(photo credit 10.5)
Three times I have interviewed GEORGE W. BUSH, and here is my assessment: I believe he is an honest man. I believe his presidency was challenged by extraordinarily difficult circumstances that only a few other chief executives have ever faced. The terror attack on September 11 instantly changed the world, introducing a complex set of unique circumstances to Americans. Understanding that, I do cut President Bush some slack, unlike many in the media.
That being said, President Bush has made some major mistakes, most of which were exacerbated by what I call “the rich-guy syndrome.” Let me explain. For people like me, raised in working-class homes, disaster is always in play, constantly present on the horizon. As I mentioned, both my mother and father were possessed by a nagging fear that stuff would inevitably go wrong. This is common among everyday folks who have to work hard to get by.
But Americans born into wealth and power usually do not have that fear. That’s because things always seem to work out for them. Money buys security from harm and often can mitigate difficult situations. Power, as we’ve discussed, leads to opportunities. You must accept that truism in order to understand President Bush and his approach to vexing problems.
The crowning achievement of the Bush administration, usually ignored by the bitter left-wing media, is the hurt it put on al Qaeda. Within a year after 9/11, President Bush and his allies had delivered a series of devastating blows to the Islamic extremist community. The Taliban were routed in Afghanistan, dozens of al Qaeda leaders and operatives around the world were captured or killed, and scores of countries cooperated with America in freezing suspected terrorist bank accounts.
President Bush was flush with success. In most polls, his approval ratings were above 80 percent.
Then came the invasion of Iraq and the unraveling of the president’s initial terror war success. As you know, the “Bush lied” crowd cannot stop screaming that the president fabricated the reasons for removing the tyrant Saddam Hussein. The prevailing wisdom on the far left is that Bush is a savage warmonger intent, for venal reasons, on imposing American dominance on the world. The anti-Bush partisans paint a harsh picture, and unfortunately, many people believe it. But that analysis is largely bull.…
Nonetheless, I have to agree with critics that the post-Saddam planning by the Bush administration was abysmal. Soon after Saddam was pushed from power, I told my audience that American forces were not nearly aggressive enough in controlling the looting that was taking place in Iraq. I was amazed and depressed by the chaos. Why wasn’t this kind of lawlessness anticipated?
But, apparently, President Bush was not equally appalled. Furthermore, as subsequent events spiraled downward in Iraq, the president was very slow to react. Why? Well, my view is that he believed it would all work out. Again, that’s the mind-set of rich guys. Everything will turn out okay because it has always turned out okay.
ROSIE O’DONNELL. Ms. O’Donnell has talent, she works hard, she’s gathered a lot of loyal fans. But what’s going on with the political stuff? Nobody should begrudge any American the right to an opinion, but, hey, Rosie, come on, let’s think out your flaky liberal agenda a little. Are you making sense, or are you spouting propaganda? I mean, a guy named Joseph Goebbels did the same thing on the very far right during World War II. Ms. O’Donnell demonizes anyone she disagrees with, and her musings are not to be questioned. But if you’re gonna use your daytime soapbox to advance ideologies, Rosie, can’t you at least allow someone with some knowledge to question you about it? (And I don’t mean Tom Selleck.) I respect anyone with a well-thought-out opinion, but pure propaganda on national TV needs to be labeled for what it is. There are usually two sides to every issue. It is ridiculous to present only your side.
(photo credit 10.6)
Back to the present: Her most recent TV outing did not work out, and she doesn’t have Bush in the White House to kick around anymore, but I bet we haven’t heard the last of her. There’ll be another incarnation down the pike.
It is safe to say that JIMMY CARTER has used some of his power to avoid talking to me. About anything. He’ll talk with Hamas killers, thereby legitimizing them in the eyes of some folks, but forget about conversing with the bold, fresh guy. I do take this personally.
Over the years, we’ve invited Mr. Carter on The Factor dozens of times, but his “people” barely returned our calls. When they did deign to, I believe there was some sneering going on. This despite the fact that President Carter seems to write a book every three weeks and will appear on cooking shows to promote his work. So there is no question in my mind that Carter does not “get” the bold, fresh guy (whose program sells tons of books for smart authors). Or maybe he does understand and simply despises me. That has been known to happen.
(photo credit 10.7)
To be fair, President Carter is smart to avoid me, because I think he was a disaster as president. I think he’s an okay guy, building those houses for Habitat for Humanity and such, but as the leader of America, the guy was scary.…
There is little more for me to say about Carter. During the hostage crisis, Iran made him look like Little Bo Peep, and on his watch, Americans had to line up for hours to get gas for their cars. Richard Nixon might have been a liar and a crook, but at least he had a clue about the real world and how it works. Carter was given power by the American people and rewarded their judgment by finishing his term looking like Swee’Pea from the Popeye comics. Some guys just can’t handle life in the power lane. That was Carter.
On the music front, MADONNA bugs me. Her early songs are catchy, and I like the fact that she came from humble Michigan roots before rising to the top of the charts. According to Forbes magazine, she’s now worth about $350 million; quite an achievement for a working-class girl. But, somehow along the way, Madonna has succumbed to the awful disease of pretension. The latest symptom is her phony English accent. What is that all about? Is there no one alive who can tell Madonna that, when she talks these days, she sounds like a transsexual version of Peter Sellers? Annoying? Off the chart.
(photo credit 10.8)
But did anyone care what I thought?
Guess not.
Madonna’s concert act in 2012 was number one in attendance in the world.
The weasels were waiting for BURT REYNOLDS, whom I covered during my Dallas [TV reporting job] in 1977. He was shooting Semi-Tough. This was just after his famous seminude pictorial in Cosmopolitan magazine, when he was a regular on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show and was earning over $1 million a year—an incredible sum at the time. Burt took full advantage of Dallas with hot and cold running babes in his hotel suite and fleets of limos. Crowds of fans appeared wherever he went. With that kind of treatment he could have been obnoxious to this young reporter dogging his heels, but he was actually very gracious and I kind of liked him. Once, he took the time to compliment me on a story I’d done about his costar, Robert Preston. But even I had enough smarts to see that he was headed for a fall. He was too cocky to the wrong people and had too many guys named Vinnie and Marty whispering in his ear. Six years later his career blew up after a series of unbelievably foolish racing car movies. Then he lost a dramatic amount of weight, which sparked wildfire rumors in Hollywood that he had AIDS. Actually the problem was linked to a jaw disorder, but the rumors crushed his leading-man status. He’s never fully recovered. Quite simply, the press built him up, and the press tore him down.
(photo credit 10.9)
I never enjoy telling stories like this one.
But they have to be told. Young people who overnight attain great public acclaim are even more vulnerable now than ever before, thanks to social media and vicious bloggers and ambitious hangers-on.
The weasels won’t even leave the likely future queen of England alone when she’s on a private holiday.
Take ELTON JOHN. He had to sell off the rights to most of his music when he got into debt up to his toupee. At the point where he had made more than $100 million, he was sp
ending $400,000 a week, according to his accountant. Think of how many candles in the wind that would buy. We once shared a car in L.A. He was doing a private concert for King World, the company that owns Inside Edition, Wheel of Fortune, and Jeopardy! I was invited to the event because of my Inside Edition job. The car ride was truly bizarre. Trying to make conversation with John was like trying to teach calculus to a goldfish. Not going to happen. “Where are you living now?” I tried. My traveling companion ruminated for a few moments and finally decided he knew the answer: “Atlanta.” This was news. “When did you move from England?” He became confused and said nothing. My final attempt was no more successful: “Which songs mean the most to you after all these years?” He looked as if he would throw up on my shoes. Out came very strange sounds, like the chorus to “Crocodile Rock.” He buried his head in his hands. I spent the rest of the ride trying not to disturb an obviously distraught Elton. I learned one thing: Money can’t buy good conversation.
(photo credit 10.10)
Again and again, the celebrity is unreasonably treated like an expert on everything, but sometimes the shoe might fit, although in strange ways. A reporter for the Weekly Standard asked the very famous O. J. SIMPSON for his considered opinion on President Clinton’s problems with Paula Jones. His reply revealed the wisdom of a man with experience, I guess: “If it’s true what happened to Paula Jones in that room with Clinton, then simply for hitting on a dog like her he should do thirty days. Other than that, I don’t think it’s anyone’s business.” Why didn’t the White House put Mr. Simpson on the witness list for the Senate trial?
(photo credit 10.11)
Let’s move on.…
Okay, it’s not even close: OPRAH WINFREY is the most powerful woman in the world. Sorry, Hillary. Born into deep poverty in 1954, this woman makes Bill Clinton look like Prince Charles in the humble-beginnings department. Compared to her upbringing in Mississippi, I was raised in the Taj Mahal. And even worse, Ms. Winfrey recalls being molested as a child by several male relatives and friends of her family.
(photo credit 10.12)
Add it all up and Oprah’s climb to the top of the power mountain is simply stunning. No other word for it. So what does this say about America, Michael Moore?
What kind of power does Oprah wield? Well, Parade magazine reports that she makes $260 million a year. That’s about one million bucks for every day she actually works. Wow.
Basically, earning that kind of money means that Oprah Winfrey can do or buy anything she wants on this earth as long as it’s legal and for sale. Like Lola in Damn Yankees!, whatever Oprah wants, Oprah gets. Think about that. There are no material limits for Oprah, nothing she cannot afford. Are you still thinking? Does Oprah’s situation sound good? Okay, here’s the downside: Having that kind of money can literally drive a person crazy.
Here’s why.… Remember those glittering Christmas mornings when you were a kid? Mine were thrilling, the highlights of my childhood. The anticipation of getting fun stuff makes most kids happy for weeks. That’s why Christmas is magic. Most children experience true joy during that season.
But it was the anticipation, the rarity of the experience that conjured up the magic. If, like Oprah, you can have Christmas every day of the year, there isn’t much anticipation, is there? I mean, the thrill of obtaining something exceptional, or unexpected, or long awaited, just doesn’t exist. With everything almost instantly available, everything becomes rather ordinary. For that reason, the ultrawealthy, if they are not ultracareful, can become bored, jaded, or, even worse, sadistic or self-destructive. The awful behavior of some celebrities and power brokers illustrates that point beyond a reasonable doubt. Just ask Caligula.
Meanwhile, Oprah has probably made a major career mistake by leaving broadcast TV and going to cable. She’s not doing all that well, even after the blanket of publicity surrounding the Lance Armstrong interview.
Time will tell.
The beat goes on.
After the tragic school massacre in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, the gun control controversy seized the attention of the nation. Some people on both sides kept their cool, listened to each other, and tried to come up with rational answers.
One astonishing exception was the rash action taken by the Journal News, a paper in White Plains, New York. Using the Freedom of Information Act, reporters were able to collect tens of thousands of names of gun owners in three local counties—Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam—and publish them as a gun-owner database in map form online in December.
For about a month, newspaper executives explained that they felt they were doing the public a service. How’s that again? Invasion of privacy? Giving potential gun thieves information they can use?
As one of the hundreds of people who called the newspaper to complain put it, “The implications are mind-boggling. It’s as if gun owners are sex offenders [and] to own a handgun risks exposure as if one is a sex offender. It’s crazy.”
It was.
By mid-January someone came to his or her senses, and the map was deleted from the paper’s website.
(photo credit 10.13)
A lighter note on the continuing gun debate occurred on December 5, 2012, when a celebrity guest found himself caught in a controversy of his own making and came on my program to explain himself. As you’ll see, I was glad to help him out. I think you’ll be amused.
During a Sunday night football game, NBC’s BOB COSTAS condemned what he called the gun culture in America. Some folks got angry because they felt the sportscaster was attacking the Second Amendment. He came to visit.…
O’REILLY: So first up, how do you feel about the right to bear arms?
COSTAS: Obviously, Americans have a right to bear arms. I’m not looking to repeal the Second Amendment. I haven’t immersed myself in the issue throughout my life. I’m aware of it, as many Americans are. I didn’t call for any specific prohibition on guns. I never used the words “gun control.” I quoted from a column by Jason Whitlock, who was in Kansas City for a long time, now is on the Fox Sports website, in which he mentioned, I think credibly, a gun culture in this country. Now, it plays itself out in many ways, but it’s a mentality about and toward guns that almost always leads to tragedy rather than safety.
O’REILLY: All right. And we’ll get to that in a moment. But I think I want to clear this gun control thing up, because that’s … that’s why you got in trouble, because some people felt—
COSTAS: Yes.
O’REILLY: And this is a very emotional issue—
COSTAS: Of course it is.
O’REILLY: And the second thing, Mr. Whitlock is really, really far out there.
COSTAS: Well, I—I am not agreeing with—
[After some cross talk, we got back on track.]
COSTAS: In any case, I was unaware of [Whitlock’s remarks comparing the NRA and the Ku Klux Klan]. And obviously, I would disagree with that 100 percent.
O’REILLY: Not scolding you, just—
COSTAS: I get it.
O’REILLY: I’m not scolding, I was trying to—
COSTAS: That’s a mild scolding compared to what I’ve—
O’REILLY: Yes, I mean—okay.
COSTAS: — received over the last seventy-two hours.
O’REILLY: As long as you call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree, you’re okay here.
COSTAS: Yes. Merry Christmas to you, too, Bill.
O’REILLY: All right. There you go. So let’s advance the story a little bit. Gun control in America is an emotional issue because it is clear that the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms for two reasons.… Number one, because they felt that the government might devolve into tyranny, and the second thing was they knew that they had to settle this giant country and there weren’t going to be laws out in the West and people had to have guns to protect themselves from bears and—Native Americans that didn’t like them—
COSTAS: Yes. Yes.
O’REILLY: — coming on their property. So ther
e’s a history here, all right? And most people don’t even understand that history. So Americans grow up with the right to protect themselves—against the government and against bad people. Then you enter into the modern age, where you have a debate about, well, what’s the government’s responsibility here, because these are lethal weapons? And that’s where you come in, right? So you’re saying that you want a more stringent program by the authorities to make it harder to get guns—
COSTAS: It sounds like you’re saying I’m saying that.
O’REILLY: You’re not saying that?
COSTAS: If you were to ask me, I believe that there should be more comprehensive and effective controls on the sale of guns.
O’REILLY: But what does that mean?
COSTAS: Roughly 40 percent of the guns purchased in this country do not require a background check for purchase.
O’REILLY: Okay. You want a background check, right?
COSTAS: You have that. You’ve talked about stricter penalties, harsher penalties for criminals. There is that. There ought to be training programs for those who purchase guns. I don’t see any reason why someone should be able to purchase military-style artillery and body armor and automatic weapons. Only the police or the military should have that—
O’REILLY: All right, all of those are reasonable positions.
COSTAS: And none of that impinges on someone’s Second Amendment rights or the right to protect their home and their family.