Yes, apparently, Rivera and O’Reilly are on otherwise good terms, they just happen to vehemently disagree on at least one issue in particular (a friend of mine claims that, among conservative pundit circles, O’Reilly does not get along particularly well with Sean Hannity, of all people). Immigration, interestingly, is an issue that I’ve noticed can be a particularly divisive one among people who generally agree…basically myself and my entire family are all very progressive (secular progressives OH NOES), and this is where we have our biggest schism in opinion.
I’ve not been paying too much attention to the news lately, partly because of college b-ball (which is wrapped up now), and partly because it keeps getting more depressing. But this spat on the Factor seemed interesting to me because, unusually for O’Reilly’s show it seems, he had on a guest who was another high-profile pundit, and thus not one to easily back down under pressure. It does sort of negate the fine straight-from-the-gut commentary of The Colbert Report when those guys go at each other like that…
:rolleyes: He does this sort of spin all the time. He claimed “we’re really friends” and “we’re on the same bowling team” while being bitched out by David Letterman.
The confrontation between O’Reilly and Phil Donahue was also entertaining to watch. Really though, you can’t expect more from a TV show that’s nothing more than an outgrowth of his already highly combative radio show – same goes for most of the conservative talk radio talking heads. These shows are the red meat for the base.
In a related vein, this Bill O’Reilly meltdown is also fun to read, just because someone dared to reveal that his croissants weren’t sufficiently fresh. “You got me fired from a job I didn’t have, at a station that wasn’t paying me. Now what am I going to do?”
Luring implies intent. If you are walking down the street in an expensive suit I might rob you becuase you look rich, but you did not “lure” me into robbing you.
I don’t think it’s so much a matter of “luring” them with our prosperity in general, but more about luring them with the knowledge that there are many jobs here where the employers are perfectly willing to hire illegal immigrants and turn a blind eye to the crime.
Anyway “luring” was a weak turn of phrase… Rivera, of course, was countering Bill-O on a perceived implication in Bill’s line of argument that the problem is more that he was not deported, rather than that he was drinking. The (rightly or wrongly) perceived subtext is that having broken the rule on entering the US demonstrates that this is a person more predisposed than the norm to engage in ALL forms of unrelated antisocial or common-criminal behavior. Geraldo clumsily used the “lured” phrasing because the circumstances did not lend themselves to explaining that our economic system and our employers have made the motivations and rewards for entering the US w/o waiting your turn in line so high, that it should not surprise us it happens,** but ** that those motivations and rewards are distinct and not necessarily related to any motivation the individual immigration lawbreaker may have to engage in “common” antisocial/criminal conduct once here. (*)
In any case I was absolutely delighted to see Oh, Really? get all discombobulated and flummoxed and smoke coming out of his ears. Particularly when we’re talking about Geraldo. I guess sometimes you just need to bring in someone who does not need to worry about pretending to preserve any gravitas or about stooping down to anyone’s level. Bloody good show, guys.
(And yes, they have committed a “crime” by violating the immigration law. But this is distinct from being someone who habitually steals, or drives drunk, or deals dope, beats the wife and kids, vandalizes property, pimps, etc.,, i.e. a person who is a threat to those around him*, which is what the man-on-the-street thinks of when you say the phrase “common criminal element”. If we want to be consistent let’s call “common criminal element” and heap the corresponding social oprobium upon** every ** person who has ever violated a penal law.)
Never thought I’d be siding with Geraldo on anything, but in light of O’Reilly’s outburst and obvious entangling of two separate issues, Geraldo’s logic shines. I’m usually not against Bill in a moral sense on the majority of his topics, but this interview is one of the greatest examples of where he falls flat due to his reputation for comingling unrelated issues to justify what he sees as a failure in foreign policy. Geraldo put it pretty well in the midst of O’Reilly’s outburst, telling him not to obscure a tragedy just to make a cheap political point. This is a failure of the system to prosecute someone with a marked history of drug-induced sociopathic behavior. It’s almost a chicken-and-the-egg scenario, with regard to which offense is worse. Bill’s viewpoint, unrealistic as it may be, is that if we were tougher on the aliens, we wouldn’t have had to deal with prosecuting this particular repeat DUI offender at all. To warp this into an issue of bigotry would be just as silly as Bill’s outburst. All he’s saying is that if one system was working, the other wouldn’t have had to in this scenario. Is it wrong to associate these two issues? Yes, probably, but the logic is valid.
Bill gets way out of line sometimes, even above and beyond his everyday chest-pounding, but I still generally agree with him on issues related to criminals who slip through the system. And yet, I can’t help but think, as others have suggested, that Geraldo and Bill really are best chums who were putting on a show here for entertainment’s sake. Getting into a shouting match is not part of their common report. I smell an early May sweeps maneuver.
The way Geraldo said it made me think it could be a passive thing. I see what **r4nd0mNumb3rs ** was saying now. Still, I think Geraldo meant we unintentionally attract illegal immigrants. At least that is what it sounded like.
Stewart? Forget Stewart … Colbert is gonna have the field day. He’s the one with the running gag about Stewart apologizing to Geraldo and the Papa Bear. Who’s Colbert gonna side with this time?
Apparently, there might be a long standing dispute between the two of them. In this thread which dates from the beginning of the Iraqi War, Brutus makes the claim that O’Reilly had pretty much given Geraldo the kiss of death at Fox.
I dunno about Geraldo flinching, but one thing that stuck out in my mind is that Geraldo appeared to be leaning back in his chair, as if unconsciously trying to get away. Having said that, I also have to say that while I don’t buy Geraldo’s “we lured them here” argument either, he definitely got the best of O’Reilly. Geraldo, the voice of reason!! Who’da thunk it?
