tv The O Reilly Factor FOX News January 1, 2013 11:00am-12:00pm PST
if they cookie board one of these and he raps the song of the grouch out, it's good for kids, keeps him alive and sick of them whining they're tortured by cute songs like sesame streak and the enters sandman by metallica. these are good songs, have you ever turned on the al-jazeera radio in your market? that's crap music, this is good music-- >> sugar sugar by the archie's. that would be out of control. but sesame street. >> then you've got problems. but sesame street is catchy and leads you into indian lake and from there you're-- >> ♪ >> again, thank you for watching us tonight. i am bill o'reilly. please always remember that the spin stops right here, so we're definitely looking out for you. the o'reilly factor is on
tonight. >> a talking points bonanza. is traditional america gone for good? that's the subject of this evening's talking points coming. we'll bring you some of the most provocative talking points of the year including our exclusive analysis of war on christmas. >> the progressives and the elit elites, they've sought to diminish traditional religion in the public scare. >> bill: how has america changed after this year's election. i believe that traditional america can come back, but it will take a very special person to make that ham. juan williams, lou dobbs will weigh in. it doesn't matter if you're a socialist or a capitalist we're talking about government subsidizing and incentivizing behavior. it's a special talking points of the factor right now. fill in the blanks. listed things-- >> caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone.
"the factor" begins right now. hi, i'm bill o'reilly, thanks for watching us tonight for this very special talking points edition of the "the factor". we begin with the war on christmas, the big picture. whenever the far left envisioned for the attacks, you're on to something. we report secular assaults on christmas. the crazy left loons begin a vitriolic campaign to diminish me and this program. there's a reason why they are doing that and it's nothing to do with santa claus. let's take it step by step. no one tells you a person could possibly see a secular display of christmas as an imposition of religion. when the rockefeller christmas tree was lighted last night, no one threw themselves to the ground screaming about jesus.
that did not happen. new york city police did not round up the onlookers and force them into st. patrick's cathedral a block away. nothing religious happened at the tree lighting. it was just a fun occasion. also, you heard an atheist on this program say the federal holiday of christmas imposes religion on him. what religion would that be? he says christianity. but christianity is not an organized religion, a church that can be imposed. there are many different churches that promote the christian philosophy in many different ways. does the atheist think the federal government is promoting mormonism? luthrenism, catholicism? what? after that interview the crazy website people emerged screaming that i'm wrong, christianity is indeed a religion. these people are so stupid, it's painful. christianity is a philosophy. you don't have to be believe jesus is god in order to admire his human life.
millions of muslim admire jesus as a prophet. as a matter of fact, the united states was founded on judeo-christian philosophy. if you're stone-cold dumb and don't understand the difference between an organized church and a philosophy, i cannot help you. in 1927, president calvin coolidge made my point when he sent this christmas message to the american people, quote, christmas is not a time or a season, but a state of mind. cherish peace and goodwill, to be plenty immersed, is to have the real spirit of christmas. we think on these there will be born in us a savior and over us will shine a star sending its gleam of hope to the world, unquote. that's from my private collection, by the way. is calvin coolidge promoting religion in that christmas greeting? of course not. he's promoting a mindset of goodwill. now, the more intelligent far
left people realize what i'm telling you is absolutely correct, historically and thee logically. many don't want any hint of spirituality out of the public scare. earlier this week, rhode island governor asked by a reporter why he will not call the state christmas tree a christmas tree. >> you understand how some people feel like you have somehow negated their religion. >> yes, you're right, whether it's gay marriage or accepting immigrants, you're absolutely right, they don't want to believe this is time's are changing. >> bill: a-ha, times of changing. the governor told you the truth, he's tying the christmas into politics. he wants to avoid-- and a more inclusive, where judeo-christian philosophy is
tam pd out. that's the big picture here, that's the big picture. it's what it's all about. the the secular progressives want a new america and traditional christmas isn't a part of it. and that's a memo. now, for the top story tonight. we were able to talk with governor chaffy and i admire him for soming on because he knows i'm pretty fed up with his point of view. so, governor a holiday tree, a holiday tree, really, governor? what's the tradition of a holiday tree? where does the holiday tree come from? >> last year when the subject came up about what we're going to do this time of year, i said do what the previous governor did, we're not going to change anything, and that's what we did. somehow this has all erupted into some kind of controversy. >> bill: all right, do you know the traditions of the trees and why it is used around the christmas season? do you know where that came from? >> i've heard all the different scenarios, although some say it's something to do
with paganism, the main thing, it's a happy time of year, christian-- having at my house, i have a christmas tree, a happy time in my house and it it should be here, but we also have to be conscious of changing times. >> bill: we'll get to the changing time thing in a moment. now, the christmas tree came from germany, all right? that's where it first came from and decorated it for the children and then, you know, it kind of morphed into a santa claus thing, and put gifts under the tree. there's a tradition-- >> are you going to lecture me now on tradition, go ahead. >> bill: wait a minute, there's a tradition to it, and supercedes the government of the rhode island. guys like you come in and other governors and you know what, we don't want the christmas tree tradition anymore and that's what t's
people off. you want people happy, they're not happy with you, governor. >> do you remember, did you ever go to public school and have to say the lord's prayer in public school. i went to catholic school and-- >> okay. okay, well, i did and get this, first we had to say pledge of allegiance, which is good, but then all of us had to say the lord's prayer, our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name and the court ruled that not all students non-christian have to say a christian prayer and there's outrage just like with the tree. now you look back on it, you think of course you can't ask non-christians to say a christian prayer in public school. so, these controversies, you generate them here and they shouldn't be controversy. and the public-- >> i think two different occasions though. >> no, not at all. a christmas tree is a symbol. it's not a symbol of religion, nothing do with religion. >> this is secular building, and. >> the lord's prayer is
obviously a religious expression, a christmas tree is nothing to do with-- >> everybody used to have to say it in elementary school and public schools, times change. >> you're making a comparison between the a religious prayer and a secular symbol, doesn't make any sense. >> this is a public building a public building, paying for people-- >> and the white house has a christmas tree, okay? so, what's the difference. the white house has a. >> you're wrong, they call it a white house tree. >> bill: no. it's a christmas tree. barack obama calls it a christmas tree. he's your guy. he calls it a christmas tree. >> well, then times are changing and here in this building, previous governors, not only me i just said continue what the previous governor did. you hike to make a lot of controversy. >> bill: governor, you're the guy making the controversies. i want to make what americans are happy.
and you're imposing your authority and your will and making people unhappy in the season of joy, you're not-- >> i don't make anybody happy. >> bill: i know not making anybody happy, and atheists want you to burn the tree, now i'm right, in your heart you know i'm right. >> merry christmas. >> bill: all right. governor, thanks for taking the heat. we appreciate you coming on. >> have a good day. >> bill: by the way, the governor gave the good people of rhode island exactly 30 minutes to attend the tree lighting ceremony. why the short notice? he didn't want protesters. next a rundown, miss laura ingraham, tensions between traditional americans and those who want to radically change the country. that make me smile. spending the day with my niece. i don't use super poligrip for hold because my dentures fit well. before those little pieces would get in between my dentures and my gum and it was uncomfortable. even well-fitting dentures let in food particles.
christmas. laura ingraham. the governor looked unsteady in the interview especially when he denied the white house is calling it a christmas tree and they do. i don't think the governor is a bad man. do you have any idea what is going on in his head? >> the chafy that stole christmas. complete with a drive-by tree lighting ceremony. i've never heard of a drive-by tree lighting ceremony. this is supposed to be when the entire community in province can come together and come together and a moment. and it's a shame he had to rush that deal through because he knows, even the people of rhode island, maybe with the exception of brown, think this is ridiculous, right? but this has been going on, bill, for about five decades now. because traditional christianity and the churches, for the most part, have been resisting the great sexual revolution and the free love stuff and everything that came along with it, so the secular
progressives and the elites and they're very powerful, they have sought mostly through using the courts, to diminish traditional religion in the public square. and that means the diminishment of first amendment rights in the public square and then it trickles down to silly things like the charlie brown christmas pageant that a little rock school-- >> let me stop you for a moment though and just explain that the christmas tree lighting in providence, rhode island is usually a big deal and everybody brings their children. and the spokesman says there's not a lighting the at all. the people were in an uproar and they sneak it in so nobody knows. >> notice what he did in the interview with you. he did what most on the left do, in a conversation like this. rather than debating the facts and the merit and the constitution, instead he falls back on -- hey, you need to get happy and evolve and get with the program.
the fact of the matter is, there are millions of americans across this country who celebrate christmas. this is a tradition that's grounded in our history, that our former presidents have acknowledged and celebrated with the people. it doesn't mean it's a national religion or everybody has to believe in jesus christ. he doesn't want to talk about that. he wants to talk about how times have changed and basically, everybody who doesn't agree with him has to get with the program, call it a holiday tree and then in these instances where prayer in school and a moment of silence, you have to go along with that, too, because a bunch of liberal judges will end up forcing that down the people's throat and this is the reason that mitt romney should have talked more about judges during this election cycle. this is where it's all, the action is in the courts, and conservatives are losing often times in the courts because we're losing the presidential election. >> and look, you're a converted-- laura converted to catholocism. >> yeah. >> bill: i'm sure in the beginning you were thinking about doing it, attracted to the philosophy of jesus and
how it was incorporated into the roman catholic church. >> yes. >> bill: what the man did and said, and there wasn't a catholic church when jesus was walking or executed, that came afterward and a considerable amount of time afterward, but the philosophy of jesus attracts people and then they look around. do i want to be episcopalian, a baptist, do i want to be a catholic. and they say we'll put up the catholic thing in rhode island then that would be-- >> this is about more that that. this is about a desire on the part of-- not just the atheists of america, but this is a very powerful group of elites who are very uncomfortable and very hostile to conservative christianity and mostly that, right, conservative christians. >> and he conflated to gay marriage and the-- >> it's marriage, it's abortion and those two issues really are at the core of the
hostility and obviously. >> bill: that's right. >> the pushback against what started in the 60's as an a free he love generation to everything else that followed and every debate that we've had, whether it's the contraceptive debate or government mandated abortion. they don't like the conservative christian world view. >> they doesn't want any judgments made about anybody's behavior and that's it. directly ahead, dennis miller says traditional america has vanished, vaporized by the presidential vote. is that true? my talking points memo is next. e me. now, i'm on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. [ woman ] learn from my story.
>> is traditional america gone for good? that's the subject of this evening's talking points memo. my pal, dennis miller, believes traditional america has been vipep vaporized, that it's gone for good. >> do i think it will in my lifetime go the other way? no, i don't. this is it. i think this is the america i saw from 18 to 58, no, i don't. is that the end of the world? no, it's not like i was in the shower this morning and found a lump in my arm pit. that's always my fallback position, i've got a great life, but i'm saying it's not the america i've grown comfortable with. >> i'm giving miller's election take a lot of thought and i disagree with him.
i believe traditional america can come back, but it will take a very special person to make that happen. let's look at what happened. president obama received about 62 million votes, 11% less than he got in 2008. so he's slipping in popularity. mitt romney ended up with 3.3 million fewer votes than the president. close, but romney got the 2% fewer votes than john mccain in 2008. by any measure, a poor performance from governor romney. mccain was running right into recession. more about romney's failure to build on mccain's vote than obama doing anything. a stronger candidate would have won. mr. obama won the women's vote and black and asian, but 70% of the latinos voted for the president and that's the difference in florida, virginia, colorado and nevada, other states impacted as well. romney took white males and independents by significant margins, but when you bunch it altogether, when you bunch it
up, it was an entitlement vote this year. american families earning less than $30,000 a year broke big for the president, 62% to 35. so it's clear to left wing ideology did not win the day for mr. obama, big spending did, many in the media would have us believe that liberal ideology was confirmed by this election, it was not. however, however, secularism is certainly eroding traditional power, no question about it. those americans who attend religious services at least once a week, voted for romney, 59-39. the religious is on at decline. despite the presidential controversial insistence that some catholic entities provide birth control and after-pills, catholics supported obama 50-48. down from 2008, but still a surprise to some. only about 30% of american
catholics now attend weekly mass. you can see the impact of creeping secularism on the religious vote. on paper the stats look hopeless for traditional americans, however, it will take a very special politician to do that. by the way, mitt romney didn't try to marginlize secularism, it's a mistake. the key question going forward is the movement good for american, no matter their ethnic condition, the answer is no, three vivid. secular progressive champion do your own thing philosophy, and the public school system adopted that philosophy and that's now wreaking havoc on american society. in 2010, about 41% of american babies were born out of wedlock, up 8 percentage points since 2000 and up an
astounding 23% since 1980. babies born to unmarried women drive poverty even study shows that and american minority groups are the most affected. in 2010, 73% of black babies were born outside of marriage. 53 of hispanic babies were. and the number was 29% for whi white. so the cycle continues, minorities are more affected by poverty because the traditional family unit has broken down in those. and rather to trying it to reverse that, secular progressives want more entitlement spending, nothing about changing libertine attitudes. on the abortion front, same thing. rather than trying to discourage taking the lives of millions of fetuses. they've taken a war on women, scream, so-called reproductive
rights are under you assault. the zealots want them on demand and stridently opposed to even counselling before this life ending procedure is taken. abortion is settled long because it should be discouraged because human dna is present upon conception thus becomes a human rights issue. ask yourself this question, should america be a country where potential human life, undeniable fact after conception is terminated after convenience, is that the kind of country we want? and the federal government is going to demand that citizens who oppose abortion pay for it? what say you, planned parenthood? finally, two states, washington and colorado voted to legalize pot. here are the grim stats on this i hdiocy. and teen-ager pot use has been
up, and states that have lenient medical marijuana law driving the stats. why? because legalizing pot sends a message, that it's fine to use it and getting the drug at the corner makes it readily available to anyone. ask any drug counselor and he or she will tell you, once a child is introduced to intoxicants, that child's life changes for the worse. some may not become substance involved, but millions will. do we want to encourage that? they say they don't care about addiction, they don't want limitations on so-called private behavior, no judgment. want to smoke drugs, fine. want to abort a fetus? we'll drive you to the clinic. want to have a kid when you're 16, no problem at all, we'll support you. did mitt romney spell that out with the secular progressive movement really is all about in strong vivid terms and how
president obama enables that? romney would not have lost 71% of the hispanic vote i can tell you. i believe the majority of americans can be persuaded that the far left is a dangerous out fit bent on destroying traditional america and replacing it with a social free zone that drives dependency and poverty. we the people need to be confronted with the reality of our situation. but so many of our politicians are cowardly, that the truth is rarely heard. well, tonight, you heard it. and maybe four years from now, what's really at stake in america, will finally be heard loud and clear. and next time, we'll react and the factor will be right back. e.
folks will wise up eventually. and joining us from austin, texas, mary, in the studio juan william, fox news analyst. am i right or wrong here. >> i think a little off target. >> bill: a little off target? >> some of the things i resonate with. here is the thing, there are lots of older americans who say this is not the america i grew up in, i go down to the gas station and nobody is speaking english, go to the 7-eleven and who are the people, america's changed. you can't demonize the new folks in america and make them out to be america's problem because these folks didn't vote for romney. in fact, people said romney shares their values. this is across the board, but they said, obama cares about people like me. >> bill: all right and i'm saying to you is i don't think 71% of hispanics are secular progressives, would you agree with that. >> no, and that should say to you, when you look at catholics, hispanics, strongly catholic, these are patriots,
these people love america, they believe in the work-- >> romney couldn't put it in vivid terms. mary katherine, you say. i think you're on target on a bunch of this, and we've reached a turning point of sorts, but that doesn't mean that folks who believe what romney believes or believed in general to the right of center as juan was pointing out, many people still do, that that can't result in electoral victory in the future. you're correct that it takes a special person. it takes a special person in barack obama to bring the left where it is right now and frankly surprised it got here and takes somebody to connect with people who is charismatic and smart and takes to people in a smart way where you are not demonizing anybody that i or bill is doing that in explicit ways, but you have to cross the cultural barriers and reach folks. >> bill: and also talk in a way that challenges them.
i mean, look, as you said, most hispanic-americans are catholic, right? they're family oriented, strongly, very, very tradition in the hispanic predicts, family, family, family. and yet, they rejected all of that. they rejected that. >> why do you think that? >> because if you look at the democratic convention and saw the abortion zealots and the zealotry up there, and the dependency and the big government programs, you couldn't possibly say this is the pro family party, the democrats. >> of course you could. >> bill: you couldn't say that. >> and saying to that his little girl, and his mother and his wife-- >> if you want to be pro kids romney, 42 of them and-- >> and i'm saying a message that was put forth by planned parenthood. >> no. >> bill: and naral was an anti-family message. >> and wait a minute, wait a minute. >> abortion on demand for any reason at any time. >> they didn't say that. >> yes, they did.
>> what they said was, you shouldn't get into things like requiring, you know, invasive procedures before a woman is allowed to have an abortion. and let me tell you, in this election, more than half of americans said abortion should be legal. and then let's cut to something like marijuana, a minute ago, saying, listen, what do you say about alcohol, bill o'reilly? >> i don't make the comparisons. >> and bill, you don't even drink. >> bill: i don't make the comparisons because they're not constructive. >> yes, they are, have you gone to college and see the frat boys out there having a big beer bash? >> now what juan is doing now. his word of the day, what he's doing, he's petty-fogged the issue of alcohol when the stats are, marijuana and heavy use and-- >> and what. >> bill: heavy marijuana use. >> what about alcohol. >> bill: no, you ignored the stats by interusing another topic and saying that we as an
american-- >> and we legalized alcohol, and drink alcohol. >> bill: that is called-- you and calvin coolidge back in 1930, but what you did was petty-fogging, you avoided the fact by introducing something else we're not talking about. mary katherine. >> and want to take us back to the family stuff quickly. first of all, conservatives need to understand that, and this is something i've talked about for a while, is that we can't wait for people to get married to become conservative. we can't wait for people because they're church goers to be conservative. it takes more getting used to because people's life style can drive them toward this philosophy and-- but the other thing, i think you're right, bill, there are so many consequences of this giant inflectionable and often corrupt government you often end up with single motherhood and parenthood, driving to
income inequality. not what the left wants, but ends up with and solving that with more subsidies. it's not a flexible smart way to solve that problem. conservatives have a different method where you can take things to the states where even people pot policy, i may differ with you on, it can become an experimental ground for democracy and come up with different solutions, if people keep-- >> and last word. >> and lose the opportunity to help people. >> i want to say to you and mary katherine, you can't say to these people, like you're cranky and angry over the election. you guys are a bunch of lay-abouts, having children out of wedlock. >> who said that? >> that's not the way. >> who? >> people share values, family and love of country and you have to treat them with respect, bill o'reilly. >> bill: from what i took away from juan was, you can be stoned and still love your country. very good, juan, thank you. coming up, america needs to wise up and lou dobbs and i
>> >> the talking points memo this evening, all of us, all of us need to wise up and fast. you may have heard the story of new york city police officer lawrence deprimo, who spent $100 of his own money to give a barefoot homeless man some boots. that man, jeffrey hillman, was lying in the street when officer spotted him. >> it was extremely cold that night and you see this gentleman, i tried to offer him to buy him a pair of socks and he said, no, sir, god bless you. thank you for asking. when i see something like that, here it is, it's freezing cold out and he had the heart to say god bless me and i had to help him. >> obviously, officer deprimo
is a patriot. and mr. hillman is not homeless, he has an apartment paid for by you and me, he has enough to live in a dignified manner. he doesn't prefer that, he prefers the street and the boots that the officer gave him have disappeared. now i'm not judging hillman, most cases like his involve substance abuse or mental illness, however, we must be honest, the government cannot provide a decent life for hillman. no matter how much money it spends. we're already giving the die tens of thousands of dollars a year and it's doing nothing. there are millions of americans like jeffrey hillman and we all need to understand that some people simply will not, will not save themselves. this translates to an issue that affects all of us. right now an estimated 66 million americans are receiving food stamps and/or medicaid. in addition, there are 21 million folks working for the government.
that means that 87 million people in america are being subsidized by we, the taxpayers. but there are only 109 million americans working in the private sector. doing the math, it's impossible for 109 million workers to support 87 million people. it can't be done. no matter how much you tax the workers. yet, the obama administration and the democratic party continue to put forth that higher taxation will bring the massive government debt under control. perhaps the only democrat telling the truth about this is our old pal, howard dean, the uber liberal former governor of vermont. >> the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. that's a good start, but we're not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board. >> bill: now, governor dean sympathizes with the socialist philosophy and that's where the country is heading.
taking from those who are productive and giving to those who are struggling. or who are working for the massive government apparatus. during this christmas season, i think we all should emulate officer deprimo, we should try to help those in need, but that help may be futile, if the government doesn't wise up and stop the incredible entitlement spending, america's economy will eventually collapse. president obama needs to invite jeffrey hillman to the white house. he needs to talk the man with no shoes. he needs to see what is actually happening in this country. got to get real about government spending. now, the top story tonight, this is incredible, the pennsylvania department of public welfare says that a single mother with two children is better off taking a job that pays $29,000 a year
than a job that pays $69,000 a year. why? cost of entitlements. joining us now from our new york studio, fox business anchor lou dobbs. so, lou, explain this, please. >> well, bill, first, i think we need to give great credit to the department of public welfare in pennsylvania. they're being honest and straight forward and i wish the federal government, as you do, would listen. think about the benefits received by this woman. $25,000 in a take home salary of $57,000, you add to that all of the expenses that we go through, whether it's child care, whether it is transportation. in the instance, one parent and two children in pennsylvania, food stamps amounts to a subsidy of $6300 a year to that family of three. medicare and child health insurance, $16,500 a year.
section 8 subsidized low income rent. another 4300. earned income tax credits, modestly, $5,000. they could rise significantly beyond that. but, at any rate, they would total so much money combined with what is the national school lunch program, the needy family assistance programs, we're talking about more take home pay, disposable income, for that woman with her two children on public assistance than a woman with two children earning $57,000 a year. it's extraordinary. >> bill: all right. and if she were 69 she wouldn't get any of that. >> right. >> bill: so the pennsylvania authorities say the system is set up now to reward people who aren't making any money and if you try to bring yourself up and raise yourself up in salary, you're actually going to have a lower standard
of living because you lose some of the benefits. that's the game right now. >> it's the game and it's also the challenge because they're trying to avoid that collision. because, it doesn't matter, in this one instance, what we're talking about here, if you're a socialist or if you're a capital list, we're talking about government subsidizing and incentivizing behavior. >> did i pick on this jeffrey hillman guy, the homeless guy? this guy, he has his apartment paid for, medicaid, food stamps, he got it all. there he is in the street. am i being unfair to him? >> i don't think so at all. bill, i think what you're pointing out, it's extraordinary our president who spent much of his life as a community organizer is more interested in expanding government than it is in organizing and supporting communities which are really the answer to mr. hillman's tragedy. >> bill: solving these kind of problems. >> absolutely. >> bill: how the new entitlement culture helped decide the election. that's moments away. instead i got heartburn.
>> liberals and conservatives ganging up on mitt romney. that's the subject of this evening's talking points memo. one of the bad things about america is that some of us feel that we can kick people when they're down. that's exactly what's happening to mitt romney right now. billions of americans are very
disappointed that the governor did not wage a more aggressive campaign to unseat president obama. and instead he played safe and libya the third debate and sitting on it the last eight days of the campaign. after hurricane sandy hit the east coast, the governor disappeared from the news cycle, apparently that was fine with him, he had many opportunities to speak with urgency in the the last weekend, but passed. so president obama's team run by the brilliant david axlerod won the fourth quarter big. they could point at voters who might support them and get them out on election day. the romney campaign made local appearances, saying the same thing over and over and over. early on election night when trends began to appear i said this, the changing country, the demographics are changing it's not a traditional america anymore and there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. they want things.
and who is going to give them things? president obama. he knows it, and he ran on it. >> bill: now, that's the truth. and there's no denying the statistics in exit polling. however some liberal americans were outraged that i would actually say the truth and i'll tell yu ou why in a moment. and eight days after, mitt romney held a conference with his donors and say pretty much what i said. >> and what president obama did was focus on members in his base coalition and give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote. >> bill: again, that's the truth. and here is the backup. 20% of those who voted on election day make under $30,000 a year. those folks are either poor or close to it. many of those voters receive entitlements, food stamps, housing subsidies, that kind of thing and of course, they don't want the programs cut or
reorganized. among americans making less than 30,000 bucks a year, 63%, 63% voted for barack obama. just 35% voted for mitt romney. from that group, the president received about 7 million more votes than romney did. mr. obama won the popular vote by 3 1/2 million. so, is a stone-cold fact that lower income americans largely reelected president obama. mitt romney's failure is very clear. he could not convince the majority of voters that he would look out for them period. he did not show enough outrage every his 16 trillion dollar debt or explain what that could lead to. a total economic collapse. romney was timid, wasn't paul revere spreading the word about danger. ask yourself this question:
what do you think those makes less than $30,000 a year were voting for? what were they voting for? do you think they were voting for massive debt? why they voting for continued chaos in the middle east? were they voting for more government regulations that inhibit businesses from hiring working people? were they voting for 8% unemployment to keep salaries down because there are more workers than jobs? were they voting for any of that? no. millions of lower income americans voted for the candidate who they thought was going to directly help them financially. not every obama voter did that, but many absolutely did. now, going forward, the republican party does have to change. it can't disparage poor people, it has to engage them. that's to demonstrate that a healthy economy, based on discipline and robust capitalism, will lift far more people out of poverty than government handouts will.
you've got to sell that. romney didn't. finally, governor romney also did not confront the far left fanatics to demonize them and let me give you a perfect example. "the washington post" editorialized last week, that i, your humble correspondent, served up a bigoted commentary on election night, quote, a couple of hours before president obama was declared the vick toy bill o'reilly offered his explanation why mitt romney was about to lose because it's a changing country it's not a traditional america anymore. in case anyone might be confused about the meaning of traditional, he elaborated, white establishment is now minority. in other words, the problem was too many voters of color. how vile. how vile. in other words, you pinheads have no right to lie about me by putting fabricated words in my mouth. that's not what i said.
you disgrace the journalism industry. you seek to demonize anyone who disagrees with your far left view. am i being clear enough? the white establishment no longer dominates the political field in america. that is crystal clear. i don't lament that. i'm not pining for a return to calvin coolidge, i just reported it, but for crazed ideologues, that's inconsequence. they summed up saying, quote, it's encouraging that many republicans are repudiating and contemptuous, contemptible o'reilly-mitt romney world view. here is what's really contemptible, you guys spinning an honest look at the vote as a diatribe against poor people and minorities. that's what is contemptible. "the washington post" staff could not care less about the truth, that american society is dependent on a giant
federal map which cannot possibly afford all the stuff it's giving out. that's the truth. we are turning into a western europe and that's exactly what "the washington post" wants. their world view is destructive to america and it will be confronted here. that's memo. >> another rundown, mary katherine will react to the talking points and the factor is coming right back. the first thing the emts gave me. now, i'm on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. [ woman ] learn from my story.
neural speeds increasing to 4g lte. brain upgrading to a quad-core processor. predictive intelligence with google now complete. introducing droid dna by htc. it's not an upgrade to your phone. it's an upgrade to yourself. >> liberal and conservative america attacking mitt romney and me over entitlements. joining us from washington, mary katherine ham and juan williams, both fox news analysts. juan, you used to work for "the washington post"? what about that piece, the o'reilly-romney view of the world and sounds like i ran and he's vp on the ticket. >> when they start with the name calling, i've got no use for it, bill. i had to deal with it as a black person on school
vouchers, as well as comments about airport. that's not the what i said, that's not what i'm thinking and that's just crazy. and i think that romney and ryan, romney spoke about the president's base as if he was rewarded elements of the base. ryan spoke about an urban population, that's getting closer and it's worrisome, but the real issue i have and the one i want to discuss with you is what you said in the talking points memo because i don't think people necessarily voted in terms of their economic interests. i think there are lots of poor people, i think there are lots of seniors who receive medicare and social security who voted for mitt romney. i think there are lots of people in the suburbs of new york, connecticut and new jersey who are in some of the these big companies that have to pay higher taxes under president obama who nonetheless believe that obama was a better candidate and voted for the best of america. >> bill: look, juan, you've got to be-- the stats are overwhelming, you can't tell me that economics were the primary
voting force for president obama, you can't say it, it's not true. >> first of all, let me say i agree he with juan unfair of the post and many in the media pointing out some of the statistics about the election and actually pointing out that indeed, minorities increased in turnout and in urban areas, yes, in cities where the g.o.p. has problems relating to folks and bringing folks into their fold and voting for them. those are not racist statements and we need to get away from that if we're going to analyze like we want to. but i will say that i think, you know, you said yourself that some 30-something percent of under 30,000 a year voted for romney. so i don't think -- and i don't think those that voted for obama are necessarily completely ruled by whatever, whatever-- >> and if you're going to say that, wait, wait, mary katherine. if you're going to say that, that's going to be your point of view. you have to fill in the blanks. what did they vote for? i just listed eight things, did they vote for 8%
unemployment. 16,000 -- what did they vote for? >> they didn't believe that romney was on their side and had their back. that's a failure of our own and romney's campaign. >> bill: now we're getting someplace. do you know, juan. i think when you go back to 47%, i think people feel he was looking out for the top 2% and big corporations, what's mary katherine said, he wasn't for them. >> bill: we all three agree, all three of us agree under 37 drew didn't think-- and what did they vote for in reelecting president obama? >> i think they voted for a country where they feel as seniors, as veterans, as people who may be disabled that the country moving forward, especially in terms of this fiscal cliff and economic decisions about budget p would be-- >> like high school, there's got to be more than understanding and-- >> they don't think. >> bill: move forward where? >