Anyone who has watched the footage of Bill O’Reilly’s infamous meltdown on the set of Inside Edition knows that the Fox News personality has a hot temper. But you would expect the Fox News personality, who has sent his producers to literally stalk people like Huffington Post reporter Amanda Terkel, to have a relatively thick skin and be able to keep his composure in public. Not so, it turns out.
Bill O’Reilly, reportedly walking out of a Newt Gingrich fundraiser held last night in DC (see update below), is asked by Wisconsin community organizer Branden Lane if he attended the fundraiser. O’Reilly ignores him and then, with no prompting, strikes Lane with his umbrella. He then says, “Hey, sorry about that.” O’Reilly, with Lane following at a distance, then walks with his now-broken umbrella over to a Secret Service officer outside the White House. Incredibly, you can hear O’Reilly say that he wants to press charges against the man he just struck.
It’s a good thing for Lane that he caught O’Reilly’s temper tantrum on tape, otherwise he could have ended up in prison, falsely accused of assault. As for O’Reilly, it’s revealing that he not only struck Lane – on tape no less – but then sought to press false charges. Will there be consequences?
UPDATE: TPM reports that O'Reilly was staying at the same hotel as the Gingrich fundraiser but did not attend.
Right-wing pundits and political leaders committed to the destruction of the Obama presidency have been openly fomenting racial resentment or tolerating those who do. In one breath, they accuse President Obama of being racist and in the next they and their media allies howl with indignation if their own racial rhetoric is challenged.
Shortly after anti-government terrorist Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in April 1995, President Bill Clinton urged Americans to challenge those who use powerful political and media platforms to promote the kind of inflammatory falsehoods that poison public discourse, make civil conversation impossible, and can ultimately lead to violence. The reaction from right-wing leaders of the day was sadly predictable and by now familiar: they claimed that Clinton was seeking to "silence" voices of dissent, even though his speech affirmed that the First Amendment protects both the purveyors of irresponsible speech and those who challenge him.
Facebook
Change.org
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr