Also, I should say that I actually only watched a few segments of the show. There may have been other B.S. that I just didn't see.
Okay, so Mr. O'Reilly starts his show with The Memo (entitled Agony On The Left). It includes:
It is not good for the nation to borrow another $2T on top of the $14.5T we already owe. I think even the dimmest among us knows that is bad. Who wants to keep borrowing? The Left and it's leader, President Obama.Okay. The use of the terms "not good" and "bad" are perhaps passable in only the most literal sense because, yes, we'd all love if the budget was balanced and everyone had free health care and our schools were perfect and we all got to marry supermodels and watch Derek Anderson make additional Pro Bowls. Other than the last one, none of this is likely to happen any time soon.
As for "who wants to keep borrowing?" line. Is it not disingenuous to indict Obama when The Paul Ryan Plan - which was voted for by 98% of GOP House members - would (officially) add $5T to the national debt over the next 10 years? And that is not to mention the preposterous assumptions his plan makes regarding the unemployment rate and future GDP growth!
After The Memo, Mr. O'Reilly speaks with Dick Morris. One topic they got into, after talking about how horrific President Obama is, was recent polls indicating that, nevertheless, Obama is beating Mitt Romney (47-41), Michelle Bachmann (50-37), Rick Perry (50-37), and Sarah Palin (53-34) in hypothetical 2012 matchups.
Mr. Morris, in a curious twist of logic, claims that means Romney is beating Obama by 6 points because, in a presidential election, undecideds always vote against the incumbent. "Always?", Mr. O'Reilly inquires. Yes, always claims Mr. Morris. He says "I worked for Bill Clinton and I'd take a poll and he'd be at 40 and Bob Dole would be at 40. I would say to him 'you're losing by 20 points' and he would understand that".
At that point, I thought hmmmm... did Bill Clinton not completely crush Bob Dole? It really doesn't seem as if Mr. Morris has any inclination to present any objective facts!
Mr. Morris continues his analysis of the poll by saying that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are only losing because many voters don't know who they are. Does it not seem odd to jump to that conclusion when the undecided in these polls range from 12 (in the Romney poll) to 13 (in each of the other three hypothetical matchups)? What is the evidence that indicates that name recognition is holding back Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Perry? (Not to mention that I think most independents would, in fact, become less inclined to vote for those two as they learned more about them!)
Wait! I'm not done with Mr. Morris. He crammed a lot of bullshit in his five minutes on the show! As Mr. O'Reilly was about to end the segment, Mr. Morris had a point that he just needed to make -- like it was a really good point or something. He said:
They (Bachmann and Palin) are an existential threat to the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party is essentially based on women. Women and minorities. Therefore, when they see a conservative Republican woman, that threatens them in a way that a man never can. That is why they are so vitriolic against both of them.
Wow! That is some grade-A bullshit right there! There is little doubt that most actual Democrats would love, love, love for either of those two women to get the Republican nomination. They would have no shot at winning in a general election.
That said, I agree only in the sense that I have personally posted on this very blog about how I wish the media was not so fascinated with Sarah Palin. However, it should not be forgotten that is a media fascination - not a Democratic Party fascination. And it's a fascination that is not difficult to decipher. Ms. Palin apparently generates internet traffic; she draws eyeballs... however you want to say it. And to the extent the Democratic Party has any interest in Sarah Palin - it's merely as fundraising bait.
Existential threat?!?!? Wow! That is some wicked delusion he's peddling.
Later in the show, Dennis Miller was brought out. He addressed a topic that I posted on earlier in the week: the tax dispute with the fan that caught Derek Jeter's 3,000 hit. Mr. Miller first mentioned how they were going to "tax the kid's baseball" and followed it up with this longer thought-like fragment:
You can see how we're over-thinking things in this culture now that you can't even catch a ball and give it back to a guy without putting yourself into some weird system where (Tim) Geithner and The Fed come in like fireants and just try to burn it to the ground! It's crazy!
Where to begin with that one? First of all, what the fuck is he talking about bringing up Tim Geithner and The Fed? Talk about pandering to people's angst! Yeah, people can hate Mr. Geithner and The Fed. That is fine - but it has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. This is tax law - long ago established through congressional legislation!
And just to be clear, they are not "taxing the kid's baseball". He could have caught it and given it back and nothing would have happened. But that is not what happened. He caught it, gave it back, and accepted compensation in the form of season tickets for a suite and assorted memorabilia in exchange for the ball. That is what is being taxed. It's just like if you win money or prizes on a game-show. That is taxable income. It has been for many, many years. I recall my parents lamenting in the 1980s how people who won prizes (such as a new car on The Price is Right) would have to come up with cash to pay the tax bill for such prizes. Also, consider this article from 2004 regarding people who received "free" cars from Oprah Winfrey.
But in Dennis Miller's world, blame Tim Geithner and/or The Federal Reserve. It's nuts.
No comments:
Post a Comment