Low, Even For Bill O’Reilly
Tweet
Some of you may have been watching the recent Bill O’Reilly rant about the American Civil Liberties Union when a local student’s name popped up.
O’Reilly snapped that Shannon Baldon was “getting a scholarship for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance — very nice.”
It would have been very nice if O’Reilly, the top-rated Fox commentator, had got the story right.
…
Shannon’s mother, Camilla Conley, said O’Reilly was “taking a cheap shot at the ACLU and using a child to do it.”
Conley, who is supervisor of medical records at the University of Louisville’s Weiskoff Child Evaluation Center, said when she heard O’Reilly had mentioned her daughter, “I thought maybe he was finally showing some sense and saying something nice about somebody.”
The justifiably proud mom explained that her daughter got a scholarship for “establishing (Central’s ACLU) chapter and being a straight-A student and being an all-around good person.”
19 Responses to “Low, Even For Bill O’Reilly”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I really don’t understand the hard rights fascination with the ACLU. Why are they against freedom and civil liberties?
They didn’t condemn Rush Limbaugh for enlisting the aid of the ACLU, why attack this girl?
Can’t wait until Friday: This will be a good topic on “Wait, wait, don’t lie to me”, Al Franken and Joe Conason’s multiple-Peabody award winning game show.
What is starting to occur to me, is that Bill “Give me the Fallafel” O’Reilly’s ratings must be declining. He’s getting his ugly mug inserted into the spotlight at least once a week, by saying something controversial.
Do some of you ever wish that you’d come across these guys in a restaurant? I’d love to “accidentally” drop a bowl of tripe on his head.
JK
What a troll.
I know what you mean. Though my choice of food to deposit in O’Really’s lap would be a falafel.
I tried doing a drinking game where you take a shot every time O’Reilly mentions his name. I had to get my stomach pumped.
Maybe the NYT can explain it.
What the hell does that article have to do with anything?
BTW, everywhere I’ve worked, if you speak publically against the management of your company, you are terminated. Maybe you could tell me what part of the constitution that this ACLU’s proposed action violates.
Making fun of a kid is so awful.
Isn’t 19 legal adulthood?
Actually, it is, unless you are in the Bush family, then it is under 40. Youthful indiscretions and all.
Yes, making fun of a kid is pretty bad. I wonder what sort of person would do something like that?
In 1993, when Chelsea was still in braces, Rush Limbaugh said the following: “Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?” He then pointed to a video monitor, which switched to a picture of Chelsea. Although Limbaugh has claimed that it was a technical error, as Al Franken documented in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, since the show was on a tape delay, if it truly was a technical error, it could have been corrected prior to airing of the show. In addition, the joke would not have made sense if Limbaugh had not intended for Chelsea’s photo to appear on screen, as the White House had no dog. (Buddy did not join the Clinton family until a few years later.)
Kinda interesting, too – so far the examples are Publicans making fun of high school girls (who never asked to be in the spotlight), and one Media fluffhead (who I would be calling part of the conservative media, while you seem to be considering her part of the liberal media) making fun of one 19 year old boy (who just happens to be a relative of the guy occupying the White House right now, who is making a public statement on TV).
But, hey – if that’s the best you’ve got, well… I know you guys are getting pretty close to the bottom of the barrel these days.
Which was the original point of OW’s point. So we come full circle once again. And I’m out…
D’oh!!
Which was the original point of OW s post.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
A total deflection from the point, and the post, Tom.
If it is low for O’Reilly, then it is low for Oliver.
Who said it was OK for Limbaugh?
Almost as total a deflection, Frank, as you posting a clip OW got from a public broadcast to compare to Bill O’Really? harassing a high school girl (who never appeared in public in the first place).
If O’Really? had gone after somebody who had publicly made some statements similar to young pierce, you might have half a leg to stand on.
Also, I’m not sure, but I think there might be a slight difference between the harassment of high school girls from prominent Publican media personalities, vs. a (somewhat) liberal blogger putting something together from publicly available footage.
Maybe it’s just me… and everyone else who doesn’t have their head up Putsch‘s a$$.
Tom: Your comments should come with a Tom – English translator.
(Or you need to wait a few hours before you start drinking)
What the hell are you talking about?
Do I really want to know?
Isn’t the Bush gas tax something else?
If you could spare me the childish code, I might have some idea what you’re driving at.
Frank: your comments are always filtered through the Putsch spin —> English translator. It’s the only way they can be understood. And possibly you should check the mirror when you talk about unclear comments and/or being drunk when they are written.
So I can understand it when you try to make an apples-to-apples comparison between a conservative talk show host publicly punking a high school kid, and OW linking to some publicly available material from TV broadcasts which shows how much of an idiot one of the Bushes was on camera. And I’m trying to point out that you are being somewhat of a liar when you say if it was bad for one, it is bad for the other – because it wasn’t OW who went on TV and made false statements about pierced putsch in your example. It wasn’t anybody who went on TV and made false statements about pierce – OW’s clip is of pierce himself making a fool of himself.
If you were to compare O’Reilly to Limbaugh, you would be making a valid comparison. They both made up stuff about high school kids in order to make fun of them on national TV. If there was a liberal TV talk show host who made up crap about a high school student in order to smear him/her and label him/her as an eeeevul conservative (the way O’Reilly smeared and labeled this kid as an eeeeeevul librul), and you pointed to that as a comparison to what O’Reilly did, you might have a valid argument. But what you did was no more than a cheap smear tactic against OW. Standard practice for Repugnicants these days…
Plus, these comments are more to point out the standard Publican hypocrisy, lies, debate deflection, and smear tactics that Publicans engage in these days. Your comment is a classic example of that sort of thing IMHO and I wanted to point that out.
Not that I think you’ll listen to anything I have to say anyway. Or that you care one way or the other. You haven’t so far – why would things change now?