McCain smiles and nods politely as O’Reilly openly advocates racist, sexist government that discriminates on the basis of religion

You don’t really look to Bill O’Reilly for coherence, intelligence or even the most basic grasp of reality. But if you’re like me, you do occasionally fantasize that there are limits to his craziness, or at least to the things that he’ll say out loud. But check out what he says in this interview with John McCain. (The interesting part picks up with around 1:10 left.)

Now, the header over at the DNC site reaches a bit: “McCain Agrees We Need a Cap To Maintain “White, Christian, Male Power Structure.” [UPDATE: THE DNC has since changed the headline – it now reads in a way that I think is far more in line with the real story here.] I can’t read McCain as agreeing with the “white, Christian, male power structure” line. He’s agreeing to the idea that immigration has to be capped. Throughout this interview O’Reilly is trying to lure him into saying something inflammatory – there’s a repeated attempt to put words in his mouth – but time and again McCain chooses to answer the question on his own terms. The way he responds frequently makes it sound like they’re splicing Qs and As together out of context almost.

Now, McCain may sympathize with the idea in his heart of hearts, and nothing I’m saying here should be taken as an endorsement of McCain’s stances on immigration, but I don’t think he’s guilty of this particular charge.

However, how does a presidential candidate not call O’Reilly out? He sits meekly by and lets that vile spew surround him and he says … nothing?!

This is a case where the sin of omission is just about as bad as the sin of commission would have been. And we ought to all be appalled – anyone who was harboring the slightest idea that McCain might be viable needs to put the idea to rest right now.

And O’Reilly… He seems to have just openly advocated a racist, sexist government that discriminates on the basis of religion. Aside from the fact that he avoids using nasty racist epithets like “nappy-headed hos,” in what way is this open assault on the Constitution any less egregious than what Don Imus said?

Just askin’….

18 replies »

  1. McCain’s co-authorship of the afront to common sense that was S.909 scratched his name from my book long ago, even if I do appreciate some of his positions.

  2. honestly, McCain always seems to be sleep-walking through his campaign, not seeming to register even the most offensive statements,. the only time the old McCain was even slightly visible was when he was the only person in the GOP debate that did not get visibly giddy at the possibility of getting to torcture or sanction torture. ……perhaps Cheney gave him a lobotomy….that would really explain a lot.

  3. Thinking about McCain’s history for a moment makes me curious about the man’s motivations in general. He was one of the pilots in the air during the supposed Gulf Of Tonkin Incident that testified that there was no evidence of enemy craft, and he was subsequently taken prisoner by the enemy and tortured without end.

    And he ends up in … government? Either he saw an easy career as a wounded military hero or he wanted to effect substantial change so as to avoid mistakes of the past. Sometimes he shows signs of the former motivation, sometimes the latter.

  4. I think McCain was once a smart, honorable man who had a proven capacity for uniting and getting worthy things done.

    Sadly, the man that McCain once was doesn’t seem to be running.

  5. I think the really dangerous people are the ones who, like Bill O’Reilly, are able say inflammatory things in a casual way and without including words that would attract attention. Don Imus is an idiot. I think his slurs get passed off as just that, mindless drivel by a drug-induced moron.

    Bill O’Reilly is different. “White, male power structure”. He says that in a way that makes it sound as if it were so obvious that he should be so. I think many people might have missed what he said simply because of the casual way in which he uttered it.

    As for McCain, I can’t say I like him. But I do think you’re a bit unfair to him in *this* particular case. I think he looks like he’s appalled by what Bill is saying. I think maybe the reason why he’s smiling silently is that he’s actually baffled by what he just heard.

  6. Lorenzo,

    1) He sat there and said nothing.
    2) He then put the video ON HIS WEB SITE.
    3) He has not, that I have seen, repudiated anything O’Reilly said.

    I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but not until he actually does something – ANYthing – to suggest that he has a problem with Billy O’s words.

  7. McCain learned in 2000 where the GOP gets its bread and butter. The man sold out. I don’t see why this comes as a surprise to anyone. What’s more, I think by selling out, McCain has hurt his chances more than if he held his ground. By lobbying for the GOP’s right, he’s alienated the center and the right doesn’t fully believe him.

  8. @Sam: my comments were based on (1), which was the story as far as I knew it. (2) puts that in a different light (I’m sorry, I’m not in the habit of visiting the web sites of senile old fools, maybe I should try it sometime). (3) just adds some spice to (2).

    So, okay, I give in. You were right to fault McCain.

  9. Right – and really, McCain’s window was in 2004. He could have either joined Kerry or pioneered a centrist movement that would have wreaked havoc with both Dems and GOP and done so from a position of credibility and integrity. Now he’s a sad political analogue to the sleazy old daytime prostitute on My Name is Earl.

  10. I hear you, Lorenzo. It took me a few minutes to parse it all out even after I saw the vid and looked at the McCain site. I think at some level I was just having a hard time believing that I was seeing what I was seeing.

    I still can’t quite believe they’re that damned dumb, but the evidence before us says otherwise.