Just in case there are some folks that are leaning towards Rubio but still on the fence, might want to read this. I never trusted Rubio especially on immigration. This is confirming my suspicions.
In 2013, Bill O’Reilly took a pro-Gang of Eight position relative to amnesty for illegal aliens. In light of his past positions on immigration enforcement, it didn’t smell right. O’Reilly’s support for immigration reform (amnesty) was beyond curious. According to the*New York Times,*we now have our answer as to why. If correct, it can be truthfully stated that O’Reilly isn’t “looking out for the folks” at all; his positions are malleable and he’s doing what he’s told relative to content.
According to the Times, two members of that Gang of 8 – U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) – met with News Corp. head Rupert Murdoch and Fox News chief Roger Ailes. For what purpose?
Their (Rubio and Schumer) mission was to persuade Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire, and Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of its Fox News division, to keep the network’s on-air personalities from savaging the legislation and give it a fighting chance at survival.
Mr. Murdoch, an advocate of immigration reform, and Mr. Ailes, his top lieutenant and the most powerful man in conservative television, agreed at the Jan. 17, 2013, meeting to give the senators some breathing room.
If this is true, O’Reilly would likely be the first person Ailes and Murdoch would approach, given the fact that O’Reilly’s show is not justthe*top ranked program in all of cable news; it’s on twice per night.
In light of this new discovery, have a look at both O’Reilly’s exchange with talk radio host Laura Ingraham at the time, as well as his soft ball interview with Rubio, in which Rubio was allowed to skate in the “no spin zone”.
O’Reilly and Igraham:
O’Reilly and Rubio:
Prior to interviewing Rubio, O’Reilly gave a veryPro-Gang of Eight Talking Points memo.
You’ll notice that toward the end of his interview with Rubio, O’Reilly said he’s had tough positions on immigration in the past but actually said those problems are getting better; that was a lie in 2013. In light of his previously tough positions, it was really the only way for O’Reilly to reconcile a tough immigration stance in 2004 with his pro-Gang of Eight stance in 2013.
Case in point. Here is an excerpt of the transcript from*an interview O’Reilly conducted with President George W. Bush in 2004:
O’REILLY:*So you’re not going to militarize the border to stop…
BUSH:*No, we’re going to use the border patrol, beef it up, give it better technologies and better equipment to do its job.
O’REILLY:*OK. You know a lot of people are not going to like that answer, you know that.
BUSH:*Well it’s a truthful answer.
O’REILLY:*OK.
BUSH:*I mean, as opposed as to what, putting a military on the border,
O’REILLY:*Yes, [use the] military to back up the border patrol, to just stop the, rampant…
BUSH:*No, I think the best way to do it is to give the border patrol the assets it needs to do its job.
Since that time, the border enforcement has only gotten worse; the border has never been militarized.
Ailes and Murdoch
Now, in light of Fox News Channel’s obvious and blatant opposition to Trump and support for Rubio, a new poll shows that*conservatives are losing trust in Fox News.
It’s one thing for news reporters or anchors to get a story wrong. It’s another thing entirely for an opinion host – who tells you he’s always giving his honest opinion – to allow himself to be compromised by his bosses relative to his core beliefs.
That’s not ‘looking out for the folks’. That’s looking out for the few, which is exactly what the anti-establishment mood is all about.
In 2013, Bill O’Reilly took a pro-Gang of Eight position relative to amnesty for illegal aliens. In light of his past positions on immigration enforcement, it didn’t smell right. O’Reilly’s support for immigration reform (amnesty) was beyond curious. According to the*New York Times,*we now have our answer as to why. If correct, it can be truthfully stated that O’Reilly isn’t “looking out for the folks” at all; his positions are malleable and he’s doing what he’s told relative to content.
According to the Times, two members of that Gang of 8 – U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) – met with News Corp. head Rupert Murdoch and Fox News chief Roger Ailes. For what purpose?
Their (Rubio and Schumer) mission was to persuade Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire, and Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of its Fox News division, to keep the network’s on-air personalities from savaging the legislation and give it a fighting chance at survival.
Mr. Murdoch, an advocate of immigration reform, and Mr. Ailes, his top lieutenant and the most powerful man in conservative television, agreed at the Jan. 17, 2013, meeting to give the senators some breathing room.
If this is true, O’Reilly would likely be the first person Ailes and Murdoch would approach, given the fact that O’Reilly’s show is not justthe*top ranked program in all of cable news; it’s on twice per night.
In light of this new discovery, have a look at both O’Reilly’s exchange with talk radio host Laura Ingraham at the time, as well as his soft ball interview with Rubio, in which Rubio was allowed to skate in the “no spin zone”.
O’Reilly and Igraham:
O’Reilly and Rubio:
Prior to interviewing Rubio, O’Reilly gave a veryPro-Gang of Eight Talking Points memo.
You’ll notice that toward the end of his interview with Rubio, O’Reilly said he’s had tough positions on immigration in the past but actually said those problems are getting better; that was a lie in 2013. In light of his previously tough positions, it was really the only way for O’Reilly to reconcile a tough immigration stance in 2004 with his pro-Gang of Eight stance in 2013.
Case in point. Here is an excerpt of the transcript from*an interview O’Reilly conducted with President George W. Bush in 2004:
O’REILLY:*So you’re not going to militarize the border to stop…
BUSH:*No, we’re going to use the border patrol, beef it up, give it better technologies and better equipment to do its job.
O’REILLY:*OK. You know a lot of people are not going to like that answer, you know that.
BUSH:*Well it’s a truthful answer.
O’REILLY:*OK.
BUSH:*I mean, as opposed as to what, putting a military on the border,
O’REILLY:*Yes, [use the] military to back up the border patrol, to just stop the, rampant…
BUSH:*No, I think the best way to do it is to give the border patrol the assets it needs to do its job.
Since that time, the border enforcement has only gotten worse; the border has never been militarized.
Ailes and Murdoch
Now, in light of Fox News Channel’s obvious and blatant opposition to Trump and support for Rubio, a new poll shows that*conservatives are losing trust in Fox News.
It’s one thing for news reporters or anchors to get a story wrong. It’s another thing entirely for an opinion host – who tells you he’s always giving his honest opinion – to allow himself to be compromised by his bosses relative to his core beliefs.
That’s not ‘looking out for the folks’. That’s looking out for the few, which is exactly what the anti-establishment mood is all about.
Comment