How is O'Reilly wrong?
January 9, 2001 8:29 PM   Subscribe

How is O'Reilly wrong?
posted by tiaka (15 comments total)
Here's the interesting part, on Ashcroft. Since the thing changes with each show, I'll just copy-and-paste.

The situation of Senator John Ashcroft is another matter entirely. I have studied his record and find no reason other than partisan politics that should prevent him from being Attorney General. This judge thing is bogus. Yes, the senator objected to one black man being appointed a federal judge because he felt the man was an activist and the record shows the judge did take social opinion into account in some of his rulings. That is not supposed to happen. Ashcroft's opinion was reasoned — even if you disagree with it — and the senator supported a number of black judges.

The crux of the senator's problem seems to be that he believes abortion should be illegal. So what? Millions of Americans believe that. The senator is entitled to his belief and it should not preclude him serving as attorney general of the United States. The fact is that some Supreme Court Justices feel abortion should be illegal — should we storm the court and throw them out?

This is America: We enforce the laws even if we don't agree with them.

Abortion extremists — that is people who believe it is fine to end the life of an unborn baby right up until hours before birth — are not precluded from public service. If that were the case Bill and Hillary Clinton would be in the private sector. They and many others believe vague and non-defined health concerns on the part of the mother are enough to sanction any kind of abortion. That is what the so-called partial birth controversy is all about. This procedure, by the way, will be outlawed in the next few years so do we toss all of those who support late term abortions out of office?

Of course not. Those who are pro-life should have their opinions respected as much as those who are pro-choice. The pressure from the left in this matter — is anti-democratic and un-American. Senator Ashcroft is feared because he just might take a hard look at government corruption during the Clinton administration. That's the real matter here — this abortion and race stuff is just a cover.

And that's the memo."

posted by tiaka at 8:31 PM on January 9, 2001

How is he wrong? That's an incredibly dorky photo of him on that page, looking like he was modeling for the Sears catalog. Other than that, he isn't wrong.
posted by aaron at 8:51 PM on January 9, 2001

He's wrong because if the anti-Ashcrofts are supposed to respect his views even if they disagree, then O'Reilly needs to respect those who disagree with Ashcroft and want their views heard. "The pressure from the anti-democratic and un-American" - um, just the opposite, it is precisely democratic and American.

Plus, his rhetoric about "vague and un-defined health concerns on the part of the mother" is bullshit. Let's see - the fetus has formed with the brain outside its body and can't possibly live outside the womb - yet you're going to force the mother to carry it to term anyway? That's "vague"?

Ashcroft himself is an "abortion extremist." He'd insist a young girl pregnant as a result of rape by her own father carry the child for 9 months and give birth. What kind of "compassion" is that?
posted by dnash at 9:14 PM on January 9, 2001

When O'Reilly refers to "vague and un-defined health concerns," I think he is referring to Democratic-led efforts to add an exception to laws banning D&X abortions (i.e. "partial-birth abortions"). They want to allow the procedure when the "health or well-being of the mother" is at stake. Pro-lifers believe that the "well-being" clause permits abortions when the emotional well-being is at issue rather than the physical well-being.
posted by rcade at 9:22 PM on January 9, 2001

I don't like the tone of his voice.
posted by lagado at 10:04 PM on January 9, 2001

Pro-lifers believe that the "well-being" clause permits abortions when the emotional well-being is at issue rather than the physical well-being.

On the other hand, Ashcroft believes all abortions are wrong, period.

That said, I think Bush should be able (allowed?) to appoint whomever he likes to his cabinet. After all, he's President, like it or not, regardless of his stance on any current laws, and he sets the policies of the administration ultimately. The judicial branch is available to you if you believe Ashcroft is not following through. It's a pain, but that's what it's there for.
posted by daveadams at 10:25 PM on January 9, 2001

I think it's what he's saying. Arguing that his you don't like his tone or, again, going back to you don't like his view on abortion, this one subject isn't really much of an argument. I'm not sure what to think of Ashcroft, but, it seems like there is no reason he shouldn't be apointed.
posted by tiaka at 5:29 AM on January 10, 2001

How is O'Reilly wrong?
Why does it sound to me like you're just looking for a reason to justify your feelings?
posted by milnak at 9:58 AM on January 10, 2001

If enfocing the law was an issue, then Janet Reno should have been out long ago for her refusal to enforce the Beck decision, even though such failure was the direct order of the President.

However, Democrats have demonstrated that they will turn their heads on failure to enforce laws they don't like, while shrilly demanding the enforcement of laws they do like.

Just one more double-standard cropping up in the whole Ashcroft affair.
posted by mikewas at 12:52 PM on January 10, 2001

Gosh, Mike, the Democrats are the only people in politics who use double standards? Thanks for pointing that out. Makes my decision-making so much easier!
posted by dhartung at 9:29 PM on January 10, 2001

In case it's not clear, the Republican double standard at play here is that Ashcroft gets to oppose the nomination of a person to whom he is philosophically opposed to a position of power and trust ... but people opposed to the nomination of Ashcroft himself to such a position are demonized. Damnit, I didn't give up my right to speak up when Bush stole Florida, Mike.
posted by dhartung at 9:34 PM on January 10, 2001

Maybe that was a little harsh. But you get my drift. Sheesh.
posted by dhartung at 9:34 PM on January 10, 2001

If people want to honestly oppose Ashcroft for legitimate philosophical reasons, fine. Unfortunately, much of the "opposition" we've seen thus far consists of either subtle or overt accusations that he's a wild-eyed racist. That's way over the line without extremely strong evidence to back it up.
posted by aaron at 10:45 PM on January 10, 2001

Show me examples, Aaron. Conservatives interpret any discussion involving a nominee and race as an accusation of "wild-eyed" racism.
posted by rcade at 8:10 AM on January 11, 2001

Cuz he's a Rush Limbaugh retread wannabe, only without the talent?You want ad hominem attacks, you got 'em.
posted by Mr. skullhead at 12:49 PM on January 11, 2001

« Older New career option! Be slave worker on the Martian...   |   Myth III: The Wolf Age Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments