Thursday, November 04, 2010

John Stossel Face Down with Bill O'Reilly on Vote Getters

We were disappointed with John Stossel when he faced Fox's The Factor powerhouse, Bill O'Reilly recently just prior to the mid-term elections.

O'Reilly was apparently convinced Republican candidates who supported the same concept of limited government as Tea Party activists were the only way to go this election. Who else is there? O'Reilly posed the question of choice between a Democrat and a Republican candidate for federal office specifically to Stossel during the program.

Stossel did not say anything like in his column of the day after the mid-term election.

Stossel knows that the two most unworthy of a dime of public monies Social (in)Security Medicare and other federal entitlement programs, and the (unconstitutional) Military Budget (and any other aspects of the budget which are not constitutionally authorized) as he says in Did Freedom Win remained unuttered sacred cows during Tea Party rallies, candidate rallies, speeches, and sit down breakfasts with the Republican candidates who promised 'limited government.'

Yet during his one-on-one with O'Reilly, Stossel could only shake his head when asked Who else is there than a Republican to vote for?

We can only wonder why Stossel didn't say emphatically to O'Reilly. It would be a better message to send to Washington DC to write in Peter Pan or Dumbo because stopping power elite from spending and spending on whatever they think is of benefit to their re-elections in the future is never going to happen.

Stossel was given an opportunity to explain why neither Republicans or Democrats fit the true "freedom" bill and shouldn't suit Bill O'Reilly either, so though he wasn't going to reveal who he was going to vote for, he could have made it clear it wasn't going to be any of the Republicans, Tea Party supported or other.

Net the Truth Online

John Stossel:
This Week's Column: Did Freedom Win?
The polls have closed. With the Tea Party taking some important races, and Republicans re-taking control of the House, some people have declared this election a victory for freedom. Many winning candidates campaigned on a promise to cut back on government. Some vowed to restore government to its constitutional limits.

But the Republicans have a poor record when it comes to cutting government. As I write in this week’s column, I’m not sure the Tea Party Republicans will do any better:

[…] The Tea Party is supposed to be different. It stands for fiscal responsibility, spending cuts, and deficit reduction. A New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Tea Partiers said they would rather have a “smaller government providing fewer services” than a “bigger government providing more services.” That’s encouraging. But when it comes to specifics, the results aren’t as good. The poll found that 62 percent thought “the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs.” A Bloomberg poll found that most Tea Partiers “want more drug benefits for Medicare patients” ( And when was the last time you heard Tea Partiers complaining about the exploding military budget?

Strangely, in other questions, Tea Partiers did seem willing to accept cuts in domestic entitlement programs if it meant smaller government. The contradictory answers don’t bode well for the time when lobbyists for well-organized special interests mount their passionate attacks against cuts.

You just cannot be committed to cutting government if you would leave two of the costliest programs intact.

Read more:

We highlight Thomas J. DiLorenzo's Be Patriotic: Don't Vote here since it provides a viewpoint of interest with much of its contents.

No comments: