Should Mitt Talk to Bill?

So I’m on with Bill O’Reilly and he says both Mitt Romney and President Obama should go on his program before Election Day.  He knows the president won’t take him up on the offer, but he says Romney’s people say they find the invitation “intriguing.”

“Intriguing,” we both agree translates into “No way, Jose!”  But then Bill says he thinks it might happen.

Bill thinks it would be smart for Romney to go on the Factor, where he’d get 30 minutes to tell his story to a lot of people.  I say, you’re wrong Bill.

Here’s why I would advise Romney to decline the offer.  First, despite all the flak he takes, Bill is a journalist at heart.  He’s smart and fair and he won’t ask softball questions like some others might.  There’d be no “Obama is a jerk, right?” Or “don’t you think Obama is even worse than Jimmy Carter?”

Bill would ask real questions.  Let’s say Romney hits them all out of the park for 29 and a half minutes.  Then, Bill asks a question that neither Romney nor anyone else sees coming.  A good, hard question.  Let’s say Romney muffs it, and in the process says something reminiscent of “I like firing people.”  He quickly explains what he really meant, maybe even apologizes for the awkward way he answered Bill’s question … but, alas, it’s too late.

The Obama campaign jumps all over the “gaffe,” which is a word used to describe what happens when a politician slips and tells the truth, usually about something controversial.  What happens next? Right!  Obama’s loyal base – the so-called mainstream media – jump all over the gaffe too.

So here we are with a few days left in the campaign and everybody is focused on Romney’s lone “mistake.”  That’s all reporters write and talk about.

Should Romney have gone on the Factor earlier in the campaign? Maybe. But now the potential upside just isn’t worth the potential downside.

That’s why Romney should not go on the Factor.  What say you?

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • GailWehling

    no, Bill is not a big deal like he thinks he is.

  • trailbee

    I agree. Mitt Romney should not go.  There are many good reasons below, and they all apply. Add one more:  MR has driven Bill crazy during this entire campaign, by choosing to campaign on his own terms. He knows he will either win (I hope) or not, but is giving it his best shot.  Bill is trying to gain traction from an interview.
    MR also knows many people are voting for him because their slogan is ABO-Anybody But Obama, not that flattering.  We are trying to retrieve our country from Obama and his minions, and MR won the Primary.  I remember reading that people were willing to vote for the dog catcher.   MR is better.  I hope he does not change his mind between now and Monday night.  Good luck, Mr. Romney!

  • Steve

    Romney is a coward.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PPL2AXPXJMWPEJWFN34MPC5RNY terry

    Beware of the resident Genius,  Mr Bill said Obama didnt lie about Benghazi, Sure !

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PPL2AXPXJMWPEJWFN34MPC5RNY terry

    Since Momney & Obama didnt go on Mr Bill’s TV Funhouse, they both will lose, too bad

  • GailWehling

    No way should Romney go on with Bill.  He is so much smarter than Bill, Bill would look like a first grader.  Romney is a humble man and Bill’s arrogance exceeds all.  Romney does not need Bill O’Reilly.

    • floridahank

      Romney should not let O’Reilly get any glory with such an interview — it wouldn’t make any difference to those listening — they’ve all made up their minds and it would be wasting Romney’s time being on a jerk show anyway.

  • Asheville

    1. It’s not a liberal media trait to point out mistakes candidates make or to take phrases out of context. Does nobody remember “you didn’t build that?” EVERY ONE jumps on a candidate they oppose for a gaffe.

    2. A presidential candidate cannot avoid an interview right before an election “just in case.” We have every right to know what his answers are to Bill’s “fair” questions (I’ll give you smart, but since when is O’Reilly fair?). If anything it makes Romney more admirable for going onto Bill’s show to answer a mere 30 minutes of questions- especially if Obama refuses.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.raftis David Raftis

    Correct as usual Bernie, and I am sure Bill knows this as well. Perhaps he will send his wife Ann in his place. I would rather see her anyway.

  • Chuck Goldberg (no relation!)

    Bernie’s logic here is unassailable, with one caveat: If Romney loses, he will be sorry he didn’t go on The Factor, just as McCain was sorry.  However, with Romney in pretty good position now, with four days to go, it is smarter to stay away from O’Reilly and not take the risk.  Romney is inclined to avoid unnecessary risks anyway, and that’s not a bad strategy. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/dave.templeton3 Dave Templeton

    O’Reilly, Juan Williams, Geraldo and Karl Rove undermine the conservative cause.  Romney has his base and does NOT need these people’s fake support!

  • 49corvette

    Agreed—Not that Romney might make a “slip”—but anything said in these last days could be twisted and used as ammunition by the Dems—I like O’Reilly but the thought of a “bad” sound byte connected to O’Reilly would do harm—a lot of folks do not like O’Reilly and they don’t even know why—they just don’t—America already had a good slice of the Romney persona from the debates—my 2cents—thanx for reading

  • Jove

    If  I gave the wrong number of GM plants in China, I’m glad to stand corrected.
    But I still insist that Obama &  Co can’t have it both ways: they praise GM to the skies, then bemoan the shipping of jobs overseas while ignoring the fact that GM has many (the exact number isn’t the most important element) plants overseas.
    I lived in South America for the better part of 20 years and I’m well aware that many countries require that items sold there (including vehicles) have significant local content.
    But I still say that it’s inconsistent to praise GM while denoucing outsourcing of American jobs.  

    • Mario__P

      The GM plans in China were there before the bailout. Obama’s praising of GM is for the jobs here in the US. There is no inconsistency there, unless GM built all of its plants in China after the bailout, to manufacture cars for the US market. 

      Outsourcing is when you terminate an American job and replace it with a foreign one. The GM jobs in China are not taking any American jobs, because those Chinese jobs are for the Chinese market. American built GM vehicles could not compete in China on the giant scale they currently are when being built in China. So, it’s not like the Chinese are taking jobs away from the Americans, because those American jobs would not exist due to the lack of Chinese demand for American built GM cars.

      • Drew Page

        And how many American jobs were outsourced to China by Mr. Obama’s good friend and advisor, Jeff Imelt, CEO of General Electric and named by Obama as New Jobs Creation Czar?  Try 8,000.

        • Mario__P

          You’re off the topic.

  • Berryraymond

    Nothing to gain and everything to lose.

  • DB

    Very funny.  A Romney interview by Bill O’Reilly at this stage would be all wins for Bill O’Reilly.  Bill is a shrewd businessman first and above all else. Gotta hand it to him for trying.  I am with you.  Can’t see the benefit for Gov. Romney. Intriguing!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/B3OWN6HAJYLKRLCWBBCFRLJAMU VermontAmerican

    I say that Sean and Greta score the better guests because O’Reilly is really a moderate-to-somewhat-liberal buffoon who many people take for a conservative.  I stopped watching O’Reilly more than a year ago because he just doesn’t appear to grasp the real issues. 

  • Bob Hadley

    If Gov. Romney appeared on the factor, the one embarassing things O’Reilly MIGHT do is to play the tape of Gov. Romney at the Rep. primary debates saying that FEMA should be dissolved and that its responsibilities either privatized (if possible) or delegated to the states.  O’Reilly might play that tape, but on the orther hand he might only ask Romney about his position on FEMA without running the tape.

    All the other hard questions O’Reilly should be asking of Gov. Romney he either will not ask or will ask an initial question and accept Gov. Romney’s answer without pointing to his flip-flops.  Gov. Romeny flip-flops much more than Sen. Kerry did in ’04.

    O’Reilly has been subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) trying to undermine support for Pres. Obama for years.  He obviosly favors Gov. Romney.

    • Mario__P

      How does Romney envision fixing the cost of disaster relief by shifting that responsibility to the state level? Will each state, depending how prone it is to natural disasters, charge a varying relief tax to cover those expenses? Romney’s solution, which is to avoid charging disasters onto the federal credit card and protect “the future of our kids”, will only pass the expenses onto each state. And who will be paying for that? Of course the tax payers and the future generations! What kind of a solution is that? And how are states like Louisiana (annual budget of $25B) and Mississippi (annual budget of $15B), supposed to handle another Katrina, which caused $100B in damages?

      Romney can also fix the high military spending by passing that responsibility onto the states. The states on the exterior of the mainland will need to collect a bit more in taxes, while the states on the interior can depend on the defense from the exterior states. That will fix our large military budget!

      • Bob Hadley

        Good points.   An additional point is that, as Stephen Colbert points out, after a natural disaster the affected state’s’ infrastructure is often disabled.  So how would that state take care of its own diaster relief?

        • Mario__P

          That’s easy. They’ll rely on private donations, church volunteers, and they’ll pray a lot. That’s the same answer the Right gives on how to take care of someone who is seriously ill and his medical coverage got terminated.

          But seriously, obviously having localized state relief programs is a very bad, if not impossible, system. I can’t believe someone running for the highest office of the nation would not see the issues with such an idea. How very dangerous.

    • Tim Ned

      How about we abolish the Nation Flood insurance program that provides insurance to millionaires who build properties on ocean front.  I trust our liberal friends would support this?  Most states like FL, TX, and others in disaster areas are self supportive with the feds in reserve.  In congressional meetings after the Katrina disaster the states testified to leave the main command and control of disasters in the hands of the states.  Except Louisiana of course.  Romney’s FEMA proposal came with alternatives.  Which when he is elected will never pass because our liberal friends believe our government is a highly tuned and effective machine and only at the federal level can it be handled correctly.  And Katrina is you Ace in the hand.  Don’t change or improve anything, just throw money down the drain.  Effective strategy!

      • Mario__P

        How about we don’t stop the passing down of the disaster relief at the state level, but move it to the county, municipal, or even to  the community or street level. That would pinpoint the damaged areas with efficiency. Will that be effective against massive and costly disasters?

        Just because something comes out of your candidate’s mouth doesn’t mean it’s a great idea and you have to support it.

        FEMA isn’t a fine tuned machine, but for massive and costly disasters, the pain felt by the nation is less when the relief is spread out across it.

        • Drew Page

          Jeez, how did the U.S. ever survive before FEMA was created?  

        • Mario__P

          Drew,

          Times are changing, if you have not noticed, and today’s communities and cities are way more complex than what they used to be.
          If having FEMA is such a bad idea and it should be terminated, why doesn’t Romney drive his bus through NY and NJ with a giant END FEMA sticker on it? I’m sure if people thought that was a good move, they would cheer as he drives by, correct?

        • Bob Hadley

          Drew, 

          Jeez, how did patients ever survive before anesthetia?  Why don’t we just give them whisky and a bullet to bite when they’re cut open?

        • Tim Ned

          Congratulations.  You agree with Mitt Romney 100%

        • Drew Page

          Mario  —  I’ll give you credit for a good come back with your anesthesia metaphor.   My question is how far can we reasonably go with FEMA?    How well manned, equiped and funded would FEMA have to be to provide the necessary relief if and when the big earthquake hits California, or when the next Sandy or Katrina hits the east coast or the Gulf?   You can challange Romney to cover his tour bus with ELIMINATE FEMA signs and then drive through NY and NJ.   But then I would challange Obama to cover his tour bus with signs that read INCREASE INCOME TAXES FOR ALL BY ANOTHER TEN PERCENT TO FUND FEMA and drive it through the other 48 states.

        • Mario__P

          Drew,

          That clever anesthesia comment was all Bob Hadley.

          Why would we need to increase everyone’s taxes by 10% to cover FEMA? How did you come up with that figure?

          How do you explain Romney’s solution for FEMA to be at the state level? Will shoving the responsibility onto states somehow make the cost of rebuilding destroyed areas disappear? You and I are still going to pay for the damages, just through a different agency. 

          Finally, how do you explain Louisiana and Mississippi rebuilding without the federal government’s help after another $100B hit?

    • Bill

      Sounds more like how the main stream media deals with their hero Obama.

    • Paul Courtney

      Bob, on this our opinions are equally valid.  My guess is, Bill would not go after him on FEMA because it would hurt Romney not Obama, and I agree Bill O isn’t as subtle as he thinks.  I think Bill would only go after one hard subject, and that would be Libya, as in, why didn’t Mitt attack Obama on that when he had the chance.  That way, Bill’s really attacking Obama.  Mitt won’t (and shouldn’t) appear because he learned the hard way that he can’t win on the subject.  He learned that in the week following the attack, when (in spite of good coverage on FOX and CNN, where questions were raised about how CNN was finding stuff in the smoldering rubble when an FBI investigation was unable to get on the ground) the rest of the press was hammering Mitt about a statement he made in the early hours.  Amazingly, Mitt’s very solid reply (that the White House said virtually the same thing he said, only hours later) did not get them off his back, never mind onto Obama’s back.  Do folks on the left think this Benghazi fiasco is just another story ginned up by FNC?  Anyway, whatever Mitt would tell Bill, the press will make THAT the story as they (CNN excepted) continue to make damn sure nobody asks Obama about it (except the rare local reporter who didn’t get the memo).  For once I wish more people were watching AC360, a lady named Fran Townsend has basically established the administration is openly lying about several aspects of this.  One need not be biased against Obama to smell the rat when CBS and ABC start to cover this, then drop off when they sense it was helping Mitt’s momentum.

      • Bob Hadley

        Paul,

        I too find that 9/11 Libya massacre very troubling.  The president does owe us an explanation.  But info should not come out in dribs and drabs.  After the election and after the an exhaustive investigation is completed, we should be told the whole truth.

        That said, if O’Reilly and FNC suddenly lose interest in the Bengazi episode after the election, it will also be very troubling, but not surprising.

        Out of curiosity, what connection does O’Reilly have to yuor aunt.  If you don’t want to answer, I understand.  I have no doubt that O’Reilly is personally a very caring and giving person. 

        • Paul Courtney

          Bob:  Thanks, sure you didn’t misspell “daft”?  No, I know, kind words accepted.  I too will be watching, if FNC drops this after a Romney win, I’ll be disappointed and surprised.  I know what FNC is, but I think it’s better than the mirror image of NBC or Dan Rather’s CBS.  As for investigation, we know enough to know this- if he had followed 2d debate with statement  “I said it was terror, and we had info that video motivated, so we said that, we’re still looking at details, but I’m responsible (or fill in blank, basically buck stops here stuff) and it WON’T happen again”, FNC would not be scoring on him, and he wouldn’t owe HUGE favor to NYT etc. for burying this.  Axelrod and Gibbs are not as smart as they think.  
          My 90 yr old aunt is just a fan who sees him about town.  Celebs are usually not so stupid as to be ungracious to such people, but he takes it up a notch.  Seems genuine, just like his ego on show is probably no act. 

        • Bob Hadley

          In the 2nd debate, didn’t Pres. Obama essentially say that the buck stops with him?  I’m fairly certain he did.  Isn’t that enough for now.  Why dole out facts peice-meal?

          As for O’Reilly and his on-air persona and antics, as with many other talk show hosts, it has a therapeutic value.  It probably allows him to be nicer and more even-keeled elsewhere.

        • Bob Hadley

          Paul, I didn’t misspell “deft” but I meant to end the sentence with “for once.”  :)  j/k

        • Drew Page

          First of all, what makes you think that Obama would tell the truth?  And even in the odd event that he did tell the truth after the election, what would any of us be in a position do about it?  In my opinion an “exhaustive” investigation isn’t necessary.   The President, V.P., Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Directors of the CIA and of NSA — ALL KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED ALREADY.    They know who refused to provide the requested security for the Benghazi consulate and who ordered the reduction of that security.   They all know who ordered U.S. military (Marines, Seals, etc) to stand down and not go to the aid of those under attack.   they all know who told U.N. Ambassador Rice to continue the fantasy of the video being responsiblwe for the attacks. It would look very bad indeed for the President if this became general knowledge  right before the election.    There needs to be time to spin this story into something called “plausible deniability”  for all involved.   In time, there will be reports issued citing “miscommunications” and the “variety and fluidity” of incoming intelligence from multiple sources, many of which could not be considered as “hard evidence” in the “fog of war”.   

        • Bob Hadley

          First, as far as I know, the investigation is being conducted by the State Dept. and possibly even the CIA.  If Pres. Obama tried to distort the results of these investigations it would come to light sooner rather than later.  Such a cover-up would involve too many different people and agencies. 

          Second, I’ve said elsewhere on this website that I also favor a Congressional investigation, although it must be conducted professionally.

          Third, you make a lot of assumption regarding what people know.  It takes time for info to be brought together and analyzed.  Early report on such volatile matters are often misleading and sometimes inaccurate. 

          BTW, Althuogh I like and concur with most or all of Mario_P’s posts, we are two entirely different people.   I don’t know him and, to the best of my knowledge, have never met him.

        • Bob Hadley

          Drew,

          BTW, the comment below is for you.

          I’ve heard that there is information regarding the Benghazi episode that is classified.  If so, the complete picture may be a while in coming.

      • Bob Hadley

        Paul, Your analysis above is deft.

  • Baga

    I totally disagree.  Mitt can handle his own, after all, he is no Dan Quayle. The worst case scenario, is he could reach a lot on undecided & independent voters. Regardless of what Oreilly asks him just stick to his mantra, and ignore Bill like all politicians do: Talk about what their agenda is for America. Its called side-stepping good ol’ arrogant Bill.

  • Phil

    “gaffe,” which is a word used to describe what happens when a politician slips and tells the truth, usually about something controversial. Couldn’t have said it better myself, Bernie!

  • Sally

    O’Reilly is an independent and never endorses candidates. What’s the point? If I were Romney, if he appears on any FoxNews show, should appear on Hannity or even Greta – who, although my understanding is a moderate Democrat – seems to be fair, and is outraged about Benghazi.

    On the other hand, liberals are SO biased against Fox News that appearing on a program there could encourage some independents or even possible Democrat Romney voters to  possibly change their minds. 

    And appearing on Fox News, when you have very little campaign time left, is speaking to your base – and unlike Obama,Romney’s focus has always been to speak to independents, possible Democrat voters, and moderate Republicans.

  • Ahwooga

    First, i think Romney would do well and is unlikely to have any gaffes. He isn’t gaffe-prone and by now is very much battle-tested from all the debates he participated in. Plus, while O’Reilly is a good hard-nosed journalist, when it comes to interviewing big-time politicians (on either side) he generally goes fairly easy on them and avoids trying to trip them up. Yet is there much plus side for Romney? Will it draw the kind of audience that he is seeking to win over? Will it fire up his base or help him win Ohio? More than that, will it come off looking like a desperate move?

    In the final analysis, i don’t think you’ll see Romney agree to it unless he really is desperate. He and his team have a detailed game plan for the final few days and are unlikely to deviate from it unless there is a clear upside or if they feel like they need to roll the dice and shake things up.

  • Randall Jones

    Bernie,  I agree with you.  One simple reason is that barak Obama is not h going on The Factor.  If he was, then Romney would need to go.  Absent that.  As much as I like Bill and I do like Bill.  Absolutely correct.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GX6IS3CUXZKIEMD6LWHZ5ZBWWU John

    Mr. Goldberg, I agree with you. Were Mr. Romney to appear on the Factor this close to the election, and Bill O’Reilly were to press him for specifics, then those specifics. CONCEIVABLY, could become ammunition for those on the other side of the aisle…and the Lame Street Media as well. How does the expression go? Oh yeah: “Better to keep silent and look like a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”.

  • Henry, the 9th

    You’re as right as rain, Bernie.  Just ask Bill what happened in ’08 when he went overboard begging Obama to come on the Factor.  It turns out, as I told Bill after the election, it may have given Obama just enough pazazz to give him the ticket to the WH.  Bill means well, and I think he is a good man, but I recommended to him that in this severe crisis, please don’t try to be the most fair analyst on earth.  We MUST help Mitt in every way to win this election.  I am talking about a “no holds barred”, “taking no prisoners” fight to retain our liberty and freedom.  Obama has reached the point that anything seeming  like a positive to Obama, will be given his best consideration. 

    So Bill, kuhl it, eh? 

  • Michael

    Bill overestimates his importance.

    • Bob Hadley

      He also underestimates his impotence.  :)

  • FloridaJim

    I see no benefit for Romney to come on The Factor. Romney is doing well in most polls and has momentum where is, the upside to talk with O’Reilly? Obama is falling and he is scared of O’Reilly asking about Benghazi and demanding answers so Obama won’t be on either. When you are a tough questioner as O’Reilly is any candidate can be helped if he has articulate answers ready. However if the question is new or he is unprepared it could be an albatross to bring him down. O’Reilly pays the price of his success…tough questions means less responders in a crunch. 

  • Paul Courtney

    Sometimes Bill O’s ego blinds him to the obvious, but he’s kind to my elderly aunt who lives in Manhasset,  so I cut him some slack.  Oh, and I like the show.  On another subject, if the storm costs Obama the election, does that make the storm racist?

    • Bob Hadley

      Most disasters appear to have a liberal bias, but who knows about this one.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6IRUCH7BPO6T5FWI6CUPPASHO4 Betz

    Bill O’Reilly should have Gary Johnson on, but I wonder if Bill will be too chicken to have him on.  After all, Obama and Romney dodged a bullet by keeping Gary Johnson out of the debates when Johnson would have outright said he is against the Patriot Act, NDAA, CISPA and would submit a balanced budget in 2013, not a decade or decades from now.  Besides, neither Obama or Romney could hold a candle to Gary Johnson’s job growth record of 11.6% FOR BOTH TERMS AS GOVERNOR!

    I dare Bill to have Gary Johnson on and show he’s not some duopoly pushing hack.

    • Peter Kleinschmidt

      I think Gary Johnson is a normal great guy with more reasonable ideas than anyone, but one big problem—boring. Not boring in an interview,  just that he’s worthless as a debater, campaigner etc. I understand that he was screwed  over by every debate  moderator.  Gary should have done something like dress up as a women or whatever it would have took to draw attention  to himself because of the fixed process he was in.   

  • Brad

    Agree!

  • Kewgah

    I agree with you Bernie.  O’reilly wouldn’t be a good interview, this point in time.  I’m sure Bill would ask some tough questions.  If the president would also agree to meet with Bill (HIGHLY doubtful), it would be a good idea.  Perhaps after Romney wins the election, he can sit down with Bill and look “forward” from his perspective.  That would be a great start, and loud microphone about what is to come.  Keep up the good work!

  • Bill

    Still can’t believe O’Reilly thinks “The Factor” is watched “worldwide”. Can’t picture the Japanese sitting around their living rooms watching “The Factor”. Bill has a bad case of the ego.

    • Kewgah

      Sorry Bill, but O’reilly does have a worldwide audience of millions.  His show is a rather large microphone, and reaches a broad audience.  Now, his pushing books, is a little egotistical though..

  • Peter Kleinschmidt

    Since the Republican debates ended Mitt has been far more direct ,  with a common sense  and concise in what he believes.  The undecided have moved to positions of support for the former Governor. O’Reilly wouldn’t help but probably hurt. He would be fair to Mitt, but those leaning to Obama would reinforce their silly backing of Obama with the slight trip-up of Mitt by Bill. Michael Savage would help more than anyone. The more conservative the interviewer the more  Mitt will gain.  Most would disagree on the inside but the average person does not know who Savage is. The same old so called conservative interviewer bores  those trying to makes up their minds. Even those that might vote liberal can take a different form when they hear a more direct conservative that’s fresh or unknown. O’Reilly is bright but Savage is at this time  way ahead when it comes to who the average person can identify with.  O’Reilly had his place in previous elections, but people are more and more upset with the process that they don’t want anything that’s the same. the proof is in the crowd’s reactions at the debates, which have reminded me of the audiences at the former Arsenio Hall shows with the “ho ho whoo whooo”. Translates to dysfunctional   

  • http://www.facebook.com/barbara.wilcox.12 Barbara Wilcox

    I completely agree Bernie.   After Romney wins I think it would be a very good venue to talk to the American public for half an hour on O’Reilly, but not now this close to election.   Bill sees all the positives from talking to the folks but forgets how the liberal media would be twisting anything however innocent to benefit Obama.   

  • Ahalbert

    Much to Bill’s disappointment,  Romney doesn’t need Bill. After the debates, Bill told us everything Romney should have said, so there’s no need for further discussion. Ya think Bill’s any closer to figuring out whether Obama is a socialist or wants a post-constitutional, UN compliant, open-border state?

  • Jaitop

    Mit will not go because Bill is too abrasive.He wants to see blood. Mitt will be a fool if he accepts an invitation. He is doing well with independents and doesn’t want to give to the liberal media which is giving cover to Obama for the Benghazi debacle, any opportunity to attack. Our people were betrayed by Obama in Benghazi. Obama doesn’t deserve to be president. This is the issue besides jobs and the economy.

  • IJustHaveAQuestion

    I think Mitt should do an interview with Bill because what does Mitt have to lose? … He is going to lose the election anyway.  That’s what the numbers say analyzing the numbers scientifically.    And so I will note this absolute truth.  That’s why Chris Christie is choppering around NJ with Obama… 2016, 2016…  Christie is smart and savvy.

    This is why, Bernie, you should make it clear to your readers that Mitt has, at this point anyway, no chance of winning. It’s not fair to the ones who are hardcore Republicans that think Mitt still has a chance. They will be emotionally crushed on election night.  So be a truly objective good guy and tell your readership the straight dope.

    Also you should start recommending to the RNC that they need to change their messaging, if the GOP wants to politically survive for the long term. The advice is this, they can be conservative on every issue except they must change to endorsing taxing more of the upper classes and redistributing it to the lowers classes. It’s the future. There is no escape as rich people will be seen more and more as those who pollute too much due to extravagant luxurious lifestyle, have too much that is, and thus help to create storms like Sandy on top of stealing democracy with money.  True or not that’s just the way this all is going if the objective truth about all this is honestly analyzed.

    All who resist this change from it being a liberal partisan value to a universally embraced, necessary, concept that must be implemented, will go by the wayside as did the segregationist of old. Necessary, for national security reasons. The reason is securing America for the masses so that this country will not be overthrown by rich people with enormous amounts of money in the use of money being turn into speech and thus used as a weapon against this country’s institutions and its citizens. Within that context “money is speech” becomes the equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater, or used to start a riot… in the case of the super rich, on a grand scale. 

    This means as little as a decade from now Mitt and his wealthy ilk very well maybe seen by the general population as traitors to this country.  So he should do the interview with Bill before his kind have to hide more than just their money offshore…, but themselves too.        

    • Ahalbert

       No chance of winning? Right. I have a bridge to sell you.

      • Bob Hadley

        And I bet you bought the bridge wholesale

      • IJustHaveAQuestion

         He can’t win because the election is too close and the numbers are not there for Mitt. There would have to be like 10% more undecided or weak decided for Obama in Ohio with a major scandal involving Obama for the duration of the election for Romney to have a chance of winning. We are talking 3-4% at the most. Therefore at this point with the remaining Ohio voters they would have to at least vote his way in the 60% range.  That is definitely not going to happen because such possibility cannot and subsequently does not exist, and so, no Ohio win for Romney, no chance of winning. This makes it what it is in all reality without an ounce of spin, the odds of Romney’s pathways to victory without Ohio are zip in all practical and reasonable assessed  predictable terms. 

        PS If you want to sell that bridge you’ll have better luck I think selling it to Morris or Rove.  Maybe not as they are after all in the motivating the base business, and in “quite rooms” may speak in realistic terms. 

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/RQZSCQR2ZG2EXP4RNNHVOAITJA peterk

          You are not realistic and I am sorry you are a product of the public school system which is not a persons choice.  In a couple days when you are wrong again, quit while you’re ahead. Oh, remember that “while you’re ahead” is sarcasm and is not intended to say you are in the lead

    • Bill

      Luckily, after Romney wins the election, I’m sure we will never hear from you again. Like Obama, your type never admits they’re wrong

      • IJustHaveAQuestion

         I’d bet you 10k I would return here after the election to admit my error to everyone in bold fresh print if Romney wins, but Wall Street stole all my money, so I can’t. You see Bain took it all and now has it invested in China with everyone else’s stolen savings.  

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/RQZSCQR2ZG2EXP4RNNHVOAITJA peterk

          See, there’s  more to what was so evident in your first post. Now if you say your latest reply is true., what is the motive now. You can always tell when a person is full of it. They first brown nose a particular view, then counter it with an opposite opinion.  Presidential elections are landslides????  And the statement about “admit my error” here, would not vindicate the error, but instead be another attempt to counter  a disguised view. Bain capital didn’t lose your money, you did. Wish washy. When you vote Tuesday, from what I sense that will be your real attempt at a bad investment Good Luck and Cheers

          • Mario__P

            “When you vote Tuesday, from what I sense that will be your real attempt at a bad investment”

            Please explain yourself.

    • Peter Kleinschmidt

      You must be apart of that company from Spain that is actually in control of the balloting. “Christie is smart and savvy”????? What are you talking about? I suppose that makes you a genius? Is it possible that doing what’s normal does not need to be critique as if Christie considered the obvious because there might have been a different approach or option???? Come on, get your head out of the bottle. Good Luck and Cheers  

  • DavidB

    The only way it makes political sense for Romney to appear on The Factor at this late stage is if Obama also appeared. But even then you KNOW that the MSM would highlight any gaffes by Romney and gloss over any by their golden boy Obama.

  • Jove

    Well, SOMEBODY needs to point out to the auto workers and emplyees of suppliers in Michigan, Indiana and especially Ohio that Obama, Biden & Co. blather on about Romney’s allegedly exporting jobs and how GM is a fabulous success story — but don’t mention that GM has shipped so many jobs to China that it has TWENTY-TWO plants there.
    Pointing out how many factories GM also has in Europe, Latin American, Canada and elsewhere in Asia would go even further in the direction of putting the job-exporting issue into perspective.

    • Mario__P

      “GM has shipped so many jobs to China that it has TWENTY-TWO plants there.”

      What are you implying, that GM under Obama has built 22 plants in China?  GM has had plants in China since 1998 and was the largest foreign car maker in China before 2009. BTW, the correct number of  GM plants in China is 15, not 22. 

      You obviously do not understand why car makers build plants in other nations. Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Volkswagen, BMW, etc. ,etc.. they all have plants here in the US, selling models for the US market. Building vehicles within the targeted market becomes more economical and competitive for any domestic or foreign car maker. GM has plants in China building cars for the Chinese and Asian markets. Sure, GM could build the Chinese bound vehicles here in the US, but they would sell only a fraction of the US built vehicles in Asia. GM has plants in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, so did GM expand to those continents under Obama as well?

      You’re either being purposefully misleading or are “uninformed”. I’ll go with the latter one.

      http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/is-gm-becoming-china-motors/

  • Jim

    With all due respect to Bill, the upside is minimal but the downside risk is significant.  There really isn’t much of a way Romney can do better than he is doing now.  People’s minds are pretty much made up by now and there is nothing Romney can do to win over more of the 47%.  I suspect Kerry and McCain told Bill they should have come on his show as a simple nice thing to say in a cordial conversation, but I would bet they would do it exactly the same way again.

  • Jove

    If O’Reilly still has the biggest adience on cable, I’d say “Go for it.”
    Obama got 45 minutes and Michelle a half-hour  on Leno, and he got some time on Letterman (I don’t know how much), so why leave the field to their side?
    O’Reilly can’t hit Romney with anything worse tan Obama did in the second and third debates.

  • suki33

    Bernie, I agree with your assessment. The time to be going on various TV shows, in my opinion, is not at the last minute. The POTUS needs regular shots of adulation and the entertainment shows (I know he’s been on ‘news’ shows that treat him as a celebrity so they don’t seem like news shows when he’s on). I’m often surprised that the cameras don’t filter the shots of him to remove any visual blemishes that  the camera may catch.

    Mitt has a plan, for good or not. But, it is his campaign and he needs to follow his plan. 

    Nice of O’Reilly to offer, but I hope Mitt sends regrets and offers to go on once the votes are counted as the President-elect.

  • Coteyankee53

    No, Romney shouldn’t go on The Factor.  That’s the only time the mainstream would watch Fox!  They’d be waiting for a mistake, or what THEY think would be a mistake, would misquote him, or take him out of context.

  • Tomletch

    Analysis is right on.  It doesn’t even have to a real gaffe (57 states, hospital corpsemen, etc.), just saying perhaps that xx new jobs were created in Mass while governor, whereas the real number is xx minus 10 percent.

  • Boogoo

    I agree. All that could happen is for Mitt to hurt himself. Those watching Bill are probably goint to vote for Mitt anyway so no upside.

  • Wade Carll

    Bernard, most of Bill’s audience will be voting for Mitt anyway, regardless if Mitt goes on Bill’s show.  No upside for Mitt and maybe some downside (as you indicated)

    THX  Wade 

  • SCFTBL1

    On with Ted Baxter….hahaha. Right!

    • Jeffreydan

        Strange post, SCFTBL1. Ted Baxter was a fictional character on a sitcom.

        Bill O’Reilly is a real person with a show discussing news events. You should remember that next time.   

      • SCFTBL1

         Billy is also known as Ted Baxter. The similarities are so obvious.

        • Jeffreydan

            “Billy is also known as Ted Baxter.”

            Is that a fact? Explain how you came to “know” that, please. What person, group, or entity has established that BOR is also known as Ted Baxter?   

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PPL2AXPXJMWPEJWFN34MPC5RNY terry

    SHOULD MITT GO ON THE  EGO-FACTOR AND TALK TO THE WIND BAG ?  NO

  • Catholicvoter

    I went into your piece disagreeing with you but came out agreeing with you.  Excellent analysis, Bernie.  I see what you mean and if that did happen it would be a mess and not worth the risk.

    Keep it up!

  • Tim Ned

    Agree, Romney going on O’Reilly unilateral would be a major mistake.  However, I would like to see a Rick Warren style debate (as in 2008) between the two candidates hosted by O’Reilly.  Both candidates asked the exact same question independently of each others presence.

  • moronpolitics3

    The problem with  people who are NOT liberal left wing nutcases is they have bizarre ideas about “fairness” and “Equal treatment”.     No offense, but when one side is cheating, lying and d0ing any and everything to win at all costs, fair or unfair, then being “honest” and “even-handed” etc is just another name for “stupid” and “giving away the election”.    Yes,  it would be nice if Romney COULD go on with O’Reilly.    However,  last time President Obama went on Fox did you see anyone ask him an embarassing question?   Would O’Reilly?   OF COURSE NOT.   Must “respect the office”, right?     BUT with Romney he would ask him “Many evangelicals think your religion is a cult.   Tell me, do you have your magic underwear on?   Can we see it?   Would you push for a return to polygamy?  When and Why did the Mormon church decide that Blacks are NOT animals?   Do YOU believe that Black skin in the “mark of Cain” or are Blacks the son of Ham who was cursed for having homosexual relations with his father Noah?    Do you REALLY believe the universe was created in SIX DAYS in 4004 BC?    Would you let that be taught instead of REAL science?      After all,  he would just be being “fair” and “even handed”  right?     hahahaha.
    AND the President would never be dumb enough to go on, even though OReilly would “be tough” by saying “There are lingering questions about what happened in Libya.   Would you tell America exactly what happened as far as you know.   I will sit here quietly while you make a speech.    
    YOU KNOW IT”S TRUE.   BTW, I really liked your typical journalism worshipping statements about Cookie when she refused to follow the debate rules.   “Well of course she wouldn’t do that,.  She’s a JOURNALIST.   She can’t be expected to follow rules.   She won’t do anything inappropriate.”    <<<< that's a paraphrase, but the essential idiocy comes through don't you think??

  • wally

    Bernie: I watch Bill on a regular basis and saw the discussion you had about having Romney and Obama on for 30 minutes. I like and agree with most of his opening statements. I agree that it sounds like a good idea at first to attend Bill’s no spin zone  but not now. Bill is very good at many facets of information but when it comes to economics he is sorely deficient. Bill should go back to school for a 101 course in economics. I would be hesitant for Romney to be questioned about some off the wall economic question. If Romney wants some TV exposure, I would recommend going on Cavuto’s show where the questions regarding business or economics are much more sound.

  • bearmountain

    Well first of all Bill is not anywhere in the vicinity of being fair. I say this as a die hard conservative. O’Reilly is nothing more than a loud mouth bully. He is all over the place on most issues, with the exception of he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. 
    Romney should stay as far away from the O’Reilly freak show as he can get.  Let Mitt Romney be Mitt Romney not some media creation the likes of which currently occupy the White House.
    Mitt–stay away from O’Reilly. After all Alan Colmes and Juan Williams still appear on The Factor. Enough said.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YMJUHF4UNZWSLIDRXPSSTOHA3Q Shane

    I agree. One slip and the liberal MSM will clobber him. The media is covering up the Benghazi fiasco. The White House let those brave Americans die.  We should demand answers!

  • RonKean

    After Romney wins.

  • Andrew

    Totally agree with Bernie. Romney should have went on a couple of months ago.

  • http://shawmut.blogspot.com/ Dave O’Connor

    Quite certainly, I agree that if Mitt Romney attended to the most self-proclaimed of ‘King-Makers’ (Yes: I used the phrase ‘attended to’) , it would have been better during the earlier months.
    At these final hours, it could be a kiss of death; interpreted as either passionately too grotesque, or superficial cheeking.
    Bill O Reilly, you and very few others offer us pedestrians views of statesmen of the “Fourth Estate” provoking us to think.  As I re-iterate; “views”. And, that is refreshing.
    I watch O’Reilley regularly, but, as with even the most neutral of commoners, I perceive (and share) that which motivates him. (A positive ‘critique, not a criticism.)
    An earlier ‘show’ might be a great reference at this moment, but, then again; it could be portrayed as ‘shop’nchop’ by increasingly flexible campaigns – as the times require – and as the opposition want.

  • Kuvasz

    Going on the Factor would be a tough call for Romney.  The risk is exactly what Bernie points out, i.e. a minor flub being blown out of proportion by the non-journalist media.  The upside could be significant, I believe, because the better part of 30 minutes would allow Romney to provide both explanation and context.  It would also be a differentiation from our “talk much/say nothing” campaigner in chief who may need a teleprompter to wish kids a “Happy Halloween.”  Politicians don’t take risks, but business people do.  I hope Mitt Romney does go on the factor, but I have a feeling that he won’t.

    • Bob Hadley

      Or, if O’Reilly asked appropriate questions, Gov. Romney’s house of cards might be revealed.  For example, which tax breaks will he cut to pay for the $4.8 trillion tax cut and the$2 trillion increase (both over a 10 year period) without touching the middle class. 

      He says it can be done, and that he just needs to negotiate with Congress which upper-class tax cuts will be made.  Well Mr. Romney, if you add all the upper-class tax breaks isn’t it true that you come up with only $1 trillion or so.  If not, name upper-class tax breaks add up to $7 trillion or so over 10 years?

      But O’Reilly will not ask these questions.   O’Reilly has already gone on record to advise Gov. Romney to answer (read: evade) this question by saying that he and his team are still working on a specific proposal.  But, if he’s still working on it, how does he know that the math will work?  And, if the math doesn’t work, will he scale back his tax cuts accordingly?

      Note, Gov. Romney has NOT taken the tired, disproven position (as far as I know) that the tax cuts will pay for themselves.  Rep. Ryan has apparently taken this position, however.

      • Ahalbert

         Tax cut cause increased government revenue. Learn something about it. JFK understood it and cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Dems don’t want to be reminded of it.

        • Bob Hadley

          Interesting example you raise.  JFK lproposed lowering the top marginal rate to something like 70%.  Guess who opposed him?  Yes, it was the Republican Congress.  The deficit and debt hawks in the Republican Congress opposed President JFK’s tax cuts.  

          Yes, in some or even many cases tax cuts result in economic expansion and, accordingly, in increased tax revenues.  But to say the increased tax tax revenues are equal to or greater than the amount of tax revenues actually cut is an entirely different matter.

          Saying that tax cuts pay (entirely or even largely) for themselves  has been disproven under Presidents Reagan and GW Bush and in other cases.

      • Jeffreydan

          Bob, you are so darn hard on Governor Romney. He’s not so bad…it’s not like he allowed an ambassador and three colleagues die violently, nonchalantly fly to Vegas, run a disgraceful cover-up, and arrest a guy as if he were somehow involved.  

        • Bob Hadley

          You’re changing the subject, as you usually do when you have a mess in your pants.  Keep pointing your fingers. 

          If you have strong evidence that Pres. Obama allowed those people to be killed, then present it.  Otherwise, shut up!  Here, you’re not merely saying Pres. Obama presided over botched operation or that hs presided over a series of PR flubs after-the-fact.  You’re saying much more.  Put up, or shut up!

          Another question that O’Reilly should press on Gov. Romney if he shows up on the Factor is why he favors an exception for abortion in the cases of rape and incest.  It was only several months ago that Mike Huckabee asked Gov. Romney on his TV shoow if he’d favor a personhood amendment to the U. S. Constitution.  Without hesitation Romney exclaimed, “absolutely!”

          Why does Gov. Romney allow for killing a person who is the product of rape or incest?  Would he favor an exception to the murder laws killing a one-year-old person, or a 10 year-old person, or a 40 year-old person, or a 70 year-old person, who was the prodect of rape or incest. 

          These are questions O’Reilly would not ask.  He’d ask a general question and then let Gov. Romney give his pat answer.  Then O’Reilly would move on to the next question.

      • Jeffreydan

          Bob,

          Forgive my interruption. A tidbit of evidence for ya, as requested:
          http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi-blunder-obama-unworthy-commander-in-chief-176736441.html

          “PR flubs” is another term for “lies through teeth”, I’m guessing.

        • Bob Hadley

          Is that the best you could come up with????   That was a highly partisan shot.  I know you hate President Obama, but why do you lower yourself to accusing him of allowing those 4 to be slaughtered when you don’t have the  full story?   It doesn’t hurt President Obama, it only degrades yourself.  Not even Bill O’Reilly is prepared to make that serious allegation. 

          Will you be just as incensed over the Bengali episode after the election?  Yes, that was a fiasco.  We need to get to the bottom of it.

          BTW, PR flubs can be a lot of things including outright lies.  Just look back at all the PR leading up to our invasion of Iraq.  How many thousands of American were killed and maimed?  Did that bother you or is outrage that cynically partisan?

          • Mario__P

            With all this crying about Benghazi from the Right, can you imagine how outraged they would be if it was a Democrat in the Office who pushed for the war in Iraq? They would riot in front of the WH with pitch forks and torches.

      • Jeffreydan

          Bob,

          In the interest of saving time, please tell me which media sources you’d find credible enough for me to cite, and/or which have no credibility. I think reporters over pundits is a better way to go.

         One thing I will not agree to here and now is a discussion about President Bush. (You seemed pretty irked about distractions before, one would think adding another would just make it worse, no?)
          I’m willing to take part in a discussion about the pros/cons of Bush v. Obama if you want to either start a thread in the forums, or contact me directly through there. 

        • Bob Hadley

          You did not cite a report.   You cited  a highly politicized anti-Obama editorial.   You can’t be so ignorant as to not know the difference.

          I think the info has come out piece-meal.  Why don’t we wait for the complete facts to come out before drawing conclusions.  What harm does it do waiting for a complete report to come out?   Let’s wait for administration’s report.  And yes, believe it on not, i think its Congress’ duty to conduct an investigation of its own.  As i stated bfore, this matter is troubling. 

          The reason I raised the PR campaign promoting an invasion of Iraq under President GW Bush is that you seem reticient to criticize him here.  In fact, if anything you seem to defend his used carsalesman tactics.

          Selective and partisan outrage is incredibly hypocitical.  I’m just wondering if your outrage is thus.  If so, I don’t have time for you, although I’m giving you every benefit of he doubt..  Yes, you can always find distinctions to rationalize anything.  It’s easy to play games with words, particularly if you’re a zealot.

          I noted that you emit a lot of hate toward President Obama – our president.  Trying to determie if your purported views are emotion-based is legitimate.

      • Jeffreydan

          Bob,
         
          I will come back with more specifics on Benghazi. Some of the more recent reports were about repeated pleas for additional protection by Ambassador Stevens/consulate staff being refused. You didn’t hear or read anything about this?

          Clearing up a couple of things for you: 
          To say I show hatred isn’t quite apt; fact is, I don’t respect him, and if you’re objective you’ll understand this didn’t just come out of the blue. I originally just had concerns, when I learned he was running. The few things that I did learn about him weren’t the traits of an American president: nobody around him, not even his wife, respected the USA, he made it a point to vote “present” a lot as a senator, he had absolutely no executive experience and precious little experience in general. The disrespect came around and increased as he continued to act unpresidentially and dishonestly: unending disrespect for Reps & the Constitution, broken promises, his conducting himself completely unlike the “post-partisan”, civil, uniting figure he claimed to be.

          As for President Bush, I’m tired of people constantly going after him. It doesn’t make Obama look any better; it’s more arguable it makes him look worse. Bush has been out of office for years, yet the left (like Obama himself) seems to think that incessantly blaming the guy clears his successor from the burden of having to do his job well. Even if things were worse, a good leader and competent executive at some point would have stopped blaming and started fixing. Nobody forced him to apply for the job! 
         
          As for George W. Bush: he got an unbelievable, often unjustifiable level of hate from libs that made me sick, but he is far, far from a great president.

        • Mario__P

          I’m sure Bob will do a better job in his reply than I, but I would like to point out the hypocrisy with jeffreydan’s argument.

          “…he [Obama] had absolutely no executive experience and precious little experience in general.”

          Yet the Right has no problem voting for Romney, who also has no executive experience and currently has 1/3 the experience in public sector than Obama did in 2008. 

          And second, the Right voted twice for the worst president in nearly a century, a president who was worse than the current president in every area, yet they feel they have the right to criticize the current president. What hypocrisy!

        • Bob Hadley

          You needn’t return with more info.  I probably hear the same thnigs you do.  Yes, I heard about the requests for more protection.  I’ve also heard that such requests are common and frequent at various hot spots around the world. 

          I’ve been around long enough to know that early reports on volatile situations like this are often misleading and sometimes inaccurate.   Why not wait until an investigation, including a Congressional investigation, has been completed before making serious accusations?

          I’ve also heard that there is classified info directly baring on this episode.  Can we have an accurate picture of what happened and why without this info?  Do we know which agency or dept. was in charge?  Do we know that Pres. Obama knew the extent of this in real time and was able to intervene in time to prevent those Amercians from being killed?

          You repeatedly refer to President Obama as BO, you are eager to say things that make him look bad with the slimmest of hard evidence and you make the serious accusation that he stood by while Americans were being slaughtered in Benghazi.  I consider that hateful.

          My understanding is that in the Illinois legislature voting “present” is analogous to voting “abstain.”  Sometimes an abstention is justified.   President Obama voted “present” far less than 1% of the time, as I understand it.  Do you know what those votes were for?  What reason was there for abstaining in those situations?  Do you know?  Do you care?

          What disrespect has President Obama shown for Reps and the COTUS?  Just because you disagree with something or think something is unconstitutional doesn’t mean it is unconstitutional.  And just because the SCOTUS after-the-fact rules a law unconstitutional doesn’t mean that those  enacting the law were disrespectful of constitution. 

          Bi-partisan??????????  On the day of President Obama’s inauguration in ’09, Republican senators met initially to commiserate losing the White House but ended up by plotting how to take President Obama down.  The campaign to unseat President Obama began shortly thereafter with record filibusters, among other things.  Don’t you consider that disrespectful of the office of the presidency. 

          And don’t give me this re-cycled hogwash about Pres. Obama having a filibuster-proof Senate for 2 years. That didn’t occcur until Al Franken was finally sworn in and Arlen Spector left the Republicans, on one end, and was terminated when Sen. Kennedy was too sick to vote, on the other end. It was more like several months.

          Despite this anti-Obama drum beat, President Obama tried to appeal to the Republicans.  Much to the dismay of his core supporters,  his core econimc team was establishment oriented.  Much to the dismay of many of his core supporters, President Obama proposed a smaller stimulus and loaded it with tax breaks (about 1/3).  Much to the dismay of many of his core supporters, he never proposed a single payer system or a public option for health care.  The list goes on….

          Once again, the reason for the “he did it too” regarding President GW Bush is the blatant and cynical hypocrisy among many of the Obama agonistes.  It wasn’t until shortly after President Obama took office that many right-wingers realized that there was a debt and deficit crisis.  Remember, when President Obama assumed office in Jan., ’09 there was already a projected deficit of more than $1 trillion.

          There are so many things that many of these right-wingers scream at president Obama for that Pres. GW Bush was also guilty of.  The most you get out of them is “I wasn’t a big fan of Bush either.”  Many of these right-wingers defended Pres. Bush.

          Finally, do yuo remember how this discussion started?  I was discussing hard (but fair) questions that O’Reilly could ask Gov. Romney if he appeared on the Factor.  Then, you started bringing up this garbage about Pres. Obama. 

          Why did you change the subject?  Does any of this justify Gov. Romeny’s sudden flip-flops (at best) or his cynical deception of the voters (at worst)?

          • Mario__P

            Great job Bob.

            Talk about disrespect for the president. The hard core Right was fine with Bush’s record setting deficits, starting an unjust war, and crashing of the economy. Yet as soon as Obama came into Office, the hardcore Right formed the Tea Party. You would think such a movement would have been started during the last president’s reign, since Bush’s service to the nation was the worst in nearly a century. But without giving the incoming president any respect and chance to perform, the amateur clowns from the far Right formed their own congregation. That herd of unprofessionals was so rowdy in Congress, the Republican leaders needed to tell them to step back in line. Once the Tea Partiers became educated of the facts and got their taste of the real world, they quickly had to adjust their nutty agendas to fit reality. The Tea Party ended up taking seats from their fellow Republicans in Congress, with many of those seats probably being lost in the upcoming elections to the Democrats due to display of their outrageous belief system. The Democrats could not shake those Congressional seats that belonged to the Republicans for up to several decades, and the Tea Party candidates will end up handing the seats to the Democrats. Thank you, you geniuses.

  • Bob Hadley

    I thought Gov. Romney appeared on the Factor a few months ago or was I dreaming.?  It was a kissy-kissy interview.  Not like when then-candidate Obama came on the Factor during the ’08 primary.  At O’Reilly’s own admission, he gave Obama his hardest shots – everything he had.

    The Romney campaign appears desperate lately.  Team Romney seems to think they need a Heil Mary shot.  Appearing on the factor would be less risky than Gov. Romney running these false and misleading ads that even Chrystler and GM publicly disavow. 

    If Romney went on the Factor, O’Reilly would put up a semblance of toughness that he could hide behind.  But he’s basically be a patsy.  Yes, Romney might step in it.  But, obviously O’Reilly would rather have Gov. Romney win, so such an appearance woul be low risk – certainly far less of a risk than appearing at the debates.

    • Mario__P

      Bob,

      You post four minutes after I do? This isn’t looking good. People on here will think we’re the same person or at least sitting next to each other… grin…

  • Mario__P

    Because of his Jeep statement last Thursday in Ohio, I think Romney needs to visit the Factor and explain himself why he believes the blog he read was correct about Chrysler moving ALL of its Jeep production to China. Maybe he can convince us how such alternative hubs of information can be a dependable source of the truth. That would be fun.

  • Neil Kirk

    Y E S — Why not?  Really, Mr. Goldberg (<—-the BEST!) — If Mr. Romney is ready to be the next PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES… then visiting a TV political talk show should be as easy as eating a piece of pie.  Let America, and all the world-wide viewers of The Bill O'Reilly Show see a few decent questions come his way.  AND… if you are right, and if he should… "slip" … have a "gaffe"… it wouldn't be a "deal-breaker" — not at this late date.  People are human — presidents too — and Gov. Romney can, and would, handle himself magnificently with Bill O'Reilly. –in my opinion.

  • Lar9291

    I agree with you Bernie. Going on The Factor won’t do Romney any good  so why take a chance of rocking  the boat? I think the die is cast anyway and the so-called “undecideds” are either liars or idiots.

  • Fred Pasek

    Agreed. Romney’s ahead. No sense in having to explain the edorsement of Mourdock and stuff like that. I know Romney could handle it, but why even bother. If he was down 3 in the polls, I’d say he has to, but at this point, Obama’s the one who needs a game-changing interview, not Mitt. Nope, hammer them with the ads, and rally the people in person. I think the personal nature of those rallies in Ohio and the rest of the swing states draw ten times more undecideds to Romney that an interview with a guy on a station whose viewers already know damn well who they’re voting for. Not to mention that Romney’s trying to appear as moderate as possible right now, and any association with Fox would make him seem just a little more to the right.

  • http://twitter.com/profchuck22 Charles Ivie

    There is no up side for Romney talking to Bill.  Bill’s biggest problem is his ego which tends to dominate any conversation.  Bill’s empty “I am just a simple man” claim provides a kind of “Duck Blind” from which he can take shots at a guest.  His style is not exactly ambush journalism but it comes awfully close.  Romney should gracefully decline the offer.

  • Roxiebell

    NO………….Romney should not talk to Bill, I don’t even talk to Bill anymore after over a decade of faithful viewing I have finally DUMPED The Factor because I literally get “dizzy” in BOR’s “no spin” zone. Bill show segments are either BORing or Bill is just an obnoxious BORe, either way its not worth watching anymore.

  • morefandave

    You nailed it Bernie.  Romney got all the favorable coverage he needed in the debates, so there’s no upside.  You graphically outlined the downside.  If Romney accepted the invitation at this late date, I’d have serious questions about his judgment.

  • jimzien

    Bill could ask Mitt if he stands behind his campaign’s untruthful ads about Chrysler and GM — and what’s so bad anyway about a USA car company opening up a market for itself of 6 or 7 hundred million Chinese drivers. Wonder if Bain would invest in an auto maker start-up with that kind of business model. 

    And by the way, if you want to know why the Romney ad machine is doubling down on broadcast misinformation, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html

    • Roxiebell

      GM’s 3rd quarter profits DOWN 14%! Is Obama being “truthful” when he claims GM is a Government bailout success when its nowhere near the success Obama LIES about.

      • jimzien

        “GM’s total U.S. employment did fall by about 14,000 from the end of 2008 until the end of 2011, according to the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But the majority of those occurred in early 2009 in the crisis-driven months leading up to its bankruptcy restructuring. Similarly to Chrysler, GM has added jobs at factories that have launched new products. Both companies are very profitable in the U.S. and those profits are offsetting losses GM, or in the case of Chrysler, Fiat, is suffering in Europe.”

        http://www.freep.com/article/20121030/BUSINESS01/121030036/1205/business01/Romney-implies-GM-used-U-S-aid-create-jobs-China

        http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/chrysler-ceo-jeep-production-isnt-moving-to-china/#postComment

        • http://twitter.com/profchuck22 Charles Ivie

          The Obama solution for GM was totally in favor of the labor unions.  Millions of dollars of debt  to stockholders and bond holders will never be paid back.  That is FRAUD!  It reveals the difference between Obama’s view of capitalism and Romney’s.  Also, most of the cars that GM builds now go unsold, The Volt is a prime example.  That is because government has no idea how to run a business.  It is truly sad because I was a big fan of GM for years but now that their market analysis is driven by government bureaucrats the company cannot succeed.

        • Roxiebell

          GM stock has to be at $56 or higher for taxpayers to get their money back and the GM is NOWHERE near that amount its somehere in the low 20’s so no matter how you spin it GM is NOT a sucess for the American people its another “throw it up against the wall” and see if it sticks Obama BAD POLICY at the expense of the people of this country

        • Drew Page

          GM and Chrysler failed due to mismanagement within those companies and giving in to constant union demands for higher wages, benefits and pensions.  There are thousands of businesses that fail every years in the U.S., where are their bailouts?  How can it be fair for the government to bailout one and not another?   Could it be due to union contributions to the Democrat party? 

          • Mario__P

            Business without unions may fail, and business with unions may thrive. How come Ford, with their union, didn’t need a bailout? Obviously GM’s issues were with their product line, and they needed to modernize it.

  • M089436

    I agree Bernie. If Romney said he was going on every recording device would be on not only if he makes a gaffe but edit the conversation and take things out of context.

  • Billy Konrad

    Romney has nothing to hide and a lot to show…Obama not wanting to go on I can see because he has everything to hide…One last push on Romney’s part would be wise.

  • Rog Gall

     quite a dilemma for both…..Mitt has the most to lose …..just one unscripted slip and the media will crucify him……if Bill were to ask a hard question and if Mitt were to lose because of an interview on the Factor…Bill would be blamed too.

    This simply is not the time for verbal slips…..the media would pounce on them and there simply is not enough time to set the records straight.

    • Roxiebell

      Bill doesn’t ask hard questions I watched this guy for over a decade and I find his boasting about hard hitting reporting style an absolute JOKE. He is either acting like a foolish bully  or he dominates the converstion talking about himself. 

  • Wheels55

    Romney should have been on an episode of Mad Men. He looks the part.

  • Wheels55

    I agree 100%. I would have liked Romney go on the factor a couple of months ago – maybe even a month ago – certainly before the debates. But now it would be a sound bite from hell – even if it wasn’t a gaff. After the debates, he has nothing new to say and nothing to explain. He needs to stay out there and repeat talking points. Besides, I don’t think Bill is a Romney fan.

  • http://mykhel.cgsociety.org/gallery michael lofrano

    He should.  Yes, O’Reilly may don his journalist’s cap.  But answer this: What can O’Reilly ask that Mitt has to run from?  Nothing.  Romney is decent, moral, intelligent man.  And what in the world is wrong with showcasing that?  There is much more good that has gone undiscovered about Romney than there is anything negative to be exposed.

    Accept the invitation, Mitt.  Accept and shine.

  • Gboppe

    I watch only a limited amount of FOX in the evening, and no MSNBC or CNN.   I usually turn on Bill and watch it for his remarks at the beginning and until he brings on his “guests” who he uses as spring boards for his own thoughts and ideas.   I then turn to another program.    He’s obnoxious and heavy handed and considers himself the premier interviewer because he has no problem in saying anything.   He believes and maybe it’s true that he is the” king maker” and the “death star” all in one.   I fully agree with you Bernie, given the chance Bill would hit him with something that he won’t let go and right wrong or indiffent, Romney could say the wrong thing and all of his work could go up in smoke.    We need a change in the White House, and we don’t need to take chances with a blowhard like Mr. Bill sitting there with his evening ratings and palms up.  

    • Roxiebell

      BINGO!!  This is the problem with The Factor these days and thats after the “Talking Points” beginning segment the whole show digresses into BOR-EGO mania-mash! Its unwatchable for me anymore and I stopped tuning in about 2 weeks ago and don’t miss it at after over a decade of loyal and faithful viewing. Buh-Bye Bill!!

  • John

    How many votes could possibly be gained by Romney going on The Factor? Not many I’d venture.

    How does the return on that effort compare to what can be done elsewhere?

     If we’re afraid that our candidate can’t manage a 30 minute interview with Bill then we have the wrong candidate.

    Romney should not go on The Factor because it is not effective use of time and effort.

  • Iklwa

    This just goes to prove that President Romney is a shade smarter than Bill (God love Bill).
    Come to think of it, maybe you are too…but I wouldn’t say that to Bill.
     
    Remember, he’s just a “simple man”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/fkocher Fritz Kocher

    You have the matter well analyzed.  The interview is not going to happen, sadly, for the very reasons you mention.  The possibility of a “gaffe” is not what anyone wants to give to the mainstream media; what a sad statement.

  • barjandor

    You’re right, Bernie.  Let’s not give the mainstream media anything to chew on ’cause right now they’re looking and even the simpliest slip by the Governor would be headline news.   

  • Jhag39

    I agree with you. Romney,if he was going to appear on the Factor, should have done it long before now.  He has everything to lose and nothing to gain by doing it at the late date. As much as I like O’Reilly, he does come off as an egomaniac at times; like when he goes on Letterman and The View to hump his books. 

  • MattyPDX

    Even if Romney did the interview and handled it flawlessly, the MSM would still find a way to wring fault out of it. They would center on the cost of a tie he chose to wear or something he DIDN’T say. It would be best to just run out the clock at this point. I’d love to see him on the Factor but it just isn’t going to happen.

  • Pasovenado

    I agree, but rather than have Romney just decline (and appear afraid), he should say, “I’d love to, as long as the president also agrees to come.”

    • Iklwa

      A fun exercise but would provide the same results…no nterview(s)
      Obama would be cheered for passing gas while Romney would be taken to task for the dust left behind from carving tablets of stone

  • JohnInMA

    Why would Romney subject himself to any riskier interviews than Obama?  Clearly he got the exposure and the bump he needed from the debate exposure.  So, anything more than controlled campaigning is too great a risk at this point, I agree.  There is little time for ‘recovery’ from a trumped up gaffe or even a real gaffe.  But, we all know the media has been not only been supportive of Obama, but they have also proven openly they lay in wait to make so many otherwise innocuous statements from Romney into fabricated gaffes.  It isn’t worth it.

  • md

    I say, you’re right!

  • EddieD_Boston

    Yup. All Romney has to do now is run out the clock. Game over.

  • Cagill2

    I agree with you Bernie, Romney should not go on with Oreilly.  Sometimes I think Oreilly really likes Obama and is carrying water for him.  I believe he sees that Obama is not what he advertised himself to be but he would still want to score points off Romney just so he can have bragging rights.  That’s the way Oreilly is.  We would not hear the end of it if he did, much like what happened with Barney Frank.
    Oreilly thinks his two interviews with Obama were so great but Bert Baer topped him by so much.  Bert did not let Obama start fillibustering and I got the feeling from Oreilly’s interview with him that he wanted another one sometime in the future so Oreilly did not push as hard as Bert did.  Bert’s interview was much better.  Just my opinion for what it’s worth.
    I used to like Oreilly very much and I still do just not as much as I did. 

  • Todd

    I have to agree.  The media leans Obama and if Romney misses even a little it will be all over the place.   Even a small gaffe by Romney would get 10 times the media coverage that Libya receives.  

    I think most of the news media should have to replace the word “news” with “entertainment” 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/BS7EEDMUIJ37SJAUTMGERUM5VY barnes

    as usual, bernie, i agree with you. really, nothing to gain and much to, possibly, lose.

  • nickshaw

    I agree, Bernie.

  • Brhurdle

    I totally agree that there is considerable risk with absolutely no reward. O’Reilly would feel compelled to nail him just to demonstraste his abilities and inflate his ego. Viewers of The Factor are already anti Obama so nothing that Romney says would sway any voters to support him. I used to find The Factor interesting since it exposes liberal flaws, but increasingly I find O’Reilly’s constant search/need for validation of his superiority distracting and offensive. 

  • Judy

    The only thing to gain would be a feather for O’Reilly.  You are right . . . as usual. :)

  • Joel

    If Romney were way behind, perhaps taking risks would make sense. But he is very close to winning this thing. He needs to make good decisions and execute great strategy for the next 6 days.

    If Bill wants to do real, public interest journalism, then he should come out with hard hitting, in depth stuff (the kind of stuff not designed for 3 minute segments). Once a great topic is found, then he should contact the campaign that he is going with it and that they should send their candidate to discuss the issue. For example, what if the Factor had an email indicating that the president told CT forces to stand down and not help the consulate or annex in Benghazi. He should tell the campaigns that he’s doing a piece on the air and they can send their candidate or not, but the piece will be done.

  • Db7423

    Your analysis makes perfect sense and I agree with you. Mitt has a lot more productive ways to spend the remaing week were he controls what he speaks about… where he has time to consider every word, where every word is well practiced and has been said over and over again and has been well received on the stump.

  • Bill Hicks

    If he could get a word in edgewise, he would be “Preaching to the Choir”.  Waste of time.  His time is better spent on the road.

    • http://shawmut.blogspot.com/ Dave O’Connor

      The risk is the “O’Reilly Factor”.  It’s Bill’s stage, even the guests are supporting cast.

  • http://www.facebook.com/russell.west.980 Russell West

    Absolutely not! For the same reason Gov. Cris Cristie won’t appear on O’Reilly’s show!

  • Tom

    Forget going on. Number one, Romney would be interrupted so much, it would be difficult to discern anything he said as intelligible. Let’s face facts here. The Factor is all about one person–Bill O’Reilly. He likes to hear himself talk. He doesn’t listen. And, what’s worse, he’s always looking for validation from his audience that he was “tough enough,” or “fair enough.” WIth that kind of mindset, any message Romney would hope to communicate would be fractured.

  • Drew Page

    Excellent analysis Bernie, I agree Romney should stay off the Factor prior to the election.   With so little time left I believe he should spend as much time campaigning in Ohio and Virginia talking about local issues like the coal mining industry and the jobs at stake.

  • Richard68

    How do I get a autogrphed picture of Bernie Goldberg or Bernie and Bill, I  tried ebay, nothing there.

    • ThievingMagpie

       You can buy one of Bill’s books on his site.  I think you can get an autographed one, especially with Christmas coming up.

    • NS Sherlock

      Occasionally, if Bernie likes your comment, he will respond. That might have to be the souvenir you are looking for.

  • Phil

    I agree, Bernie.  As much as I would like to see Mitt have a fair discussion with Bill and Bill congratulate Mitt for coming on his show the risk is too great.  President Obama cannot be handed another 4 years.    Thanks, Phil Gallup

  • Richard Gronowski

    I made up my mind ages ago, I am voting for Romney.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    A vast majority of those who watch Bill O’Reilly and the other Fox programs are going to vote for Mitt Romney.  You are right Bernie, it will serve no purpose other than allowing Bill O’Reilly’s head to grow into hat size around 10 (do they make hats that big).  

  • Calibersports

    Bernie,
      You are absolutely 100% correct about Mitt Romney appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox Network.  It is a “Lose-Lose” situation for Mitt, because 99.9% of the viewers of O’Reilly are ALREADY  going to vote for Mitt, there aren’t 15 people in the U.S. who are undecided who could be persuaded to change their vote to Romney in response to anything he could say on O’Reilly’s show.  And to paraphrase Barney Frank, one of the most despicable humans on this earth (which I am normally loathe to do):   “You have this congenital need to interrupt people you are interviewing on your show!”  O’Reilly is NOT going to let Mitt come on his show and merely spout his talking points, that isn’t what gets Bill his high ratings.  He would bully Mitt, or attempt to bully him just like he does everyone except Charles Krauthammer (I’m pretty sure Bill is totally afraid of Charles’s intellect and debating skills).
    mike caddell
    South Padre Island, TX.

  • MJAKEB123

    I watch O’Reilly and will vote Romney as I am sure most other viewers will as well. So I agree with you Bernie.

  • brendan horn

    I generally agree with you on this. Here is my stance: if it looks like Romney is already winning, then there really is nothing to gain by going on O’Reilly’s show. If he thinks he is losing, then the more exposure the better and he should take more risks. 

  • Shark615

    I agree and could not have said it better, but it’s not all about the potential Romney gaffe.  Bill likes to push buttons.  Romney shouldn’t fall into the tempter’s hands.

  • Lou_toscano

    I think you are absolutely right.  O’Reilly thinks of himself as some sort of ‘Imp’ who likes to stir up things.   And although he staunchly denies showing preference to Obama, he does treat him differently than others.  I think he would put out a few zingers, just to up his ratings (not that they need upping) and probably catch Romney a time or two.   Best for Romney to stay clear of him till after the election.

  • Bogeyshooter

    Most people who watch O’Reilly are already on Romney’s side. Too many questions would offer too many chances to mess things up.
    Bill is letting his ego in and Mitt’s appearance would only bolster that ego. It won’t help Mitt.

  • Gus1249

    Mr. O although he  is a tenacios interviewer,could no doubt corner Romney with a subject that was the weak link in the chain.  Mr. O’s  better bet would be to give the Gov. the hundred day and then, if need be, nail him to a cross on his percieved faults and applaud his winners.  No, he should not accept the interview.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QP2GRZKP4YDTEWUMNTHMF4XBHQ Michels

    Very good advice for Romney.  O’Reilly frequently annoys us because he treats Obama differently than everyone else. Almost as though Obama’s a visiting dignitary. This is polar opposite of our viewpoint. Could understand this in 2008 but do not believe Obama deserves the amount of respect O’Reilly showers on him now. O’Reilly makes excuses for him and we all know Obama’s exceptional ability to avoid accepting blame for anything of consequence. In other words, we don’t watch O’Reilly much, even though we’ve always found your comments very informative, because when the subject is Obama, the spin never stops even when it’s coming from O’Reilly’s mouth !!

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      O’Reilly sacrifices getting at the truth by always trying to be fair and balanced.  I am all for being fair but when you have the goods on the guy you should nail the coffin lid shut and give any hope of getting him back on the show at a later date.  Bill O’Reilly will never do that which makes him a poor moderator.  

  • http://twitter.com/tcd24035 Thomas Duke

    I like Bill O’Reilly minus his inflated ego. When I start hearing all the “I this” and “I that” stuff – it reminds me how much more pleasant it was when sports announcers used to describe games while keeping their opinions to themselves.

    Bill simply can’t keep from acting like he is center of the world and when that behavior surfaces, I turn him off – which is not infrequent! 

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      You nailed it Thomas Duke, that is O’Reilly’s MO to the T.

  • Native American

    Bill should come out and declare that he supports Romney and that he’s donating 1 million to Mitt’s campaign, but that would require real courage and patriotism, something we won’t see from Bill the journalist.

    • Drew Page

      I think we all know who Bill will vote for in the coming election.    As for his defferential treatment of Obama, I believe it is his attempt to be “fair and balanced”, which he has claimed as his trade mark.   Bill took a lot of heat from various quarters over his interview with President Obama.   He was critized as being ‘disrespectful’  for repeatedly interrupting the President.

  • Bikerchick

    What Mitt should tell O’Reilly is, “I’ll be happy to talk w/ you on The Factor when I’m President.”

    • http://twitter.com/tyeeCR tyeeCR

       Purrrfect.

  • http://twitter.com/tyeeCR tyeeCR

    O’Reilly may be grounded in journalism and he may intend to be fair but the problem is his huge ego makes an interview with so much riding on it much too dangerous. On many policy issues that require more than bumper sticker knowledge O’Reilly is often misinformed. It’s interesting to watch him just speak louder and interrupt more vigorously while his often earnest interviewee struggles to politely explain a position O’Reilly truly doesn’t understand and O’Reilly can be quite savage when he fears he might be proven incorrect. Then that big ego kicks in and, oh well, O’Reilly has a bad night but in the process he has done great damage.

    O’Reilly made his bargain for ratings and ceded the title journalist in the process. I watch him and frequently agree with him  even though he arrives at his position in a flawed way. I wouldn’t want to have a beer with the personality on TV nor would I want to see Romney spar with him. At the end of the day O’Reilly is basically the proverbial “blunt instrument”.

  • Sandy

    I agree with those who have already made positive statements that, although I’m an O’Reilly fan, Romney should NOT appear on his show.  Romney’s time will be better spent out with the people and not with O’Reilly.

  • http://twitter.com/PollyannaTaylo1 Pollyanna Taylor

    I agree with you Bernard! At this point, the risks outweigh the benefit. Most of O’Reilly’s viewers are voting for Romney, so he’d be preaching to the choir. And the risk of saying something that could be misconstrued than lambasted by the MSM is too high. He can go on O’Reilly after he wins the election!

  • John nazzaro

    The audience for The Factor is  by definition politically involved, primarily right/conservative leaning even if independent, and  has a minimal complement of low information/uninvolved voters.  Romney has little to gain (minimal upside) from that audience. And O’Reilly certainly knows that: he’s pumping his show as a desirable source audience because his job requires he be a promoter. That’s OK; but the audience should be sophisticated enough to understand that being an infotainer requires a certain amount of posturing. And the Romney campaign certainly knows that.

  • http://twitter.com/OHenrysStepchld Edwin F. Buckley

    I fully agree with your assessment.   To me, O’Reilly’s interest in being king of the hill at Fox far outweighs any benefit that might be achieved by Romney.  Why put a noose around your neck? 

  • rlpincus

    Has O’Reilly ever interviewed Romney?  At least Obama wasn’t afraid to face Bill.

    • Bikerchick

       Didn’t President Rhetoric talk w/ Bill during the EARLY days of his administration? President Rhetoric wasn’t afraid to face him then. He didn’t have a record as President. He only had a record as a Community Organizer and a Senator who voted “present.”

      • rlpincus

        February of 2011.  Is that EARLY?

        Work on your facts.

  • Bill

    I agree with Bernie; could be a minefield and why take the chance. I saw the Factor last night. O’Reilly has a big ego plus he normally doesn’t give his guests a word in edgewise. He constantly interrupts them. He indicated that if Romney went on his show he would get a worldwide audiance. Its a popular show but worldwide? I don’t think so.

  • Dusty Rhodes

    I think O’Reilly is terrific but I agree with Bernie on this one.

  • POC247

    Romney shouldn’t go on The Factor. This last week is not the time to try and extract  answers to probing rabbit trail questions. Romney is focused and staying on message which is exactly what he should do in these last few days.

  • kayakbob

    Have to agree with you on this one Bernie.  The upside is minimal. The downside is tremendous.  As I was reading , the image or should I say, the video, of Bob Dole at his  farewell to the Senate back in 1996 came to mind.  Dole said of his Presidential run that it would be his last campaign. Oh his final day in the Senate, he went to the  gave a presentation of his days in the Senate that lasted over an hour. It was covered by CSPAN.

    He had a binder, yes a binder, of prepared notes. But about 15 minutes in, he closed his note binder and just began to speak from the heart. He told stories about his time there and his work with both sides of the isle.  My initial interest was pure curiosity, but I ended up watching the whole  thing.  At the end, he got a standing ovation and thunderous applause from every person there – of both parties.Well, that night on the network news, they played one 5 second clip of  Bob Dole stumbling over a word and the beginning of that one hour “speech”.  That was the take away – one 5 second clip from a free form, no-teleprompter, expression from the heart. Coincidence?  Highly unlikely.  And that was 1996. Can you imagine how that would be played now, 7 days before an election? 

  • Jeff

    Romney only does well when he talks to Hannity.  He gets questions thrown at him and before Hannity stops talking he gives Romney at least three answers to pick one.  Everything interview Hannity does with Conservatives has multiple choice answers.  Before the person being questioned has a chance to answer he has been given the complete set of Fox Talking Points for the week.  Even Palin gets those types of questions but she still comes back with fifth grade grammar and run-on sentences that go on and on and on and on.

    • Drew Page

      Ok, Jeff.  Everything is Bush’s fault and you don’t like Sarah Palin.  We get it.   Now please go back to MoveOn.org.

    • Jeffreydan

        And amazingly enough, we ended up with a couple of jerks in office who aren’t fit to shine her shoes. 

  • Einstein Student

    Hell no.  O’Reilly is the same egotistical narcissist that Obama is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.domenitz Andrew S Domenitz

    romney is probably close to burnout at this point and he needs to just hammer home the main points. the chance of eating his foot on a diffficult question is too high, and the consequences of handing ammunition to the opposition are too great. why rock a winning boat now. i believe this would only give opportunity for mischief and possibly give the dems something more to pick at. not good stategy at this stage of the game.

  • Bethany Carol

    No benefit.  And sometimes Bill leans so far overboard to be fair — that he tilts to the left himself! — I saw Mitt should steer clear of this “opportunity!”

  • Indi4ever

    99.999% of those who watch the “Factor” have made up there minds already. What is the upside again?

    • http://www.facebook.com/orejon1954 John Young

      I agree-there is nothing to gain.  Besides that, it will only feed the MTM’s belief that Fox is nothing more than an organ of the Republican Party (much like MSNBC is for the Demogogues – er Democrats) 

  • Danreagan15

    Mr. Play It Safe go on The Factor?? Obama will admit he’s wrong about..oh..I don’t know pick a topic before THAT happens Never in a million years!

  • http://twitter.com/RROKC Robbie, American!!

    Pretty sure Romney can make his own decisions. He’s gotten this far without advice from you…or us…and I trust him to continue right on down the road.

  • CareerSoldier

    At this point, there’s no upside to Romney appearing on O’Reilly.  Mitt has momentum, he  and Paul Ryan have energized the conservative base (beyond its opposition to Obama) in a way that John McCain never could.  And O’Reilly would want to hit Romney with some hard questions.  Nothing the matter with that, as long as the president is subject to the same level of inquisition.  Of course, he won’t be.  That’s why Romney’s camp deciding to pass on Big Bill is the right call.  

  • Jbowers66

    I think O’Reilly secretly likes Obama. I’ve seen him give the O’man a pass several times.

    • Bikerchick

       When O’Reilly gives President Rhetoric a pass, it’s probably to avoid being labeled a racist. O’Reilly tries very hard to give President Rhetoric the benefit of the doubt. But he has been a little more straightforward about President Rhetoric’s failures in recent months.

  • mquez

    No upside.  I like “The Factor” and a regular viewer but it’s now got to a point where its more about willy o’s ego and becoming the story versus a session of learning about the candidate.

  • Luis

    I agree with you, but mostly because there is no upside at all. Mitt already has the support of the overwhelming majority of The Factor audience, these are informed fair minded people for the most part, so there really is not much to gain.

  • Beniyyar

    NO!

  • rtwngr

    Agree

  • http://www.facebook.com/moses.botbol Moses Botbol

    Romney has to play it safe from here to election.  He can’t risk a gaffe or misinterpreted answer.  I would also advise him to not go on the Factor (even though I watch it almost every night).

    • alegalcitizen

      And I’m a premium member, and I say NO WAY, Owebama would make hay out of anything Romney says, It didn’t even HURT Owebama when he LIED and said he didn’t want to raise your taxes Bill!   I say NO, a thousand times NO!

  • Iwasimc

    No way!!!! I like Bill, but it is his ego, not his journalistic prowess that could harm Romney at a very critical time in this election. The consequences far out weigh the benefits. As usual Bernie, you are correct.

  • Jimnorman

    I would love to see it but it will not happen.  I agree with you too much downside.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/2YQWHIDO4PUMOBVHHPDVIWAO2E Ken

    Mitt would be crazy to go on The Factor at this stage in the game.  If he “pulls a Biden” it could undo all the positive movement since the debates.  If he was several points down, it’s worth the risk, but I would play it safe considering his current polling position.

  • John Daly

    I agree. I think it would have been a good idea earlier in the campaign season, but not immediately before the election. I don’t think there’s much of an upside to it.

    • Amixan

      I agree with Bernie,end of story.