Another one of those perfect moments where Bill O'Reilly shows the world what a buffoon he is, this time from Media Matters. On his radio show recently, he was talking about how kids who fail a civics test should be shipped to Canada. Gee Bill, maybe if the schools actually taught civics classes, they could pass the test. But best of all, early on in the broadcast O'Reilly was bleating on, in his famously self-righteous manner, about how no one knows who the energy secretary is:
Does everybody understand that? Well, Spencer Abraham doesn't understand it. He is -- in case you didn't know, because nobody does -- he is the secretary of energy. Spencer Abraham. And he's the invisible man. Only his hat shows up for work. He sits at a desk and all you see is the pen. You can't see him, he's invisible. But he did make a statement. Roll the tape.
At which point they rolled the tape. Of Samuel Bodwin, the energy secretary, making a statement. You see, there's a good reason why nobody knows that Spencer Abraham is the energy secretary - because he isn't. Hasn't been for over a year now. How did he handle it when his mistake was pointed out to him? With this silly excuse:
OK. I am a pinhead. There's no question about it today. Spencer Abraham is the former secretary of energy. Samuel Bodman is the current. Now, I made the mistake because they're the same person. They are. People don't know that, but they are. Have you ever seen them together?
Well no, Bill, and I've never seen Spence Abraham drink water while Bodman was talking either. You got us there. It couldn't be that you made that mistake because you just didn't know that Bodman had taken over from Abraham. No, there has to be an excuse. Despite this embarrassing mistake, later in the show he still made this claim about high school kids who can't pass a civics test:
Now, I submit to you, most high school kids in this country couldn't pass a civics test. They don't know what's going on. They don't know what the House of Representatives is; they don't know what the judicial branch is. They don't know anything.
So, I have a bill that would throw all those kids out. All right? Let's do that. Let's get rid of all these dopey kids. OK? Y'all with me on that one? Can't pass the civics test, Seymour? Say hello to Canada.
Don't worry, Bill. I hear Toronto is nice this time of year. But I suspect your ratings on the CBC won't be nearly as high.
And as if that's not funny enough, how about this little contradiction that was nailed at ThinkProgress. O'Reilly went after Cynthia Tucker for writing about the fictitious "war on easter" nonsense:
Still, fresh from their holy war against "holiday trees" and "the fat guy in the red suit," talk show hosts are taking up arms in defense of an embattled Easter, which they claim is under attack by the same political correctness that supposedly menaced Christmas trees and Santa.
After calling the column a "nutty diatribe" from the "far left" , O'Reilly explicitly denied that there was any attack on Easter:
First of all, there is no attack on Easter. Only two dumb incidents, one in St. Paul, Minnesota, where a secretary was asked to take down decorations featuring the Easter Bunny. And one in Georgia, where an Easter event was changed to a Spring event. After pressure, it's back to an Easter event.
You see, only a nutty writer from a "far left" paper would suggest that anyone thinks there's an attack on Easter. That should settle it, eh? Well, no. Let's go to the videotape, please. Here's O'Reilly himself from April 11th:
Although some left-wingers in the media deny it, we have documented a number of cases where Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter have been attacked by secular interests. Lawsuits and corporate policies have proved this point over and over again.
Wait. I thought only the "far left" thinks there's a war on Easter? But just a few weeks ago, O'Reilly was claiming that only "left-wingers" deny that Easter has been "attacked by secular interests". You know, you'd think that after the recordings of his falafel-fueled dirty talk sessions forced him to pay out a few million bucks, O'Reilly would know by now that we actually have the technology to go back and check what he said just a few weeks ago.
- Log in to post comments
O'Reilly is leading the transformation of the right-wing attack media from pit bull to circus poodle. Forced to come up with daily broadcast material having "conservative" appeal, and given the currently geo-political realities, he ends up with more and more stuff like this. A year ago I would watch him and my blood would boil. Now I watch and either laugh or feel embarrassed for him.
Bill O'Reilly shouldn't be so quick to advocate educating our youth on American civics and ideals; I would argue that increasing the percentage of Americans who understand our ideals would have a strong correlative effect on his ratings - and that wouldn't be a positive effect either.
I also occasionally watch him because I agree its smart to know thy enemy.
This is absolutely irrelevant, but that comment reminded me of a comedian I heard a few weeks ago. His new wife brought two dogs to the relationship, one of which was a pit bull/poodle mix. He said, "It isn't much of a guard dog but it's a vicious gossip."
Very funny and I think it fits Bill O'Reilly well.
At least twice a week O'Reilly says we should kick a certain group of people out of the country. I wish he would save us all the trouble and print a list of who actually gets to stay in America and who has to leave.
Do people actually take Bill O'Reilly seriously enough to be surprised that he sponsors ousting the civics-ignorant...including himself?
Count me out of the group of the amused. Say, whatever happened to that little loofa thing that he likes to pat or rub backs with...or whatever? Maybe they make better ones in Canada.
It amazes me that when I speak to friends of mine who consider themselves conservatives, that almost to the last one they will say "Bill O'Reilly" when I ask who they like to watch. Do they even actually think about the garbage he spews forth? I can't for the life of me understand it. He's blatantly wrong and dishonest so frequently that it is a wonder that anyone watches him. If I was on the right wing of the politcal spectrum I would be sprinting to distance myself and my causes from him.
He reinforces what a clown he is almost every show. At least he is giving Olbermann a constant stream of great material.
Ed says:
Who-HOO...I imagine the fact-checkers who missed that one are in pretty deep doo-doo about now.
Or at least they would be in trouble, had they existed.
But as you know, the "facts" are biased towards the liberal agenda anyway.
Excuse me if I'm not getting the joke, but...
Why would Canada be considered a punishment for failing an American civics test? And why must Canada be a repository for American undesireables anyway?
And what if the kids fail a Canadian civics test??
Hey now, it seems Bill failed his civics test.
You know what I think about Bill getting booted out and forced to come here to Canada? NIMBY !
...how many civics tests ask questions like "Who is the current Secretary of Energy?"
I think the legitamate question would be, would Canada have any interest in taking these castoffs? I would tend to think not, as it is harder to immigrate to Canada than it is to immigrate to this country. Personaly, I would love to live somewhere that has socialised medicine. I am not so keen on some of their anti-speech laws though. But then again, to be able to see a doctor when I am really sick without ending up with thousands of dollars in ER bills, I could definately deal with that.
Alas, I test well amd am familiar with many of the players in government. Of course with this administration it is hard to say from one week to the next with all the indictmentsgetting handed down to administration officials but I am still pretty sure I'd pass.
No way! You can send your poor uneducated kids here (as long as they can describe common descent and understand that football has three downs not four). But Buffoon O'Reilly! My Canada does not include him.