Three George W. Bush terms: The No Spin Zone? Not necessarily: at least, if meant literally. During his O’Reilly Factor discussion with lib Columbia U prof Marc Lamont Hill (about whether terrorism will bring down the Obama presidency), O’Reilly opined that President Barack Obama would lose his presidency if the United States was struck again and if there was “blood in the street.” Reeling a whit, perhaps, O’Reilly elaborated, “Look, Bush was elected twice because of his response to 9-11. That’s why.” (Perhaps, catching himself, he added, “That’s why he was re-elected.”)
Obviously, 9-11 occurred during President Bush’s first term. To the real relief of many Republicans, Bush was re-elected in no small part because of his response to the attack on American soil. To the great joy of many Democrats, he was not elected to yet another term a la FDR.
Misspoken patriot or addled pinhead? You make the call.
*O’Reilly Factor (01/06/10) – @8:19 p.m. ET
Tags: barack obama, Bill O'Reilly, Columbia University, FNC, Fox News, George W. Bush, Marc LaMont Hill, O'Reilly Factor
Carpe Diem 
January 6, 2010 at 11:59 pm
I don’t see anything remotely mis-spoken or ‘addled’ about what O’Reilly said: that he (Bush) was ‘elected twice because of his response to 9-11.’ It is obvious that by saying ‘elected twice’, O’Reilly meant to say “elected a 2nd time” (or re-elected). There’s no real ‘mis-statement’ at all. Nobody in the world who heard that remotely thinks that any 3rd time is meant whatsoever.
This is almost like hearing someone who says “I could care less” rather than the more accurate “I could not care less”, and the truly believing that the speaker DOES care after all due to the technical violation.
In other words……forget about the gnat and the enjoy the camel!
January 7, 2010 at 6:14 am
Hgb3, sounds as if the camel may have sneaked his head underneath your tent.
January 7, 2010 at 8:46 pm
He caught himself uttering an awkward phrase and corrected himself. So what’s the problem? I know who I think is the pinhead.
January 9, 2010 at 9:46 am
^ Nancy Pelosi?
January 9, 2010 at 10:07 am
^ Indeed.
January 9, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Hgb3, did you see O’Reilly’s interview of Glenn Beck last night (12/08/09)? Ironically, he corrected Beck for the very violation that you cited. (Cf. dialogue, infra.)* Apparently, it was not “technical” enough for Bill to overlook. :-)
*At @8:39 p.m. ET, of the progressives, Beck said, “I could care less about what they say.” Immediately, O’Reilly interjected, “Right. Couldn’t care, you couldn’t care less, that’s, that’s what it is. Couldn’t care less.” Beck conceded, “Yes, thank you. Couldn’t care less….This is what it’s going to be like on the road with you, isn’t it? O’Reilly riantly riposted, “It’s going to be worse, Beck. You make one mistake, I’m gonna to tear your throat out.”
January 9, 2010 at 4:05 pm
I believe that in American English, the phrase “could care less” is an idiom and, therefore, its lack of logic is irrelevant.
In other words, if you want to claim that “could care less” really means “do care,” and not what everyone who uses it believes it to mean, logical consistency demands we apply the same rule to every idiom: “Kick the bucket” really means “swing your foot so that it comes into contact with a bucket”; “to die for” really means that you’re perfectly agreeable to having your life ended after you sample that tasty ice cream. That, of course, is silly.
The origin of the idiom “could care less” might be from upper Midwest sarcasm (possible, but I doubt it) or, more likely, it’s an abbreviation of a longer phrase something like, “It’s true, I could care less, but I’m still not very interested.”
January 10, 2010 at 8:34 pm
I could care less about all of this!