny that or will say it's all because of the bad economy. This is about a dramatic change that is overwhelming the United States that saps motivation; why bust your tail when the feds will give you enough to get by?

America became great because of individual self-reliance by everyday Americans, not the federal and state governments. They're in place to protect us and to see that social order is kept, not to provide cradle-to-grave security.

The Democratic Party wants a Western European model, they want voters dependent on the government. But this is a road to disaster. Perhaps President Obama will change - surely he has to know that if he and his party continue to build a massive nanny state, America will eventually collapse economically.
And all I have to say to that right-wing propaganda is go back and look at how the country was doing during the Clinton years. It did great, and Clinton even balanced the budget, not to mention running a surplus. So O'Reilly can take his right-wing spin and shove it where the sun don't shine.

So then O'Reilly had the far-right Charles Krauthammer on to agree with him as if that makes it true. While no Democratic guest was on to give the other side of the debate.

Krauthammer said this: "It is undeniable, that Democrats are the party of the entitlement state. After all, what is the greatest achievement of Obama's first term? Obamacare, which is the largest new entitlement in 50 years. No one can deny that the ideal of the Democratic Party is to increase entitlements, which takes us away from the traditional American model of more risk, innovation, and initiative. But it is simply unsustainable - Western Europe is collapsing in front of our eyes and that 65-year experiment with social democracy is dead!"

Then O'Reilly cried some more that pro-entitlement liberals seem to be winning the political argument, saying this: "Look at the stats and how many more people are getting entitlements now than twenty years ago. We're going to have to have an economic catastrophe for folks to wise up."

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about protesters in France, demanding that same-sex couples have full marital privileges, who then took their clothes off and put nuns habits on to show their disdain for the Catholic Church.

Really O'Reilly? How in the hell is this a story for a so-called hard news show in America? Give me a break, and report some real news that concerns Americans. Nobody cares about the French, or anything they do, ever!

Crowley said this: "This is the left. This happens all across Western societies and they have one objective, it's all about tearing down and destroying so they can rebuild their Marxist utopias. These are the tactics the far left has been using for decades."

Colmes criticized Crowley's assertion and came to the defense of his fellow liberals, saying this: "You always say the 'far left' as if there's no other kind of left, and you always say people like that represent everyone who's to the left of Attila the Hun. The fact is that on issues like the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, and gay marriage, the left is on the right side of history."

Not to mention, it happened in France so it has nothing to do with the liberals in America.

O'Reilly pointed to the stark contrast in tactics on display in France, saying this: "The people who want traditional marriage are peaceful, they carry their signs and they try to get their points across. Why can't the other side be peaceful as well?"

You mean like the right-wing pro-life lunatics who bomb abortion clinics and shoot abortion doctors to death in churches, those peaceful people, is that who you are talking about O'Reilly. The people you ignore, and the people who worship them as heroes, give me a break, the far-right is the violent group, they try (and do) kill people they disagree with politically, and O'Reilly ignores it all.

Then the far-right loon Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the media coverage of Israel.

Goldberg said this: "Before Israel's counter-offensive last week, Hamas lobbed 750 missiles into civilian territory in Israel. That was not a big story in the United States, it only became a story when Israel launched the counter-offensive. Liberal journalists and liberals in general love the underdog, they sympathize with the underdog, and if the underdog has brown skin, better yet. So they see the Palestinians as the underdogs and the Israelis as the oppressors, which is why you get stories about Palestinian civilians killed. I don't think this is a media problem as much as it's a general liberal problem. A lot of liberals just don't like Israel!"

Which is ridiculous, because I am a liberal and I do not hate Israel. Not to mention, I do not know one liberal who hates Israel, or one who even talks about Israel.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about Hurricane Sandy donations, as if anyone cares what he has to say about it, other than O'Reilly.

Americans have donated about a quarter-billion dollars to help victims of Hurricane Sandy, the bulk of it to the American Red Cross. And Stossel gave the organization mixed reviews.

Stossel said this: "They're a big bureaucracy, so they were slow and it took them several days to get there. One local branch in Pennsylvania held on to their money for local use for three days. Other groups were more nimble, but by and large I couldn't find any scandal and the Red Cross has served a million meals and has sheltered hundreds of people."

Then O'Reilly had the total far-right nut-job Glenn Beck on, who explained his prediction that Mitt Romney would win the presidency.

Beck said this: "I anticipated people coming out to vote, but we actually went down in some numbers. The parties have gotten to the place where people don't see a difference, they don't believe either side, but I thought this was the most stark choice America has ever had with two great candidates and two very different philosophies."

Beck added that the election results can be viewed as a lesson in faith, saying this: "I said to my wife the night before, 'I can't wait until Romney wins and we can relax.' But God doesn't do that, he doesn't leave you alone, he always wants you bettering yourself. This will all work out but there will be a lot of pain."

In the final segment O'Reilly had his two right-wing legal analysts Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl on.

They talked about California, where atheists in Santa Monica are trying to kill a nativity scene that had been a 60-year tradition. Wiehl said this: "The atheists are winning, and a judge has said to churches, 'You can't have a nativity scene because we're banning all displays.' So the city council is banning all seasonal displays."

Also in California, a local ACLU branch is objecting to a law that restricts convicted sex offenders from full access to the Internet.

Guilfoyle said this: "This requires sex offenders, to provide their email address and domain name to law enforcement officials so they can keep track of them on the Internet. As a prosecutor who worked these cases, I don't think it is a violation of your rights when you already have to provide your home address. Sex offenders should not have the right to run wild on the Internet!"

Really? So what happened to double jeopardy, and I thought this was a free country where once you do your time you are free, I guess not, at least not in O'Reillyworld.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "If you have a child or grandchild, open a bank account for them. Receiving a regular statement in the mail will teach them self-reliance and the basics of managing money."

Harry Reid Shuts Down McCain On Libya
By: Steve - November 21, 2012 - 10:00am

Telling him this: "End The Politicization Of National Security"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has rejected Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) request to establish a Select Committee to investigate the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11. In a strongly worded letter delivered to the former GOP presidential hopeful on Friday, Reid rebuked Republicans for politicizing the killings and baselessly claiming that the Obama administration is engaged in a cover-up of the incident.

"I refuse to allow the Senate to be used as a venue for baseless partisan attacks," Reid wrote, noting that several committees in the House and Senate are already investigating the tragedy.

Earlier this week, McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), held around the clock press conferences and media appearances insisting that U.N. Ambassador misled the public when she described, five days after the attacks, the incident as a "spontaneous attack" inspired by an anti-Islam video.

McCain and Graham promised to block Rice should she be nominated to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State; Ayotte said she would consider the nomination.

In his letter, Reid reminded McCain that "elections are over; it is time to put an end to the partisan politicization of national security and begin working together to strengthen our efforts to dismantle and destroy the terrorist networks that threaten us."

He also rebuked the Arizona senator for skipping a closed-doors committee hearing on Benghazi in order to hold a press conference demanding more information about the attacks:
I am concerned that a Select Committee, as you propose, would duplicate and, ultimately undermine the numerous investigations into the attack that are already proceeding in the Senate committees of jurisdiction, and may serve to further politicize an issue that has already been manipulated by Members of both the House and Senate in service of partisan agendas.

For instance, on Wednesday, Senator McCain failed to attend a classified briefing held by the Senate Homeland Security Committee on this very issue.

Senator McCain, has gone so far as to make the outrageous claim that this event was "worse than Watergate" -- despite the fact that there is no evidence that any crime was committed, no evidence of any cover-up, and no evidence that the administration has characterized the incident in any way that has not been consistent with the Intelligence Community's contemporaneous assessments.
The GOP's accusations of an administration cover-up fell apart after testimony from former CIA chief Gen. David Petraeus on Friday revealed that the CIA approved the declassified talking points used by Rice during her television appearances.

The hearings also confirmed that the CIA had received conflicting intelligence reports in real time during the attacks.

While one stream of intelligence "from multiple sources, including video at the scene, indicated the group was behind the attack," other reports emerged at the same time indicating the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced in the United States."

Twenty intelligence reports "indicated that anger about the film may be to blame."

As Reid noted in his letter to McCain, several prominent Republicans have even rebuked the GOP's efforts to politicize the incident.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said, "It's easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here. It's probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work."

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has also dismissed McCain's call for a Select Committee.

The Monday 11-19-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 20, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Liberals and conservatives ganging up on Mitt Romney. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: One of the bad things about America is that some of us feel the need to kick people when they're down, which is what's happening to Mitt Romney right now. Romney played it safe, failing to hammer the President on Libya and pretty much sitting out the last eight days of the campaign.

So President Obama's team won the fourth quarter big! They pinpointed voters who might support them and got them out. Early on election night, I said this is a changing country and 50% of Americans 'want stuff.'

Some liberal Americans were outraged that I would actually say the truth, but eight days after the vote Mitt Romney held a conference call with his voters and basically said the same thing, that President Obama gave his base coalition 'extraordinary financial gifts from the government.'

That's the truth! 20% of those who voted make under $30,000 a year and many of them receive entitlements. And of that group, 63% voted for Barack Obama, so it a stone cold fact that lower income Americans largely reelected President Obama. The left is going to scream when you say that because they don't want to acknowledge the economics of the vote.

Liberals want to consider themselves 'noble' and they don't want to consider that entitlements buy votes, so if you tell them the truth, they attack you. But now, Mitt Romney is also getting it from the right wing; conservatives George Will and Newt Gingrich also slammed him. Mitt Romney's failure is very clear.

He could not convince the majority of American voters that he would look out for them, he did not show enough outrage over the $16 trillion debt or explain what that could lead to. Millions of lower income Americans voted for the candidate they thought was going to directly help them financially.

Going forward, the Republican Party has to engage poor people and demonstrate that a healthy economy and robust capitalism will lift far more people out of poverty than government handouts will.
Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to analyze why poorer Americans broke big for President Obama.

Williams said this: "I don't think people necessarily voted their economic interest. There are lots of poor people and seniors who voted for Mitt Romney, and there are lots of people in the suburbs working in big companies that would have to pay higher taxes under Obama who nonetheless believed Obama was the better candidate. Poor people voted for a government they feel understands what it means to be in their financial situation."

Hey O'Reilly, the election is over, get over it. People voted for Obama because they did not like Romney or his policy ideas, and that is a cold hard fact. Move on to some real news and stop crying about your man Romney getting his ass kicked by Obama.

Ham said she thinks that Romney wasn't able to sell conservatism, saying this: "Poor people didn't believe Mitt Romney was on their side and that is a failure of our own and of Romney's campaign."

Then Bob Woodward, who said there is no comparison to the situation in Libya with the Watergate scandal.

Woodward said this: "I don't see parallels yet, and we don't know if there is a crime or corruption here. This could be explained by misjudgment, but I agree that we should dig into it. The Obama administration has basically been silent and that's the problem here. We need to find the non-political appointees in the White House and the intelligence agencies and dig into this."

So O'Reilly then urged the mainstream media to follow the example set by Woodward forty years ago, saying this: "I got into journalism because I saw how you guys took on the establishment and got to the truth. But we don't have that kind of a press today, there are very few who do that."

Which is just laughable, because O'Reilly is not even a journalist, he is a partisan hack who spins out 99% right-wing propaganda. And he complains that the press is not like Woodward today, when he is one of them who is not like Woodward, and he is one of the biggest liars in the media, he just will not admit it.

Then the right-wing stooge Adam Carolla was on, which I do not report on, because he is simply put on to make jokes about Obama and other liberals. Then Dennis Miller was on, which I also do not report on because he is simply put on to make jokes about Obama and other liberals.

Then O'Reilly cried about Comedy Central's Jon Stewart mocking Billy for saying "traditional America as we know it is gone."

Which just shows how stupid O'Reilly is, because Stewart was not mocking him for saying traditional America is gone, he was mocking him for saying the leave it to beaver America is gone now, when that America was gone 30 years ago, O'Reilly just will not admit it.

O'Reilly said this: "If you and your seventeen writers would actually look at the exit polling, you'd see that a coalition of voters put the president back into the Oval Office. That coalition was non-traditional, it veered away from things like traditional marriage, robust capitalism, and self-reliance. Instead, each constituency had very specific reasons for doing so."

O'Dummy also said this: What did you think was going on at the Democratic Convention, when speakers put out a laundry list of things they want the government to provide. Did you miss that, Jon Stewart? The majority of those who voted for President Obama want a large government that spends heavily on entitlements, equality for gays in the marriage arena, unfettered abortion with no parental notification, and a one-world foreign policy that gives other nations equal status with America."

Notice that O'Reilly never mentions the gifts the wealthy and the corporations get from the Government, in the tax breaks they get and other loopholes that let them avoid paying any taxes at all.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day: "If you're anywhere near New England, one of America's best Thanksgiving dinners is served at the Daniel Webster Inn in Sandwich, Massachusetts."

Many Republicans Abandon Romney After Gifts Comments
By: Steve - November 20, 2012 - 10:00am

Mitt Romney's comments to donors about the gifts that President Barack Obama gave to constituents to win the election continue to cause some members of his own party to run away from his comments.

Despite their insistence during the election that Romney's position on entitlement in America was accurate, the new consensus among most of the GOP politicians, is that Romney's statements could not be more wrong.

After several prominent Republican governors expressed their disagreement with Romney's statements, the hits have continued coming.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said this on Friday: "You can't expect to be a leader of all the people and be divisive. You have to talk about themes, policies that unite people, and play to their aspirations and their goals and their hopes for their family and their neighbors."

Tim Pawlenty, former Minnesota governor and another potential running mate for Romney, though silent on Romney's 47% comments, also shot-down Romney's gifts statement.

Those who didn't outright disagree with Romney's words disagreed with his message. Appearing on Meet the Press on Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated that it wasn't his intention to vilify those who are beneficiaries of public assistance programs:
People can be on public assistance and scheme the system and that's real, these systems are teetering on bankruptcy. But most people on public assistance don't have a character flaw.

They just have a tough life. I want to create more jobs. The focus should be on creating more jobs, not demonize those who find themselves on hard times.
Now think about this, O'Reilly said Romney is right with his ridiculous gifts comment. While everyone else disagrees, including a lot of Republicans. Making O'Reilly as big of an idiot as Romney.

And what's really funny is a lot of those people are getting Government aid because of Bush and the Republicans, who are the guys that ruined the economy and almost put the economy into a depression. But O'Reilly and the right blame Obama for all the Government aid, when it was the Republicans who are the main reason a lot of those people are getting Government aid.

Even the Latino Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) gave an interview highlighting his issues with Romney's belief, saying this: "I don't want to rebut him point by point. I would just say to you, I don't believe that we have millions and millions of people in this country that don't want to work."

Rubio also said this: "I think we have millions of people in this country that are out of work and are dependent on the government because they can't find a job."

New Mexico governor Susana Martinez (R) and top Romney surrogate to the Hispanic community Carlos Guiterrez have also joined in the chorus disparaging Romney's statements and calling for more inclusiveness in the Republican party.

It's unfortunate that this many Republican politicians seem to have discovered the divisiveness of their party's policies towards minorities and the working class only after a massive loss to President Obama.

And get this, even Newt Gingrich dismissed the Romney gifts comments during an appearance on ABC's This Week, saying this: "I just think it's nuts. I mean, first of all, it's insulting. The job of a political leader in part is to understand the people. If we can't offer a better future that is believable to more people, we're not going to win."

So even Newt thinks it's nuts, and he is a good friend of O'Reilly (that is a regular guest on the Factor) which means he is also calling O'Reilly nuts because he agreed with the Romney gifts comments. But of course O'Reilly has not had Newt on to discuss it, because it would make O'Reilly look bad.

The DOW Went Up 200 Points & O'Reilly Ignored It
By: Steve - November 20, 2012 - 9:00am

The stock market went up 200 points on Monday, and the so-called non-partisan Independent journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it. When it dropped 200 points one day after the election O'Reilly blamed it on Obama, even though he ignored the fact that the DOW went up over 6,000 points during the last 4 years while Obama was in office.

In fact, O'Reilly does this all the time, every single time the DOW has a temporary short term drop, or a big drop in one or two days, O'Reilly reports it and blames it on Obama. But when the DOW rebounds and has many many up days where it goes up 100, 200, or more points in one or two days, O'Reilly ignores it every time.

O'Reilly never gives Obama credit for the up days, he only blames him when the DOW drops, even though at a later time it always goes back up more than it dropped. But O'Reilly never reports it, or gives Obama credit for the up days, even though he did when Bush was in office. O'Reilly praised Bush every time the DOW went up when he was in office, even though Bush crashed the DOW and run it down to 6,500 when he left the White House.

In O'Reillyworld Obama is only to blame for the stock market on the down days, on the up days he has nothing to do with it. And btw, here are some facts for the biased right-wing idiot Bill O'Reilly.

-- For the year 2012 the DOW is up 3.22%.

-- In the last year (from November of 2011 to November of 2012) the DOW is up 8.48%.

-- In the last 3 years the DOW is up a whopping 24.11%.

-- Since Obama took office in January of 2009 the DOW is up a stunning 67.9%.

What that means is that if you invested your money in a group of stocks in the DOW over the last 4 years, you would be roughly 68% richer today.

But O'Reilly never mentions any of that, because it destroys his right-wing propaganda that President Obama is bad for the stock market. When in fact, the stock market has gone up almost 70% under President Obama.

And that's not all, O'Reilly claims to be an expert on History while ignoring it. If you go back 24 years to George H.W. Bush and Bush Jr., and you look at the two Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama, the stock market is way up under both of them. And if you go back 50 or more years you will see the stock market always does better under Democratic Presidents.

And O'Reilly ignores it all. Proving once again that Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack who twists the facts to make Obama look bad, while ignoring the actual facts showing the stock market going up every year Obama has been in office.




Romney Lost Because Voters Rejected His Economic Vision
By: Steve - November 19, 2012 - 11:00am

O'Reilly and the right say Obama won because he said he would give people stuff, which is a lie, because Obama won for economic reasons. The facts show that the economy is improving, and jobs are coming back, so the Obama economic plan is working. O'Reilly and the right just refuse to admit it, proving that they are out of touch with reality.

The Obama won because he will give people stuff is simply right-wing propaganda, and O'Reilly (the so-called Independent) is at the top of the propaganda spin cycle, just as all the other Republicans. They can not admit the people voted for the Obama economic plan because then they would have to admit the people rejected the give the wealthy more tax cuts plan Romney had in mind.

Here are the facts: We're now well into the political aftermath of the 2012 election, and the pattern of destruction is telling.

In demographic after demographic, Obama defeated Romney by huge margins: 55 percent among women, 60 percent among voters under 30, 71 percent among Hispanic voters, and a massive 93 percent among African-Americans.

Rather than a fluke, the Obama coalition of 2008 looks like it's here to stay, and the recriminations and soul-searching among conservatives and Republicans are in full swing.

The sudden post-election shift of major politicians and media figures on immigration reform betrayed a fear that their party's hard-line stance destroyed its chances with Hispanics.

O'Reilly and a chorus of conservative bloggers, Republican strategists, and even what's left of the party's moderate politicians have laid blame on its white nativism, its tone-deafness on women's reproductive challenges, or the absolutism of its anti-abortion rhetoric.

What they found out is that when you go against Latinos, Blacks, Women, and voters under 30, you lose badly. Especially when those are the people who vote, and they are an increasing demographic, meaning if the Republicans do not change their agenda somewhat they will continue to lose national elections.

And this idea that a little appeasement of various voting blocks is the path back for Republicans makes is a big mistake. They can not just run Marco Rubio and expect to get the Latino vote, or run a black person and expect the black vote. They have to actually change their positions on a few issues, like abortion, birth control, immigration, and policies that help the poor, especially blacks. If they don't, the Republican party is in big trouble.

It also buys into conservatives silly caricature of Democrats as a party without a vision, an incoherent amalgam of interest groups, most of which are vying for benefits for themselves and their members at the expense of other Americans.

There is, in fact, a fundamental vision that unites virtually all the disparate groups in Obama's coalition. And it's sitting right there in the exit polling and the narrative of the campaign, for anyone willing to actually look at it.

It's the economy stupid: On the practical level, the recognition that the free market, does not deal justly with people when left to its own devices. And on the moral level, the simple, elegant, age-old conviction that we are all our brother's keeper. And it's the GOP's rejection of these propositions that set it on the path to electoral defeat.

The Republicans have now staked their political livelihood on the energy and ferocity of a very specific block of voters: older, wealthier, whiter, staunchly socially conservative, deeply protective of their privilege and deeply hostile to the needs of any outside group.

The viewpoint that comes with this coalition entails the confidence that the market on its own is already dispensing sufficient justice and the poor deserve their lot (the only way to make sense of Romney's characterization of Obama's policies as gifts) and that the everyday struggles of any American who is not wealthy or a business-owner simply has no relevance to the economy (the only way to make sense of Republicans job creator rhetoric).

This undercuts the GOP's ability to appeal to women, the young, and minorities. But more importantly, it cuts them off from any American who cannot count themselves amongst the economically privileged, or who has reason to fear the often amoral dynamism of the market.

Meanwhile, the rise of education and urbanization is turning more of the upper class towards a liberal, compassionate and cosmopolitan social vision, eating away at the Republicans coalition from within.

Contray to what their vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said, the Republicans did indeed lose on the budget issues.

As Josh Barro, no doctrinare leftwinger by any stretch, pointedly observed, "Any conceivable agenda that is likely to be effective in getting health care, jobs and higher wages in the hands of the American masses will be unconservative, at least on the terms by which most American conservatives define conservatism."

That catch-22 is not some random quirk of fate; it's the inevitable logic of the moral vision the Republican base brings to America's communal economic life. Obama won last week because he articulated an opposing philosophy.

Fox News Caught Lying About The New Unemployment Claims
By: Steve - November 18, 2012 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly said nothing, as he complains that only the rest of the media is biased.

Thursday the Labor Department announced that 439,000 workers filed for initial jobless claims last week, a large jump from the previous week. But that increase is mostly because of Hurricane Sandy.

As the Associated Press explained, "applications increased by 78,000 because a large number of applications were filed in states damaged by the storm. People can claim unemployment benefits if their workplaces close and they don't get paid."

Economists expect the storm to distort economic data for at least a few more weeks.

But of course Fox News and other conservatives have a far different explanation: They actually claim it's just more cooking of the books by the Obama administration.

When the unemployment rate dropped in September, conservatives alleged a conspiracy on the part of the Labor Department to aid Obama's re-election. Fox News, along with Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI), were once again alleging a conspiracy after the latest numbers were released Thursday:
-- FOX NEWS ERIC BOLLING: "The Department of Labor is getting sketchier and sketchier with each one of these numbers."

-- FOX NEWS GRETCHEN CARLSON: "A lot of people are going to be raising some eyebrows pretty high today that, after the election, we go up to this whopping number of 439,000."

-- GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R-WI): "Well, real concerns about the numbers. Certainly, some will question the timing."
Which is ridiculous, because the increase of from the Hurricane. And the Fox tv anchors evidently did not coordinate coverage with the network's very own website, that posted the AP's take on the numbers. So even their own website disagrees with their tv stooges.

What this shows is that the stooges on tv at Fox think everyone is stupid, and that they can spin their lies to hurt Obama politically and nobody will notice. When even their own website reports the truth, they still spin their lies out on tv.

The Friday 11-15-12 O'Reilly/Gutfeld Factor Review
By: Steve - November 17, 2012 - 11:00am

Once again O'Reilly has proven what a right-wing fool he is, by letting the totally dishonest right-wing hack Greg Gutfeld fill in for him. Gutfeld started the show with his Top Story about General Petraeus of course.

Former CIA boss Gen. David Petraeus testified in front of House and Senate intelligence committees Friday about the Libya attack. And according to his testimony, the CIA immediately suspected an Al Qaeda involvement, but that reference was later removed.

So Gutfeld had the biased Republican Senator Roy Blunt on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Blunt said this: "This really questions how our intelligence operation works, and how what we did after 9/11 affected the system. I have real questions about our capacity to make decisions and then to pass those decisions along. Until we got the surveillance tape from the compound, it took ten days to decide there wasn't a spontaneous demonstration. If all the intelligence efforts of the United States government couldn't figure out something this basic, that's pretty amazing!"

Gutfeld then made a joke about it, saying this: "This administration has created more tales than a tuxedo factory."

As if the Bush administration never lied or did anything wrong. Here is the real deal, if a Republican President had been in office during the attack on an embassy, right before an election, he would have done the very same thing, now move on and get over it, it's all politics.

Yes 4 people died, and that is tragic, but Bush & Cheney invaded a foreign country based on lies about WMD's and got thousands of people killed, including thousands of U.S. Troops, but Gutfeld and the right did not care about that. In fact, they helped Bush lie, and then helped him cover it up after we found out there was no WMD's.

Continuing with the Benghazi story, Gutfeld asked these questions: Who altered the original CIA report and why did government officials blame a video for the attack.

Then the biased Republican Fox News Military analyst Col. Tony Shaffer tried to supply some answers, saying this: "This is indicative of a process that is either completely flawed, or someone cooked the books. Somehow this process produced talking points for Ambassador Susan Rice that were 180 degrees off from what the factual intelligence was indicating."

Shaffer, a former intelligence officer, then defended intelligence operatives who initially made the right call, saying this: "People like me put their lives on the line to produce factual information to help policy makers make the correct decision. What we saw here was the complete abandonment of that hard work. This was not an intelligence failure, this was a policy failure. Intelligence indicated there was a threat but it was ignored."

Then Gutfeld had another biased Republican on, former Bush White House spokesman Dana Perino discussed the media's enduring infatuation with President Obama, which was in full display at this week's presidential press conference.

Perino said this: "Every time I see the clips I cringe. The President is very good, he's very charming and disarming, but our system is set up so that the people are represented through the press and there were so many serious questions that could have been asked. I don't see why he doesn't have a press conference three times a week - he runs the room and gets the reporters off their game."

Gutfeld quickly shot down that suggestion, saying this: "I don't think I could handle that, I could barely stay awake through this one. The media's love for him has blunted their ability to report objectively about what's going on with Benghazi."

Which is ridiculous, and here is the reality. The media did ask some tough questions of Obama, they just refuse to admit it and they only see it through rose colored right-wing glasses. The real press has to be respectful to the President, which means they can not act a fool like the Fox News reporters do, so they see that as bias, when it's just respect for the office and real journalism.

Then the moderate Republican Ben Stein was on with his analysis of the looming threat of automatic tax increases and spending cuts.

Stein said this: "I don't think it'll be the end of the world. They'll reach a compromise and the fact is that taxes will go up on rich people by a lot. We need higher taxes, we need more revenue, we can not go on running these deficits forever. The whole idea of being a Republican is fiscal sensibility, and fiscal sensibility says we can not leave our children and grandchildren a bankrupt America. There are a lot of rich people who have an awful lot of money and are not taxed enough."

Greg joked that Stein may have an ulterior motive, saying this: "I disagree with everything you said, but you are both an actor an economist so I understand why you want to raise taxes. It's about getting invited to more cocktail parties without other actors yelling at you."

Stein then told him that was ridiculous, and that it was a bad joke, which is all Gutfeld has, bad jokes.

Stein also weighed in on the bankruptcy of Hostess, maker of Twinkies and other goodies, after a protracted labor dispute.

Stein said this: "This is an example, of how unions misunderstand their duty. A union that costs its workers their jobs isn't much of a union. What good does that do anyone?"

Gutfeld then made another joke, saying this: "The lesson here is that we thought that Twinkies could outlast everything ... except unions."

And as usual the two Republican fools blame it all on the unions, the truth is that had it not been for the valiant efforts of Union members over the last 8 years, including accepting significant wage and benefit concessions after the first bankruptcy, they would have gone out of business long ago.

Hostess could have ensured their survival by paying the executives less. Hostess creditors accused the company in April of manipulating executive salaries to get around bankruptcy compensation rules, the Wall Street Journal reported. And that was after Hostess had already awarded the company's top four executives raises of 75 to 80 percent, even though the company had already hired bankruptcy lawyers.

And of course none of this was mentioned by Gred Gutfeld or Ben Stein.

Then Geraldo was on to give his take on the Obama administration's explanations for the Libya attack.

Geraldo said this: "We can make a reasonable argument, that they were trying to package this tragedy in a way that was least harmful to the President in the run-up to the election. I don't have proof of that, but it's a reasonable possibility."

Rivera then turned to General David Petraeus, who testified before two Congressional panels Friday, saying this: "He's more than a great guy, he's a brilliant general, the best since Eisenhower. And to suggest that he would in any way alter testimony for a political result or because he feared somebody might blackmail him, anyone making that allegation is smoking something."

Then the ass kissing Greg Gutfeld played a re-run interview with O'Dummy and Olympic swimming gold medalist Dara Torres and cyclist Erin Mirabella, taken after Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. Which I will not report on because it's a re-run I have already reviewed in the past.

And finally, Gutfeld talked with civil rights attorney John Flannery about a full page ad taken out by the ACLU urging President Obama to live up to his promises.

Flannery said this: "The ad says he accomplished a great deal, but we are saying he has one more term to finish what he promised before his first campaign. These are three worthy issues to talk about: Guantanamo Bay has been a stain on America; how do we handle the onslaught against women by Republican leadership; and what do we do about immigration? He's eliminated torture and other things, but there's a lot more to be done."

And of course the right-wing stooge Greg Gutfeld was stunned by the notion that President Obama hasn't done enough for pro-choice advocates, saying this: "You don't think he's done enough for abortion? Should he be in Planned Parenthood actually performing them?"

Earth to Gutfeld, at Planned Parenthood only 3% of their work goes for abortions, so get a clue man. They do very few abortions, in fact, they do everything they can to avoid abortions. And btw, it's legal to do them if they want to, try to remember that you pro-life idiot!

Another Voter Suppression Story O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - November 17, 2012 - 10:00am

Now think about this, if ONE Democrat is caught in voter fraud O'Reilly report it, and reports it multiple times over days of shows. But when Republican hired voter registration companies are hired to actually do voter fraud, O'Reilly totally ignores the story. And then Republicans are caught trying to suppress the vote by Democrats and once again O'Reilly totally ignores it. Even when they defy court orders, O'Reilly ignores it.

Here is the story about Florida, which involves another Republican Secretary of State, just as in Ohio.

In an interview with CNN's Ashleigh Banfield Friday, Florida's Republican Secretary of State Rick Detzner tried to defend his states dysfunctional election process, which led voters waiting up to seven hours in line just to cast their vote.

As Banfield told Detzner, she spoke to many voters who tried twice to vote early, but had to abandon those attempts due to long lines, only to wait another three hours to vote on election day. Yet Detzner appeared completely without remorse for the widespread barriers to voting he presided over.

In what was perhaps the most significant exchange, Banfield asked whether Detzner regrets a Florida law rolling back the number of days when voters could cast an early ballot. Detzner was unremorseful, saying this:
BANFIELD: Look, you all decided, with a Republican legislature to cut the early voting days from 14 to 8. For whatever reason you did that, do you regret making that choice, so that all of those people who didn't get to the polls early stuck themselves in line and wound up waiting so long that many people walked away and were disenfranchised?

DETZNER: Well, let me point out that, while the days were cut, the number of hours were not. We still maintained 96 hours of voting, and it created greater flexibility for the supervisors.

For the first time ever voters could vote during the day for 12 hours during the day, and I can tell you I heard feedback from voters going into election day that they liked the opportunity to vote either in the morning before work or after work.

And frankly, I think the turnout is a good representation of the fact that people liked the voting hours and the flexibility that the supervisors had.
Are you kidding me? That is the worst political spin for a voting disaster I have ever heard. If I had to wait even 2 hours to vote I would just go home and say forget it. And there is something totally insane about Detzner's claim that the fact that people did not decide to give up their most fundamental right somehow reflects their satisfaction with a massive failure of State governance.

It should go without saying that when someone has to wait seven hours to cast a ballot, their government has failed them big time, and no amount of spin can defend a decision not to make more opportunities to vote available.

Notice: Here in Illinois I took my 89 year old Father to vote before election day, and he was in and out in about 30 minutes, and that's with me pushing him in a wheelchair.

As Florida's former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist said last Sunday, Gov. Rick Scott's (R-FL) refusal to extend early voting is unconscionable and "the only thing that makes any sense as to why this is happening and being done is voter suppression."

And btw folks, Rick Scott is a partisan Republican who hates President Obama, he was elected mostly by the Tea Party and he proudly said he would do everything he could to help Romney beat Obama.

Crist is 100% correct. The Obama campaign made early voting a key prong of their turnout strategy, and many low-income voters who tend to vote Democratic are disenfranchised without early voting because they lack the job flexibility to cast a ballot on election day.

The Thursday 11-15-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 16, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is the Libyan situation another Watergate? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Senate Intelligence Committee has begun hearings about the murder of the Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans on 9/11. As you know, the Obama administration will not define exactly what happened and the press has been largely negligent in pursuing the story.

There are two ways this could go: It could be a Watergate-like spectacle with cover-ups and bogus statements, or it could be a big nothing, a human error that spiraled out of control. The problem is compounded by the President's refusal to define anything; he continues to say there's an investigation so he can't give us basic facts such as when he was told about the attack.

That has raised all kinds of conspiracy theories and now you have the Petraeus situation added to the mix. In 1972 Richard Nixon denied he had anything to do with a low-level political break-in. If the press had not been aggressive, Nixon would have gotten away with it.

And certainly the break-in at the Watergate was not nearly as important as failing to define a terrorist attack that killed four Americans. President Obama made a mistake by not giving us the facts weeks ago. The press let him get away with it, but now the heat's coming down, as it should.
Then O'Reilly had the Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss on, the Republican vice-chairman of the Intelligence Committee. With nobody from the Obama administration on, or any Democrats for balance.

Chambliss said this: "You don't have a spontaneous attack, from folks carrying AK-47s and other automatic weapons. This was clearly a terrorist attack."

To which, O'Reilly said this: "Everyone knows it was a terrorist attack, but General Petraeus, the head of the CIA, said something completely opposite. He misled us and he has to explain that."

Chambliss then pointed out that Petraeus will be testifying Friday, saying this: "We will ask General Petraeus the hard and tough questions, but I don't think he would do anything that would be misleading. The President should level with the American people, we are not seeing urgency in getting the answers out."

Speaking to some of his donors on a conference call, Mitt Romney blamed his loss on President Obama's giving "extraordinary financial gifts" to some of his constituencies. So what does O'Reilly do, have a fair and balanced segment on it with one Republican and one Democrat, of course not. He had two Republicans on, Chip Saltsman and Sabrina Schaeffer.

Saltsman said this: "Governor Romney lost this race for a lot of different reasons, and this puts him in a bad light, it sounds like sour grapes. We should be talking about what brings us together, not what divides us."

Schaeffer disagreed and endorsed the idea that President Obama was a political version of Santa Claus, saying this: "The psychology of the Obama campaign was to see themselves as the provider to the people, whether we're talking about free birth control or college loans. There was definitely a message of providing."

And of course the Romney supporter Bill O'Reilly agreed that Romney was making a valid point, saying this: "When you get a tremendous amount of money flowing out of Washington into certain hands, the people who are getting that money don't want it to stop. So I don't think the Governor's analysis was wrong."

Except O'Reilly is wrong, and the Republican Bobby Jindal said Romney's comments in the conference call with top donors were "absolutely wrong." But of course O'Reilly did not have him on to discuss it, even though he mentioned his name and what he said.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about voter fraud in Philadelphia, even though there was none. Billy said that considering that some voting divisions in Philadelphia voted unanimously for President Obama, he asked Fox News anchor and attorney Megyn Kelly whether there may have been fraud. And it was a total waste of time, because she found no fraud.

Kelly said this: "There were 59 voting districts in which Romney got no votes, but the same thing happened with John McCain. I haven't heard any reason to think there were any shenanigans. These were almost uniformly black districts, not particularly wealthy, and the Philadelphia Inquirer searched and could not find one Republican. It's not that surprising, although you'd think there would be at least one error."

Now there are examples of voter fraud in America, except it involves Republicans so O'Reilly and Kelly ignore that. So they talk about non-voter fraud by Democrats, and ignore actual voter fraud by Republicans, fair and balanced, haha, not!

Then the two right-wing Culture Warriors Jeanine Pirro and Gretchen Carlson gave their take on the "entitlement culture" and last week's vote.

Pirro said this: "Our society has changed, and we have more people who need the safety net. So when Mitt Romney talks about the '47%' who don't pay taxes, he alienated people who might have voted for him. Shame on him for alienating the country."

Carlson talked about the decline of self-reliance, saying this: "When you put your kids to bed you say, 'I hope you achieve the American dream,' you don't say, 'I hope you grow up to be on government assistance.' But that's sort of the way we've moved."

The so-called Culture Warriors then (for some crazy reason) turned to Madonna, who shed her clothes and displayed her 54-year-old body to help raise money for hurricane victims.

Carlson said this: "She should sing and keep her clothes on. She should go there and lift some sand bags and bring food to these people and do a benefit concert. That was a disgrace to young women and men." Pirro agreed that Madonna's performance was "degrading."

Then two more right-wing stooges were on, Bernard McGuirk and Greg Gutfeld talked about PETA, urging people to avoid eating turkey on Thanksgiving, and is putting up billboards asking kids this burning question: "If you wouldn't eat your dog, why eat a turkey?"

McGuirk said this: "Bill, you fought the good fight in the war on Christmas, now you have to fight these giblet-brained communists. They can't tell the difference between eating Lassie and eating some yummy turkey! Unless you're some sicko, you don't develop an emotional attachment to a turkey."

Gutfeld added that Los Angeles is promoting the idea of meatless Mondays, saying this: "What if you came up with the idea of 'sexless Saturdays?' The liberals would say, no, stay out of my bedroom. They can invade your plate but you can't invade their bed!"

Really Gutfeld? How can you possible compare sex to eating something, you are really stupid and you need to go back to doing bad comedy shows at 3am in the morning.

Gutfeld also ridiculed the President's defense of Ambassador Susan Rice. Even though he was totally speculating, which O'Reilly claims in not allowed on the Factor.

Gutfeld said this: "He's never had that anger before when the actual act of terror took place, but now he rushes to her defense, which just seemed so smarmy."

Then the right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs was on to assess President Obama's meeting with some business leaders. Which is just laughable, where are the Democratic guests O'Reilly, where is the balance you promised to have, jerk!

Dobbs said this: "Twelve CEO's sat down with the President, but they're from big multi-national companies that don't even produce the majority of jobs. Why wasn't there someone from small business?"

So Billy speculated on the presence of GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, whose company has avoided paying corporate income taxes, saying this: "Immelt used to run NBC, which took care of Barack Obama very well and hired assassins to besmirch people who opposed the President. He was the President's Praetorian Guard and he's being rewarded for it."

Dobbs also observed that the stock market has taken a dive since the President's reelection, saying this: "We are really in trouble and the market is sending a very clear signal. Investors have no confidence in this President or this Congress and they have no confidence that the 'fiscal cliff' can be dealt with."

Which is insane, because under President Obama the stock market has doubled, it went from 6.500 to over 13.000, and that is a fact. You two biased hacks should be run out of town for this garbage, read my lips, the stock market doubled under Obama, report that idiots.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "If you're looking for a fun read that's hard to put down, pick up Vince Flynn's The Last Man."

And btw folks, O'Reilly had 9 Republicans on the show Thursday night, and if you count O'Reilly it was 10 to 0, with no Democrats, not one!

Scarborough Tells Republicans To Stop Watching Right-Wing Media
By: Steve - November 16, 2012 - 10:00am

The former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough had a good message for his fellow conservatives and all the other Republicans, he said they should stop listening to the right-wing media, because they lie to you and basically tell you what you want to hear, not the truth.



Another Republican (David Frum) who endorsed Mitt Romney and was a speech writer for George W. Bush said the same thing. Frum said this: The GOP Has Been Fleeced, Exploited, And Lied To By a Conservative Entertainment Complex."

He did not even refer to them as the media, he called it entertainment. But he was talking about Fox News and websites like the Wall Street Journal, Human Events, the Media Research Center, etc.

Their point is that (as I have been saying for 12 years) they put out nothing but right-wing propaganda to get ratings, and your money. They are using you, to get their ratings and to steal your money, especially guys like Karl Rove and Dick Morris.

They are con men, and if you watch them or give them one dime of your money you are a sucker. Even O'Reilly does it, almost his entire show is right-wing propaganda pretending to be news.

O'Reilly is a con man, because everything he does is to get ratings, and get your money, why do you think he charges people for a premium website membership, to get your money. Those memberships should be free, so ask yourself why a multi-millionaire (making at least $15 million dollars a year) has to charge people to see his website.

In fact, I would advise people to stop watching all the media shows on tv, and get your news from the internet. And not the biased right-wing websites, go to non-partisan media sources, and turn Fox News off.

The Wednesday 11-14-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 15, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The presidential press conference. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Today's press conference was mostly a waste of time as President Obama did what he always does, provide long-winded answers to general questions. The first question should have been very simple: 'Exactly when were you told about General Petraeus and why was this kept secret until after the election?'

Instead, an Associated Press guy asked an opinion question, allowing the President to dance. The only journalist who remotely challenged the stone wall was Fox News White House correspondent Ed Henry, who asked the President how he would address the families of the four men who died in Benghazi.

The President said the entire administration's priority was to 'protect American lives,' but American lives were obviously not protected and after two months we still don't know why. If the President gave orders that our ambassador and other Americans should be helped, why weren't those orders obeyed? Who exactly is responsible here? The President won't say because it's all 'under investigation.'

The rest of the press conference was business as usual, allowing the President to roam at will. The New York Times asked the President about 'global warming,' and he said he'll do everything he can to cool the planet. CBS News asked him if he would confer with Mitt Romney over some issues. In short, this was a very relaxed press conference because, indeed, happy days are here again.

As I told you last night, the press in America is in terrible shape. I think Barack Obama doesn't respect the national press corps because he knows they love him. Summing up, I learned nothing from today's press conference, and it was kind of dull to boot.
O'Reilly is just a flat out right-wing joke, first he lies that Obama never does any press conferences, when he has done 17 of them since being elected, then after he does a press conference O'Reilly slams him for it and calls it a boring waste of time. In O'Reillyworld Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he don't, he can't win.

Then Kirsten Powers and the Republican Kristen Soltis were on to discuss it. Powers said this: "It wasn't a waste of time, because the President said one thing that added to the Libya story. He said Ambassador Susan Rice shouldn't be criticized for going on Sunday shows because she knew nothing about Benghazi. Which raises the question of why she was sent out to do those shows."

Soltis also disagreed with O'Reilly, and even defended some members of the White House press corps, saying this: "He was pushed a little harder than you're giving some of those journalists credit for. He was asked a question about the 'fiscal cliff,' and the questioner pointed out that he 'caved' to Republicans in 2010 and asked why Republicans should not believe he's going to cave now."

So O'Reilly then basically ignored them both and slammed the President again, saying this: "What we experienced as Americans today was one hour of vast nothingness."

Then O'Reilly had the Fox News stooge Jennifer Griffin, who has been pursuing the story involving former CIA boss David Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell on, who talked about the latest on the soap opera-like story.

Griffin said this: "Paula Broadwell is a military reservist, and she did have a security clearance at one point. Supposedly she had classified documents in her house and authorities are looking at whether there were any national security breaches, but the FBI says David Petraeus was not responsible for giving her those documents."

Griffin then turned to the deadly September 11th attack in Benghazi in which four Americans were killed, saying this: "For 50 minutes that afternoon, Defense Secretary Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs were not told what was happening, and then it took the military another 20 hours to send special operators to the base in Italy. They never made it to Libya."

Then the Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez was on. O'Reilly said that even though President Obama won the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly, some Republicans claim Hispanics are socially conservative and can be won over.

Gutierrez said this: "The problem the Republican Party has, is that they begin the conversation with 'self-deportation' and by embracing Governor Brewer of Arizona. When you begin a conversation like that, people don't hear much else. People like me who were born here in this country see our fellow Latinos as our cousins, brothers, and grandparents, we see them as part of an extended family."

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is not a journalist, he is a has-been comedian who is only on to make jokes about the President and his Democratic friends. If O'Reilly had a liberal comedian on for balance I would report on it, maybe!

In the last segment O'Reilly had the Fox News stooge Juliet Huddyon for did you see that?

She talked about a video from earlier this year in which Paula Broadwell was interviewed about her biography of David Petraeus, saying this: "This interviewer has a celebrity website, and he basically asked Paula Broadwell about General Petraeus' reaction to her book. She said, 'I'm not in love with him,' which I thought was very interesting of her to throw out there. I'm fascinated by this story, but I feel badly for the wives and the husbands and the country."

And I could care less about this story, because it is not real news, it's tabloid sex story garbage.

Huddy also commented on the story involving Kevin Clash, who provides the voice for Elmo on Sesame Street and was falsely accused of having sex with an underage boy, saying this: "A 23-year-old claimed they had an affair when he was 16, but he has since recanted. The celebrity gossip website TMZ is now reporting that both sides are in settlement talks, but this is a cloud that will be hanging over this guy forever."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Be very skeptical when an America-basher like Oliver Stone claims that China has no history of aggression. That would come as a great surprise to the Dalai Lama, the Taiwanese, the Mongolians, and the millions of people executed by the Chinese communists."

More Small Business Information O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - November 15, 2012 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly and all his Republican friends have long opposed the expiration of the high-income Bush tax cuts, those that hit incomes over $250,000, because they claim it will be a tax hike on America's small businesses.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said on Friday highlighting his opposition to the expiration. "Raising taxes on small businesses will kill jobs in America," Boehner said. "It is as simple as that."

Economic evidence, however, contradicts that view. Under President Clinton, the top marginal tax rate was 39.6 percent, where it would return if the high-income Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year.

But small businesses grew twice as fast during Clinton's time in office than they did when President Bush occupied the White House, as this chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows:



Boehner has repeatedly highlighted a flawed study stating that the expiration of those tax cuts would kill 700,000 jobs and hit a substantial number of small businesses, even as non-partisan reports from the Congressional Budget Office and Congressional Research Service show that the expiration would have little effect on economic growth, and the Joint Committee on Taxation found that only 3 percent of small businesses would be hit by the increase.

And, as CBPP notes, there are numerous problems with Boehner's argument. A small business would have to earn substantially more than $250,000 a year to actually feel an impact of the higher tax rates, meaning it likely isn't that small anyway.

Many of them are even pass through entities, businesses that operate as investment vehicles or for other reasons and are not engaged in business activity as it is traditionally understood.

According to a Treasury Dept. study cited by CBPP, just 7.6 percent of the income taxed at the top two income tax rates comes from actual small business income.

But you never hear any of this from O'Reilly, because he is part of the problem, and he puts out the same lies the Republicans do about small businesses.

Judge Slams Ohio Republican Secretary Of State
By: Steve - November 14, 2012 - 11:30am

And of course the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about the ruling, even though he does a weekly legal segment on his show, and covers a lot of legal rulings. Now you can bet the farm if a Democratic secretary of state was in Ohio and he violated election laws on the Friday before an election O'Reilly would spend an entire show reporting on it.

Here is the story O'Reilly ignored:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A federal judge blasted Ohio's elections chief on Tuesday, questioning his motives for setting new vote-counting rules that violated state law just days before the presidential election.

In a scathing 17-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley said a directive on counting provisional ballots that Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted issued on Nov. 2 was "a flagrant violation of a state elections law" that could disenfranchise voters.

"The surreptitious manner in which the secretary went about implementing this last minute change to the election rules casts serious doubt on his protestations of good faith," Marbley wrote.

Marbley noted numerous times that Husted, a Republican, set the new rules at 7 p.m. on a Friday.

"Ohio voters reasonably expect that the secretary of Ohio will abide by the General Assembly's laws in administering a federal election," Marbley wrote. "For an executive of the state to (flout) state law in arbitrarily reassigning a poll worker's statutory duty to a voter, with the result being disenfranchisement of the voter, is 'fundamentally unfair and constitutionally impermissible.'"

Marbley, nominated to be federal judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997, has ruled on numerous issues regarding Ohio election laws in recent months. He has repeatedly stressed the importance of voting rights.

"There's nothing more important than the franchise and the right to vote," Marbley said during a hearing in June. "I grew up in the Jim Crow South and still remember the various mechanisms that were used to disenfranchise voters."

Husted's Nov. 2 directive to local elections officials gave them new instructions to reject certain provisional ballots from voters who did not properly fill out the portion of the ballot application that asks for a form of identification.

Marbley's ruling said the directive violates a state law that places the responsibility on poll workers – not voters – to properly fill out the ballot application. The directive also violates an agreement reached in federal court, called a consent decree, that protects provisional ballots that contain mistakes due to poll worker error, according to the ruling.

Provisional ballots are given to voters whose eligibility is in question at the polls. Voters can prove their eligibility for 10 days after an election to ensure their vote is counted. Provisional ballots cast in the presidential election will begin to be counted on Saturday.

Marbley's ruling narrowed the circumstances for rejecting provisional ballots and ordered Husted to issue a new directive, by noon on Friday.

Subodh Chandra, a lawyer for the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, said Husted's decisions have shown a pattern of disenfranchising the poorest voters. The coalition was among the plaintiffs who asked the court to address Husted's procedures.

"The homeless coalition is relieved and gratified that secretary Husted has been held accountable for his unconstitutional efforts to disenfranchise voters," Chandra said. "We regret that he can't simply accept responsibility and move on and not waste more taxpayer money with an appeal."

Throughout his ruling, Marbley criticized the provisional ballot application Husted designed for the presidential election. Marbley questioned whether the poor drafting was "by design or accident."

Marbley said the form illegally shifted the responsibility for recording identification information on the provisional ballot application from the poll worker to the voter. The form also makes it difficult for election officials to determine if erroneous applications are the fault of the poll worker or the voter.

"The voter acting in good faith cannot suffer disenfranchisement as a result of the secretary's drafting errors," Marbley wrote.

The Tuesday 11-13-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 14, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The far left running wild. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Flush from President Obama's victory last week, far left elements in America are pumping it up. Today a number of leftists met with the President at the White House. They included a bunch of union leaders, a guy from MoveOn and people from the Center for American Progress. You don't get more left wing than the crew that visited the White House this morning.

Mr. Obama should have included some far left media folks who were totally in the tank for him. On election night, before most returns were in, I said 'the white establishment is now the minority.' My analysis was 100% correct, but Meredith Blake, a totally incompetent reporter at the Los Angeles Times, said I seemed 'terrified' by the voting results.

Then left wing loon Brian Lowry, writing in Variety, said I was 'lamenting' the shift in the U.S. electorate. Article after article claimed that I was wringing my hands rather than stating sage opinion. According to the left, I'm a 'white power' guy; I went from analyzing the election to being David Duke.

This happens all day, every day in the far left media. These people have no shame and no one holds them accountable because most people fear the far left. So here's what I really lament: We are living in a dishonest culture and the media is totally corrupt. There are entire media operations that exist solely to promote ideology. It's a bad situation that is getting worse.
And now here is the truth. O'Reilly is just an old white Republican who is sad and mad that his guy Romney lost. After Romney lost O'Reilly looked like his dog had just died, that's how sad he was. Then he went into his poor white guy routine, saying Obama only won because all the minorites voted for him to get stuff. Which is laughable, and O'Reilly is a racist hack who just will not admit it.

Then he gets mad at the people who call him on his racism, and says they are wrong and bad people. When he is the racist, and all they did was tell the truth about him. And you are not David Duke, but you are damn close, you are like his brother who says some of the same garbage he says. Hey Billy, if you do not want to be accused of being a racist, stop saying racist things, dumbass!

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to analyze the so-called far left attacks. Which in reality are just truthful statements about O'Reilyl, his bias, and his racism. But of course his friends Crowley and Colmes defended him, if they did not they would be kicked off the show.

Colmes said this: "You know you're a target, and those who don't like you will find any ammunition they can grasp onto. You were unfairly being attacked for giving analysis and you should not be characterized that way. But I have no problem with inviting MoveOn to the White House."

Good job kissing O'Reilly's ass Colmes, you can now be back on the show next week, you sell out.

Crowley then slammed the so-called radicals her and O'Reilly claim have gained so much influence in the Democratic Party. When in reality her and O'Reilly are the radicals who are out of touch with the new mainstream in America. She called them far left kooks, when she is a far right kook, now that's funny.

Crowley said this: "These are the far left kooks, and there's a real distinction to be made between your father's and grandfather's Democratic Party and the far left nuts who are now running the country, not only at the highest levels of government. Far left maniacs have penetrated the media and the unions, they are running Hollywood and the culture."

Here is a fact for Dumb and Dumber: far left kooks in O'Reilly and Crowley world = everyone who is not a Republican. That's how out of touch with regular Americans they are.

The scandal surrounding Gen. David Petraeus, who resigned as head of the CIA, now extends to General John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. So O'Reilly said he was going to debrief the Fox analyst Col. David Hunt and military scholar Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer. Which is just laughable, because O'Reilly can not and should not debrief anyone.

Hunt said this: "General Allen is a good man, who took over for Petraeus in Afghanistan. He is alleged to have exchanged flirtatious emails with Jill Kelley, the whistleblower who received threatening emails from Paula Broadwell. There is a specific charge in military law if he had an affair while in uniform, but General Allen says that did not happen."

Shaffer explained why he thinks the story is significant, saying this: "We now have several officers behaving badly. We have a general on trial at Fort Bragg for sex crimes, an admiral who has been relieved for bad behavior, and now we have General Petraeus, one of the brightest military leaders of our time, and General Allen. This is also a distraction, we're getting away from things like Benghazi."

Then O'Reilly had the totally insane right-wing idiot John Stossel on, who argued that so-called "price gouging" serves a valuable purpose, even in an emergency situation, and he has been backed up by libertarian Congressman Ron Paul.

Making them both morons who should be kicked out of Congress and taken off the air, let alone put on the Factor to spew out that insanity. Making O'Reilly as bad as they are for giving them a forum to say that nonsense. The Congress should investigate them for price gouging, not be glad they are doing it.

Stossel said this: "People suffer because of 'profiteering' laws. They are waiting in line for two hours for gas because of price controls and there are only shortages when government controls prices. If people charged $6 a gallon for gasoline, the lines would be gone within hours because people would ship oil in from other states. Many gas stations wouldn't raise prices because they don't want to tick off their customers, and some would."

And that may be the dumbest statement ever made about gas prices in the history of America.

Even O'Reilly disagreed with him and argued the other side, saying this: "There have to be laws to prevent people from exploiting a storm or a natural disaster."

Then the moron O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters was on with some post-election reactions from liberal-leaning folks waiting in line to see a Bill Maher show. Here are some of their comments: "I am thrilled" ... "I would have left the country if Obama wasn't elected" ... "I am really excited to see Obamacare rolled out" ... "Wealthy people can afford to pay a little bit more."

Then the far-right loon Jesse Watters characterized the liberals as zombies, saying this: "They're zombies and they hear these talking points about a 'balanced approach.' Obama could destroy the economy, but as long as there's Obamacare, gay marriage, and abortion on demand, they'll support the guy no matter what."

Then the two Republican legal analysts Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on, with no mention of the judges ruling on the Ohio secretary of state. They talked about the Long Island Power Authority, who is being sued by customers who claim the utility performed horribly in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

Wiehl said this: "It's about gross negligence, fraud, and breach of contract. This is the second most expensive large utility in the country but they didn't do anything to prepare for the storm. They were using 25-year-old mainframe computers and didn't have enough people."

Guilfoyle, a LIPA customer herself, added that the power company had been warned, saying this: "It was acknowledged as far back as 2006 that they were operating under an antiquated system that was insufficient to notify customers. My power wasn't on, the whole thing was a mess, there were no updates, no emails, and we were just left sort of mystified."

Then another far right stooge was on, Charles Krauthammer was on to weigh in on the question of whether America has been permanently transformed by the forces of secular progressivism. And of course he does not think so, even though all the evidence says it has been, which is the same thing that got them in trouble on Romney, not buying into reality.

Krauthammer said this: "Traditional America can make a comeback, but I think Romney did not make the argument. He got caught on tape talking about the '47%' and he was open to attack, so he just ran away from that. The strategy of liberals has always been to increase dependency because that increases their constituencies and keeps them in power. I don't think the argument is lost, but Romney didn't feel fluent in it."

Krauthammer is just a fool, he is just like O'Reilly, they think Romney just did not get his message out, when he did, that is why he lost. And the demographics show that America has changed, forever, and will even change more in the future. Just read some demographics projections, in 10 or so years the whites will be a minority. O'Reilly and Krauthammer just refuse to admit it, and they stick their head in the sand spinning out this Romney did not get his message out insanity.

Krauthammer also theorized that Republicans can win the Hispanic vote with the right candidate and policies, saying this: "Hispanics are not inherently liberal, they're religious, they're socially conservative and a natural constituency group for Republicans. If Marco Rubio is the candidate in 2016 and the party advocates enforcement plus amnesty, I think we'll see a change. All this talk about how the Republicans are demographically extinct is nonsense!"

And finally, the lame as hell Factor tip of the day. Billy said this: "Keep your Christmas gift-giving simple by writing down the name of everyone for whom you wish to purchase a present right now, and don't forget to leave some time for reflection during the holiday season."

O'Reilly Says Atheists In Wisconsin Are Going To Hell
By: Steve - November 14, 2012 - 10:30am

Here is the video:



And btw folks, he also said Jon Stewart is going to hell, when in reality it's O'Reilly who will go to hell, for lying to the American people every night for the Republican party.

Best & Worst Polling For The 2012 Presidential Election
By: Steve - November 14, 2012 - 10:00am

The #1 polling company on the Presidential election was the IBD/TIPP poll. Their margin of error in the 11 polls they ran was 0.9 percent. They got their numbers by calling people on their home phones, and they also called people with cell phones.

The worst polling company on the Presidential election, coming in dead last in 23rd place was Gallup. yes the Gallup. Their margin of error in the 11 polls they ran was 7.2 percent. They got their numbers by calling people on their home phones, and they also called people with cell phones.

CNN/Opinion Research was the 5th most accurate poll on the Presidential election. Their margin of error in the 10 polls they ran was 1.9 percent. They got their numbers by calling people on their home phones, and they also called people with cell phones.

And btw, the Republican biased Rasmussen was 4th from last, coming in as the 20th worst polling company on the Presidential election. Their margin of error in the 60 (yes 60) polls they ran was 4.2 percent. They got their numbers by robo-calling people on their home phones, internet polls, and they did not call people with cell phones.

Here is a partial quote from Nate Silver on the polls:
For the second consecutive election - the same was true in 2010 - Rasmussen Reports polls had a statistical bias toward Republicans, overestimating Mr. Romney's performance by about four percentage points, on average.
Now think about this, Bill O'Reilly has Dick Morris and Scott Rasmussen on as Factor regulars all the time, and they were two of the worst people in America on the polls and predicting who would win. But O'Reilly still has them on every week and bills them as political and polling experts.

The Monday 11-12-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 13, 2012 - 11:00am

O'Reilly started with the Top story called: What does the resignation of David Petraeus mean for you? And his only guest was the biased right-wing Obama hating hack Col. Ralph Peters. Who was on to speculate his ass off with no proof of anything, so just ignore what the fool said.

The dishonest and biased Col. Peters said this: "It appears that the White House is lying again, just like it was lying about Benghazi. The important detail is the timeline, who knew what and when. It has emerged that Attorney General Holder knew months ago about the investigation, and it strains credulity to believe that he did not tell his good friend the President that there could be a breaking sex scandal involving the CIA director. This was beautifully engineered to make sure the President was unstained by all of this."

O'Reilly even asked him for proof, and he had none, it was all speculation and his opinion, and O'Reilly let him get away with it, even after saying he only deals in the facts and does not allow any speculation.

Peters then went on to question Petraeus judgment, saying this: "Every successful man has known a Paula Broadwell, but the smart guys don't return the calls. If you're a sucker for that, you're not fit to run the CIA."

Now here is my question, why does O'Reilly keep putting this Obama hating right-wing fool on the air, nothing he says is true, just like Morris and Rove, he is a partisan political operative. And notice that O'Reilly does not have a liberal military expert on with him for balance.

Then the TPM, it was called: Is traditional America gone for good? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Emotions are still running high after last week's presidential vote. My pal Dennis Miller believes traditional America has been vaporized, that it's gone for good. I've given that a lot of thought and I disagree with him. I believe traditional America can come back, but it will take a very special person to make that happen.

It was an entitlement vote this year; American families earning less than $35,000 a year broke big for the President, so it's clear that left-wing ideology did not win the day for President Obama, big spending on federal programs did. Many in the media would have us believe that liberal ideology was confirmed by this election. It was not.

On paper, the stats look hopeless for traditional Americans, but they can be reversed. The key question going forward is whether the secular-progressive movement is good for Americans, regardless of their ethnicity or economic conditions, and the answer is no! Minorities are more affected by poverty because the traditional family unit has broken down.

But rather than trying to reverse that, secular-progressives want more entitlement spending. On the abortion front, rather than trying to discourage taking the lives of millions of fetuses, the secular-progressives have created a mythical 'war on women.' Abortion zealots want the procedure on demand, no matter how late term, and are stridently opposed to counseling before this life-ending procedure is undertaken.

Abortion is settled law in the USA, but it should be discouraged because human DNA is present upon conception. Ask yourself this question: Should America be a country where potential human life is terminated for convenience?

And the federal government is going to demand that citizens who oppose abortion pay for it? What say you, Planned Parenthood? If Mitt Romney had spelled out what the secular progressive movement is all about and how President Obama enables that, he would not have lost 71% of the Hispanic vote.

I believe the majority of Americans can be persuaded that the far left is a dangerous outfit bent on destroying traditional American and replacing it with a social free-fire zone that drives dependency and poverty. But so many of our politicians are cowardly that the truth is rarely heard.
WOW! O'Reilly is in denial, and pretty much everything he said is garbage and nothing but right-wing propaganda. Earth to O'Reilly, the country is getting more progressive, and it will never be reversed, it's going to increase you moron. Then on top of that O'Reilly showed us he is one of these right-wing personhood nuts who believe life begins at conception, which is not what the science says. For that alone everyone should ignore what O'Reilly says because he is a proven pro-life right-wing loon.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to evaluate the insane Talking Points Memo and the ridiculous claim that secular progressives have damaged the nation. And even his so-called Democrat Juan Williams disagreed.

Williams said this: "You're a little off target on this one. There are a lot of older Americans who say this is not the America they grew up in, but you can not demonize the new folks in America and make them out to be America's problem. People across the board said Romney shares their values, but they said Obama cares about 'people like me.'"

Here is my opinion, O'Reilly is just mad that the country is changing to having more liberals, and he is scared the white people will be the minority very soon, which means him and his right-wing friends will have to change their positions on the big issues, or continue to lose more elections.

Then the ridiculous Mary K. Ham claimed that a charismatic conservative messenger will be able to turn the tide, saying this: "We have reached a turning point of sorts, but that does not mean that there won't be an electoral victory in the future for people who are to the right of center. You are correct that it will take a special person, just as it took a special person in Barack Obama to bring the left to where it is right now."

Then O'Reilly had the conservative writer Michelle Fields and the liberal attorney Anahita Sedaghatfar on to talk about the 47-million Americans who are now receiving food stamps.

Fields said this: "President Obama has created a lot of welfare spending, and he essentially bought this election through welfare spending. Federal spending has increased for welfare by 32% and the problem is that this is supposed to help people get on their feet, but it's becoming a way of life."

Which is just laughable, because most of that was caused by Bush and the Republicans, who bankrupted and ruined the economy so more people had to go on food stamps, Obama had nothing to do with it.

Sedaghaftar claimed that many women opted for President Obama for reasons other than welfare spending, saying this: "We're in a bad economy and people need help, but I don't think that's the deciding factor in why single women voted for Obama. He got the women's vote because he supports issues that matter to single women, such as women's health care and equal pay."

Then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg on to weigh in on the David Petraeus scandal.

Goldberg said this: "My first reaction, was that I don't want to know about this, it's a private matter. Then I thought he has access to secrets so it's an important story, and then I thought somebody ought to tell that to Bill Clinton, who also had access to top secrets. If there's any good news that comes out of this, it's now that sex is involved, maybe the mainstream media will show a little interest in Benghazi. I'm not interested in this story except as it pertains to policy such as Benghazi."

O'Reilly pointed out that President Obama may finally face some legitimate questions this week, saying this: "There will be a press conference Wednesday and it will be interesting to see how aggressive the media is. I think this is the first press conference the President has held since he graduated from law school."

Read that again folks, O'Reilly is saying this will be the 1st Obama press conference since he graduated from High School. Now read this: O'Reilly is lying! And this is more proof Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing hack, because the facts show O'Reilly is wrong. When President Obama holds a news conference on Wednesday, it will be the 16th formal White House press conference of his presidency. Got that O'Reilly? The 16th press conference in 4 years!

Then the right-wing stooge Adam Carolla was on for his weekly segment, he gave us his take on David Petraeus.

Carolla said this: "I don't mind a guy who cheats, that just means he has testosterone. But the part that makes me nervous is that this guy's the director of the CIA and he can't keep this liaison secret!"

Carolla also explained why Elizabeth Warren's victory in Massachusetts makes him livid, saying this: "She gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention where she told everybody that the system is rigged against them. It's a horrible message to send to people in this country and it's the cornerstone of the Democratic Party."

O'Reilly then added this nonsense: "Elizabeth Warren is a classic liberal who believes American society is basically unjust."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "If you ever need to escape, consider the Turks and Caicos Islands, a British territory that's a short hop from Miami."

Now here is my tip of the day, week, month, and year. Lose this ridiculous tip of the day garbage, and do some real news, or maybe do another segment with a liberal guest to add some balance to your totally biased fake right-wing news show.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Number Of Obama Press Conferences
By: Steve - November 13, 2012 - 10:30am

Monday night during a segment with Bernie Goldberg Bill O'Reilly was caught lying that President Obama has not held a press conference since he graduated High School, Billy the right-wing hack said this at the end of the Goldberg segment:
O'REILLY: "There will be a press conference Wednesday and it will be interesting to see how aggressive the media is. I think this is the first press conference the President has held since he graduated from law school."
Wow is that a lie, and it's a lie that only a totally biased right-wing spin doctor would put out, when the facts show a different story.

From CNN: When President Barack Obama holds a news conference on Wednesday, it will be the 16th solo, formal White House press conference of his presidency.

It will be his first since winning re-election and since the resignation of his CIA director over an affair - both topics likely to come up on Wednesday.

Obama has taken reporters questions in a variety of other forums, most recently in late August, when he made an unannounced stop at the regular White House briefing for reporters in the midst of the heated campaign and a week before the start of the Republican National Convention.

And now you have the facts, not that right-wing garbage O'Reilly and his friends are spinning out.

Most Experts Agree Fox News Has Damaged The Republican Party
By: Steve - November 13, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is another story you will never see reported by O'Reilly or his right-wing stooge fill-in host Laura Ingraham, or anyone else at Fox News.

The end of the 2012 election has raised questions about the media's impact on results. As candidates and their campaigns celebrate wins or mourn defeats, experts in the media argue that Fox News political activism has damaged the Republican Party in light of its losses.

Over the past four years, Fox News employees have aggressively campaigned for Republican candidates. A Media Matters report found that leading up to the 2012 presidential election, over 32 Fox hosts and contributors campaigned for GOP candidates in more than 300 instances, nationally and in more than 40 states.

Among them was Fox contributor Karl Rove, whose American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS promised to spend $300 million on ads for conservative candidates.

The same report revealed that five Fox figures advised Mitt Romney's campaign, and nine -- including John Bolton and Mike Huckabee -- "played key roles" at Romney events.

Romney, the largest beneficiary of Fox News campaigning, was often advised by Fox's on-air personalities about what he should do. For instance, Bill O'Reilly said that Romney should "keep pounding" the message that Obama "doesn't like this capitalistic system."

Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson said that Romney could create a "pretty compelling campaign ad" by juxtaposing Obama saying he had three years to fix the economy with him saying he needs another four years.

Fox also aggressively counseled elected Republicans not to cooperate with Democrats. Sean Hannity, for example, told Congressman Paul Ryan in April 2011 not to vote to raise the debt ceiling, and the co-hosts of Fox & Friends urged House Republicans to repeal light bulb efficiency standards.

In light of the Republican Party's 2012 election losses, many experts in the media have argued that this political activism by Fox has hurt rather than helped the GOP.

The American Prospect's Paul Waldman wrote that Fox and other conservative media are effective at "whipping up stories out of nothing and forcing the mainstream media to pay attention, capable of keeping their troops in line and bucking up their morale, capable of quickly disseminating messages far and wide, creating new stars and enforcing discipline."

But, he added, the success of this misinformation resulted in the "single most damaging moment for Mitt Romney in this election, the 47 percent tape." Waldman further wrote that Fox and other conservative media may be "the right's Achilles' Heel."

Salon's Alex Pareene suggested that Fox "knows it's constantly lying to its audience" and that it discovered "constant lying isn't a consistently effective electoral strategy."

Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic also argued that misinformation from Fox and conservative media cost Romney the election and wrote that "right-leaning outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's show are far more intellectually closed than CNN or public radio. If you're a rank-and-file conservative, you're probably ready to acknowledge that ideologically friendly media didn't accurately inform you about Election 2012."

The Telegraph's Dan Hodes, in a column headlined "Fox News is killing the Republican party," even speculated that Fox News, widely perceived to be one of the Republican party's greatest assets, has actually become a liability:
Watching Rove vainly raging against the dying of the light cemented for me a view that's been forming throughout this campaign. Fox News, widely perceived to be one of the Republican party's greatest assets, has actually become a liability to it.

To describe Fox as a polarising broadcaster would be to give understatement a manly bear-hug. For Democrats and the liberal Left it is effectively an extension of the GOP press office, prosecuting a vicious and biased campaign against their candidates and values.

For Republicans and the Right it provides a vital balance against the liberal prejudices of the Main Stream Media. But whatever the perceptions, Fox -- to my mind -- proved to be an albatross around the neck of Mitt Romney throughout this campaign.
In reality Fox News does nothing to help any Republican candidate, because almost everyone watching is already going to vote for the Republican. That means despite O'Reilly's claims to be a powerful media figure, he has no power, just hot air. His average viewer is a 74 year old white Republican, so no matter what O'Reilly says, they are going to vote Republican.

And from what I can tell, money spent on political ads are a total waste of money. Because everyone I know understands political tv those ads are partisan propaganda, so they get all their information from the internet.

Romney Donors Complain They Were Lied To & Ripped Off
By: Steve - November 12, 2012 - 10:30am

And if I were a Republican (scary thought) I would never give another dime to Karl Rove or any SuperPAC, because it was a total waste of money. Money can not overcome the correct positions on the issues that face the majority of Americans.

Basically what Rove and other right-wingers did was try to buy an election (for a bad candidate) using propaganda to flood the country with misleading and dishonest political tv and radio ads. And what did it get them, nothing, they spent the majority of their money in the toss up states and they lost them all, except North Carolina, that made no difference.

And now some of those donors are complaining they were lied to and ripped off, and they should, because they were. Politico wrote a big story about it, and here are some quotes from that article:

Advisers to Mitt Romney insisted Wednesday that they were surprised by the scale of their loss to President Barack Obama, while big-time GOP donors griped about the campaign's unflinching confidence in the final stretch.

As results began to stream in Tuesday night, prominent Romney supporters in Boston tried to stay positive, reassuring themselves that there was still a path to the White House. But dejection quickly turned to anger a day after an Electoral College rout that shocked many who had heard self-assured projections about voter enthusiasm and turnout in private conference calls and meetings in the campaign's final stretch.

"They ran a 20th century campaign in the 21st century," said one Romney bundler, frustrated that the campaign made assumptions about the youth vote and voter intensity that didn't pan out. "The anger is that they were entrusted to do certain things. It's not like they were paid a $5,000 retainer to get a few dozen articles in an inside-the-Beltway paper. This is the major leagues."

Another Republican outside the Romney campaign but privy to its thinking described the defeat as a complete pummeling, with Senate losses adding salt to the wound.

Romney supporters point to a series of brash statements made by advisers that seem out of touch with reality in retrospect. Inside the Beltway, Republicans trained their fire on senior Romney advisers like Ed Gillespie and political director Rich Beeson for appearances on last weekend's Sunday shows. Gillespie said the electoral map was expanding, and Beeson predicted a 300 electoral vote win for Romney.

"There were a lot of Republicans who were on calls that the campaign was having led to believe we had shots in Pennsylvania and Minnesota," one Republican operative supporting Romney said. "I think Republicans are split right now between confused and shocked, and also I think they are wondering did the Romney campaign have numbers we didn't have."

In starker terms, the source questioned: "Was last week a head fake, or were they just not that smart?"

Multiple Romney sources buzzed about one number in particular: 15 percent. According to exit polls, that's the share of African-Americans who voted in Ohio this year. In 2008, the black percentage of the electorate was 11 percent. In Virginia and Florida, exit polls showed the same share of African-Americans turned out as four years ago, something that GOP turnout models did not anticipate.

"We didn't think they'd turn out more of their base vote than they did in 2008, but they smoked us," said one Romney operative. "It's unbelievable that that they turned out more from the African-American community than in 2008. Somehow they got 'em to vote."

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

Note from the owner of oreilly-sucks.com, Steve: Earth to Fool; Maybe they turned out in record numbers because of all the voter suppression tricks the Republicans tried to put in place.

And maybe the Obama voters turned out because the Republicans have been calling him racist names and a terrorist for 4 years. Pissed off people go into action, moron!

And maybe the Obama voters turned out because they were scared to death at what would happen to the country if the robot right-wing stooge Mitt Romney won the White House, did you morons ever think of that, I guess not!


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

"We just didn't see the enthusiasm with their base," he added. "We had enthusiasm on our side. So we thought, 'Yeah, we're gonna win this.' We hit our numbers in rural areas. When Fox called it, we still thought we had a chance based on what we could figure was in and what was still out."

Inside tight-knit Romneyworld - where many of the GOP nominee's senior aides have worked together since Romney's time as Massachusetts governor - there was a sense Tuesday that the White House was within reach.

Over the last few weeks, especially after Romney's strong Denver debate performance, some staffers were openly speculating about jobs they might nab in a Romney administration and discussed what the shape of the transition effort might be. By Wednesday, many were looking for work but taking the long view.

District Judge Slams Republican Ohio Secretary Of State
By: Steve - November 11, 2012 - 11:30am

And of course O'Reilly has totally ignored the story, even though it's been a top story in the media for a week or more. He has ignored it because it proves the Republicans are and were trying to stop people (mostly Democrats) from voting, which O'Reilly denied.

And btw, stuff like this is one reason so many people turned out to vote for Obama, because they did not like what the Republican party was doing.

So when O'Reilly and his friends cry about Romney losing, they are partly to blame for using those un-American voter suppression tactics. In other words, it backfired on them, and actually led to more Democrats getting out to vote, countering their voter suppression efforts.

Here is the story:

The Republican Secretary of State in Ohio (Jon Husted) is fast becoming one of the most despised election officials in the country for his many attempts to restrict early voting and throw out legitimate provisional ballots.

He's also alienating federal judges left and right. After Husted issued a last-minute directive that could invalidate thousands of Ohioans votes, US District Judge Algenon Marbley did not bother to hide his impatience with the secretary's hijinks.

Husted's directive, which was issued at 7 pm on the Friday before the election, openly defies Ohio state law by shifting the burden of correctly filling in a provisional ballot form from the poll worker to the contested voter.

As Andrew Cohen at the Atlantic explains, Judge Marbley had already worked out an agreement that placed the responsibility on poll workers and the state, so a vote would still be counted if the poll worker made an error. Husted's directive snuck around this agreement, apparently infuriating the judge:
THE COURT: Mr. Epstein, would you agree that voting is the linchpin of our democracy?

[STATE ATTORNEY] MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I do too. What concerned me about the 2012-54 directive is that it was filed on a Friday night at 7 p.m. The first thought that came to mind was democracy dies in the dark. So, when you do things like that that seeks to avoid transparency, it appears, then that gives me great pause but even greater concern.

So, if anyone I'm going to give additional time to, it's going to be you, Mr. Epstein, because you have a lot of explaining to do.

I'm really trying to get to the root of this, and I don't want to see democracy die in the darkness on my watch, especially with voting. You know I have a special place for voting.
So then the Husted represented State attorney was unable to point to any legal justification for ignoring the law and shifting the burden to the voter. Then Judge Marbley slammed him with this:
THE COURT: Show me where it is. Show me where it's meant. Show me the legislative history. Show me the facts that the secretary used to make the decision to change this directive at seven o'clock on a Friday night on the eve of an election. I want to see it, and I want to see it now. Show it to me.

MR. EPSTEIN: Your Honor, I have no legislative history to present to the Court.
Talk about dirty tricks, the Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted made an order to get around a court order at 7pm the Friday night before an election. And the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, even though he does a weekly legal segment and he hates it when someone goes against a court order.

If a Democrat had done this on a Friday night at 7pm 3 days before the Presidential election O'Reilly and Fox News would cover it 24/7 until it was changed, or the man was fired. But since it was done by a Republican O'Reilly and Fox were silent.

And what makes it even worse, is that O'Reilly ignored the story while he was telling Democratic guests on his show that there was no voter suppression being done by any Republicans. O'Reilly said there was no voter suppression, and he also said if there was he would report it, then he ignored all of it and said nothing.

This story is proof, not to mention waiting 7 hours to vote in Florida, which is even more proof. Because both of those States are run by Republicans, and they tried to make it as hard as possible to vote to try and help Romney win Florida and Ohio.

And btw folks, Marbley is not even the only judge to be provoked by Husted's defiance. After another district judge, Judge Peter Economus, ruled that Ohio must restore early voting hours on the three days before the election, Husted blocked the local election boards from following the court order. But Husted backed down when the judge issued a stern order that demanded he appear in court to personally explain himself.

Marbley's ruling is expected Monday. And the Provisional ballots will be counted on November 17.




Republican SuperPAC's Got Almost Nothing For 400 Million
By: Steve - November 11, 2012 - 11:00am

Three months ago, ThinkProgress ran a series of profiles on several prominent right-wing attack groups that were promising to spend tens of millions of dollars - much of it raised and spent in secret, thanks to Citizens United - to unseat key Democrats across the country. Each group had its own list of target races that they would devote their considerable resources to.

With the dust finally settling after Election Day they took a look back to see how effective these groups collective spending was at unseating Democrats from Congress and the White House.

The answer, it turns out, is not very effective at all. Despite outspending left-leaning SuperPACs and interest groups by a margin greater than 10 to 1, conservative organizations spent election night watching the Democratic majority expand in the Senate, the Republican majority shrink in the House, and President Obama win a second term convincingly.

A ThinkProgress analysis of public spending records suggests that 75% of Democrats targeted by the biggest right-wing groups won their elections on Tuesday.

The five biggest right-wing SuperPAC's targeted 49 Democrats in the House and Senate, including President Obama. The Democrats won or held 40 of those seats. So for $400 million dollars the Republicans won 9 seats out of 49, which is clearly not very good. And btw, that adds up to $44 million dollars a race.

The total amount spent by these groups only reflects what has been disclosed to federal election officials, so the $400 million number is most likely higher than that, estimates have it as high as $400 million.

Already there are indications that these groups biggest donors - people like Charles and David Koch and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson - are furiously seeking answers to the question of where their millions went:
"The billionaire donors I hear are livid," one Republican operative said. "There is some holy hell to pay. Karl Rove has a lot of explaining to do. I don't know how you tell your donors that we spent $400 million and got nothing."
Karl Rove, who is not having a very good week, is one of the biggest recipients of GOP donor consternation. His American Crossroads SuperPAC and its sister organization Crossroads GPS, spent nearly $400 million in private donations only to emerge victorious in just two senate races, one of which was never projected to be close to begin with.

Obama Wins Florida - Beating Romney 332 To 206
By: Steve - November 11, 2012 - 10:00am

Four days after the election, President Barack Obama can finally claim victory in Florida.

The state finished counting its votes Saturday. Obama was declared the winner, giving him a 332 to 206 final margin in the Electoral College.

Florida officials said Obama had 50 per cent of the vote to Romney's 49.1 per cent, a margin of about 74,000 votes.

The win gave Obama victories in eight of nine critical swing states, losing only North Carolina. In addition to Florida, he won Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada.

As O'Reilly would say, Obama barely won, which is just laughable, because 332 to 206 is a landslide. Once again proving O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, because only partisan Republicans are saying Obama barely won.

The Friday 11-9-12 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - November 10, 2012 - 11:00am

The far-right right-wing spin doctor Laura Ingraham filled in again for O'Reilly, and she started with her Top Story about General Petraeus.

CIA boss General David Petraeus quit recently after admitting to having an extramarital affair. So Ingraham had the Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin on to discuss it.

Griffin said this: "General Petraeus went to the White House yesterday, and told the President that he felt he should resign. We're now learning that the FBI had been investigating General Petraeus as part of a larger investigation. The name that has emerged is Paula Broadwell, General Petraeus' biographer, who had spent a year in Afghanistan with him documenting his life."

Griffin added that Petraeus, who had been scheduled to testify before Congress next week regarding the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, will not appear at the hearing.

Griffin said this: "The timing of this is very suspicious in that he no longer will have to testify before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. There were going to be some heated questions from members on Capitol Hill who were frustrated by his previous responses after the Benghazi attack."

Then Ingraham had her crazy TPM called: The danger of moving to the middle. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: I received a call today from a reporter asking me if Mitt Romney lost because of talk radio and the Tea Party, and whether the GOP had to soften its views to appeal to women and Latinos. The media pushed that same narrative after the GOP's 2006 midterm wipeout and after McCain's 2008 loss to Obama. The fact is that talk radio continues to thrive while moderate Republicans continue to lose presidential elections.

And while the Tea Party has backed some terrible candidates, it also made the 2010 rout possible. Where's the evidence that pro-abortion or pro-amnesty or pro-gay marriage candidates are the solution to the GOP's problems?

Moderates like Scott Brown and Charlie Summers just lost their Senate races in Massachusetts and Maine, and until liberal Republicans start winning their races, why should they dictate the terms of a new GOP agenda? Of course Republicans need to attract more single women and Latinos, but pandering isn't the answer; good politics and good policy is the answer.

If you believe, like I do, that conservative social and economic policies are the best hope for the nation, abandoning your positions to try to become more popular is a path to complete irrelevance.
Ingraham is just a fool, because the reason those moderate Republicans lost is because the rest of the party made them look bad for their far right views on abortion, taxes, and immigration. And nobody is saying the Republican party should change everything, they are just saying that if they want to win future elections they need to get rid of the far-right loons and be a little more moderate. I hope they do nothing, then the Democrats will continue to take over.

Then Republican Senator Mike Lee, a staunch supporter of the Tea Party was on, and he said this: "The Republican Party has benefited from the grass roots conservative political movement that started in 2009. That brought us a Republican victory in 2010 in the House and some victories in the Senate, and it has continued to benefit the party. The fact that we sustained some defeats, in part because we betrayed some of our principles as a party, doesn't mean we should retreat from these conservative principles. It means we should endorse them more wholeheartedly."

Ingraham said she was unhappy that Speaker of the House John Boehner has indicated he might be willing to compromise on a budget deal, saying this: "The Democrats talk a good game about 'compromise,' but in the end it's going to be President Obama's way or the highway!"

Which is why Ingraham is a right-wing idiot, because the people elect Congressman and Senators to work out a deal on the issues, all she cares about is partisan politics and getting more Republicans elected so they have more power. She basically wants to put the Republican party ahead of the good of the people, by calling for even more gridlock.

Then Ingraham reported that President Obama held a press conference Friday to reaffirm his determination to raise taxes on wealthier Americans. She discussed the tax issue with David Callahan of the liberal think tank Demos.

Callahan said this: "I hope there is not too much compromise. There were a lot of people who worked very hard for Barack Obama's reelection, progressive activists and labor unions who don't want to see him give away the store to Republican leaders. Most of the ideas on the table, including President Obama's, don't raise enough revenue and make too deep cuts in social spending. Americans don't want that and the President needs to go for much more revenue than he discussed."

Callahan also recommended allowing all the Bush tax cuts to lapse, saying this: "They certainly aren't affordable with the deficit and spending needs we face."

And what Ingraham fails to report is that Obama is not ending the Bush tax cuts, he is just planning to let them expire, because it was Bush and the Congress who put an expiration date on them, not Obama. Obama is not doing anything, the tax cuts expire on their own.

Then Ingraham had the former Democratic Congressman Artur Davis on, who switched parties and spoke at the Republican Convention this year.

Davis said this: "This is a conversation Republicans ought to be having, because we've got some work to do. We had the lowest numbers with Latinos ever, we lost Virginia because of the gender gap, and we lost Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because we couldn't close the deal with blue-collar workers. We've got to be the reform party, we've got to talk about education reform and market-based approaches to health care. We lost this election because more people distrusted Republicans than distrusted Barack Obama."

And of course Ingraham ignored all that to point out a few of the bright spots for the GOP, saying this: "We have 30 Republican governors, we have two Latino governors, and we have more women governors than the Democrats."

Then Ingraham talked about Senator Marco Rubio, who is heading to Iowa next week to headline a fundraiser. Mike Huckabee was on, and he said this: "Marco Rubio is a star in the party, and rightfully so. He's one of our most articulate, thoughtful, and effective spokespersons. And once somebody is on the national stage, they will get invited to Iowa and New Hampshire. It's a chance for the politicians to go and get their feet on the ground in those states."

Huckabee also warned that his party's nomination process can be destructive, saying this: "The problem is that the process of the primary becomes fratricide, everybody eats each other alive, and then it's usually the person with the most money and has been at it the longest who is going to win. Also, I don't think we have to punish ourselves and say we were too conservative. This wasn't a message election, it's that we were out-mobilized."

After Tuesday's election a few companies run by Republicans announced some layoffs. So the crazy Laura Ingraham asked Christian Dorsey of the Economic Policy Institute whether President Obama's reelection is generally bad for business. Even though she knows that is nonsense.

Dorsey said this: "Nothing related to the election should be a reason for layoffs. Anyone needing to lay off workers now had systemic problems long before Tuesday. These might be legitimate business decisions, but it's not because of the results of the election. And if the stock market wasn't prepared for Barack Obama to be reelected, then I don't have a lot of faith that actors in the market are rational."

And btw, during the last 4 years that Obama was the President corporations have made record profits, they are sitting on record amounts of cash, and the stock market doubled from 6,500 to over 13,000.

Ingraham then told Dorsey this: "Some of these companies are actually saying it's the result of the election, and that the new monstrosity Obamacare is a big burden to businesses at a time when profit margins are quite narrow."

And they are all run by Republicans, so they are biased and they are Obama haters.

And finally Ingraham had another biased segment with a biased Republican guest. The Pentagon recently reported that Iran fired at an unarmed U.S. drone on November 1st, raising the question of why this wasn't mentioned prior to the election. Former U.S. State Department official Richard Grenell was on to discuss it.

Grenell said this: "This was a provocative act in international air space, and this attack can not go unanswered. There has also been a plot to kill an ambassador in Washington and the killing of our ambassador in Libya, yet the Obama administration keeps turning the other cheek. It's providing our enemies and others with a sense that we are weak. The second part of this is the timing - why did it take this long to figure out what's going on when it took less than an hour to tell us about the killing of Osama Bin Laden?"

How Gallup Got The Presidential Election So Wrong
By: Steve - November 10, 2012 - 10:00am

How did Gallup end up being one of the most inaccurate pollsters of the 2012 election?

They earned it. Obviously the massive lead Gallup showed for Mitt Romney once they moved to a 'likely voter' model caused considerable heartburn for Democrats while seriously heartening Republicans. They crept back to something like the consensus after taking a week off polling after Hurricane Sandy.

But how did they end up getting the election so wrong?

There is a very simple answer: Race. Gallup somehow seemed to think the electorate would be much whiter than it ended up being. So they were basically just as wrong as Dick Morris, meaning in the future people will doubt their polls.

The numbers are stark. Gallup projected that whites would make up 78% of the 2012 electorate. In fact, the final exit polls say the number was 72%.

When you consider that minority voters went overwhelmingly for President Obama and white voters went decisively for Romney, that six percent difference in the composition of the electorate really makes all the difference in the world.

So why did they come up with that number?

In 2004, the white vote was 77% of the electorate, in 2008, 74% of the electorate and in 2010, 78% of the electorate. So Gallup estimated that that the racial make up of the electorate would be the same as two years ago and that 2008 was an outlier.

But there are two real problems with that reasoning.

First, presidential years are always higher turnout elections compared to midterm elections. Always. And historically racial minorities are more inconsistent in their voting than white voters. So there were lots of reasons to think that the percentage of whites would be lower than 2010, even without factoring in that it was a blow out for the disproportionately white GOP.

Not to mention this: The far right did not like Mitt Romney, they wanted a far right guy like Perry or Santorum, they simply supported Romney because they thought he had the best chance to beat Obama. So the mostly white Republican vote was not motivated to turnout for Romney.

But there's another issue: The country is getting less white. We know that for a fact. There are really good reasons to think that the percentage of white voters would go down from 2004. Gallup just seemed to be assuming that 2008 was an outlier, an exceptional year. Again, that was certainly possible. But projecting the 78% number didn't just prove to be wrong. It also looks really hard to justify.

And here is another thing, after the attacks on Hispanic Americans over the last four years, after the attacks on voting rights and so much more, it just seems ridiculous to me to assume that the minority vote this year would not turnout in big numbers. And yet that's what they did.

Obviously there are lots of really experienced and smart pollsters and statisticians who work at Gallup. But in the future, it will be really hard to look at Gallup polls and believe them. People who quote Gallup polls will sometimes have someone say this: How can we believe that Gallup poll after they got the 2012 election so wrong.

It will take Gallup years and years and years to get their reputation back, they will have to be right for the next Presidential election or two before that happens, and with some people they will never get it back.

O'Reilly & The Right Spinning Out The Same Election Lies
By: Steve - November 10, 2012 - 9:30am

When they're not expressing shock over the growing participation of women, Hispanics and African American voters in the election, O'Reilly and his Republican friends are reacting to President Obama’s victory by acknowledging the party's shortcomings in appealing to non-white voters.

Some members of the GOP, like former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, are even suggesting that the party should cut a deal with Democrats and pass comprehensive immigration reform to win votes from the growing Latino population. O'Reilly even said they should just put a Latino on the ticket, like Rubio.

In acknowledging the nation's changing demographics, Republicans and conservative pundits are also advancing a new ridiculous narrative: America has permanently shifted from a white male-dominated electorate, to a new crop of minority voters who support Democrats because they are dependent upon government:
BILL O'REILLY: "The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?" [11/6/2012]

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "It's just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. It is practically impossible to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Clause especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus. [11/7/2012]

SEAN HANNITY: "One other thing that we need to come to terms with as a result of last night. What appears to have happened is that the liberal welfare state in this country has now grown. More and more Americans have become dependent on that welfare state. As they have, they have found themselves siding with the party of government." [11/7/2012]

STUART VARNEY: "With Obama's victory, the takers have taken over. The makers are clearly in the minority." [11/7/2012]
Conservatives are now doubling down on Romney's claim that 47 percent of Americans refuse to take personal responsibility and care for their lives - though the argument is highly misleading. In fact, to the extent that Americans are growing dependent upon government, Republican voters are raking in a greater share of the benefits.

The recession has pushed more lower-income Americans to rely on government assistance like food stamps, but "nearly 70 percent of all benefits of these programs go to white people."

Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that the overwhelming majority of counties with the fastest-growth in food-stamp aid during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008.

These included Republican strongholds like King County, Texas, where 96 percent of voters supported Romney.

More than 90 percent of the population has turned to government programs at one point or another, ranging from Social Security pay outs to government grants or contracts - including the traditional Republican block of higher income voters.

Top earners disproportionately benefit from the plethora of government tax breaks that deplete the government of revenue in the same way that benefits do. According to a study from the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of income earners, those who take home in excess of $400,000 a year, account for almost a quarter of all tax breaks, saving more than $250 billion a year in taxes.

Meanwhile, the bottom 60 percent of wage earners take in just over 20 percent of annual tax breaks, or approximately $217 billion in breaks each year. Exit polls show that Americans earning an income of $250,000 or more (around the top 2 percent of earners) "voted for Romney approximately 1.5 to 1."

The Thursday 11-8-12 O'Reilly Factor review
By: Steve - November 9, 2012 - 11:30am

The far-right stooge Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly and her TPM was called: How will the GOP bounce back? Crazy Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Since Mitt Romney lost in an electoral landslide, I feel like I've become the chief psychologist for conservatives. The frustration and dejection is understandable; like many conservatives, I thought Mitt Romney would pull out a victory.

But I think Governor Romney ran an overly cautious and defensive campaign, which allowed the other side to define him. Some establishment Republican types say this requires the party to be less conservative, to be more moderate, and it's no surprise that Democrats agree. I find that depressing.

Conservatism won huge for the GOP in 2010 and it beat back a recall recently in Wisconsin. To paraphrase George Will, for Mitt Romney conservatism was kind of like a second language; he was never comfortable articulating or arguing it. So Latinos and women and new voters weren't sold on it and in that vacuum they bought into the malevolent portrait of Romney that was relentlessly pushed by team Obama.

But despair is a losing proposition that gets us nowhere. Five days after Barry Goldwater's landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson in 1964, conservatives didn't waste time cursing the darkness; instead, they plotted out a strategy for their cause. The pathway was cleared for fresh voices and new approaches and the movement slowly and surely grew.

In his 1980 victory, Ronald Reagan converted Democrats not by adopting Democratic views, but instead by convincing them that conservative solutions offer the only hope for American renewal. We need to do the same thing again.
But in 1980 America was a whole different country, no Republican can do now what Reagan did then. Republicans will need to change their positions on some issues or lose the voting public even more as the population changes in the future to being even more liberal. This center-right country nonsense is over and as the new America grows it's going to get even worse for O'Reilly, Ingraham, and their Republican friends.

Then two Republican strategists were on to assess her recipe for Republican renewal.

Benkie said this: "I agree with you that Mitt Romney could have been a little more passionate, but we have too many rich old guys, we just do! We need to be more positive and uplifting, there wasn't enough of that. We sounded like the 'party of no' and we lost badly."

Saltsman urged his fellow Republicans to stick with conservative principles, saying this: "We know who we are as a party, we're a center-right party in a center-right country. Conservatism didn't lose, Mitt Romney lost the race for the White House. We need to talk about what we believe in. True leaders convert the undecided based on their ideas, they don't change their ideas to win elections. If we do that we'll be in the minority for generations."

Wow is that ridiculous, Saltsman is as dumb as O'Reilly and Ingraham. This is not a center-right country anymore, and that is a fact. You can not convince a liberal that conservative solutions offer the only hope for American renewal, it is impossible.

And this garbage that you just need someone else (besides Romney) to get that message out is ridiculous. Latinos, single women, and Blacks are never going to vote a majority of their support to any Republicans unless they change some of their positions, and anyone who doubts that is doubting reality.

For more on the Republican future, Ingraham had Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham on.

Williams said this: "Just look at the numbers, and it looks like a huge victory among whites for Romney, but he lost the election. If you're thinking strategically, you have to be more inclusive, especially with rapidly emerging Latino population. You've got to open the party's doors and let some fresh air in."

Ham, like Chip Saltsman, urged conservatives to maintain their basic principles, saying this: "I'm a conservative and I don't want Republicans to be 'statists light.' You can be conservative, you can sell that, but you do need a really good messenger to bring that message. One of them is Marco Rubio, who sells conservatism really well."

And she is about as dumb as a rock, the different messenger garbage is laughable. As I like to say, you can't put lipstick on a pig, and that is basically what O'Reilly, Ingraham, Saltsman, and Ham are saying the Republican party needs to do. A pig is still a pig, even with lipstick on it.

With automatic spending cuts and tax increases looming on January 1st, Laura spoke with former U.S. budget boss Douglas Holtz-Eakin about the so-called "fiscal cliff."

Eakin said this: "This would be a big hit and a recipe for recession, and we don't even have as much time as that. This is affecting the markets and I think we are in trouble even as we speak."

Eakin also specified who will be hit with higher taxes if action isn't taken by the end of the year, saying this: "The alternative minimum tax will hit the middle class so 30-million Americans will pay the high end tax. There is also the sunset of the so-called Bush tax cuts, so everybody will be hit with much higher taxes and there are new things in the Affordable Care Act. The best thing that could happen is if, the President would agree that it's the wrong time to raise taxes."

Here we go again, a Republican asking for more tax cuts to fix the economy, give me a break, it does not work. I say raise taxes on the wealthy along with some spending cuts to programs we do not need, including defense spending, and that will fix things, just as Bill Clinton did in the 90's.

Then Ingraham had the Republican Congressman Mike Kelly on to talk about Libya. Which I will not report on because he and Ingraham are biased about it. I will not report on it until the investigation is over and we have all the facts.

Then Ingraham asked the teo right-wing Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro to analyze President Obama's ability to win over single women, even as Governor Romney won with married women.

Carlson said this: "Married women think about the future of their children, and if you're in a traditional marriage you want the same cultural ideals you grew up with. Married women think less about abortion and are less likely to look to the government for help."

Pirro said this: "We have a celebrity-driven culture and in this election, more than any that I remember, the celebrities came out and a lot of young people wanted to connect with them. Their issue was all about abortion, while Mitt Romney came out and said he was against Planned Parenthood. The message of Barack Obama, which was so artfully done, was that Republicans hate women and don't want you to get health care."

Then two Democrats Kirsten Powers and Mary Anne Marsh were on to talk about Harry Reid.

Powers said this: "Both sides are trying to sound more conciliatory, because they know that's what Americans want. But they're both going to have to give. I try to be hopeful but that's very hard in Washington."

Marsh claimed that Democrats have earned a mandate to raise taxes on the wealthy, saying this: "President Obama campaigned on that and he won, every Democrat who ran for the Senate ran on it and they picked up five seats. So there is a mandate. We have to raise taxes on those who can afford it, we have to make cuts, we have to do it all. The last thing we need is a high-stakes game of chicken during a lame duck session of Congress."

Since President Obama won more than 70% of the Hispanic vote, Ingraham asked Jose Vargas and former Republican Congressman Henry Bonilla what Republicans should do.

Vargas said this: "Latinos and Asian Americans care about immigration reform, but not 'amnesty,' which is the word people on Fox News throw around. We want some sort of a process. And what was really missing with Governor Romney was the 'empathy gap.' He used terms like 'illegal aliens' and 'self-deportation.'"

Bonilla urged his party not to pander to Hispanics, saying this: "People stereotype us, saying all we want to talk about is immigration. But Hispanics want to talk about economic opportunity and individual responsibility. If you go to these neighborhoods and take a message that is inclusive without trying to pander, then you can be successful. The majority of Hispanics just want to be mainstream Americans."

And the lame, biased, ridiculous, Laura Ingraham/Bill O'Reilly Factor was over. Now ask yourself this, how can O'Reilly claim to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, when his fill-in host is the partisan, kool-aid drinking, right-wing spin doctor Laura Ingraham. What say you Billy?

Paul Krugman: The Real America
By: Steve - November 9, 2012 - 11:00am

Here is what O'Reilly fails to admit, that America has changed to a diverse country, not a big majority of white guys who control everything. And btw, I am a white guy, but I support liberal issues and I also believe we now have a more diverse country.

Not to mention, on the Wednesday Factor show O'Reilly still tried to claim America is a center-right country, which is laughable when you look at the demographics of the election. Bob Beckel even told O'Reilly that he does not understand demographics, and Beckel was right.

Dick Morris and Larry Sabato also tried to tell O'Reilly that the demographics of the country have changed, which will make it harder and harder for conservatives (who are far to the right) to get elected. But the insane O'Reilly refused to listen to them, he stuck his head in the sand and pretended it was still 1960 when Leave It To Beaver and Ward Cleaver were what America mostly looked like. O'Reilly wants America to be like it was in 1950, 98% white, but those days are gone, he just refuses to admit it.

Earth to O'Reilly, look at the Census (or a population growth study) once in a while. America is becoming more racially diverse every year, that's because the current minorities are having kids at a faster rate than whites, so in 10 years or so whites will be in the minority. You may not like that, but it's a fact, and those current minorities tend to vote Democratic, so figure it out, loser.

Here is what Professor Paul Krugman wrote about it on Wednesday:

The Real Real America

So, for a while there during the campaign it seemed very iffy. But in the end, discipline and being on the right side of the issues prevailed. Yes, Elizabeth Warren won!

Oh, and that guy Obama too.

Tomorrow - or I guess today - comes the cleanup; when thousands, perhaps millions, of right-wing heads explode, it makes quite a mess. Also, notice that the polls were right. I wonder if I can get invited when Nate Silver is sworn in as president?

OK, somewhat more seriously: one big thing that just happened was that the real America trumped the "real America." And it's also the election that lets us ask, finally, "Who cares what's the matter with Kansas?"

For a long time, right-wingers - and some pundits - have peddled the notion that the "real America", all that really counted, was the land of non-urban white people, to which both parties must abase themselves. Meanwhile, the actual electorate was getting racially and ethnically diverse, and increasingly tolerant too. The 2008 Obama coalition wasn't a fluke; it was the country we are becoming.

And sure enough that more diverse and, if you ask me, better nation just won big.

Notice too that to the extent that social issues played in this election, they played in favor of Democrats. Gods, guns, and gays didn't swing voters into supporting corporate interests; instead, human dignity for women swung votes the other way.

A huge night for truth, justice, and the real American way.

Jon Stewart Nails Karl Rove For Crying About Ohio
By: Steve - November 9, 2012 - 10:00am

This is so great, I watched it twice. Enjoy:



As Jon Stewart said, watching Karl Rove meltdown after Fox called Ohio for Obama was the best thing I have seen this year, and maybe in my lifetime.

And here is another video where Stewart talks more about the election.




Nate Silver At FiveThirtyEight Got Every State Right
By: Steve - November 8, 2012 - 11:30am

Who was my go to guy for electoral vote information in the last month or so, Nate Silver at the fivethirtyeight blog. And it's a good thing I used him, because he was right about every state. Unlike O'Reilly who used Rove and Morris for his electoral vote information, who got everything wrong.

After correctly predicting the results in 49 of the 50 states that have been called in the US election (Florida remains too close to call), Nate Silver, the statistician behind the popular FiveThirtyEight blog, woke on Wednesday to find himself the poster child of what is sure to be a new data-driven approach to politics. While Obama was declared the winner of the election, Silver won the polling race.

Television anchors from Rachel Maddow on the left-leaning MSNBC, to Bret Baier on the right-leaning Fox News, praised his accuracy. A comedian on Twitter called him "The Emperor of Math."

Silver's publicist said he had been so inundated with requests she had been unable to reach him. The victory lap of sorts was well-deserved for a man who received widespread criticism from conservatives for giving President Barack Obama a 90.9 per cent chance of re-election in the weeks leading up to Election Day, said Clifford Young, managing director of polling at firm Ipsos, the polling partner of Reuters.

But beyond getting the results right overall, as other pollsters did in this election cycle, Silver's true genius is his ability to make statistical modeling accessible to a lay audience, Young said. "Ultimately, what he's done is take a lot of the mysticism out of politics. This puts a check on the traditional pundits and the state of punditry in general. It makes me wonder if we have a changing of the guard," Young said.

It has been an impressive start for a man who does no polling himself. After graduating from the University of Chicago with a degree in economics in 2000, Silver worked as an economic consultant at an accounting firm before creating a model to predict baseball player's future performance. He sold it to stats firm Baseball Prospectus for an undisclosed amount and then turned to politics during the 2008 primaries with a model that emphasized demographics and past polling history.

Sales of his recent book, "The Signal and the Noise," jumped 500 per cent on Wednesday to reach the No. 2 book on Amazon.com, just behind the latest in the children's "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" franchise.

Unlike traditional pollsters, who put questions to a field of voters, Silver incorporates the averages of several polls and weights them based on factors like the past accuracy of the polling firm, the number of likely voters on Election Day and the composition of each state's electorate. He then runs multiple simulations of the results, which results in his probability forecast.

The end result often mirrors other aggregate data that is available. Real Clear Politics and Pollster.com, for instance, also showed that Obama held an advantage in all of the swing states except North Carolina. Yet Silver's probability simulations as well as his status as, essentially, a one-man shop, has helped burnish his image and reputation, especially in light of the performance of traditional polling firms.

Rasmussen Reports, for instance, was wrong on six of the nine swing-state polls and showed Romney winning the popular vote by one percentage point.

Silver's track record in the 2008 election led Penguin Books to sign him to a two-book deal worth more than $700,000, according to a person with knowledge of the deal. The New York Times reached a license agreement with Silver to host his blog through at least the 2012 election.

At the NY Times, Silver has branched out from politics to include more day-to-day topics, including a post that investigated whether KFC's Double Down Sandwich was the unhealthiest sandwich ever. But it is his electoral predictions that have paid dividends: on the day before the election, 20 per cent of all visitors to the Times website clicked on a 538 post, according to press reports.

Silver's status as the electoral sage has led him to be courted throughout the business and media worlds. "He's at a level about four times as high as I am," said Jack Bogle, founder of investment-management company the Vanguard Group.

"He relies on his track record," Hall says. The nerdy shtick works in Silver's favor. "If Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are falling over themselves to talk to you, you are in the hippest/coolest/most-insidery group," Hall says.

Even so, Silver's methods have been criticized by political pundits, who detected a Democratic slant in his results, leading some to come up with so-called "unskewed polls" that showed Republicans winning handily.

But then he silenced all of them by getting the electoral vote count 100% right, and proving his methods work. While O'Reilly and his stooges at Fox News got it all wrong.

Now you might ask yourself why Fox News would not hire him so they can be right, and the answer is they do not care about being right, they just want to put out their propaganda, no matter if it's accurate or not. Which is why O'Reilly has Gingrich, Rove, Morris, and Ingraham on, to be wrong and tell you they are right, because O'Reilly agrees with their spin, and he is friends with them.

The Wednesday 11-7-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 8, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What the heck happened last night? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I thought Mitt Romney was a good choice to run against President Obama because of his economic experience; the Governor is a free market capitalist and offered a stark contrast to the President who wants the government to drive the economy. I knew very early that the debates would be the real test. The first debate was a major victory for Governor Romney and instantly made him competitive, but he did not seize the day.

His campaign played it conservatively, managing Romney's appearances and tightly scripting his media response. Then, in the third debate, Governor Romney made a mistake by not bringing up Libya. He should have confronted the President over Libya because the media would have then been forced to cover the story, which is a major embarrassment to the President.

Still, Romney had some momentum, but it was suddenly blown away by Hurricane Sandy, which took him off the front pages for five days while President Obama dominated the news cycle. Exit polling showed that 42% of those who voted said President Obama's response to Hurricane Sandy was an important part of their decision.

Talking Points believes that by not emerging aggressively after Sandy, Romney cost himself the presidency. Going forward, some folks are despairing, but the truth is that the USA is a rapidly changing country and the Republican Party has to rethink strategy.

In hindsight, Senator Marco Rubio would have been the best choice to run with Mitt Romney because the GOP needs to send a powerful signal to Hispanic voters that the party respects them. The good news for the Republicans is that the pressure is now on President Obama and the Democrats; if the economy does not improve dramatically over the next four years the Democratic Party will evaporate.

What is more complicated is the mindset of the American people. About half of all American homes are now receiving some kind of government entitlement, so any effort to reform or cut back on entitlements is a tough sell.

President Obama won because he put together a coalition of voters who had something to gain by keeping him in office, but with the nation heading towards financial insolvency, that kind of 'where's mine?' attitude will eventually bring economic ruin.

Mitt Romney had to convince voters there's danger in the President's policies, he needed to bring urgency, but he did not, preferring to campaign the old-fashioned way. As far as moving the Republican Party further into conservative precincts, the numbers simply aren't there.

While the right is still powerful, ideology is not going to win a national election any longer. The President's acolytes pushed the far-left nonsense, he didn't. However, behind the scenes Mr. Obama has embraced just about every far-left cause and that is cause for concern.

In his final term, only the House of Representatives stands between Barack Obama and a far-left ideological administration. Thank God for that check and balance.

Americans who voted for Mitt Romney are understandably disappointed, but should accept the situation, setting themselves up as the loyal opposition. President Obama won fair and square and we should all respect the vote.
And that my friends is a total right-wing spin on the election. To begin with, Romney was a terrible candidate who ran a campaign of lies and secrets and he had no chance to win, none, the demographics of the voters showed that. Exit polls showed that nobody cared about Libya, and even if Romney had picked Rubio he still would have lost. Obama won because the people support his policies, plain and simple.

O'Reilly also said this: "If the economy does not improve dramatically over the next four years the Democratic Party will evaporate." Which is just laughable, because even if the economy does not improve dramatically it will still be a powerful party with a majority in the Senate. O'Reilly is just an idiot for saying a crazy thing like that. Especially when it's the Republican party that could evaporate over the next 10 years if they do not change the issues they support to reflect the makeup of the country.

Then Larry Sabato and pollster Scott Rasmussen were on to assess the election. Rasmussen said this: "What surprised me most, is how precisely the Obama campaign projected the white turnout. Mitt Romney got nearly six out of ten white voters and most people thought the Obama campaign was being wildly optimistic that they could get the minority turnout to 28%, but they did just what they said."

Sabato, who had predicted a narrow Obama victory, agreed that the race was decided by ethnicity and demographics, saying this: "Everybody said it would be 'Ohio, Ohio, Ohio,' but now what we ought to be saying 'demographics, demographics, demographics.' That explains what happened in this election and why we're on a new path now."

O'Dummy then reemphasized the pressure now placed on President Obama, saying this: "The American people have been very generous to Barack Obama, they're giving him another chance. But if the economy does not turn around you can just forget about the Democratic Party."

O'Reilly also denied the country has changed enough to really hurt the Republican party, which is a denial of reality. As Beckel tells him later in the show, he does not understand demographics. Billy even made the ridiculous statement that the country is still center-right, when the voting demographics show it is now a center-left country.

Then Dick Morris was on with his tail between his legs after predicting a Romney landslide. Morris said this: "I plead guilty. I undercounted the turnout of minorities and young people and single women. I thought the 2008 turnout was a fluke, but it turned out not to be an outlier, it turned out to be a trend. I got the demographics wrong and the permanent conclusion is that America has changed."

Morris, who formerly advised President Clinton, then maintained that his own reputation will survive, saying this: "I got a President of the United States elected. As far as I'm concerned, I live in a world with Axelrod and Rove and Caddell and Carville, because we're the only ones that have done it."

Which is just laughable, because his reputation (what little he had) is ruined, from now on nobody will ever believe anything him or Karl Rove ever say again. And if O'Reilly keeps putting this fool on the air for political analysis, he is just as bad as Morris.

Then Bob Beckel was on to discuss the election. Beckel said this: "I knew President Obama was going to win about a week ago. It was clear to me that the demographics of this election were going to have white voters down in the low 70's, and at that point Republicans can't win. Romney did not excite a whole lot of the base of the Republican Party."

And I knew Obama would win about two weeks ago when I started looking at the Nate Silver fivethirtyeight electoral blog and the RCP electoral blog, that both had Obama over 300 electoral votes, and Romney under 240.

O'Reilly advised Beckel and his fellow Democrats to embrace the center, saying this: "I would caution the far-left loons in the party that President Obama didn't win by very much and far-left politics hurt him more than helped him."

Now that's funny, as if they are going to listen to O'Reilly. And for the record, Obama won by a landslide, 303 to 206 is a slaughter, dumb ass! Not to mention Obama won 10 of the 11 swing states, which is a mandate. And when Gore won the popular vote and lost the election O'Reilly said the popular vote is not important.

Then the far-right stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to assess the media's effect on the election.

Goldberg said this: "Were there a lot of reporters who were actively rooting for Barack Obama, absolutely! But did Mitt Romney lose because of that? No, with an asterisk. The media played down the Benghazi story and if they had played it up it could have swayed the election. But Mitt Romney didn't play it up either."

Goldberg also said this: Here's where the asterisk comes in and here's where the media did affect the election. When Obama decided to run for president, the media fell in love with him and created an image of someone who was bigger, better, and smarter than any other politician. The public relations campaign worked and Obama got reelected. When you have this messiah-like figure who is also handing out goodies, that is a tough candidate to beat."

Which is just ridiculous, Obama won because the majority of Americans support his policies, plain and simple. And Romney lost because he was a terrible candidate who ran a bad campaign, that was full of lies and secrets.

Then Dennis Miller was on to cry about Romney losing, who he supported and even gave speeches at his campaign rallies. Too bad jerk, your guy lost, now go away and get a clue.

And finally, there was no tip of the day, which is great because they are lame and worthless.

Morris Now Admits Republicans Must Change To Win
By: Steve - November 8, 2012 - 10:30am

Not only did Morris admit he was dead wrong about the turnout model, he said the same thing Rush Limbaugh did, that the Republican party must change it's positions on a lot of issues or they will never win any more elections for President.

He also said the way the country is now Democrats like Obama have 40 percent of the vote before the election even starts, which means Romney and other Republicans have no chance, unless they change the party platform.

Here is the video:



And once again, I can not believe I am saying this, but for once Dick Morris is right. As Morris said, this is not your Father's America any more. It's the new America where the demographics are changing to favor Democrats, and if they Republicans do not change their positions on issues from abortion to taxes to immigration etc, they will never win another Presidential election, because they have moved too far to the right.

And one last thing, O'Reilly has been saying for years that America is a center-right country, and I have been saying it's a center-left country. So Tuesday's election proved me right, and proved O'Reilly wrong, even Dick Morris finally admitted it.

What this also proves is that propaganda no longer works, because Romney spent hundreds of millions using propaganda and it did not work. Because we have the internet now, and we can look up what they say. Romney and Rove spent almost a Billion dollars, and what did it get them, an ass whipping by Obama, who had the truth on his side. Now I ask O'Reilly to say this is a center-right country, because if he does, he will be lying to you. What say you Billy?

Don Imus Calls Out Fox Pundits For Being So Wrong
By: Steve - November 8, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course the total right-wing Fox News stooge Neil Cavuto defended them all, Gingrich, Rove, Morris, etc. Here is the video:



The Romney Landslide That Wasn't
By: Steve - November 8, 2012 - 9:00am

Every election cycle brings with it a host of dishonest right-wing political pundits who get the results wrong; who misread the campaign and the polls, and view the election through hopeful, partisan eyes.

And there's nothing unusual about that, for the Republicans at Fox, including Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be a non-partisan Independent, which is just laughable.

What was different this time was the spectacle of a whole slate of Obama-hating conservatives who claimed that despite very clear polling evidence to the contrary, that Mitt Romney would win the election in a "landslide." Not only would the Republican defeat Obama, but he'd also do it sweeping, historic fashion.

It was funny to watch because these claims were supported by nothing but blind faith, as well as the far-right's signature hatred of the president and a conspiratorial view of the media and the polls. And this was the fantastic, implausible scenario conservatives fed their grateful readers, viewers and listeners right up until election night.

It was that blinding hatred for President Obama that led so many right-wing pundits astray in the final weeks of the campaign. Unable to even comprehend how Obama would win re-election, after he'd been denounced as a socialist, Marxist, and racist who sympathized with terrorists who was "the second coming of Jimmy Cater," his fervent media critics relied on their gut.

And their gut told them this election was a no-brainer.

The Romney Landslide nicely captured the flight of fancy that has defined the conservative media since the day Obama was inaugurated. Faced with the prospect of a second term by a president they had endlessly condemned as an enemy of the state (and much, much worse), the right-wing media embraced pure campaign denial and announced that Doomsday awaited Obama on November 6:
-- Dick Morris: "Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213"

-- Glenn Beck: "321-217 victory for Romney in the electoral college."

-- Rush Limbaugh: "Everything -- Except the Polls -- Points to a Romney Landslide"

-- Michael Barone: "Romney Beats Obama, Handily"

-- George Will: Romney 321, Obama 217

-- Newsmax: "Expect a Mitt Romney Landslide"

-- Larry Kudlow: "I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide."
And this was not simply a case of partisan fools rooting for their side and letting that enthusiasm color their analysis. What was so unusual was there was no polling data to support the idea of a Romney Landslide. None. Zero. It did not exist. And yet, they still called for a Romney landslide anyway, ignoring the poll reality to just call for something to happen that was impossible.

This was a school of conservative pundits incapable of imaging the president being re-elected, and incapable of imaging Obama not losing in a humiliating electoral rout. Because they had convinced themselves with their own lies about Obama that all the people hated Obama just like they did.

Anyone who regularly watched Fox News, listened to AM talk radio or watched the conservative media for the last four years must have been convinced Obama's 2008 victory was a massive mistake and that it was only a matter of time before voters corrected their mistake.

That's been the right-wing message from O'Reilly and they said for nearly 48 months: America was anxious to right the Obama wrong and when given the opportunity on November 6, there would be a Republican stampede.

Turns out viewing politics through the filter of hate severely limits your vision.

Now here is the cold hard truth about people like Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, etc. They lied to you on purpose, to keep the money coming in to the Romney campaign, their PAC's, their websites, etc.

They lied to you, to keep all that money coming in, because they knew all the electoral maps had Obama winning with 300 or more electoral votes, so what did they do, tell you the truth, haha, of course not. They said all the polls and all the electoral vote experts were wrong, especially Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight, who got it right btw.

They went on the air and told you that Romney was winning, or that he could win, so you suckers would keep giving them all your money. If they dared to go on the air and admit that Romney was going to lose, nobody would give them any more money. So they just made up a story that Romney could win, if you just give them the money to help him.

And the suckers on the right bought it, they raised and spent record amounts of money to beat Obama with lies, and guess what, if failed big time, all that money was a total waste. Romney was a terrible candidate with no plan for the country, except to give the wealthy more tax cuts they do not need.

Romney did not lose because he could not get his message out (as O'Reilly claimed) he lost because he had no message, except vote for me because I am not Obama. He was a dishonest flip flopping stooge, who was like a wealthy robot who did did not have a clue. And the Republicans sold out their true beliefs to nominate him because they thought he had the best chance to beat Obama, boy were they wrong.

They basically tried to buy the election for Romney by running political ads full of lies, and it did not work, because the people are too smart now, with the internet, fact checker websites, and google, you can check their lies in 2 seconds. So they can not get away with it, because of the internet.

Now here is some advice for the Republians, stop trying to run on lies, it does not work any more. Try running honest elections and try to win by earning it with the true positions you have. If you don't, you guys may never win another Presidential election.

Dick Morris: The Worst Political Analyst In The World
By: Steve - November 7, 2012 - 11:00am

It's Official: Dick Morris Is Through. Fox News political analyst Dick Morris, who repeatedly predicted a "landslide" victory for Mitt Romney, is officially "through" according to the standard set by the one and only Bill O'Reilly himself.

During a May appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly told Morris that he was "so far out on a limb" for a Romney win, that if Obama was re-elected, Morris would be "through" and would be "selling refrigerators in Topeka."

Morris even admitted that if he was wrong about the Romney landslide he was through. Then he did it again after that. Morris appeared on Hannity and declared that there was "no chance that Obama will get re-elected."

When Hannity disagreed, Morris said "zilch, zone, zip, nada," prompting Hannity to tell Morris that he would hold the analyst to his prediction.

Morris has been bullish on Romney's chances for months, including repeatedly during the past week.

Despite ample polling evidence to the contrary, Morris published a column predicting a big Romney win in The Hill last week with the headline, "Here comes the landslide." And just yesterday on Fox News America Live, Morris again predicted "Romney will win by a very large margin -- a landslide if you will."

Claiming that all of the polls were wrong, Morris declared that Romney would win 325 electoral votes and carry the popular vote by "more than 5 points." According to Morris, Romney was poised to win states like Pennsylvania, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

None of that happened, Romney lost Pennsylvania, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. So Morris was wrong about all of them, he got nothing right, zero.

The Dick Morris promoting of Romney this election cycle is more cynical than his usually awful political hackery. Last year, Morris told radio host Mike Gallagher that he had stopped "dumping on" Romney -- even though he was concerned by the candidate's "flip flops" and his passage of health care reform -- because Morris didn't want to make the candidate's job of defeating Obama more difficult.

Morris then sang Romney's praises during all his media appearances on Fox, especially the Factor where he was a regular weekly guest, and in recent weeks he has tied his lofty predictions of a Romney victory to fundraising pitches for his Super PAC for America.

As I told you many time in this blog, Dick Morris is a con man, he is taking the suckers who listen to his insanity for a ride, an expensive one. He is using the Republican stooges who watch Fox, buy his books, read his website, and give money to his SuperPAC, to steal your money. In fact, I would bet he does not believe a word he says, he just says it to get rich off the backs of the stooges who believe his lies.

During an appearance earlier this week on Fox & Friends, Morris even announced that after the election, "either I'm gonna have to go through a big reckoning, or they are. And you know what? They are."

Now here is my prediction, nothing will change. O'Reilly will continue to have Morris on his show every week, he might lay low for a while until people forget how wrong he was, but he will be back. And 2 or 3 months from now Morris will be on the Factor and Fox every day with more lies to get rich from the suckers who buy what he is selling.

Karl Rove: The 2nd Worst Political Analyst In The World
By: Steve - November 7, 2012 - 10:00am

And he is only 2nd because Dick Morris was #1, which is not saying much for Rove because Morris is always wrong.

Okay, on the Monday night O'Reilly Factor Rove said this:
ROVE: "These are very close calls and both New Hampshire and Iowa, which I awarded to Romney, are really toss-ups.

Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are all in play, and in Ohio, let's look at the early vote. Four years ago 340,000 more Democrats than Republicans turned out and voted early or absentee.

This year the Democratic advantage is down to 75,000, which is a shift of 265,000 votes!

This is a very close race and a lot of states will be settled by thousands of votes or tens of thousands of votes."
And not only did Rove get it a little wrong, he was wrong about all of it, every State he said was in play or a toss up went to Obama, all of them. Just as I wrote Tuesday morning, Rove is an insane partisan hack who is not dealing in reality.

Here is what I wrote Tuesday morning:
STEVE: And now a reality check for Rove:

-- In New Hampshire the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 2 points, they use 7 polls to get that number, including Rasmussen (who also has Obama ahead by 2 points) and of the 7 polls Obama is ahead in all of them but one, and that poll has it a tie, Romney is not ahead in any of them.

-- In Iowa the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 2.4 points, they use 7 polls to get that number, and of the 7 polls Obama is ahead by 2 to 6 points in five of them. The two that has Romney ahead are ARG and Rasmussen, and they both have Romney up by 1 point.

Then Rove said Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio are all in play. But Obama is ahead in all of them.

-- In Nevada the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 2.8 points, and Obama is ahead by 1 to 4 points in all of them, Romney is not ahead in any of them.

-- In Wisconsin the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 4.2 points, and Obama is ahead by 3 to 7 points in all of them but one, and that one is Rasmussen who has it a tie.

-- In Pennsylvania the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 3.8 points, and Obama is ahead by 3 to 6 points in all of them but one, and that one has it a tie.

-- In Ohio the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 2.9 points, and Obama is ahead by 1 to 6 points in all of them but one, and that one is Rasmussen who has it a tie.

In Roveworld those are all toss ups, which is laughable, because Obama is ahead in all of them, every single one, and Romney is not ahead in any of them, none, not one. And btw folks, RCP has Obama winning all 6 of those states, they have Romney losing all 6 of them. And their numbers include Rasmussen, who is biased for Romney.
Now read this:

-- Obama won New Hampshire by 5 points, Rove was wrong.

-- Obama won Iowa by 6 points, Rove was wrong.

And Rove had Romney winning them both, until Monday when he called them toss ups, even though all the polls had Obama winning them both.

-- Obama won Nevada by 6 points, Rove was wrong.

-- Obama won Wisconsin by 6 points, Rove was wrong.

-- Obama won Pennsylvania by 5 points, Rove was wrong.

-- Obama won Ohio by 2 points, Rove was wrong.

In fact, Ohio was the only State where he was close, but he was still wrong because it went to Obama by 2 points, Rove said Romney would win Ohio by at least 1 point.

Now think about this, Dick Morris and Karl Rove are the top 2 political analysts Bill O'Reilly uses all the time on the Factor, and they both got everything wrong, all of it, they were wrong, wrong, wrong!

So what does this say about O'Reilly, that he is a fool, and a biased hack who puts these right-wing stooges on because he likes what they say, even though they are never right. Now if O'Reilly had one ounce of integrity he would tell them both they were so wrong he can not use them anymore, and find someone who is right once in a while.

But who wants to bet me that does not happen, I am betting O'Reilly will continue to use them both, even though they are proven right-wing liars who only say what they want to happen, not what will actually happen. In fact, how can anyone ever believe anything they say again?

Answer: They Can't.

But O'Reilly will keep bringing them on his biased joke of a so-called news show, because he likes them and he agrees with them politically. Making O'Reilly just as bad as they are, for giving them a forum on the #1 cable news show to spew out their lies and right-wing propaganda.

And he does it in the so-called no spin zone, which is just laughable. How can it be a no spin zone when it's all right-wing spin, answer that O'Reilly you fraud.

Obama Wins Easily Proving Rove & Morris Are TOTAL Idiots
By: Steve - November 7, 2012 - 9:00am

President Obama won the election with at least 303 electoral votes, proving Karl Rove and Dick Morris are total right-wing fools who got it all wrong. The polls were right jerks, and you were wrong. Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight had it exactly right, he had Obama with 303 electoral votes.

Rove predicted Romney would win Ohio and then win the election, and he was 100% wrong. He was on the Factor Monday night with all these insane predictions about States Romney would win, and the best I can tell Rove was not right about any of them, it was just pathetic.

Dick Morris was even worse, he said Romney would win in a landslide by 5 to 10 points and get over 300 electoral votes. Making Dick Morris the worst political analyst in America, who should never be allowed to make any more predictions, or give any more political analysis on anything.

And O'Reilly is just as bad, because those two idiots were his go to guys for political analysis, who could not have been more wrong if they tried. Not to mention all the money Rove and the far-right spent on ads, was all wasted. They spent all that money and Romney could still not win, proving what I have said all along, that Romney was a total liar and a phony.

If O'Reilly puts these fools back on the air in the future he is stupid, and nobody should ever believe anything they say again.

The Monday 11-5-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 6, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Who will win? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It pains me to tell you that I can not make a prediction about Tuesday's vote, I really don't know what's going to happen. But I'm not going to be a total waffle guy. I think Mitt Romney will win Florida, and if the Governor wins Ohio as well he will be the next President of the United States. But that's a big if!

President Obama seems to have blunted Romney's momentum over the weekend because of Hurricane Sandy and because the national media simply refuses to cover the Libya situation. If President Obama loses the election, it will be because he could not convince Americans that his big government philosophy would improve the economy. If Mitt Romney loses, it will be because he did not get his message out.

Over the last three weeks of the campaign the Governor has played it very cautious and did few meaningful interviews. As you may know, Talking Points does not endorse political candidates, but it is my job to look out for you and the country. Voting for President Obama is risky; he does not seem to be concerned about the $16 trillion debt and does not seem likely to cut spending very much.

Maybe if the President gets a mandate, things will improve but, just like in 2008, if you vote for President Obama you are voting on 'hope.' Likewise with Governor Romney. That is also a 'hope' vote, but his philosophy of robust capitalism seems to make a bit more sense than to continue massive government spending. On the down side, the Governor has not fully explained what programs he would cut and how he would keep the treasury afloat while lowering taxes.

That is about as fair as I can make it. Again, I can not make a prediction because, even at this late date, some Americans could vote either way and both candidates still have a fighting chance.
Notice what O'Reilly did, he said this: "If Mitt Romney loses, it will be because he did not get his message out." So in O'Reillyworld if Romney loses it's not because of his message, it's because he did not get his message out. And that is a biased joke from O'Reilly, because Romney did get his message out, that is why he is losing the electoral vote by 60 votes, and will lose the election.

Then the insane right-wing loon Karl Rove was on with his election eve analysis. He began by questioning some recent national polls. But notice that Rove did not question those polls when they had Romney 4 to 5 points ahead.

Rove said this: "The ABC News/Washington Post poll, which has Obama ahead by three points, has a sample with a six-point Democrat advantage, but I don't know of any sane person who thinks the Democrat intensity in this election will match 2008. And CNN has a tied poll with 11 points more Democrats."

Earth to Rove, the pollsters weight the polls based on the vote count for each party based on the last election, get over it fool, if they are wrong this time they will adjust it for the next election, idiot!

Rove turned to some of the battleground states, saying this: "These are very close calls and both New Hampshire and Iowa, which I awarded to Romney, are really toss-ups. Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are all in play, and in Ohio, let's look at the early vote. Four years ago 340,000 more Democrats than Republicans turned out and voted early or absentee. This year the Democratic advantage is down to 75,000, which is a shift of 265,000 votes! This is a very close race and a lot of states will be settled by thousands of votes or tens of thousands of votes."

And now a reality check for Rove:

-- In New Hampshire the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 2 points, they use 7 polls to get that number, including Rasmussen (who also has Obama ahead by 2 points) and of the 7 polls Obama is ahead in all of them but one, and that poll has it a tie, Romney is not ahead in any of them.

-- In Iowa the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 2.4 points, they use 7 polls to get that number, and of the 7 polls Obama is ahead by 2 to 6 points in five of them. The two that has Romney ahead are ARG and Rasmussen, and they both have Romney up by 1 point.

Then Rove said Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio are all in play. But Obama is ahead in all of them.

-- In Nevada the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 2.8 points, and Obama is ahead by 1 to 4 points in all of them, Romney is not ahead in any of them.

-- In Wisconsin the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 4.2 points, and Obama is ahead by 3 to 7 points in all of them but one, and that one is Rasmussen who has it a tie.

-- In Pennsylvania the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 3.8 points, and Obama is ahead by 3 to 6 points in all of them but one, and that one has it a tie.

-- In Ohio the RCP polls have Obama ahead by 2.9 points, and Obama is ahead by 1 to 6 points in all of them but one, and that one is Rasmussen who has it a tie.

In Roveworld those are all toss ups, which is laughable, because Obama is ahead in all of them, every single one, and Romney is not ahead in any of them, none, not one. And btw folks, RCP has Obama winning all 6 of those states, they have Romney losing all 6 of them. And their numbers include Rasmussen, who is biased for Romney.

Then Kirsten Powers and Mary Anne Marsh were on to discuss it. Powers said this: "People are looking at the polls in completely different ways. Karl Rove believes the polls are weighted the wrong way and you can't rely on them, but I'm in the other camp. I think these polls have been pretty consistent and they point to an Obama win."

Marsh said this: "Mitt Romney was in Florida today, a state everyone thought he would have been pinned down by now. Even if President Obama loses Florida, it was worth every penny to keep Romney pinned in Florida, which he can not win the presidency without. Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire have same-day registration, and no one is better at getting those people to the polls than the Obama campaign."

O'Reilly then said this: "When the polls close in Florida, if Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly go, 'Obama wins,' it's time to change channels to Gossip Girls. It's over!"

Once again O'Reilly shows his bias, as if Baier and Kelly say Romney wins Florida it's over, which is just laughable. Because even if Romney does win Florida, Obama can still win, idiot! And he acts like only Fox News anchors can tell you who won, which is even more laughable, because most people will be watching NBC, ABC, or CBS, not Fox.

And btw, the RCP polls have Romney winning Florida by 1.5 points, and their electoral map still has Obama with 303 electoral votes to Romney's 235 electoral votes. So even with a Romney win in Florida they still have Obama killing Romney in the electoral vote and winning the election. Which shows just how biased and stupid O'Reilly is, for saying if Fox tells you Romney won Florida it's over.

Then Brit Hume was on, he said this: "I listened in on conference calls today to the managers of both campaigns, and they both make cases that make you say, 'yep, that could be right.' The national polls say this is a tie, most of the state polls have Obama ahead, and it has never happened before that all the polls are off. On the other hand, the point that Karl Rove made is a very good one, a lot of these polls reflect an electorate which is more Democratic than most people think is going to turn out on Election Day."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on, who speculated that Romney's momentum was temporarily stunted by Hurricane Sandy.

Krauthammer said this: "A week ago Romney was up by about five points in the national polls, but three things happened with the storm. Number one, he became irrelevant; number two, Obama played the Commander-in-Chief in that situation; number three, and the biggest factor, was the bear hug from Governor Chris Christie. That was the kind of advertising Obama couldn't have purchased with $10 million."

And even with all that, Krauthammer still predicted a narrow Romney victory, saying this: "Whenever you have a catastrophe, the solidarity effect lasts three days and then you get reality setting in. If you look at the last four national polls, Romney is either tied or ahead by one. There are easy paths for Romney to win electorally if, as I predict, the rebound in the national poll is continuing."

Then the total moron Pat Caddell was on, who focused on Pennsylvania. He theorized that Mitt Romney has a real shot at winning Pennsylvania.

Caddell said this: "I've argued that Ohio, Florida, and Virginia have been poisoned by so much negative advertising, and after the first debate Romney moved the needle in states that were supposed to be safe for Obama, Pennsylvania among them. The Democrats don't have the ground game there that they have in the swing states. The question for the last-minute people is what are they going to vote on, and the problem for the President is the economy. I think in the last day or two this has swung back toward Romney."

And finally the lame as ever Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Steven Spielberg's new movie 'Lincoln' is a brilliant film that will likely win the Academy Award for Best Picture."

O'Reilly Dishonestly Claims Obama Did Not Improve The Economy
By: Steve - November 6, 2012 - 10:00am

If you ever wanted one thing to prove Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest partisan right-wing liar, here it is. On his Monday show Bill O'Reilly put out the lie that President Obama did not improve the economy. In fact, O'Reilly said this: "The Cold Truth Is That Obama Has Not Improved The American Economy."

Here is the video:

And before I detail how and why O'Reilly is a liar, think about this, the only people who deny Obama has improved the economy are partisan Republicans who will not admit it because it makes Obama look good. So they put out the lie that Obama has not improved the economy in the hopes that it will fool some of the people into believing it.

O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent who is fair to both sides, and he also claims to never use any right-wing talking points. Then you see him putting out the exact same right-wing talking points lies that the RNC, the Romney campaign, and almost everyone at Fox is using, that Obama did not improve the economy, when in fact he did, and there is a ton of evidence to prove it.

Here is just some of the evidence that proves Obama did improve the economy:

At the end of the Bush years (from 2000 until 2009) the economy had lost 4.5 million jobs before President Obama took office in January 2009, with job losses that month alone surging to 818,000. Economic contraction had accelerated, reaching a staggering 8.9 percent annualized decline in the fourth quarter of 2008, the worst in 60 years.

From this downward spiral, Obama's economic policies proved instrumental in generating and sustaining a recovery.

In February 2009, Obama enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the pace of economic contraction and job loss immediately decelerated. As the stimulus ramped up, sustained economic growth took hold in mid-2009, and job growth resumed early in 2010, with 3.5 million jobs added since February 2010.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that without the Recovery Act, unemployment would have averaged roughly 10.7 percent in 2010, instead of 9.6 percent.

All that was a massive improvement over what was happening under Bush, in fact, the economy improved in less than a year under Obama.

The Recovery Act was intended to jump-start the economy and avoid a depression, not to restore full employment. The $831 billion price tag, spread over more than four years, was dwarfed by the staggering loss in economic activity caused by the bursting of the $7 trillion housing bubble.

After economic growth resumed, mass unemployment and underemployment compelled more fiscal support. However, passing additional economic support through Congress proved a Herculean task.

In other words, the Republicans in the House and the Senate blocked Obama from providing a 2nd stimulus bill, even though the country and the economy needed it, and yet it improved anyway with positive job growth every month, and unemployment dropping.

In December 2010, the administration negotiated a payroll tax cut, continuation of emergency unemployment benefits, and targeted tax credits to sustain the delicate recovery as the stimulus began winding down. Without this boost, the economy would actually have slipped back into contraction in the first quarter of 2011.

Now look at the stock market, which used to be a measure of how good the economy was doing with O'Reilly when Bush was in office. The DOW has more than doubled under Obama, going from 6.500 to over 13,000. And yet, O'Reilly does not give Obama any credit for the stock market increase, but on the down days he blamed Obama.

As far as the future: Economists gave Obama's economic plan an average grade of 3.15 on a five-point scale: nearly 50 percent higher than their 2.14 grade of Romney's plan, according to a new survey by The Economist released on Wednesday, taken by 384 economists.

About half of the economists surveyed said that Obama understands economics better than Romney, in contrast to the 28 percent of respondents who believed that Romney had a better grasp of the discipline, according to The Economist. In addition, the number of economists that said the economy would grow more quickly under Obama was nearly double the number that said it would grow more quickly under Romney.

Workers are similarly confident in Obama's ability to help the economy. Fifty-one percent of workers say they believe that Obama has a better vision to create jobs than Romney, in contrast to 35 percent that preferred Romney, according to a survey by Glassdoor released Wednesday.

While the economy has improved greatly under Obama, creating jobs for the millions of unemployed Americans who want to work remains a goal for Obama. In September 2011, Obama proposed the American Jobs Act, which would boost employment by roughly another 2 million jobs, according to numerous outside economists, including the conservative Mark Zandi. Unfortunately, Obama's jobs agenda continues to be undermined by congressional partisanship. In other words, the Republicans blocked that too. While more must be done to restore full employment, it is unquestionable that President Obama's economic policies have been instrumental in ending the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

In closing, it's insane to say Obama has not improved the economy, and only partisan Republicans are making that ridiculous claim. Just look at where we were when Bush left office, and look at where we are now, it's night and day better.

Fox News Bias Bill O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - November 6, 2012 - 9:00am

Here is a bar graph that shows all we need to know, that Fox is a biased right-wing news network who is trying to help Mitt Romney beat President Obama.

And while O'Reilly was spinning a study on the media by PEW (that he claims proves they are biased against Romney) that actually showed the media was pretty fair. O'Reilly ignored the fact that most of the cable news networks were equal in time they gave to each man, Fox was far more biased in the time they gave to Romney.

Just look at the graph, it speaks volumes, and the fact that O'Reilly ignores it says even more, that he is as biased to the right as anyone, even though he still claims to be a non-partisan Independent.

Here is the graph:



2012 Presidential Election Electoral Vote Predictions
By: Steve - November 5, 2012 - 11:00am

Wednesday night on the Factor both Karl Rove and Dick Morris predicted Romney would beat Obama. Rove even said Romney would win Ohio, even though the Real Clear Politics average of polls has Obama 3 points ahead in Ohio, and Morris said Romney would win in a landslide with 300 electoral votes, which is just laughable when all the electoral college maps have Romney below 250.

Now I want to show you what two different non-partisan electoral college websites are predicting.

Real Clear Politics has this:

In the RCP poll they have Obama getting 47.8% of the popular vote, and Romney getting 47.4% of the popular vote.

In the RCP electoral map with no toss up states they have Obama with 303 votes, and Romney with 235 votes. The number to win is 270, so as you can see they have Obama with 33 more electoral votes than he needs, and Romney is 35 electoral votes short of what he needs.

fivethirtyeight.com has this:

In the Nate Silver poll at fivethirthyeight he has Obama getting 50.5% of the popular vote, and Romney getting 48.4% of the popular vote.

In the fivethirtyeight electoral map with no toss up states he has Obama with 307 votes, and Romney with 231 votes. Which is almost identical to the RCP electoral map.

Now compare that to what the biased right-wing hacks Rove and Morris say, and it's night and day. And I will bet the electoral vote experts are right, or far closer than Rove and Morris are, and as usual Rove and Morris will be proven to be biased right-wing fools.

And in about 48 hours we will know who was right.

Fox Campaign Bias O'Reilly Failed To Mention
By: Steve - November 5, 2012 - 10:00am

On Friday O'Reilly did a totally dishonest 6 minute segment with Bernie Goldberg crying that the media has been unfair to Mitt Romney, based on an 8 week PEW media study. But they failed to mention two things, that the study disagreed with them and basically said the coverage was almost equal, with a slight edge to Obama, and they also never said a word about the Fox bias for Romney and against Obama.

And now we have more evidence of the Fox bias, which O'Reilly and Goldberg totally ignored.

In these last days before the presidential election, Fox News has redefined its role as the "voice of the opposition" by turning the network into an extension of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign. A review of Fox News found that their coverage of Romney campaign speeches in the past three days has neared a whopping hour and a half of total airtime.

By contrast, Fox's total coverage of President Obama's campaign speeches over the past three days lasted about 18 minutes, meaning the network has given Romney about 80 percent more airtime the week before the election to spread his message. In all, Fox's coverage of Romney speeches totaled an hour and 24 minutes.

MSNBC and CNN were both more balanced in their coverage. MSNBC gave Obama about 49 minutes in contrast to Romney's 42, while CNN provided Obama with 53 minutes as opposed to Romney's 42.

On Saturday, Fox News kicked off its coverage with Romney's campaign rally in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, at 9 a.m. and cut away when he ended his remarks about 14 minutes later. It later aired his campaign speech in Dubuque, Iowa, for five minutes starting at 1:33 p.m.

But Fox News did not air Obama's first speech of the day in Mentor, Ohio, around noon, and only gave his rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a passing mention at 4:31 p.m. In fact, Fox aired Obama's remarks for just 13 seconds before cutting away.

MSNBC covered Romney's speech in Dubuque for four minutes, and aired five minutes of Obama's comments in Mentor and two minutes of his Milwaukee remarks. CNN aired four minutes of Romney's Portsmouth comments and a minute of his speech in Dubuque. It also aired three minutes of Obama's remarks in Mentor and six minutes of his speech in Milwaukee.

Fox News Friday coverage was almost as lopsided: Romney received 37 minutes of coverage for his campaign speeches, while Obama was afforded just 12 minutes.

Fox aired Romney's entire 26-minute speech in West Allis, Wisconsin, live on Friday, but aired only three minutes of Obama's speech in Hilliard, Ohio.

Thursday's Fox coverage also followed this unbalanced trend: The network aired an entire 24-minute Romney speech live Roanoke, Virginia, but cut away from Obama's remarks in Green Bay, Wisconsin, after just six minutes.

Fox later aired five minutes of Romney's remarks in Doswell, Virginia, but did not cover any other Obama campaign stops.

Bias Alert: O'Reilly Spins Presidential Election Media Study
By: Steve - November 4, 2012 - 10:00am

To begin with O'Reilly says he is throwing out the positive, and says he can do that because he is the host of the show. Are you kidding me, that's ridiculous, because the positive stories show that the media is generally fair in their coverage of Obama and Romney.

Here is a the video:



Now after watching that total right-wing insanity from O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg look at what the actual study said, the 99% O'Reilly and Goldberg ignored. It's night and day, what they spin out is nothing like what the actual study said.

Here are some key findings from the actual study:

From the conventions to the eve of the final presidential debate, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both received more negative than positive coverage from the news media, though overall Obama has had an edge.

That advantage for Obama, however, disappeared after the debates began in early October and news coverage shifted in Romney's direction, mirroring the momentum change reflected in many public opinion polls, the study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found.

From August 27 through October 21, 19% of stories about Obama studied in a cross section of mainstream media were clearly favorable in tone while 30% were unfavorable and 51% mixed.

For Romney, 15% of the stories studied were favorable, 38% were unfavorable and 47% were mixed.

Note the numbers, it was only a 4 to 8 percent difference from Obama to Romney, proving that overall the media was not much more favorable to Obama then they were to Romney. So nobody should have any complaints about bias in the media for Obama or against Romney, and yet, O'Reilly and Goldberg did a segment on the Factor making that very claim.

And btw, most of the advantage in coverage for Obama, came in September in the form of highly negative coverage for Romney. This was a period when Romney was losing ground in the polls, he was criticized for his comments about Libya, and a video surfaced in which he effectively dismissed 47% of the American public. So the negative reporting on Romney was valid, because of the stories that came out about Romney at the time.

And all that changed almost overnight after the first debate on October 3. From that day through October 21, the coverage reversed. In all, 20% of stories about Romney were favorable, 30% were unfavorable, and 50% were mixed, a differential of 10 points to the negative.

For Obama, 13% of the stories were favorable, 36% were unfavorable, and 50% were mixed, a differential of 23 points. And these numbers were totally ignored by O'Reilly and Goldberg, they both just acted like these numbers and facts were not part of the study.

Throughout the eight-week period studied, a good deal of the difference in treatment of the two contenders is related to who was perceived to be ahead in the race. When horse-race stories, those focused on strategy, tactics and the polls-are taken out of the analysis, and one looks at those framed around the candidates' policy ideas, biographies and records, the distinctions in the tone of media coverage between the two nominees vanished.

With horse-race stories removed, 15% of campaign stories about Obama were positive, 32% were negative and 53% were mixed. For Romney it was 14% positive, 32% negative and 55% mixed.

Look at those numbers, it's a virtual tie, and yet, O'Reilly and Goldberg still argued that Romney was not given fair treatment by the media. When the actual study they cited said no such thing, in fact, it said the opposite, that they media has been equal and fair to both Obama and Romney.

There have been three distinct periods in the coverage of Obama and Romney over the eight weeks studied, one of which favored Obama, the second of which favored Romney and a third that was closer with an advantage for the president.

From the conventions until the first debate, a period of improving polls for Obama, Romney suffered his period of the most negative coverage; just 4% of stories about him were positive while 52% were negative.

Coverage of Obama during this period was fairly evenly split (20% positive vs. 24% negative). That narrative reversed sharply with the first debate. For the next two weeks, Romney saw the mixed treatment (23% positive vs. 23% negative) while Obama was caught in the critical loop, with 12% positive and 37% negative.

After the second debate, coverage returned to its more general pattern, with a slight edge for Obama.

The study also reveals the degree to which the two cable channels that have built themselves around ideological programming, MSNBC and Fox, stand out from other mainstream media outlets. And MSNBC stands out the most.

On that channel, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive, a ratio of roughly 23-to-1.

On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive-a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative. These made them unusual among channels or outlets that identified themselves as news organizations.

Notice that neither O'Reilly or Goldberg said a word about those numbers, because it shows the bias from Fox against Obama.

The study also found a difference between the three network evening newscasts and the morning shows. Obama fared better in the evening, Romney in the morning.

These are among the findings of the content analysis of 2,457 stories from 49 outlets from August 27, the week of the Republican convention, through October 21, five days after the second presidential debate.

For mainstream media, the study included the three broadcast networks, the three major cable news networks, the 12 most popular news websites, 11 newspaper front pages and news programming from PBS and NPR along with radio headlines from ABC and CBS news services.

From these outlets, PEJ researchers watched, listened or read every story in the sample and counted each assertion for whether it was positive in nature about a candidate, negative in nature or neutral.

For a story to be deemed to have a distinct tone, positive or negative assertions had to outnumber the other by a factor of three to two. Any story in which that was not case was coded as mixed.

And this was also ignored by O'Reilly and Goldberg: The two candidates received similar amounts of coverage. Overall Obama was a significant figure in 69% of the stories studied during the eight weeks, while Romney was a significant figure in 61%.

The difference is explained almost entirely by coverage of the Obama presidency. Roughly 9% of all stories studied involved Obama functioning as president outside the realm of the campaign.

Once again, neither O'Reilly or Goldberg mentioned these numbers from the study they reported on, in fact, they pretty much ignored 99% of what they study actually said, to spin out a story using the cherry picked parts of the study they only wanted you to see.

Now here are some more key findings from the study, that says the exact opposite of what O'Reilly and Goldberg claimed, that the media was biased and unfair to Romney.

From the conventions to the eve of the final presidential debate, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both received more negative than positive coverage from the news media, though overall Obama has had an edge.

That advantage for Obama, however, disappeared after the debates began in early October and news coverage shifted in Romney's direction, mirroring the momentum change reflected in many public opinion polls, the study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found.

From August 27 through October 21, 19% of stories about Obama studied in a cross section of mainstream media were clearly favorable in tone while 30% were unfavorable and 51% mixed.

For Romney, 15% of the stories studied were favorable, 38% were unfavorable and 47% were mixed.

Note the numbers, it was only a 4 to 8 percent difference from Obama to Romney, proving that overall the media was not much more favorable to Obama then they were to Romney. So nobody should have any complaints about bias in the media for Obama or against Romney, and yet, O'Reilly and Goldberg did a segment on the Factor making that very claim.

And btw, most of the advantage in coverage for Obama, came in September in the form of highly negative coverage for Romney. This was a period when Romney was losing ground in the polls, he was criticized for his comments about Libya, and a video surfaced in which he effectively dismissed 47% of the American public. So the negative reporting on Romney was valid, because of the stories that came out about Romney at the time.

And all that changed almost overnight after the first debate on October 3. From that day through October 21, the coverage reversed. In all, 20% of stories about Romney were favorable, 30% were unfavorable, and 50% were mixed, a differential of 10 points to the negative.

For Obama, 13% of the stories were favorable, 36% were unfavorable, and 50% were mixed, a differential of 23 points. And these numbers were totally ignored by O'Reilly and Goldberg, they both just acted like these numbers and facts were not part of the study.

Throughout the eight-week period studied, a good deal of the difference in treatment of the two contenders is related to who was perceived to be ahead in the race. When horse-race stories, those focused on strategy, tactics and the polls-are taken out of the analysis, and one looks at those framed around the candidates' policy ideas, biographies and records, the distinctions in the tone of media coverage between the two nominees vanished.

With horse-race stories removed, 15% of campaign stories about Obama were positive, 32% were negative and 53% were mixed. For Romney it was 14% positive, 32% negative and 55% mixed.

Look at those numbers, it's a virtual tie, and yet, O'Reilly and Goldberg still argued that Romney was not given fair treatment by the media. When the actual study they cited said no such thing, in fact, it said the opposite, that they media has been equal and fair to both Obama and Romney.

There have been three distinct periods in the coverage of Obama and Romney over the eight weeks studied, one of which favored Obama, the second of which favored Romney and a third that was closer with an advantage for the president.

From the conventions until the first debate, a period of improving polls for Obama, Romney suffered his period of the most negative coverage; just 4% of stories about him were positive while 52% were negative.

Coverage of Obama during this period was fairly evenly split (20% positive vs. 24% negative). That narrative reversed sharply with the first debate. For the next two weeks, Romney saw the mixed treatment (23% positive vs. 23% negative) while Obama was caught in the critical loop, with 12% positive and 37% negative.

After the second debate, coverage returned to its more general pattern, with a slight edge for Obama.

The study also reveals the degree to which the two cable channels that have built themselves around ideological programming, MSNBC and Fox, stand out from other mainstream media outlets. And MSNBC stands out the most.

On that channel, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive, a ratio of roughly 23-to-1.

On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive-a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative. These made them unusual among channels or outlets that identified themselves as news organizations.

Notice that neither O'Reilly or Goldberg said a word about those numbers, because it shows the bias from Fox against Obama.

The study also found a difference between the three network evening newscasts and the morning shows. Obama fared better in the evening, Romney in the morning.

These are among the findings of the content analysis of 2,457 stories from 49 outlets from August 27, the week of the Republican convention, through October 21, five days after the second presidential debate.

For mainstream media, the study included the three broadcast networks, the three major cable news networks, the 12 most popular news websites, 11 newspaper front pages and news programming from PBS and NPR along with radio headlines from ABC and CBS news services.

From these outlets, PEJ researchers watched, listened or read every story in the sample and counted each assertion for whether it was positive in nature about a candidate, negative in nature or neutral.

For a story to be deemed to have a distinct tone, positive or negative assertions had to outnumber the other by a factor of three to two. Any story in which that was not case was coded as mixed.

And this was also ignored by O'Reilly and Goldberg: The two candidates received similar amounts of coverage. Overall Obama was a significant figure in 69% of the stories studied during the eight weeks, while Romney was a significant figure in 61%.

The difference is explained almost entirely by coverage of the Obama presidency. Roughly 9% of all stories studied involved Obama functioning as president outside the realm of the campaign.

Once again, neither O'Reilly or Goldberg mentioned these numbers from the study they reported on, in fact, they pretty much ignored 99% of what they study actually said, to spin out a story using the cherry picked parts of the study they only wanted you to see.

Now here is another key finding from the study, that says the exact opposite of what O'Reilly and Goldberg claimed, that the media was biased and unfair to Romney.

Overall, both candidates received more negative stories than positive ones. But for the full eight weeks studied, the gap was about half as big for Obama (11 points) as it was for Romney (23 points).

That difference disappears if horse-race coverage-stories focused on tactics, strategy and the question of who was winning-are removed from the equation. Then, negative stories about Obama outnumbered positive by 17 points and for Romney by 18 points.

Even then, however, there were differences in the press portrayal depending on the specific focus of the mainstream news coverage. In general, Romney received somewhat more advantage, or at least less negative news coverage relative to Obama, on fundraising and personal topics.

Obama enjoyed some edge, if one looks at the differential between positive and negative, on policy. Beyond that, the differences were relatively minor.

Now think about this, only a biased Republican (who supports Romney) could possibly argue that the vast majority of media coverage was biased against Romney, which is exactly what O'Reilly and Goldberg argued. Then use a media study to make their point, when the study disagrees with the point they are making.

It's not only bias from O'Reilly and Goldberg, it's dishonest and biased partisan journalism. And here is another big part of the study O'Reilly and Goldberg totally ignored, the part about the bias at Fox against Obama.

On Fox, 28% of the stories about Romney were positive during the eight weeks studied, compared to 12% negative, a difference of 16 percentage points.

For Obama on Fox, by contrast, 6% of the stories studied were positive while 46% were negative, a difference of 40 points.

One factor in this difference is that Romney received more positive than negative coverage for horse race on Fox, something that was not true in either the media generally or in any specific sectors studied. More than a third (34%) of the horse-race coverage involving Romney on Fox was positive compared to 15% that was negative, a 2-to-1 difference.

For Obama, by contrast, 11% of the horse-race stories during these eight weeks were positive, while 46% were negative.

Fox aired more negative stories about Obama than positive on every aspect of campaign coverage. When it came to policy, 6% of the stories on Fox about Obama were positive and 51% were negative.

Fox also focused much more on Obama than on Romney. The Democratic Party nominee was a significant figure in 74% of Fox campaign stories compared with 49% for Romney.

That reflects another difference from the channel's coverage four years ago, when both candidates received more similar levels of coverage. Obama was a significant presence in 66% of Fox News' stories, compared for 59% for McCain.

This was a detailed 8 week study with about 20 pages of findings, that basically said Obama had slightly more positive stories than negative compared to Romney.

Which means that overall the media did a good job of reporting on both men, and yet, O'Reilly and Goldberg did an entire segment cherry picking and twisting the findings of the study to make a ridiculous claim that the media took it easy on Obama and slammed Romney.

I say to anyone, go read the study yourself, they watch the video of O'Reilly and Goldberg, and you will see how much they put their spin on the study, and how biased they are for Romney.

And notice that O'Reilly did not have a guest on from PEW to discuss the study, instead he had the known partisan right-wing hack Bernie Goldberg on to agree with him, and to cherry pick and spin out right-wing lies about the study.

The Friday 11-2-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 3, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The last weekend before the presidential election. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As Talking Points predicted yesterday, the national media is reporting today's economic news as a plus for President Obama. Here's what's really happening: Unemployment ticked up from 7.8% to 7.9%, but there were more jobs available in October.

The reason unemployment went up is because more Americans are now looking for jobs because more jobs are becoming available.

The bad news is that unemployment among African Americans jumped almost a full percentage point to 14.3%, which is a disaster. Also, the real unemployment rate is 14.6% when you include people who have given up looking for work. You can make the call on which candidate has the better grasp of the economy, which will be the deciding factor in the election on Tuesday.

Finally, my prediction of yesterday that the mainstream media will use the last few days before the vote to bolster Mr. Obama looks to be on track.
Then Lou Dobbs was on to add his right-wing spin, saying this: "Unemployment is higher now than when President Obama took office in 2009, and there are 23 million people without work. The workforce in this country is 135 million people and we saw a net job gain of 171,000 last month, yet suddenly there's an economist on the air on CBS calling this a broad-based change of direction. It's a modest to slight improvement and that's the fact of the matter."

O'Reilly then said this: "This blip doesn't really indicate anything about the overall American economy, but voters will be hearing the national media telling them that things are getting better."

And of course O'Reilly and Dobbs spin the jobs report as bad news for Obama, because they are both Republicans who support Romney. While almost everyone else saw it as good news for the country and President Obama.

Here is what real journalists are saying about it:

AP -- U.S. employers added 171,000 jobs in October and hiring was stronger over the previous two months than first thought. The unemployment rate inched up to 7.9 percent from 7.8 percent in September.

The Labor Department's last look at hiring before Tuesday's election sketched a picture of a job market that is gradually gaining momentum after nearly stalling in the spring.

Since July, the economy has created an average of 173,000 jobs a month, up from 67,000 a month from April through June.

The rate ticked up because more people without jobs started looking for work. The government only counts people as unemployed if they are actively searching.

Investors were also pleased by the news. The Dow Jones industrial average futures were flat before it came out at 8:30 a.m. EDT, and within minutes they were up 30 points.

The economy has added jobs for 25 straight months. There are now 580,000 more jobs than when Obama took office.

The economy has picked up a bit in recent weeks, mostly on the strength of consumers. Americans are more confident and buying more big-ticket items, like cars and appliances. Auto companies reported steady sales gains last month despite losing three days of business to the storm in heavily populated areas of the Northeast.

Then the biased right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss a new study showing that MSNBC and CNN have been generally negative toward Mitt Romney.

Goldberg said this: "This does not matter in terms of the election, because people choose a cable network to have their own views validated. So if you're a conservative, you're not spending a lot of time watching MSNBC, and I think we can agree that more conservatives than liberals watch Fox News. On MSNBC, 71% of the stories on Mitt Romney were negative but just 3% were positive!"

O'Reilly then reminded Goldberg that Fox appeals to a wide spectrum, saying this: "On this program, which is the flagship at 8 PM, there is a large independent audience and a significant Democratic liberal audience. We have influence because we separate fact from propaganda."

Which is just laughable, and here is what the so-called fact man did not tell you about the study, other than not even naming it. The study was called: "Winning the Media Campaign 2012" and it was done by PEW on November 2nd.

Here is what a small part of the study says:

From the conventions to the eve of the final presidential debate, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both received more negative than positive coverage from the news media, though overall Obama has had an edge, according to a new study.

That advantage for Obama, however, disappeared after the debates began in early October and news coverage shifted in Romney's direction, mirroring the momentum change reflected in many public opinion polls, the study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found.

Overall from August 27 through October 21, 19% of stories about Obama studied in a cross section of mainstream media were clearly favorable in tone while 30% were unfavorable and 51% mixed. This is a differential of 11 percentage points between unfavorable and favorable stories.

For Romney, 15% of the stories studied were favorable, 38% were unfavorable and 47% were mixed-a differential toward negative stories of 23 points.

Most of the advantage in coverage for Obama, however, came in September in the form of highly negative coverage for Romney. This was a period when the GOP nominee was losing ground in the polls, he was criticized for his comments about Libya, and a video surfaced in which he effectively dismissed 47% of the American public.

All that changed almost overnight after the first debate on October 3. From that day through October 21, the coverage in effect reversed. In all, 20% of stories about Romney were favorable, 30% were unfavorable, and 50% were mixed-a differential of 10 points to the negative. For Obama, 13% of stories were favorable, 36% were unfavorable, and 50% were mixed-a differential of 23 points.

With horse-race stories removed, 15% of campaign stories about Obama were positive, 32% were negative and 53% were mixed. For Romney it was 14% positive, 32% negative and 55% mixed.

On MSNBC, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive, a ratio of roughly 23-to-1. On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive, a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative.

Now compare that to how O'Reilly and Goldberg put their right-wing spin on it. In reality Obama got slightly more positive coverage than Romney, and that was only an 1% difference. But if you listen to O'Reilly and Goldberg you would think Romney only got negative coverage, which is just not true. For a no spin zone they sure did a lot of spinning on that study.

Then O'Reilly had Senator John McCain on to cry about libya, which I will not report on because it's biased garbage only done to hurt President Obama politically.

Then Geraldo was on, and he defended President Obama's actions during the attack, saying this: "The President has been absolutely slandered over this, he's been called a murderer and a liar. I think the President is owed an apology, he did everything he could have done during the attack to keep our people safe."

Then the two right-wing stooges Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on, who described their vastly different fates when Hurricane Sandy hit.

McGuirk said this: "On Monday night outside my front door. I saw the Atlantic Ocean coming down the block like rapids, and there was a mandatory evacuation that I disobeyed. I can speak for my own 'hood, the Long Beach area of Long Island, and people are despondent, stunned, angry, confused, and waiting for help. They don't feel like anybody is being pro-active and speaking up for them."

Gutfeld endured the storm from the comfort of his Manhattan apartment, saying this: "I suffered nothing but guilt, because nothing happened to me. All I did was sit in the dark, drink wine, and write poetry about you. My biggest hardship was trying to figure out what kind of takeout I wanted, I felt guilty because I didn't have anything wrong."

O'Reilly then suggested Gutfeld provide McGuirk with a place to stay. Both men summarily rejected the idea.

Then O'Reilly had the pollster David Paleologos on, who analyzed the presidential race with the campaign entering the final weekend.

Paleologos said this: "I see it really close in Ohio, and if you look at the last four polls there the margin is only one point. In Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia President Obama is stuck at 47% or 48%, he hasn't grown at all. It'll be tough to beat Barack Obama in Iowa, but New Hampshire is a lot trickier because the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is getting 2%. He's a hidden weapon for Barack Obama. If people rotate away from Gary Johnson and if the undecided break against the incumbent, I believe New Hampshire could also be in play. New Hampshire, Ohio, and Colorado are the states that people should focus on."

And finally the lame as ever Factor tip of the day, which was nothing but a promotion for the O'Reilly website, which I will not report on.

O'Reilly Denies Fox History Of Slandering Obama On Benghazi
By: Steve - November 3, 2012 - 10:00am

On his Fox News show Friday night, Bill O'Reilly claimed that no one here has ever called President Obama a murderer or liar over his handling of the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.

But several Fox stooges have accused Obama of purposely allowing Americans to die in Benghazi, and just last week, O'Reilly himself questioned a fellow Fox News host about having labeled the president a liar on Libya.

So not only is O'Reilly a liar about it, he can not even remember that just a a week aho he questioned a fellow Fox News host about having labeled the president a liar on Libya.

O'Reilly addressed the issue on his Friday show when guest Geraldo Rivera told him that President Obama deserves an apology for the way he's been treated in the press following the Benghazi attack.

Rivera said this: "The president of the United States been absolutely slandered over this story. He's been called a murderer and a liar."

O'Reilly then said this: "OK. But not by anybody here, and not by rational people."

And now the truth, Fox News hosts, contributors, and regular guests have suggested that the Obama administration made a political decision to let Americans die in Benghazi.

O'Reilly even questioned fellow Fox host Jeanine Pirro last week about having labeled Obama a liar on her show.

On his October 25 show, O'Reilly aired a clip from Pirro's Fox show Justice with Judge Jeanine.

In the clip, Pirro addresses President Obama on Libya, saying this: "You knew in real time from the men on the ground being savaged what was happening. You knew through video surveillance what was happening. You knew from a cable within 24 hours that the attack was by militants. So what's the punishment for lying? For incompetence? Has anyone been prosecuted?"

O'Reilly then welcomed Pirro to his program by highlighting her charge that Obama was lying about Libya. O'Reilly said this: "So you just called the president of the United States a liar."

Pirro responded with this: "I think that when you don't state the true facts that there are certain words that you can use and that's appropriate."

Despite O'Reilly's claim to the contrary, this is not the first time someone on Fox has labeled Obama a liar over the Benghazi attack. It happens almost every day by someone at Fox, either a host or a guest.

And then O'Reilly lies that nobody on Fox has called Obama a liar, when he himself had a Fox News employee on his own show where he asked her about calling Obama a liar. Talk about dishonest, that's about as dishonest as a so-called journalist can be.

The Thursday 11-1-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 2, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A new Fox News poll on the presidential election. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Fox News Channel poll has the presidential race tied at 46%, a slight improvement for the Obama-Biden ticket since early October. Among likely independent voters, Governor Romney defeats President Obama 46 - 39, and 'extremely interested' voters are leaning toward Romney by 11 points, 53 - 42.

On the question of Libya, voters disapprove of the President's handling of that situation by a 47 - 39 margin. Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge reports that she reviewed a cable sent from the U.S. mission in Benghazi to Secretary of State Clinton in August.

It stated that Americans in Benghazi did not believe the consulate could be protected against coordinated attacks, so it's clear the Obama administration was warned and did nothing. That's a pretty big story, but the press has not embraced it and the President has simply ignored it.

There are just four days until we vote and Libya will not be a major issue. The President will be able to ride it out and he can thank his friends in the media for that.
Once again O'Reilly shows his bias, the President has not ignored it, he has said many times that he will not discuss it until the investigation is over, and if we had a Republican President O'Reilly would say the very same thing, to wait until the investigation is over. In fact, any President in office would not discuss something like the embassy attack until the election was over. O'Reilly only slams Obama for it because he is a Democrat and O'Reilly is supporting Romney.

Then the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham was on to evaluate the Fox News presidential poll. With no Democratic guest anywhere to be found, so it was all right-wing spin, all the time.

Ingraham said this: "I've never seen a presidential race this close for this long, and this poll really does mirror what a lot of the other polls are saying, that these two men are in a dead heat. But what I thought was interesting is that among likely voters Obama seems to have lost ground compared to exit polls from the 2008 election. You're also seeing erosion among independent voters and some other polls have Mitt Romney winning independents by as much as 19%."

O'Reilly then predicted that a positive unemployment report on Friday could buoy the President's campaign in the stretch run, saying this: "The Obama team will dominate the news cycle Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and the Romney team doesn't have any real way to reply. Voters will hear for three days that the economy is getting better."

And they both continue to ignore the fact that Obama is way ahead in all the electoral vote predictions, which is how you win, not by the popular vote.

Then Rev. Jacques DeGraff and Rev. Michael Walrond were on to talk about the biased right-wing Bishop E.W. Jackson, who condemned the Democratic Party for its stances on abortion, saying Democratic policies have "killed unborn black babies by the tens of millions."

DeGraff said this: "African Americans are intelligent enough to make a decision, and 95% of our community has discerned among the policies of the Democratic Party. People like me who disagree with the party on abortion don't reject the party for this one plank. This is not a choice between the Democratic Party and perfection; this is a choice between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party."

Walrond took issue with Bishop Jackson's objection to same-sex marriage proponents labeling it a 'civil rights' issue, saying this: "The bishop clearly is biased and he's not offering an alternative. His stand is quite venomous and there's a problem when you begin to compare oppression."

O'Reilly then said this nonsense: "I'm a Catholic and it's hard for me to see Jesus Christ walking into a Planned Parenthood clinic, other than to try and convert them."

Now O'Reilly is speculating how Jesus would feel about Planned Parenthood, what a joke, especially when it comes from a guy who claims to never speculate, and to never allow any speculation.

Then the fool John Stossel was on, who was reimbursed by the federal government after his beachfront home was washed away two decades ago, was on to say nobody should get Government help.

Stossel said this: "The government should stop insuring people like me who were stupid enough to build a house on the edge of the ocean. Anyone who wants to live near the water should take the risk with their own money, but don't ask the taxpayer to cover you. The private insurers are experts at figuring out what's a good risk."

Stossel even argued that the feds have no role in rebuilding, even after a disaster like Hurricane Sandy, saying this: "The government has an obligation to get out of the way so you can rebuild if you want. The government should keep the peace and make sure there's no looting so that free, private individuals who want to take the risk will rebuild. FEMA is incompetent, charities do it better!"

And that my friends is why John Stossel is a total idiot that should not be allowed on tv to comment on anything.

Then the two right-wing Culture Warriors Jeanine Pirro and Gretchen Carlson were on to cry about Hollywood stars doing an ad for Obama, but when they do ads for Romney they have no problem with that.

Carlson said this: "I fell asleep during that ad, because it goes on and on and on for two-and-a-half minutes. It has no impact whatsoever, women do not vote on a single issue and women have lost more jobs than men."

Pirro ridiculed the ad's attempt to provoke fear, saying this: "They make you feel like it's 1850, that you have no rights, and that if Romney gets elected we'll all be barefoot and in the kitchen. This is going to be the smartest move on the part of the Democrats or the dumbest, they have staked this election on making women believe there's a war on them."

O'Reilly said that the Democratic strategy may be effective, saying this: "I think it's working because Mitt Romney is still behind with single women."

Then the right-wing Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the millions of Americans who have already cast their ballots for president and, while their votes remain secret, there are certain patterns that can be revealing.

Kelly said this: "Gallup and Pew tell us about 17 million people have voted already, and they say Romney has about a seven percent edge on a national basis. Obama led McCain at this point four years ago by 15 points, so it's been a big swing in the favor of Republicans. In specific swing states things are different; there has been polling in Nevada, Ohio, and Iowa showing that President Obama is doing better in those states."

And none of that means anything when you have an electoral college vote that decides the election. All the electoral vote counts have Obama at or over 290 and Romney at or below 250, which means Romney can not win, unless he wins Ohio, and he is losing Ohio by 4 to 6 points.

Kelly also objected to an incident last week, when O'Reilly told Jeanine Pirro to calm down, saying this: "It's patronizing, and it has a certain connotation when a man says it to a woman, it says you're a hysteric."

So then O'Reilly proudly pointed out that he is an equal-opportunity offender, saying this: "I tell Bob Beckel and Karl Rove and Dick Morris to calm down all the time, and I never hear a beef from you about that!"

Then Arthel Neville was on to analyze a new ad in which General Colin Powell endorses President Obama.

Neville said this: "It's a big deal because he's a big-name Republican, not to mention the fact that he has a military pedigree. This ad will be running for the next five days in key swing states. It's disrespectful to General Powell and it's disrespectful to the President to say this has anything to do with pigmentation."

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "In case of future emergencies, get a small notebook and write the names and numbers of all the folks you know who can help you out in any way."

Romney's Hurricane Relief Event Was as Fake As It Gets
By: Steve - November 2, 2012 - 10:00am

A couple days ago the Romney campaign (facing the challenge of the president in command of natural disaster relief) converted an Ohio political rally into a political rally disguised as providing voluntary charitable contributions to help hurricane victims on the East Coast.

The problem was that collecting canned goods and other items is not what agencies such as the Red Cross want. In fact, attempting to process such relatively small donations hinders massive assistance efforts.

Loading donated cans of Campbell's Soup and jars of peanut butter into a rental truck makes for a nice photo-op, but it won't help any hurricane victims. I would even bet that the donations will be dropped off at some food bank in Ohio, far away from the actual Hurricane damage.

It was also reported that $5,000 was spent at Walmart by the Romney campaign so that Mitt could be photographed with an abundant supply of granola bars and diapers. People who were there, and who did not bring anything, were told to pick up a jar or a can and stand in line to get a photo handing it to Romney.

This last-minute so-called "relief effort," of course, is consistent with the Romney/Ryan belief that individual charitable contributions can somehow take care of areas with billions of dollars in damage. Did anyone bring a house, a bridge or a subway to the Romney charade? I seriously doubt it.

Romney's idea of non-governmental answers to natural disasters is as ridiculous as his "horses and bayonets" idea of our military needs. Since Romney refuses to repeat his promise to dismantle FEMA since Hurricane Sandy struck, he can only offer a feeble photo showing him accepting a six pack of Gatorade.

The Ohio stunt provides a one-two punch of opportunistic displays of ambition disguised as compassion. Just last week Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, practically broke into a soup kitchen in Youngstown in order to get a photo of him washing pans with his wife. But don't think the Ayn Rand acolyte was going soft. It was all for show.

According to US News and World Report:
Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan's visit Saturday to an Ohio food kitchen was no more than a staged photo op, fumes the charity's president.

Ryan barged into the Youngstown dining hall long after guests had been served and left, grabbed an apron and scrubbed down a few measly dishes while TV cameras and photographers snapped away, said Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, the charity that runs the soup kitchen.

"Had I been on site, he would not have been allowed in," Antal told the Daily News on Tuesday.
Natural disasters present crises that pull the nation together, which is counter to the GOP presidential campaign notion of every man and woman for him or herself.

Just as Romney's charge that Obama is responsible for a non-existent movement of 1500 Jeep manufacturing jobs to China is as fake as a three dollar bill, so is his con of acting compassionate.

Romney Running Dishonest Auto Industry Campaign Ads
By: Steve - November 1, 2012 - 10:00am

These ads are so dishonest the auto companies Romney talked about even put out statements saying the ads are full of lies, and yet, not only is Romney not stopping the ads on TV, he also started running the ads on Radio.

Romney's campaign has received a lot of negative attention for running dishonest TV ads in Ohio that claim Chrysler is moving all of its Jeep production overseas. But that's not stopping the candidate from making a made-for-radio version of the advertisement, repeating many of the same lies.

The dishonest claims in the ad have been widely debunked. Even the CEO of Chrysler was forced to clarify any confusion brought on by the ads, writing this in an email to employees, "Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.”

But Romney, whose campaign has had a penchant for disregarding the truth when it's politically inconvenient, is running the ads anyway, even going so far as to suggest the auto rescue helped China:
Barack Obama says he saved the auto industry, but for who? Ohio, or China? Under President Obama, GM cut 15,000 American jobs, but they're planning to double the number of cars built in China, which means 15,000 more jobs for China. And now comes word that Chrysler plans to start making Jeeps in - you guessed it - China.

What happened to the promises made to auto workers in Toledo and throughout Ohio, the same hardworking men and women who were told Obama's auto bailout would help them? Mitt Romney grew up in the auto industry, Mitt Romney: He'll stand up for the auto industry. In Ohio, not China.
Now think about this, not only is that all lies, Romney said if he were the President when Obama gave the auto companies a loan/bailout (during the Bush caused financial crisis) to keep them in business, Romney wrote an op-ed saying that he would have let them go bankrupt, so he is lying when he says he would have taken care of the auto industry.

The three major auto companies - GM, Ford, and Chrysler - had significant increases in sales after the auto rescue, and it's estimated that 1.3 million jobs were saved by Obama. And even a few prominent Republicans have contradicted Romney's claims regarding the bailout.

The ad's misleading claims have already had some negative consequences for Romney: A group of auto workers called their union heads in panic after hearing the claims, fearing that they'd been fired without knowing it.

So a GM executive had to put out a statement with the facts, saying this: "At this stage we're looking at Hubble telescope-length distances between the Romney campaign ads and reality."

Notice that O'Reilly has said nothing about the dishonest ad, but when a Democrat runs even a misleading ad O'Reilly is all over it calling for them to pull it. Proving once again what a biased right-wing Romney loving stooge he is.