Talking Points

Bill O'Reilly: Liberals and conservatives ganging up on Mitt Romney

Talking Points 11/19


By Bill O'Reilly

One of the bad things about America is that some of us feel the need to kick people when they are down. That's exactly what's happening to Mitt Romney right now. Millions of Americans are very disappointed that the Governor did not wage a more aggressive campaign to unseat President Obama.

Instead Romney played it safe, failing to hammer the President on Libya in the third debate and pretty much sitting out the last eight days of the campaign. After Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast, the Governor simply disappeared from the news cycle. Apparently that was fine with him because he had many opportunities to state his case with some urgency in the last weekend but passed.

So President Obama's team, run by the brilliant David Axelrod, won the fourth quarter big. They pinpointed voters who might support them, got them out to vote on Election Day. Meantime, the Romney campaign made a series of local appearances saying the same thing over and over and over. Early on election night when trends began to appear, I said this...


O'REILLY: It's a changing country, the demographics are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50 percent 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.


O'REILLY: Now, that's the truth. And there is no denying the statistics in exit polling. However, some liberal Americans were outraged that I would actually say the truth. I will tell you why in a moment.

Eight days after the vote, Mitt Romney held a conference call with his donors and pretty much said what I said.


MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: What the President, the President's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote.


O'REILLY: Again, that's the truth. And here is the backup; 20 percent 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 those programs cut or reorganized. Among Americans making less than $30,000 bucks a year, 63 percent, 63 percent voted for Barack Obama. Just 35 percent voted for Mitt Romney.

From that group the President received about seven million more votes than Romney did. Mr. Obama won the popular vote by three and a half million. So it is a stone cold fact that lower income Americans largely re-elected President Obama.

Now, the left is going to scream when you say that because they don't want to acknowledge the economics of the vote. So, when I told you the truth on election night, I was immediately branded a racist and worse.

This is what Americans should understand. Liberals want to see themselves as noble. They don't want to consider the fact that entitlements buy votes. That goes against their sensibilities. So if you tell them the truth that entitlements do indeed buy votes, they attack you.

But now Mitt Romney is also getting it from the right-wing. Conservative George Will called Romney out on Sunday.


GEORGE WILL, JOURNALIST: Quit despising the American people, particularly because a lot of what they are despising them for, Republican policies from the... when Mitt Romney said so many Americans aren't paying attention yes because the Republicans doubled the child tax credit for conservative reasons. Yes, because they expanded the earned income tax credit as Ronald Reagan did because they thought it was effective anti- poverty program.


O'REILLY: Mr. Will is pettifogging the issue. It doesn't matter where the entitlements come from! Millions of Americans want them. They want the government to provide. Newt Gingrich also slammed Romney.


GINGRICH: I just think it's nuts. I mean first of all, it's insulting. This would be like Wal-Mart having a bad week and going "the customers have really been unruly." I mean the job of a political leader in part is to understand the people. If we can't offer a better future that is believable to more people we're not going to win.


O'REILLY: But what does that mean, Mr. Speaker? Is the Republican Party going to out entitlement the Democrats? What does that mean? 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 over $16 trillion debt or explain that can lead to a total economic collapse. Romney was timid. He wasn't Paul Revere spreading the word about danger.

Ask yourself this question, what do you think those making less than $30,000 a year were voting for? What were they voting for? Do you think they were voting for massive debt? Were 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 eight percent unemployment that keeps 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. You can't disparage poor people. It has to engage them. It has 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. Maybe Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal or Nikki Haley, maybe they can.

Finally, Governor Romney also did not confront the far-left fanatics who demonized him. And let me give you a perfect example. "The Washington Post" editorial 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 victor, Bill O'Reilly offered his explanation for why Mitt Romney was about to lose. Because it's a changing country, it's not a traditional America any more. In case anyone might be confused about the meaning of traditional he elaborated the white establishment is now the 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 inconsequential.

The "Post" summed up their dishonest commentary saying quote, "It's encouraging that many Republicans are repudiating the contemptuous and contemptible O'Reilly-Romney world view" unquote.

Well, here is what is really contemptible. You guys spinning an honest look at the vote as a diatribe against poor people and minorities. That's what's contemptible. The "The Washington Post" editorial staff could not care less about the truth. That American society is dependent on a giant federal nanny which cannot possibly afford all the stuff it is giving out. That's the truth.

We are turning into a Western Europe. And that is exactly what the "The Washington Post" wants. Their world view is destructive to America. And it will be confronted here.

And that's "The Memo."