McCain Fails To Challenge Racist Remark by Bill O'Reilly

Technorati Tags: Bill O'Reilly, John McCain, illegal immigation

I agree with Justin Gardner on the O'Reilly-McCain exchange about illegal immigration:

On immigration, Bill O’Reilly asks John McCain…”But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you’ve got to cap with a number.”
[...]
Now, I obviously think Bill O’Reilly is a partisan hack and his point is ridiculous, but I found this clip on the Democratic Party’s website and the way they present this exchange is to suggest that McCain agrees with O’Reilly. In fact, the headline of the blog post is, “O’Reilly Defends “White, Christian, Male Power Structure;” McCain Smiles and Nods.” In my eyes, he didn’t agree, except that he agrees there needs to be a cap on the amount of illegal immigrants we give “amnesty” to.

As Steve Benen points out, McCain "didn’t raise objections to O’Reilly’s xenophobia, either":

But more to the point, O’Reilly’s concern for maintaining the “white, Christian, male power structure” struck me as about as offensive as what got Don Imus fired.

Think about it — if a KKK official appeared on Fox News, wouldn’t you expect him to make similar comments? And isn’t it more than a little disconcerting when O’Reilly’s rhetoric and racist rhetoric is one and the same?

And at the risk of getting too deep into the weeds here, O’Reilly’s argument seems to miss a few pertinent details, not the least of which is the fact that most Mexican immigrants are Christian.

Indeed, O’Reilly’s point isn’t an economic or security one; it’s based entirely on race and ethnicity. He seems to suggest that immigration would be perfectly acceptable to him, if immigrants helped him maintain the “white, Christian, male power structure.”

I’d be surprised if O’Reilly actually faced consequences for these comments — if he wasn’t punished for encouraging al Qaeda to strike an American city, he won’t be punished for this — but his comments nevertheless struck me as over the top, even by O’Reilly’s very low standards.