Pinheads and Patriots (7 page)

Circle this news story! Here's my first brush with political commentary.
Circle Newspaper, Marist College Archives

Well, my first venture into the world of contentious journalism was not exactly like the sharp-witted work of Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Mike Royko, but it sure did stir things up at Marist College and, unbeknownst to me at the time, launched my flamboyant career. Letters poured in to the
Circle,
and they
were pretty much evenly divided over whether I was a Pinhead or Patriot. You know, it's kind of eerie. What happened almost forty years ago is precisely what's happening to me today. I learned the power of blunt commentary and reacted with bemusement as long as the criticism wasn't personal. I didn't know it at the time, but that rudimentary column about the nutty professor was the beginning of a beautiful friendship between me, opinionated journalism, and millions of Americans.

Back then (as now), I didn't worry too much about those who called me a Pinhead (mostly behind my back, since I am six-four). I liked the action that controversy brought, and I was able to whack Dr. Landau, who certainly deserved it.

To this day, millions of people think that I am just awful because I say things they don't like. For example, the actor George Clooney certainly thinks I'm a Pinhead. Back in 2001, I suggested that he and other Hollywood stars track the money they raised for the families of those killed on 9/11. You may remember that Clooney didn't like some punk (me) demanding accountability from him and his swell friends, so he ran around taking my name in vain. I was much amused, and the controversy brought great ratings, a very important thing for any media Patriot, or Pinhead for that matter.

After thinking about the situation for a while, I replied to Clooney's angst with my usual eloquence. I called
him
a Pinhead. Let the playground rank-out session begin.

Thank God (and I do), millions of other folks respect the fact that I speak my mind bluntly and honestly. After all, isn't that what a Patriot does? Or am I wrong?

IF YOU HATE
any American President, you are a Pinhead. I simply cannot understand why people do that. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama—all these guys were and are loathed by millions of their fellow citizens. Here's my question:
WHY WASTE YOUR TIME?

Hatred is
the
most powerful emotion, one that can lead to violence. It is far more intense than love and, left unchecked, can actually destroy the one who hates. If you can possibly avoid hating, please do that.

But I am not Yoko Ono. I well understand evil, betrayal, and destruction. I've seen all of those things up close and personal. And do you know what? I've come to hate some of the evildoers. I seriously despise them and do whatever I legally and morally can to neutralize their activities. This genuine loathing for the merchants of
destruction motivates me to take them on. So I'm able to use this kind of “hatred” in a positive way. Or so I tell myself.

But hating Barack Obama or George W. Bush is a neurosis. These men do not deserve that. You can disagree with them all day long and vocalize your disenchantment to all who will listen. But really, hating these guys is something that you should think about, because it could harm you.

That being said, you may sincerely believe that your place in the age of Obama is not a good place. And if that's the case, you have the right to dislike the President's belief system and actions very, very much. Certainly, the President is trying to change the country by imposing his version of “social justice.” In this effort, some Americans will be helped and some will be harmed. If you are being harmed, it is only natural for you to frown on Mr. Obama. But there's a long way between dislike and hate.

As we discussed earlier in the Rush Limbaugh–Bill O'Reilly pages, some Americans sincerely believe that Barack Obama is a socialist who is trying to alter our free-market way of life. If you love the free market, as I do, you may hate that perceived action. That's logical. But you should not hate the man. That's irrational.

BELOW-AVERAGE MARX ON THE SOCIALISM TEST

Is the President truly a socialist? Not if you define socialism as government
ownership
of business and private property. Yes, the Obama administration is interfering in the marketplace by upping government oversight of the financial industry, as well as bailing out some car companies and banks with taxpayer money. But past administrations have also done this kind of stuff in times of economic emergency. Therefore, opining that Mr. Obama is on a par with, say, Karl Marx, is foolish. There's a huge difference between
the President and hard-core socialists who will seize your hat at the drop of it.

But my pal Glenn Beck and some of my viewers observe it differently, believing that I am an incredible Pinhead for denying what they see as obvious. If it walks like a duck, they say. Okay, I get that Van Jones and Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner are Far Left guys. I get that the President did not object to the fiery anti-American nonsense of the Reverend Wright and the radical résumé of Bill Ayers. There is no question that Barack Obama does not see the fringe left as all that objectionable. That's what can happen when you attend Harvard and work on the south side of Chicago. But, as I wrote in my newspaper column, socialism is defined as a system in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively.

Yes, President Obama has intruded into the private sector in the areas of health and finance. As I mentioned, he also wants big-time federal oversight on the financial and energy industries. All of that is true. But I have produced this book, and Obama can't intrude on that. He'll tax the hell out of my profits, but these pages are not a “collective” effort. They belong to my publisher, Harper Collins, and to me.

Until Barack Obama begins to insinuate himself into the livelihoods of American workers, he cannot accurately be described as a socialist. A quasi-socialist, maybe. A Pinhead about economic matters, probably.

Nevertheless, my mailbag is on fire. Kathy from Georgia wrote: “Bill, why does the question of whether Obama is a socialist bother you so? Let me verify it. Yes, he's a socialist. Does that make you feel better?”

Not really, Kathy.

John, who lives in Louisiana, opined: “O'Reilly, so you don't think Obama is a socialist? Duh!”

Indeed.

Obviously, anti-Obama passions are currently running high in America, but here's an interesting observation: the Obama angst almost exactly mirrors the anti-Bush madness. Different folks, same strokes. He (fill in Bush or Obama) is the devil. He's a joke. He's ruining the country! In both cases, I feel criticism was overdone.

As I wrote this book, I was feeling fairly confident about my Obama analysis and believed I was putting forth a fair and balanced portrait of the President. Then, speaking in Illinois about Wall Street reform on April 28, 2010, Mr. Obama said this:

You've made enough money? Oy.

See, once a President or other powerful politician starts telling folks they've made enough money, all hell breaks loose. The American dream is unlimited. If you want to be a billionaire, you can try. If you want to teach school for $80,000 a year, you can do that, too. It should be all up to you, not to President Obama.

When he says stuff like that, the socialism flags come out. And that's not irrational. Again, if it walks like a duck.

Let me make one more attempt here to define what I think Barack Obama believes about currency and social justice. Based upon my time at Harvard and working with hundreds of liberals in the media industry, I see the President as a man committed to leveling the playing field. That means he is down with taking as much money as he can from affluent Americans, and giving said cash to those who do not have much. The President is a big income-redistribution guy. He's a big social justice guy. He sincerely believes that federal
power should be expanded to make life better for the have-nots by instituting a series of expensive government-funded entitlements. Therefore, he walks a tightrope. Wages and investment income are, after all, a form of private property. You earned it, it's yours. But Barack Obama wants at least some of yours, and the Constitution gives Congress the right to tax us. So the question becomes, just how far will Mr. Obama eventually go to impose his view of social justice on the country? Already, ObamaCare is the biggest entitlement since the New Deal, and federal spending is at record levels. So to be fair, I can't call Americans who believe Obama is a full-blown socialist Pinheads. Under his cool demeanor, he might have a big “S” on his chest just as Superman does. But I think not. As I've said before and will again, I think he is the most liberal President ever elected in this country, but he is not a stealth Hugo Chavez.

As always, I could be wrong.

SO I'VE DECIDED TO END
this book with a look back at my big interview with then-Senator Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. I think the conversation is interesting because, by examining the Q and A, we can see what he said during the campaign, and then compare his words with what he's actually done as President. After key passages of the interview, you'll see that I've provided some analysis in the gray-shaded boxes. Should be fun.

The backstory of this interview, which took place in York, Pennsylvania, on September 4, 2008, is fascinating. As you may remember, candidate Obama had promised to come on the
Factor
after I cornered him in New Hampshire in January 2008.

The confrontation itself received national attention because I shoved one of Obama's advance men. Although the action made me look like a fool to some, I had to get physical because the guy
was blocking my cameraman from shooting Senator Obama as he worked the rope line after a speech. With my microphone on, I asked the guy, who happened to be six-eight, to stop “blocking the shot.” When he did not, I physically removed him from camera range. For my detractors, that just reinforced my image as a thuggish lout. For my supporters, it was another sign that no one will inhibit the
Factor
from covering events. No one.

After the shove, the Secret Service, clearly not wanting any part of the situation, let me approach then-Senator Obama, and with the camera rolling, I asked him when he was coming on the
Factor
. He said it would be after the primaries. And he kept his word.

But the Obama campaign was smart about the timing. Because they knew the
Factor
was in Minnesota, covering the Republican Convention, and that millions of Americans would be watching that coverage, they waited until the convention was actually under way before calling us about the interview. They told us we had just hours to get from St. Paul, where John McCain and Sarah Palin were holding court, to central Pennsylvania. The Obama guys knew that an interview on the
Factor
would garner major attention—and it did.

Not surprisingly, some GOP viewers criticized me for interrupting their party's coverage and going to York, Pennsylvania. But for us, that was the bigger news story. Besides, my Fox News colleagues had the convention well covered.

The Obama campaign gave us thirty minutes with the senator, and I think we used the time wisely. See if you agree.

Then-Senator Barack Obama with me on the
Factor
. I don't think we had gotten to the part where I was giving him jazz about basketball yet.
The O'Reilly Factor

SENATOR OBAMA'S SEPTEMBER 2008 INTERVIEW ON
THE O'REILLY FACTOR

Complete, Unabridged, and Annotated Transcript

 

Bill O'Reilly:
Well, first of all, thanks for being a man of your word—

Sen. Barack Obama:
You bet.

O'Reilly:
—but I was worried there for a while….

Obama:
[
Laughs.
]

O'Reilly:
It's been nine months since we, uh, last met—

Obama:
Yes.

O'Reilly:
—in, uh, New Hampshire….

Obama:
It took a little while. I had, I have had a few things to do—

O'Reilly:
Well, I understand, yeah.

Obama:
But I, but I…. And I appreciate your having me on the show.

O'Reilly:
Okay. Let's start with national security. Do you believe we are in the middle of a war on terror?

Obama:
Absolutely.

O'Reilly:
Who is the enemy?

Obama:
Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on, uh, attacking America; who have a distorted ideology; who have perverted the faith of Islam. And so we have to go after them.

O'Reilly:
Is Iran part of that component?

Obama:
Iran is a major threat. Now I don't think that there is a—that they are not part of the same network; yeah, you have got Shia and you have got Sunni. And so, Iran…. The threat we have is with Hezbollah, Hamas—

O'Reilly:
But they are behind—they are, they are fueling the—

Obama:
They, they—they have fueled a whole host of terrorist organizations—

O'Reilly:
Mm-hmm.

Obama:
My only point is that, we have got to be absolutely clear that Shia terrorists may not be the same—

O'Reilly:
But they are the same war on terror, right?

Obama:
—of what we have to battle, which is—those who are trying to do us harm. My only point is that we have got to have, uh, the ability to distinguish between these groups. Because, for example, the war, uh…the war in Iraq is a good example—where I believe the administration lumped together Saddam Hussein—a terrible guy—with al-Qaeda, which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein—

O'Reilly:
All right. So we'll get to that in a minute—

Obama:
And as a consequence, we ended up, uh—I think—misdirecting our resources. So they are all part of various terrorist networks that we have to shut down and we have to destroy, but they may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.

O'Reilly:
But I still don't understand—and I am asking this as an American, as well as a journalist—well, how threatening do you feel Iran is?

Obama:
See, look, I think…. And I think—

O'Reilly:
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, okay?

Obama:
Mm-hmm.

O'Reilly:
To me, they are gonna give it to Hezbollah, if they can develop the technology. Well, why not? And, and then so we don't have anything to do with it.

Obama:
Yeah.

O'Reilly:
So therefore, the next President of the United States is going to have to make a decision—

Obama:
Right.

O'Reilly:
About Iran, whether to stop them militarily. Because I don't believe…. If diplomacy works, fine; but you have got to have a plan B. And, and a lot of people are saying, “Look, Barack Obama is not going to attack Iran.”

Obama:
Well, here, here, here—here is where you and I agree. It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It's a game changer—and I have said that repeatedly. I have also said I would never take a military option off the table.

O'Reilly:
But would you prepare for one?

Obama:
Well…. Listen—

O'Reilly:
Answer the question, Senator.

Obama:
No. No, that—

O'Reilly:
Anybody can “option.” But would you prepare for it?

Obama:
Look, it is not appropriate for somebody—who is one of two people who could be the President of the United States—to start tipping their hand in terms of what their plans might be with respect to Iran. It's sufficient to say I would not take the military option off the table, and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States' interests. But—where I disagree with you, is the notion that we have exhausted every other resource. Because the fact of the matter is, is that for six, seven years during this administration, we weren't working close—as closely as we needed to with the Europeans to, to—

O'Reilly:
All right.

Obama:
—to create—

O'Reilly:
Diplomacy might work—

Obama:
—to, to—

O'Reilly:
You might be able to sanction economically….

Obama:
Sanctions—sanctions….

O'Reilly:
Maybe.

Obama:
Maybe.

O'Reilly:
But that's, that's all hypothetical.

Obama:
But, but what? Everything is hypothetical. But the question is—are we trying to do what we need to do to ratchet up the pressure on them to change their—

O'Reilly:
Okay. We'll assume that you are gonna ratchet everything you could ratchet up. But I am going to assume that Iran is gonna say, “Blank you, we are gonna do what we want.”

Obama:
Yeah. [
Laughs.
]

O'Reilly:
And I want a President—whether it's you or McCain—who says—

Obama:
Right.

O'Reilly:
“You ain't doing that.”

Obama:
Okay.

O'Reilly:
All right, let's go to Iraq. I think history will show it's the wrong battlefield, okay? And I think that you were perspicacious in your original assessment of the battlefield.

Obama:
And I appreciate that.

O'Reilly:
But I think you were desperately wrong on the surge. And I think you should admit it to the nation, that now we
have defeated the terrorists—in Iraq—and they—that al-Qaeda came there, after we invaded—as you know, okay?

Obama:
Right. Absolutely right.

O'Reilly:
And we defeated them.

Obama:
Right.

O'Reilly:
If we didn't, they would have used it as a staging ground.

Obama:
Yes.

O'Reilly:
We have also inhibited Iran from controlling the southern part of Iraq—by the surge—which you did not support. So why won't you say, “I was right in the beginning, and I was wrong about that”?

Obama:
You know, if, if you have, if you have listened to what I have said—and I'll, and I'll repeat it right here on this show—I think that there is no doubt that the violence is down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded…in ways that nobody anticipated—by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters. Now, it has gone very well, partly because of the Anbar situation—

O'Reilly:
The awakening, right.

Obama:
—and the, the Sunni awakening—partly because the, the Shia—

O'Reilly:
Well, if it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge—

Obama:
Well, look—

O'Reilly:
No, no, no, no.

Obama:
No, no, no, no. No, no, no, no.

O'Reilly:
Look, if it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.

Obama:
No, no, no, no.

O'Reilly:
You and Joe Biden—

Obama:
No.

O'Reilly:
—no surge.

Obama:
Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous. And the President wanted to double down and continue on an open-ended policy that did not create the kinds of pressure on the Iraqis to take responsibility and reconcile—