Dear Bill O: I doubt your mother would approve

Dear Bill (the real villain):

Hillary Clinton, former O'Reilly Factor producer Andrea Mackris, rape and murder victim Jennifer Moore, and now blogger Amanda Terkel.

You seem to think women are expendable, or at least not worth valuing as equal. About a year and a half ago, you took a break from your ridiculous characterizations of progressive bloggers as 'worse than the Ku Klux Klan' to distract America from the fact that your followers at BillOreilly.com are so vile that they fancy offing Hillary Clinton with their shotgun.

At no point, did you condemn your misguided minions. Instead you said I was a liar and insane for being a stand up citizen and notifying the Secret Service of a threat to a protected person. Where do you get our values from?

I doubt your mother would approve.

Your former producer, Andrea Mackris, sued your for sexual harassment. Instead of addressing her allegations (such as your propensity for loofah and language usually only found in hard core porn videos), you quietly settled out of court, paying her millions of dollars to stay quiet.

I doubt your mother would approve.

Recently, ThinkProgress.org, which has a rather impeccable record for accuracy, reported on the hypocrisy of your propensity to blame rape victims like Jennifer Moore for the horrific crimes committed against her and your willingness to speak at a fundraiser for the Alexa Foundation, which seems to be diametrically opposed to the beliefs that you have espoused on your teevee and radio shows.

At no point did you apologize your misguided beliefs. Instead, you sent your minions to stalk ThinkProgress.org blogger Amanda Terkel, a diminutive and kind human being, on her vacation. Your minions even ambushed her unexpectedly on camera. (That is so classy and professional!)

Instead of denouncing the highly unprofessional conduct of your minion (otherwise known as producer Jesse Watters), you proceeded to use highly edited footage of said minion's ambush of knowledgeable and fact-conscious blogger Amanda Terkel to cast her as a villain. How in the world could someone (like a highly partisan talk show host with the most fragile of egos) take someone (like a highly ethical writer) and cast her as a villan? It's a very simple and well-known tactic to some people (like talk show hosts who must defend their fragile egos at all costs). It's known as abandoning any semblance of journalistic integrity.

I doubt your mother would approve.

Now, instead of calling highly ethical professional writers names just because they called out your hypocrisy, it would have been really refreshing if you showed us that Ms. Terkel jumped the gun because of your pending plans to acknowledge your past mistakes of blaming innocent women for rapes committed against them. After all, the entire notion boggles any kind of logical thinking. You're not that unreasonable of a person, right?

Alas, I guess it wasn't in the cards. You must be that unreasonable. I'm not sure why I even suggested you might be.

In spite of this, I'll give you some advice that you should already know.

Stay away from Amanda Terkel. She's way out of your league. Her integrity is something you have never had in your career and never will. I'm sure you (or your minion of a producer) made a strategic decision not to invite her on your show before you attempted to smear her because you already knew that you couldn't hold your own against her (knowing you could cut her microphone off wasn't enough of a comfort).

So, instead of a highly edited 'interview' conducted by a shady producer stalking and ambushing someone on vacation, could you find a way to not be so lame? Even people like me, who know how pathetic you are, think this is a new low.

Your mother would probably agree.

Hugs and Kisses,
Lane Hudson

Follow Lane Hudson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tlanehudson

Comments

[QuasiEgalitarian]

Why is Bill O on television?

[Absintheforall]

Amanda Terkel was exposed to the whole world for being what she truly is. She has no one to blame but herself.

Trying to defend her is akin to trying to defend Bill Clinton's lust for Monica.

[mofmars333]

Could you back that up with some proof as to her character, please? To me, it seems she's within her rights to report what she sees & truth seems on her side.

I agree with Lane in that O'Reilly's Mother would not approve of his character.

As for his reporting to the secret service on the matter of Hillary, he did the right thing.

Exciting others to hate crimes is unacceptable. If you people think we're mistaken concerning your propaganda of the worst kind spun by O'Reilly & the likes of him, you're the ones who are mistaken.

It's too late for Bill. Even his own are eating him up at townhall.com. We've got his number & he's too late trying to play the nice guy.

[mofmars333]

PS...I meant to add, many on the side against Obama succeeding in this nation's recovery are actually exciting ignorant people to violence.

This is along the lines of treason & has not gone unnoticed by the common sensed side of humanity.

We know it's not free speech people like Rush & his ilk defend because there's a line that should not be crossed. Some have crossed & it will not be tolerated by real Americans in this nation.

Again, I repeat, It's too late for Bill O'Reilly!

O'Reilly's trying to act like a decent person in defending Obama comes much too late. He should have started pretending to be a good guy much sooner.

[mesmerised]

Perhaps you can quote at least one O'Reilly segment where he blames women for their rapes. Perhaps not.

Perhaps you can quote the remark(s) made by O'Reilly's posters where he/she/they fancied offing Hillary Clinton with a shotgun. Perhaps the remark(s) (if they exist) will reflect a true threat to Ms Clinton, justifying your contacting the Secret Service. Maybe they will show an overreaction (or an insane act).

The problem you and your ilk have with Jesse Watters' interview tactic is the fact that someone finally breaks through the protective liberal wall that keeps its commentators from being held accountable for their inaccuracies. That's right, I said it. Liberals say inaccurate things.

[TwoSpirits]

See the pretty blue words? Those are called links -- they will take you to the information you say is missing.

Liberals say inaccurate things. and Republicans outright lie.

[kareemachan]

I guess your name sez it all. See the pretty, shiny things over there? Watch the pretty, shiny, flashing things and pay no attention to what's really going on. In case you are colorblind, here's the links:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608040004

http://crooksandliars.com/2007/07/25/bill-oreillycom-threatens-hillary-clintons-life/

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/25/14044/5057

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/01/oreilly-rape-speak/
This is the original blog by AT which you are calling inaccurate. All she does is say that 1) Billo is speaking at this fundraiser, and 2) quoted VERBATIM his comments on a rape victim from his show. Please point out where the inaccuracies are, please.

And finally, the tactics used were not to break thru some imaginary protective liberal wall. They were used to catch her offguard, on vacation, on a sidewalk.