September 28, 2005 by s.z.

No Shame At Long Last

Okay, I have to get some major dental work done today, so it's time for some easy pickins'.  Therefore, let's take a look at Bill O'Reilly's most recent Most Ridiculous Item of the Day.

Writing in The Los Angeles Times, Tim Ruttan, a far left fanatic masquerading as a TV critic,

George Clooney's new movie, "Good Night, and Good Luck," which is very good, by the way, chronicles the struggle between journalists Edward R. Murrow and communist hunter Senator Joseph McCarthy in the '50s.

Writing in the New York Daily News, critic Jack Matthews opined, "Bill O'Reilly might have made a perfect McCarthy. He looks like him and could play him with conviction."

Okay, so Matthews, who was previously named an Enemy of the People for comparing Bill to Michael Moore, is on today's "People Bill Hates" list because he compared Bill to Joe McCarthy.  (BTW, here's part of what he said in June 2004: "In a column last week on 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' I paired political lefty Michael Moore with media righty Bill O'Reilly as 'ideological thugs who play loose with the facts while fostering hatred in an increasingly polarized country.' I thought I was insulting Moore, but it was O'Reilly who got mad.")

But what did far-left fanatic Tim Ruttan do this week to upset the thin-skinned bully? 

Bill's link just goes to the general LAT site, so that's no help.  However, by Googling, we learn that Bill had a gripe with Ruttan on the 20th.

Writing in The Los Angeles Times, Tim Ruttan, a far left fanatic masquerading as a TV critic, says Geraldo Rivera deserved to be slimed by The New York Times' Alexandra Stanley, even though Geraldo did not nudge any relief worker as Ms. Stanley has asserted.

So, since Bill was doing another screed against one of those hated film critics, apparently his assistants failed to change the name while using the "far left fanatic film critic" template. 

Anyway, let's get back to the sins of Jack Matthews, who had the nerve to compare Bill to McCarthy.  Here's the full text of that NY Daily News paragraph:

Although Clooney's frequent real-life sparring partner, Bill O'Reilly, might have made a perfect McCarthy (he looks like Mad Joe and could play him with conviction), Clooney chose to use archival footage of McCarthy bullying witnesses in Senate hearings and delivering his disastrous rebuttal to a tough Murrow essay on the news show "See It Now."

Now, back to Bill:

Very, very nice.  So let's put up two head shots here. There is McCarthy and there's O'Reilly. I don't see blue eyes on McCarthy. I don't know.

Okay, let's put up two head shots and see for ourselves.  

Hmm, while Joe may or may not have had blue eyes, I still see a resemblance between the two men.  Bill, however, isn't done comparing ...

Let's put up — let's put up Matthews. Oh, wait a minute. Darken those eyebrows a little, what do you think? He's a little doughy. They're both a little doughy.

Fine, Bill.  Here's a head shot of Matthews:

Even with dark eyebrows, I don't think he'd look as much like McCarthy as that angry guy with the finger whom we saw before.  But speaking of "doughy," here's another head shot we can look at:

And that guy's eyebrows don't even need darkening!

But back to Bill, to explain why a film critic for the NY Daily News is just like McCarthy:

But more importantly, their techniques are the same. McCarthy abused his position to smear fellow Americans with innuendo and personal attacks, and Matthews abuses his position using the same kind of method, writing cowardly, gratuitous, ideologically driven personal attack.

So will the real Joe McCarthy please stand up? Sorry, I know it's hard for Matthews to do that, hiding under his desk. We asked him to be on the program.

It might be ridiculous.

Of course, back in June 2004, Bill also accused Matthews of "hiding under his desk." Here's part of what Matthews said back then:

You can't exactly hide when you're writing a column that has your name, picture and E-mail address on it, especially from someone who has a Monday column in the same newspaper.

Here's the thing, Bill. I didn't return your call because (a) I've been ambushed on your TV show before, and (b) I don't want to be the monkey for the organ grinder that is right-wing radio.
[...] Here's what I'm willing to do, right here, in my medium of newsprint. I'll serve up some O'Reilly untruths, courtesy of the media watchdog group Media Matters for America (www.mediamatters.org), and you disprove them - in your column, or on your radio or TV show, wherever the truth wants out. 
I'm sure Media Matters will be watching.

Example 1: In an April 27 radio debate with a Canadian journalist, you threatened to lead a boycott of Canadian goods if Canada didn't deport two American military deserters, saying that a previous O'Reilly-led boycott of French goods cost that country billions in lost export business. You cited the Paris Business Review as your source for those losses.

In fact, Media Matters found no evidence that a Paris Business Review even exists, and France's export business with the U.S. actually increased during the run-up to the Iraq war.

And so on. 

And did Bill ever respond to these charges?  Well, other than to call the folks who work for Media Matters "the most vile, despicable human beings in the country,"  I don't think that he did.  But hey, McCarthy responded to HIS critics with attacks, accusations, and defamation, so I guess that's good enough for Bill. 

P.S.  That wasn't the only NY Daily News piece with made the Bill/Joe comparison -- here's a snippet from a Rush & Malloy gossip item from the day after Matthew's review came out

[T]he movie's archival footage of McCarthy reminds some people of the "No Spin" pundit. The U.K.'s Guardian newspaper wrote, "You don't have to squint too hard to recognize O'Reilly — who makes it his business to shout down and then de-mike his guests on the air — in the hectoring robot-voiced McCarthy."

So, it looks like the people have spoken (even the British people), and Bill has been proclaimed the Joe McCarthy-impersonator of our generation (which will break Ann Coulter's heart, but hey, she just doesn't have the jowls for it).

P.P.S: Speaking of Ann, I have some news about her, but I'm saving if for later, when I should still be feeling the effects of the dentist's pain killers.

P.P.P.S: But let me try to make it up to you with some Swank.  Here's part of one of the six columns he has penned in the past couple of days

ARRESTED CINDY SHEEHAN TAKES ON MARTYRDOM

[...]

But does Sheehan care about encouraging Muslim murderers global? Evidently not.

Nor does she care about her son who willingly signed up with the US armed forces to fight the enemy in New Iraq. There he died.

Yeah, only people like Swank, who would gladly sacrifice Casey several thousand times over in order to discourage the Muslim Murderers Global, care about Sheehan's son.  Sheehan probably hated the kid, which is why she's against the war.

All of this would so silly if it weren’t absolutely destructive to democracy planting. Sheehan and ilk climb into the claws of the Islamic killers international who are out to plant Islam as world rule.

Sheehan and company are workers against daily freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Sheehan and team are laborers for crime and evil. They strap themselves in the same suicide belts as the Allah-extremists beset on undoing all that is liberty-grounded.

Yeah, whatever, Pastor Swank.  Because like Jesus said, "Blessed are the war makers, for they shall be called the democracy planters, freedom spreaders, and liberty grounders.  But wo to those who labor for crime and evil by trying to bring about peace, for they have climbed into the claws of bin Laden's jock strap.  Or something.  And don't get me started on the topic of the damned meek!" 

Oh, and while we are comparing head shots, here are a couple more for you to peruse:

                                       

6:08:50 AM