Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Today’s Opinions poll

Would you use an app that tells you the partisan affiliation of products you're considering buying?

Submit
Next
Review your answers and share

Join a Discussion

There are no discussions scheduled today.

Weekly schedule, past shows

Post Partisan
Posted at 03:49 PM ET, 11/21/2012

PostScript: Wemple, O’Reilly and the ‘white establishment’

In other news, Bill O’Reilly is angry at The Post, as reported by Erik Wemple in his blog. O’Reilly alleges that a Nov. 15 editorial puts words in his mouth; Wemple argues that O’Reilly is being disingenuous to spark controversy. PostScript can only note that the blog post got an uncharacteristicly massive 1,300 comments. So everyone wins!

O’Reilly claimed that The Post drew the wrong conclusion from what he said, which was this: In light of Obama winning the election, America is no longer “traditional,” and the “white establishment” is not a majority anymore. These things were sprinkled throughout a diatribe about how Americans vote for Obama because they “want things.” O’Reilly claims he was making two parallel observations, and that he was NOT making a connections between larger numbers of non-traditional, non-white, nonestablishment voters and the sudden, simultaneous horde of voters who, inexplicably, feel entitled to things and therefore vote Obama.

O’Reilly meant two entirely separate changing demographic phenomena, he says, and shame on The Post for not being able to tell that as he spoke of both at the same time.

Wemple didn’t buy it. Did the commenters? Yes and no, in approximately equal numbers.

ramseytuell says at least one word was put in O’Reilly’s mouth:

Hold on there! I watched that segment of the Fox report on the elections and O’Reilly did not say anything about “color,” nor did he imply any such thing.

Nope, but he did say white! Overruled.

ThreeCents interpreted O’Reilly as having purer motives than The Post did:

WAPO did what the left loves to do: conclude there is racism when there isn’t any evidence. It’s obviously true that there might have been too many voters of color and too many women voters for Romney to win the election, given the way those groups voted, but that doesn’t mean O’Reilly thinks there are too many voters of color or women voters generally. WAPO conflated the two. Good for O’Reilly for shooting back.

johnmbeveridge agrees:

Just curious - how do you get from O’Reilly saying, “The white establishment is now the minority” to deducing that he really meant to say, “In other words, the problem was too many voters of color”? Regardless of what you think of O’Reilly, Fox News or any other media outlets that you despise, I believe that’s what he meant by “putting fabricated words in my mouth.”
Unless you can read minds, you have no right to guess what he meant to say by that.

mstein says O’Reilly did to the voters exactly what he burns The Post for doing to him:

O’Reilly is of course being monstrously hypocritical. He is indignant that someone puts fabricated words in his mouth?
Yet he had no qualms about putting fabricated thoughts in the heads of Obama voters, saying that they want “stuff”. (As if Romney voters don’t also just want different “stuff”, like low taxes and lax regulations.) I’m quite sure O’Reilly didn’t actually conduct a survey to determine the motivations of Obama voters. He just shot from the lip, actually committing the same offense against them that he falsely claims was committed against him, despite the transcript.

mypitts2 resents the casting of minorities as not traditional:

O’Reilly, not the Post, is the one who positioned traditional America against minority growth. What is so “untraditional” about an American of Asian or Latino descent? I thought America was about a set of shared values, not skin color?

baconfoot says we’re ALL nontraditional, except for Native Americans and a city in Upstate New York:

Wouldn’t traditional America just be full of Indians and Buffalo?

brnxbmrfan says The Post correctly characterized O’Reilly’s remarks, and there was nothing wrong with them:

O’Reilly is correct. When a candidate with the 4-year record of failure gets reelected something is drastically wrong with the voting public. For example: Obama got the black vote 93-6; Hispanics 71-27; those ages 18-29 (aka, “those with the least to lose”) 60-37. Those are the demographics O’Reilly spoke of. It was clearly an election based on race and entitlements.

And PostScript is pleased to be able to end with a tribute to America’s most traditional voter ever, a turkey-lover and, in this letter, amazingly able to interpret how different ethnic groups vote their interest:

James10

Benjamin Franklin on the Germans of Pennsylvania:
“Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation . . . and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain. . . . Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it. . . . I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties. . . . In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious.”
“Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”

There’s some maker vs. taker in there too! Check it out.

Happy Thanksgiving, you traditional Americans/otherwise.

By Rachel Manteuffel  |  03:49 PM ET, 11/21/2012

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company