O’Reilly, McCain And The “White, Christian, Male Power Structure”

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Immigration, Partisan Hacks

On immigration, Bill O’Reilly asks John McCain…”But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you’ve got to cap with a number.”

Watch the segment. It’s towards the back.

Now, I obviously think Bill O’Reilly is a partisan hack and his point is ridiculous, but I found this clip on the Democratic Party’s website and the way they present this exchange is to suggest that McCain agrees with O’Reilly. In fact, the headline of the blog post is, “O’Reilly Defends “White, Christian, Male Power Structure;” McCain Smiles and Nods.” In my eyes, he didn’t agree, except that he agrees there needs to be a cap on the amount of illegal immigrants we give “amnesty” to.

You can read the Democratic Party’s blog post here, and tell me what you think.


This entry was posted on Thursday, May 31st, 2007 and is filed under Immigration, Partisan Hacks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

8 Responses to “O’Reilly, McCain And The “White, Christian, Male Power Structure””

  1. Kathy Says:

    You’re right; McCain did not explicitly agree with O’Reilly’s statement about “breaking down the white, male, Christian power structure.” He simply didn’t challenge it. He ignored it. I think the distinction is important, in that you can conclude from what O’Reilly said that he is deeply racist, but you can’t conclude that from McCain’s agreement with the idea of a cap w/o specifically agreeing with the racist language.

    However, McCain can, and should, be faulted and held responsible for not objecting to O’Reilly’s racist reasoning for capping immigration. There may be good reasons for placing an upper limit on immigration, but a supposed threat to white Christian males is not one of them.

  2. Hal Says:

    IMO, it appears that McCain did agree with O’Reilly. McCain had ample opportunity to contrapose his position in opposition to O”Reilly – but he chose not to – and instead agreed with his “White, Christian, Male Power Structure statment and the subsequent cap on immigration. The fact that Fox has (so far) allowed O’Reillys’ statement to stand without comment or reprimand is more offensive to me than the statement itself. Is this representative of what republicans stand for? If that is the case, any African American, Jew, Latino, Asian, or any other non-white ethnic group that supports a “White, Christian, Male Power Structure” is either misinformed or insane.

  3. vanderleun Says:

    Link’s original title, still visible on Memeorandum and screencapped at Pajamasmedia read: “McCain Agrees We Need a Cap To Maintain “White, Christian, Male Power Structure”

    Link later changed it noting “(Modified for clarity)” Yeah, right.

  4. Gratis Says:

    I agree that McCain didn’t agree with O’Reilly. Actually, the cross-talk was McCain trying to explain why immigrants were necessary as farm workers.

    However, something I think you and the Democratic Party blog missed was this exchange at 1:36:

    O’Reilly: “…this will sink the Republican Party, I believe, – we’d have a one party system – and change, pardon the pun, the whole complexion of America. Am I wrong?

    McCain: “No. You’re right.”

    To me, this more than the other quote smacks of a typical racist fear tactic- that [fill in brown race] will destroy America by making it brown.

  5. Fabulously Jinxed - Blog Archive » McCain on O’Reilly Says:

    [...] Now Justin at Donklephant saw this clip on The Democratic Party Blog , which said that McCain agreed with O’Reilly when he said this: Bill O’Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you’ve got to cap with a number. [...]

  6. Dustin Says:

    “To me, this more than the other quote smacks of a typical racist fear tactic- that [fill in brown race] will destroy America by making it brown.”

    Here’s my very honest question (take this as a self-funded white male college student looking at my ‘financial aid’ options): If our racial complexion changes enough will I _ever_ qualify for affirmative action benefits? You may consider that a racially motivated question, but try for a second to instead see it as one of basic fairness.

    As for immigration? There should be limits on it. I don’t know what they are, but I do know that the moment the average American’s quality of life goes down due to businesses having easy access to unskilled immigrant workers we’ve crossed the line.

  7. Gratis Says:

    Here’s my very honest question (take this as a self-funded white male college student looking at my ‘financial aid’ options): If our racial complexion changes enough will I _ever_ qualify for affirmative action benefits? You may consider that a racially motivated question, but try for a second to instead see it as one of basic fairness.

    That question is a strawman and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    I don’t necessarily agree that there should be any more limits on legal immigration, either (there are already limits set in place and this would theoretically raise those). That too is a strawman. The proposed bill would give preferential treatment to immigrants that can show they have an education and/or are skilled in a trade (this is based on the “point system”).

    American jobs aren’t being lost to illegal immigrants. They’re being lost to cheap overseas labor. Keeping in mind that I’m from Ohio, consider this: Between October 2006 and March 2007 11,800 manufacturing jobs were lost to overseas production [source]. Between 1995 and 2000 those numbers were 207,600 manufacturing jobs. Ford has just announced the closing of it’s Cleveland plant and Hoover may be leaving North Canton. All of these jobs are either being shipped to China (where the average worker makes between 25¢ and 40¢ an hour) or to Mexico [source PDF].

    I haven’t even touched on the IT industry. When was the last time you called tech support and spoke to an American?

    Staying on topic, I’d say our quality of life (job loss) is more threatened by 1) NAFTA and 2) Americans who want cheaper goods and services than by the “complexion of America” changing.

  8. Mike Says:

    There is less embellished commentary on the Dem blog than in your statement above. The Dem blog basically provides the entire video clip that you provide and then does only two things. First, the headline reads “McCain smiles and nods,” which is obviously true from the video. Second, emphasis is added to the words “I agree with you.” This is hardly an attempt to paint McCain in an unfair like, particularly when you consider that the Dems included the entire video. On the Dem blog, people can see all of the evidence, and like you did, decide for themselves.

    Whether McCain was meaning to agree with everything that O’Reilly was touting I guess we will never know. But we can say with certainty that McCain never challenged any of O’Reilly’s outrageous comments!

    This will probably come to nothing because the Dems don’t have talk radio or a “news” organization, like Fox “Noise,” to blow it out of proportion. But if it does get blown out of proportion, McCain will be getting what he deserves. I remember McCain himself taking political advantage of John Kerry’s boched joke. Sad.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: