The O’Reilly Factor
Well y’all today is the big day. Our Executive Director Rachel B. Tiven will appear TONIGHT on the O’Reilly Factor to talk same-sex immigration policy. We’ll be heading over this afternoon for the taping but you can catch the show at 8pm and again at 11pm.
I’m sure Rachel will be able to handle her own. She’s tough and a lawyer — but she’s in my thoughts. It’s a lion’s den. Hopefully she’ll be able to change some opinions. The question is, though, whether anyone really pays attention to him anyway (Fox’s numbers overall are dropping and O’Reilly in particular, of course he won’t say that, but he’s on a losing streak.)
Comment by Christopher — July 17, 2007 @ 8:40 am
im in north west oregon using dish network, can anyone tell me where to find that? or should i just call dish?
Comment by pam hermens — July 17, 2007 @ 10:09 am
I don’t have access to Fox News unless I order it. I am contemplating whether I should order it or wait until it is on youTube. I don’t want to give any money to Fox News. It’s Propaganda.
Comment by nola — July 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
we’ll post the clip so if you can’t catch it tonight check out the blog tomorrow.
Comment by adamf — July 17, 2007 @ 10:55 am
with the video clips you put up all i get is a box with a red x in the left upper corner, any advice? thanks
Comment by pam hermens — July 17, 2007 @ 11:30 am
can someone explain finicial interdependency to me? thanks
Comment by pam hermens — July 17, 2007 @ 11:43 am
I am sure you will be able to see the clip on the Immigration Equality website later and also on the You Tube website. And to Rachel: Good Luck !!
Hélène
Comment by Hélène van Oijen — July 17, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
I was trying to tell if he was for or against it personally. While I think Rachel did a very good job she didn’t mention that 16+ countries around the world do allow same-sex couples to sponsor their perminent pertner for citizenship.
O’Reilly was incorrect when he said there was an alternative to the couple in PA. If Mr. O’Reilly knows a lawyer that could do this for us then I welcome that lawyers name.
Nice job Rachael, O’Reilly isn’t the easiest journalist to go up against. I plan on e-mailing Mr. O’Reilly to point out a few things to him.
Comment by John — July 17, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
I felt that O’Reilly was dismissive of the situation. All he wanted to do was to stir up his audience into thinking that it was adding to the whole illegal immigration situation by encouraging people to come here under false pretences. I think that Rachel did a great job and I too plan to e-mail Bill and point out a few things too.
Comment by Anne — July 17, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
You made your good points Rachael.
It seems to me that O’Reilly has a fixed statement fed from poplular views about International Gay and Lesbian Marriages. Can’t say whether they’re his own or words taken out of the mouths of the cold heart commons. Sure there many other ways to get visas but none should be taken for granted.
My partner and I of 14 years and from industralized nations are on the verge of separating in December 2007. It’s hard to see what lies ahead no matter how hard we try to find ways to stay together until death does us apart.
There’s only hope left in our hearts and minds.
Comment by PEME — July 17, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
Unfortunately, O’Reilly just showed yet again, that he knows very little about complicated issues but tries to pawn himself off as having a handle on it all. What arrogance.
Comment by Paul — July 17, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
As a same sex international partner, I am hoping that we can use this forum to determine a plan of action to turn this press into a launch pad for awareness. I am not sure that the interview will generate the positive momentum that we need to move the United American Families Act forward. Please feel free to post your suggestions. Thanks.
Comment by Patrick Livingston — July 17, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
All I can say O’Reily is just an ass. It is obvious that he is antigay and does not understand what we are all are going through. To think this this issue is about bring here illegally for money and that anyone could just say I am gay to come here. O’Reily just makes me sick! its this kind of mentallity that makes me want to leave this County!
Comment by Pete Snaith — July 17, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
Just watched the interview on Fox News over here in the UK. I thought Rachel did very well indeed in the face of an extremely incompetent and ill-informed ‘interviewer’ (especially given the pathetically small amount of air-time this serious subject was allocated). This guy O’Reilly appeared to regard the whole subject of bi-national same-sex relationships as a joke and a non-issue. Surely journalists are supposed to research their subject matter before interviewing someone seriously, so as to have a mature, objective discussion? But then I guess that’s too much to expect from Fox News.
Comment by Jude — July 18, 2007 @ 3:04 am
I think the mistake that was made was agreeing to go on the O’Reilley Factor in the first place, not just by Immigration Equality, but by everyone that appears on his show. Anyone that appears on the O’Reilley Factor is supporting his biased show and Fox News. Period. Learn to say no. If he had no one to interview, no one to bash, then he would have no material and ultimately no audience and people would finally turn off Fox News. That would be one of the best things that could happen to America.
We shouldn’t have given O’Reilley the pleasure or the opportunity to make a mockery out of our plight. Maybe we should have held out a bit longer for a better gig on one of the other “real news” networks. The other networks are going to be reluctant to touch this now that O’Reilley has gotten his slimy hands around it first. You only fueled their pocketbooks and gave his viewers something to talk about over teacakes sunday after church. Those people will never be on our side and you can’t teach them anything new…certainly not in three-and-a-half minutes….it’s pointless.
To his audience, having Rachel Tiven there was like a scene from a Jerry Springer episode. Consider his audience…now they are like a swarm of bees because all Rachel did was stir them up. I can here them buzzing now…”The Gays are coming…the gays are coming!!” Everyone knew that he wasn’t going to appeal to Rachel, and this did nothing to gain momentum for Uniting American Families Act and it certainly didn’t call any audience to action which we need if we are going to get this passed. After watching this interview, how many viewers do you think are going to make an attempt to put any sort of pressure on their congress members? Maybe three? How many of the opposition are those same congressional members going to have to answer to now after this interview? So the question is, did this interview do more harm than good?
The opposition has even more material to use against us. I am sure they are making their signs now… “Terrorists – get your big fat gay green-card!..
Great job.
Comment by Patrick — July 18, 2007 @ 3:51 am
I agree with most of you. I think O’Reilly wasn’t taking the subject matter very seriously and he seemed dismissive. His line about some guy paying $50k to buy citizenship is completely ridiculous. The interview process and burden of proof is pretty huge. My partner and I went through this in Australia and I can assure you, it is no walk in the park. O’Reilly seems to be basing his argument on the fact that gay couples don’t have a marriage license to hide behind. The whole point of this argument is that gay couples can’t obtain marriage licenses (at least ones that are recognized federally) and so this is the avenue to take for immigration purposes.
If I got paid for every time someone said to me “I know an immigration lawyer who can help you, why don’t you just apply?” I could have bought myself an investor visa by now.
I watched from down here in Australia, where it seems things are a little friendlier.
Comment by Josh — July 18, 2007 @ 4:08 am
Rachel – - great job keeping cool, collected and on topic. He kept trying to goad you, but you kept to your points.
And you looked fab in those pearls!
Bruce
Comment by Bruce Temkin — July 18, 2007 @ 7:30 am
I watched the interview last night and thought that Rachel did a good job. After seeing O’Reilly’s responses to gay marriage I’m not surprised with the angle he took on the potential for fraud should this bill go through. I do feel that his arguments were weak and mostly attempted to avoid a real debate on the core issues. Rachel did a good job at trying to keep the discussion focused on the important issues. She almost had a look of confusion on her face as he kept repeating the same arguments without really responding to her as if he did not prepare for a debate. I think he came off as just that – ill prepared and flippant towards the issue. Good work Rachel.
Comment by Sara — July 18, 2007 @ 7:58 am
Well done Rachael,…A thought here outloud (after seeing the movie on monday Through Thick and Thin) and the O’Reily factor and everything else, taking a step back, one thing that was said on monday after the movie was that “All Eyes are on California” If we make a change here allowing couples to marry, the largest state in the nation, this might be similar to the abortion issue “Little by Little at a time” others will then have to follow ? just a thought
Comment by Derek — July 18, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Rachael… you did do a good job sticking to the important issues and trying to educate others along the way. It’s clear you care about this issue and are willing to go to bat for it. As a man in a same sex bi-national relationship, I appreciate your passion and commitment to the cause.
I also felt outraged when I learned that Immigration Equality would be participating in an interview on the O’Reilly show. My first reaction was, “Are you serious???” I was thinking you should have come to Chicago the following day for the Springer show while you were at it.
The decision to be on the O’Reilly show was like walking in front of a firing squad. It’s a no win situation. I could tell Rachael gave it her best but O’Reilly is such an ignorant man who completely lacks empathy. This is evidenced by past shows addressing gay issues and immigration issues. The show (viewed on YouTube) left me feeling angry that O’Reilly could make his weak, untrue arguments to a viewing audience who most likely will not and do not question what is true/untrue. They believe his bullshit.
Let’s focus our energy and direct it in a more useful way that will impact change. I think this interview did more harm than good. I was disappointed in the decision to participate.
Comment by Mark — July 19, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
The best hope for this bill was to sneak it in without bringing it to the attention of the Talibangelists. Now every southern Senator will have a flurry of anti-UAFA e-mails and calls. The hatred of those faux-Christians knows no bounds. It was a bad idea to bring the debate so willingly to the Fox audience. Baaaaaaaad idea!
Comment by Charles — July 20, 2007 @ 7:52 am