Immigration Equality at the O’Reilly Factor
So that was interesting, wasn’t it? We will have the video posted on the site later today, so the discussion can continue. Fox News has it up wight now, although I tend to feel the need to wash my hands and eyes after visiting their website. 
Personally, I think Rachel did a great job at staying on point and having the last sound-bite. I think it was pretty clear Mr. O’Reilly had no idea what he was talking about. What do you think?
You are right. O’Reilly is clueless. By listening to his argument, he obviously does not see gay people on the same level of straight people. It seems to me that he is afraid that we are going to go aboard and randomly hook up with people and bring them back. WHAT IGNORANCE!!! On the other hand, Rachel did a great job sticking to the point, despite that fact that O’Reilly was trying to put his spin on the issue.
Comment by Hunter — July 18, 2007 @ 9:04 am
Rachel did an outstanding job on O’Reilly’s show, explaining the issue very clearly and staying on point despite O’Reilly’s ill-informed criticisms.
Comment by rrasey — July 18, 2007 @ 9:07 am
Bravo, Rachel. Very well done. Last night we got a look at our adversaries on this issue, and even though they were assholes, it can help us. Obviously the fraud question is the most important argument they focus on. We need to put our heads together to come up with a “killer answer” that stops them in their tracks when they go down that road. This was a good warm up for the meeting with Senator Clinton and others who fear fraud.
Comment by Don George — July 18, 2007 @ 9:31 am
The killer answer is that fraud is a problem with immigration, but that’s its much more likely to be a case with immigration between opposite sex couples — by the numbers (there’s more of them) and social stigma. But these types of killer arguments don’t work, because at the core, they don’t want arguments. They want to be right. How many times have you heard that gay people will ruin the institution of marriage? Despite the fact that straight couples have been doing a fine job of that on their own for centuries? Fraud is a red herring brought up people who do not see us as completely human but want to have an argument that sounds politically correct. If they could speak their minds, they would just tell us we don’t count. Is it time for the revolution yet? I’m ready.
Comment by Christopher — July 18, 2007 @ 10:37 am
I’ll join your ranks Christopher!!!
Comment by pam hermens — July 18, 2007 @ 10:50 am
REVOLUTION? Why? Don’t you feel like waiting around 25 years for our equal rights? I agree with you. I truly believe that it is time for gay communities to evolve and enter the next stage of the gay civil rights movement. The homosexuals that came before us made sacrifices,I think it is time for us to do the same. We have become so complacent because now we can go to gay bars without the threat of being raided. So is that all there is to being gay?
BTW- I think Rachel did the best that anybody could do considering she was on the “Spin Zone”
Comment by nola — July 18, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Well done Rachael, and Don George is correct “it’s The Fraud” question that’s the issue tied with not reconizing the relationship.
We need a killer answer and as best we can some kind of plan or system to show that the ‘FRAUD’ issue is a mute one.
How about some kind of points structure/system over a period of time, I don’t know, just putting thoughts out there to spark some idea’s,
maybee some kind of longer term review plan
Comment by Derek — July 18, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Rachael WELL DONE!!! I think the ignorance of O’Reilly will help us to take a different approach. We need to contact the media in every way possible to make them aware that We are REAL.That We fall in love and want to build a family like everybody else,not a bunch of people(thousands and counting)who want to take advantage of the situation like this guy meant…. WE CAN CONQUER IT FOLKS!!!
Comment by Paola — July 18, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Rachael did a great job, O’Reilly is a jerk!!
Comment by pam hermens — July 18, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Rachel’s example of 17 year relationship and children was a terrific sound bite.
The fraud issue is clearly a red herring. The only intelligent thing O’Reilly said is that given the incredible difficulty with other issues in immigration reform, UAFA might never be considered even though it has been pending for 7 years.
Overall, this was a valuable adjunct to the publicity effort since publicity puts pressure on Congress to take action.
We need additional follow through to keep the media talking about the situation-otherwise it will die.
Comment by Aaron Ashcraft — July 19, 2007 @ 1:29 am
overall i thought she did well. but i thought she really dropped the ball on the fraud question. and she also let him make light of how ’simple’ it would be to just find a lawyer and get the problem resolved. generally, she was too scripted and not in the moment enough to deal with his misleading statements. but in truth, it doesn’t matter since the audience watching has no intention of changing their position or being educated.
Comment by maplepalmmovie — July 19, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Just because you are offered a spot on a national TV show does not mean you should always accept it. This is the wrong forum for this subject and could potentially have been a disaster. As it turned out, it was harmless, sort of. As clueless as he is, O’Reilly is a bulldog and beating up on his guests is how he gets his ratings. No one in his audience changed their mind from this. That’s nothing against Rachel, just a commentary on who watches this jerko**.
Rachel’s email today said: “As I left the set, O’Reilly’s parting words were, ‘Let me know when this thing [UAFA] moves. My impression was that he doesn’t personally see anything wrong with the content of the bill, he was just attacking it for the ratings value.”
Are you kidding me with this?
This whole experience represents a potentially harmful strategic error. Who is advising you guys? Did GLAD really have a hand in this?
Comment by Reality Check — July 19, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Fantastic job Rachel.
Thank you for being our fearless leader!
Comment by Sophie — July 20, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Add my name to those thanking Rachel for a job well done. Having done a bit of this kind of thing myself on other issues, I know and appreciate the focus required to get even one point across. And I thought Rachel chose the right one — it’s about glbt couples having the same chance to be together that heterosexual couples. I agree with Aaron that the fraud question is NOT the “killer” question, since the killer answer is so obvious and simple — it’s no more of a risk with lgbt couples than with heterosexual couples, and the government’s remedies are the same. Next question. The fraud question thinly veils the discounting of our relationships, and that is what we must continually speak to. Equality, not inequality is “the American way.”
Comment by Morris — July 20, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Tell him your voice at:
oreilly@foxnews.com
Comment by Richard — July 23, 2007 @ 2:37 am
how do i thank rachel? she in fact did a great job with what she had to work with
Comment by pam hermens — July 23, 2007 @ 9:09 am