Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
O'Reilly and Romney are right
I am not sure I buy into this but thought it would provide some interesting commentary.
FLORIDA, November 20, 2012 ? Bill O?Reilly has become an even more controversial figure than usual over the last few weeks.
On election night, the famously straight talking commentator remarked that America?s changing electorate won the President a second term. Almost immediately, he was criticized as a bigot by too many names to mention. This came despite the fact that O?Reilly was referring to philosophical shifts in the voting public ? namely the increased fashionability of accepting government assistance.
While it seemed like he was being left to fend for himself in the predictable swarm of media vultures, this would not be the case for long at all.
In a conference call following the election, Mitt Romney mentioned that Barack Obama claimed victory by lavishing certain elements of his coalition with ?gifts.? These, of course, are extensive public assistance programs.
Many who lean left-of-center criticized the former Massachusetts governor for those comments with gusto. What was surprising, though, is that many of the Republican Party?s rising stars and elder statesmen joined in. Some notable names include Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, and George Will.
It is highly likely that others will join them throughout the coming days.
O?Reilly has since reaffirmed his belief about how the presidential race was won, noting that recent opinion data supports his viewpoint. Romney has not recanted his statement, either.
Good for them.
There can be little doubt that a great many voters supported the President due to his economic policies. Especially during a recession such as this, his message of financial relief for middle and working class Americans resonated in a profound manner.
Romney?s fiscal agenda, in my opinion, was far better suited for our country. However, in order to recognize this, one would be required to look at the long term rather than the here and now. Politics aside, are most Americans, irrespective of personal income, honestly prepared to do something like this?
The answer, like the result of the election, does seem to speak for itself.
In 1983, 30 percent of Americans received some kind of direct government assistance. The Wall Street Journal reported that the number had grown to 49.1 percent in the first quarter of 2011. (Romney got it a little low.) The Congressional Budget Office reported that demand for food stamps had grown 70 percent from 2007 to 2011, and various government departments (including Homeland Security) are aggressively pushing to expand their use.
People often vote their pocketbooks, and the national pocketbook is increasingly in government hands. O?Reilly and Romney pointed out the obvious. Is that not precisely what reliable pundits and honorable politicians are supposed to do? Bobby Jindal is concerned that Republicans start being nicer to minorities. Perhaps that means sugar-coating some of the numbers about assistance during a campaign, or promising to make them grow, or pretending that there is no difference in their impact on different groups. That's not honest or honorable, but it does seem to be what politicians do.
It would appear that these are not just trying times for our country, but simply bizarre ones as well.
Re: O'Reilly and Romney are right
"America?s changing electorate won the President a second term."
I imagine O'Reilly did not phrase his opinion in such a neutral way. This statement is so benign it's obvious. Mitt Romney actually got more total votes from White Evangelicals than John McCain. He dominated thoroughly among white men, especially white men over 30. Mitt Romney carried demographics that would have easily given him the presidency when Ronald Reagan ran.
But our country has changed since then. We're a lot less white and moderately less religious. The fastest growing "religion" in the US is "no affiliation". No Affiliation broke towards Obama, something like 3:2. Latinos are and continue to be a fast growing demographic, and they strongly supported Obama, and came out to vote in impressive numbers.
If the GOP wants to stay relevant in National elections they're going to have to decide if they want to cave on Immigration or Social Issues, specifically Abortion in the case of Rape and Gay Marriage. Long term demographic trends just don't look good for Republicans in the coming decade if they don't manage to grow their coalition at all.
Please. The Right is scared, not that too many Americans accept government assistance and vote Democrat (and the states with the most - yeah, those are RED states**), but that the voices of old white Christian men are now being challenged by a diversified coalition of progressively-minded minorities, women, and secular voters.
Which is exactly the point that every non GOP-loving, FoxNews commentator made in the days after the election. The Right just cannot relate to this evolving electorate. It's not about the fiscal policies, for Christ's sake, it's about everything else. By your logic, absolutely no one who does not receive government assistance could have possibly ever voted for Obama (or Johnson or Stein or whoever).
Shiz, better go back and change my vote.
**edit: I was going to find a source on this but everyone manages to work the numbers differently to suit an agenda so I have no idea if that is right or not.
also notes that when I said "your logic" I really mean the WT logic.
?The white establishment is now the minority,? O'Reilly said. ?And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things??
?The demographics are changing,? he said. ?It?s not a traditional America anymore.?
Yeah, this was totally about money and not Bill O'Reilly being threatened by hispanics and blacks. Totally.
Whatever helps the freaking Washington Times sleep at night.
edit: And women! Get those bishes back into the kitchen, dammit! Silly women, feeling entitled to control over their own uteri...
edit #2: I totally had to look up the plural of uterus there.
White men are so oppressed, guys.
We should give them their own awareness month for their troubles. I think August is good.
I really do think the reason they lost in 2008 and 2012 was because of the more conservative VP candidate.
What's that saying? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?
I enjoyed John Stewart's commentary on this subject.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-15-2012/it-was-the-best-of-times--it-was-the-best-of-times
Jon Stewart is simply amazing. Loved this.
Here's a fabulous look (from CNN) at the more psychotic side of denial on the right:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/20/politics/tea-party-grief/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Bump burp
O'Reily didn't just say the electorate had changed. He said we're no longer a "traditional America." How could anyone not see how tone deaf and offensive that statement is?
Last I checked, America "traditionally" has been a nation of immigrants. And those immigrants "traditionally" have been considered "less than" white even when they were ethnicities that we now consider white, such as Italians and Jews. (There's an interesting book about this: "How the Jews Became White Folks and What that Means for Race in America.")
I'm as traditionally American as they come but I wouldn't fit O'Reilly's stereotype of what a traditional American is. Because what he was actually saying is not so thinly veiled racism.
Not that I am trying to defend O'Reilly's comments but what I took from his changing electorate and traditional america comment was more a reference to the fact that today there are an increasing number of people are dependent on government assistance versus this country being founded by self reliant independent people.
But maybe that is me channeling my inner Pollyanna.
It is, sweetie. You are looking for the best in this, and I applaud you for that, but O'Reilly was making both racist and classist statements that were meant to ostracize and offend everyone who isn't white, Christian, middle class.
Of course, that's what O'Reilly ALWAYS does, so I don't know why people were surprised.
Yes, but if you read the quote which someone above helpfully supplied, he's specifically contrasting the "white establishment" against minorities who are "takers." That's offensive.
Even if it's true that more people are on government assistance (which, let's face it, is a relatively modern concept so you can't really compare things to the way they were in 1776), the reason behind that is not because the country is less white.
Doesn't white establishment = old Christian white men - what the GOP has historically been comprised of? In that sense, yes the electorate has changed.
And, I don't look at people who receive government assistance in terms of color, I view them as fellow Americans who are hurting because the economy sucks. I truly believe whether it is 1776 or 2012 that the majority of those who receive government assistance want to be self reliant and want to work but feel they have no other option at this point than to accept assistance.
I would love to see the economy bounce back and I believe with everything I have the number of people needing assistance will go down dramatically.
You don't, but he does:
Again:
?The white establishment is now the minority,? O'Reilly said. ?And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things??
?The demographics are changing,? he said. ?It?s not a traditional America anymore.?
He is implying a direct correlation between race and gender and this concept of entitlement.
Well I feel entitled to a political party that doesn't marginalize myself and others just because we aren't "traditional" (old white men) voters. So there's that.
edit: oh, and his use of the word "demographics" versus 'economic climate/reality' or something. Yes, Cincy, you are giving Papa Bear way too much credit here.
Well, historically, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and sought to abolish racial segregation, not exploit underlying racist fears about declining white power dressed up as some bogus argument about the economy.
And my point above is that the electorate has not changed; the story of America has always been about the tensions between the haves and have nots, the new arrivals and the established institutions.
This is just a new way for the GOP to scare people into thinking that as soon as they earn a dollar, the "untraditional Americans," the "welfare moms," and the 47% are going to take it away from them. A new and, frankly, brutally racist way.
And until Republicans start distancing themselves from the likes of O'Reilly and Limbaugh, they'll continue to be the party of tone deaf bigots.
Yeah, in some ways its admirable to try to make the best of a shitty quote - but what he said is pretty clear if you objectively look at the context.
And, I should clarify...do I believe he was correct with the following:?The white establishment is now the minority,? O'Reilly said. ?And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?? ?The demographics are changing,? he said. ?It?s not a traditional America anymore.? O?Reilly said 50 percent of the voting public are people who ?want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it.?
Yep, like it or not....what he said is correct.
If you agree that the reason minorities and women vote for Democratic leaders is because they are "takers" then you should probably go the way of the rest of your obsolete party.
See, this kind of thinking is wrong. The above posted quoted BOR and is correct. Whether you or I or anyone likes it or not, we DID see a tremendous minority vote for Obama. We DID see women break for Obama. So, yes, I agree with that poster 100% and, lucky for me, I'm not aligned with either party. And, my experience tells me that plenty of other people (again, not aligned with a specific party) feel the same way.
you are missing the point. She said if you think all those minorities and women voted for him because they are TAKERS, you are incorrect. They voted for him because the Republican Party is very antagonistic towards women and minorities. It is well document that the majority of people on welfare are WHITE. That's why it is a ridiculous assertion.
As a privileged white woman, I can't wait for the day when white men no longer rule this country exclusively and become the minority themselves. It's happening.