In a recent column by Bill O'Reilly, the Master of Misspeak demonstrates, once again, why the simple-minded should not be given a public forum as vast as the one he's been given to disseminate what passes for "ideas" in his head. Bill is worried that Sen Hillary Clinton will be elected president in 2008. And one reason that he's worried reveals his ignorance of the political process:
Certainly, even far-left Democrats, who generally dislike Mrs. Clinton, would pull the lever in her direction the next time around. To elect another Republican would be unthinkable.
Republicans, however, are not so united. Many on the right are caught up in selective issues like abortion and gay marriage. If a candidate doesn't see things their way, they won't support that candidate, even if it's Hillary staring at them from across the divide.
You see, Bill believes that every voter in this country thinks that he or she has a choice on Election Day between two, and only two, choices for president - the Democratic Party candidate or the Republican Party candidate. He cannot imagine that someone might decide, for reasons forever lost on Bill, to cast his vote for a third party candidate. He is one of the people dangerous to democracy - the kind who doesn't want you to know that you can vote for whomever you wish. They want you to think that the two major political parties are all you need to solve our nation's problems. And they want you to think that way because the two major political parties have figured out how to control this country, and they don't want to give that up. They like things the way they are. If people from other parties started getting elected to Congress, they mioght not end up with a clear majority, and thus lose control. And they can't have that now, can they?
But that is not the only example in just this column of Bill's split with the reality-based community. He also lives in a world where Democrats are openly rooting for our troops to "lose" in Iraq. (Someone is going to have to explain to what what "winning" in Iraq is supposed to look like before I can understand what "losing" is, but that's another subject.) He goes on to speculate, possbily under the influence of mind-altering substances:
There are two wild cards right now. If Iraq improves, the Democrats lose momentum on their big issue. So some Democrats are actually rooting against their own country in Iraq. That is dangerous territory, as the MoveOn.org blunder over Gen. Petraeus demonstrated.
Also, the far left is totally out of control in this country, and a smart Republican candidate will tie those loons around the necks of Hillary or Barack Obama.
Few Americans want to see Rosie O'Donnell and George Soros spending the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Separately, of course.
What the fuck? What evidence does he have to support any of those claims? Can he name a single Democrat who is "actually rooting against their own country in Iraq"? Just one. That's all I want to hear. I hear Republicans talking all the time about how a terrorist attack between now and the election would help them more than it would the Democrats. They somehow think that Americans will turn to the Republicans because "they could protect us better." Now tell me, if we're attacked, doesn't it just prove that the Republicans failed to protect us? Why would Americans think they could do it better than the Democrats? That is moronic thinking. Do they think people are going to come through an attack and say, "Well, thank God the Democrats weren't supposed to be protecting us." Yeah, good thing, or else they might have been successful, like they were on 9/11.
And where is he evidence that "the far left is totally out of control in this country"? To whom is he referring here, MoveOn.org again? Media Matters? Daily kos? Huffington Post? Keith Olbermann? C'mon, Bill, tell us who you mean by "the far left"? Is Cindy Sheehan running around pretending she scored the winning goal in the Olympics? Is Michael Moore inviting Fidel Castro to his backyard barbecues in Flint, MI, again? Care to back up that outlandish statement with something along the lines of facts?
The Rosie O'Donnell/George Soros smear is not even worthy of acknowledgement, other than to point out that he says a lot of such things unworthy of acknowledgement. But it's hard to say that without citing an example or two. Bill loves to throw out inflammatory comments borne of a fertile (and, as we know, salacious) imagination just to "prove a point", although what that point could possibly be is often lost on people with IQs in the three-digit range. I would prefer to believe that most of this audience tunes in to hear what ridiculous things he says, not because they agree with him. If only he would introduce facts to his statements. Who knows, they might even get to be friends.