Video: Michelle and KP plug Hot Air on O’Reilly

posted at 9:39 pm on October 16, 2006 by Allahpundit

Thisclose to the greatest plug ever.

Except that KP forgot to mention the name of the site.

And thus are hearts broken.

For any O’Reilly viewers who’ve found their way here, you can watch our take on “The View” by clicking.


Thanks, of course, to the lovely KP for mentioning the site at all. Here’s the precise moment when she realized her career was over:

kp1016.jpg

KP’s also got posts up on her site right now linking approvingly to the boss and Mary K and citing one of her commenters for “liberal intolerance.” I wish I could tell you about her draft post on Gitmo, but apparently she’s decided the left isn’t ready for that one. Yet.

Frankly, I think she might be too conservative for me.

bush-ma.jpg

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hubba hubba

p0s3r on October 16, 2006 at 9:54 PM

I’m confused. She called somebody a “liberal nut”… you don’t say that if you think you’re a “liberal”. She’s sounding more libertarian-centrist every time I hear her.

Give us the scoop, AP.

DaveS on October 16, 2006 at 9:59 PM

She’s a socially conservative liberal.

Allahpundit on October 16, 2006 at 10:00 PM

I’m sitting in my CCNA class laughing at this post before I even read it. Then my classmates ask me what is so funny? How do I explain the subtle conversion of a exposure of a closet conservative to a nonblogger geek?

So Allah when you gonna cowboy up with a six pack to match your wit and KP at your side for a nice Christmas party in D.C.?

Theworldisnotenough on October 16, 2006 at 10:11 PM

Frankly, I think she might be too conservative for me.

Even if that seems true at first, I have little doubt that once you’ve seen and grasped her reasonings, she’ll elevate your mind, and your thoughts will become most penetrating.

Kralizec on October 16, 2006 at 10:14 PM

AP, you dog – Are you dumping Bethany to chase KP?

chsw on October 16, 2006 at 10:21 PM

I saw the ladies on O’Reilly and they both were in sync. KP spake like a true capitalist and was very laudatory to the ingenious idea of the Vent.

Entelechy on October 16, 2006 at 10:26 PM

I’ve got Allah and KP at an event together within 12 months. Who wants that bet?

Theworldisnotenough on October 16, 2006 at 10:33 PM

Ha. Nah, too many differences.

Allahpundit on October 16, 2006 at 10:33 PM

I’ve got Allah and KP at an event together within 12 months. Who wants that bet?

Theworldisnotenough on October 16, 2006 at 10:33 PM

I’ll take that bet. I bet AP and KP will be seen canoodleing together at some Christmas or New Years Party in 2006.

AP’s secret identity won’t last 24 hours past that as news of this races through the blogosphere.

EFG on October 16, 2006 at 10:45 PM

Ha. Nah, too many differences.

Sissy.

And EFG you have to bet against me, that Allah can not get to KP at an event within 12 months.

Theworldisnotenough on October 16, 2006 at 10:55 PM

Yeah, I just watched that video, and Bill said Michelle was in Washington, and Kirsten was in… New York.

Hmmm. Where does Allahpundit live again?

Yeah.

EFG on October 16, 2006 at 10:56 PM

Theworldisnotenough, I could do that, but I’m sure he will get together within 12 months. In fact, I’ve gone even further and said it will happen before the end of 2006. Which is now about 2 1/2 months.

Care to place a bet?

EFG on October 16, 2006 at 10:59 PM

I’m holding out for Bethany and/or Mary K!

Preferably “and”.

Allahpundit on October 16, 2006 at 11:03 PM

Why stop there?

Aren’t you allowed 4 wives?

Add KP and Julie Banderas and you have your quorum.

EFG on October 16, 2006 at 11:05 PM

AP, don’t disappoint us now! You have her ready to take that magical step across the threshhold of sanity into the world of conservatism. If you drop her now, she may get vengeful and become our biggest enemy, all the while only wanting vengence against you!

ArkCon on October 16, 2006 at 11:16 PM

However, if you could get Julie Banderas in the mix as well ………? Hmmm

ArkCon on October 16, 2006 at 11:17 PM

I knew. I knew when I saw it happening in front of me. Hence my poking around Hot air tonight … waiting.

Michelle was laser precise tonight too.

Axe on October 16, 2006 at 11:18 PM

However, if you could get Julie Banderas in the mix as well ………?

If I could get Julie Banderas in the mix, there’d be no “mix.”

I’d be a one-woman man. Forever.

Allahpundit on October 16, 2006 at 11:20 PM

For the last freakin’ time….Mel Gibson is NOT a conservative.

The Ugly American on October 16, 2006 at 11:21 PM

Damn, as lovely as Michelle and Kirsten were, I kept having the same thought over and over about Frank Rich; he looks like the Penguin from Batman II; put a top hat on him and one of those sissy boy cigarette holders, and you’ve got the penguin.

austinnelly on October 16, 2006 at 11:33 PM

“…tell the ladies of ‘The View’ that we say hello.”

CAT FIGHT!

Mojave Mark on October 16, 2006 at 11:33 PM

She’s a socially conservative liberal.

So then… she’s a neocon?

Watcher on October 16, 2006 at 11:41 PM

For the last freakin’ time….Mel Gibson is NOT a conservative.

The Ugly American on October 16, 2006 at 11:21 PM

Right on, I’m so sick of that crap too. Same with Fred Phelps. Don’t worry libs, this is a conservative blog secret, your media will never let it get out.

If I could get Julie Banderas in the mix, there’d be no “mix.”

I’d be a one-woman man. Forever.

Allahpundit on October 16, 2006 at 11:20 PM

Seriously, she is unbelievable. But let’s not forget Kiran Chetry and Rebecca Gomez. (Oh and by the way, anyone ever seen “Dr. Holly”?)

RightWinged on October 16, 2006 at 11:51 PM

tell the ladies of ‘The View’ that we say hello.

Touche Michelle! Well planted!! Probably over their heads though.

Texas Gal on October 17, 2006 at 12:20 AM

AP, KP has crossed over – the mission has been accomplished (even if she refuses to acknowledge it). I don’t think I’ve seen her truly disagree with the boss lately at all.

Rick on October 17, 2006 at 12:28 AM

Allah… Socially conservative liberal? That just confused me even more, I think. :-)

I really don’t understand the “social conservative” label to begin with. Beyond, say, abortion and school prayer, what would you throw in there? Where do you draw the line on which policy questions are “social”? Is welfare, for example, a social issue (personal responsibility, charity, etc)?

Of course, there is room on the non-social, “liberal” side for a progressive tax system, and that sort of thing, but there are even some social aspects of that.

In the end, it doesn’t matter. She seems to come down on the correct side of national security related issues, so she’s cool in my book. Plus, she isn’t a foaming-at-the-mouth nutcase.

DaveS on October 17, 2006 at 12:32 AM

She’s a socially conservative liberal.

By which you could only mean “socially conservative compared to *other* liberals,” right? Cuz if she’s socially conservative and hawkish, what’s left besides fiscal?

I really don’t understand the “social conservative” label to begin with. Beyond, say, abortion and school prayer, what would you throw in there? Where do you draw the line on which policy questions are “social”? Is welfare, for example, a social issue (personal responsibility, charity, etc)?

DaveS, sorry, but you must be joking. :) Abortion. School prayer. ANYTHING related to religion anywhere near the schools or the courthouse square or the courthouse wall. Gay marriage. Gay anything. Welfare–pretty much the whole umbrella of “social justice.”

Okay, back to topic, I can’t believe O’Reilly wasted ten minutes with that. Oprah started out psychologizing people, built up an audience of people who trust her word and her perspective, and is now free to deliver that perspective wholesale to a swallowing public. Simple as that. I can’t believe he has some kind of expectation that she should be balanced.

Anwyn on October 17, 2006 at 12:46 AM

Michelle is sooooo super fine……*thud*

dec5 on October 17, 2006 at 1:05 AM

Preferably “and”.

Allahpundit on October 16, 2006 at 11:03 PM

I thought you weren’t French…then you confirmed with the Banderas comment…

What a difference a lady makes!

…built up an audience of people who trust her word and her perspective, and is now free to deliver that perspective wholesale to a swallowing public. Simple as that. I can’t believe he has some kind of expectation that she should be balanced.

Anwyn on October 17, 2006 at 12:46 AM

Precisely. I’m with KP “I don’t watch Oprah” – that was the best part – my respect for KP grew many-fold just for that statement.

Entelechy on October 17, 2006 at 1:10 AM

Anwyn, I actually meant for the school prayer thing to serve as a sort of catch-all for the religion-in-public issues. I didn’t articulate that at all, though. :-)

But I don’t think its reasonable to say that anything that falls under the “social justice umbrella” is purely a “social issue”. Is social security a social issue or a fiscal issue? Of course it is a bit of both, but that can be said of any issue… which is why I didn’t get anything out of AP’s characterization of KP’s politics.

In your view, is it possible to be a social liberal AND fiscal conservative, or vice versa, if you expand “social issues” to include anything concerning social justice? How can you be fiscally conservative and support eliminating social security (as an example) while simultaneously being socially liberal and supporting social security, if social security can be said to be a “social justice” issue?

So, in answer to your post, I wasn’t kidding. :-)

DaveS on October 17, 2006 at 1:16 AM

Well, DaveS, of course you’re right that many issues overlap between social and fiscal, but to take your example–you can be fiscally conservative enough to support eliminating social security (as it is now, an important distinction) and socially liberal enough to support, say, abortion and gay marriage.

In my experience those who describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal are conservative first–i.e. they don’t tend to support boondoggles like social security because their fiscal conservatism is against it and also because their brand of social liberalism is simply “live and let live,” NOT “live and I’ll subsidize it.” So yeah, there’s a continuum of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism–they have a balancing point … social security and welfare aren’t it, I admit. :)

Anwyn on October 17, 2006 at 1:31 AM

Sorry, that first paragraph didn’t address your point at all even though I said it was supposed to. I’m tired. :/

Take second paragraph for what it’s worth. :)

Anwyn on October 17, 2006 at 1:32 AM

I’ve got Allah and KP at an event together within 12 months. Who wants that bet?

Thinkin’ Carville and Matlin of the blogoshere, here.

B Moe on October 17, 2006 at 1:52 AM

For the last freakin’ time….Mel Gibson is NOT a conservative.

Neither is O’Reilly. Granted, his self-applied label of “traditionalist” is right-of-center, but not on everything. In fact, he loves trying hard to prove he’s on center.

That’s why he devotes equal time to bashing Ann Coulter or Mark Levin as he does folks like Maureen Dowd or Bill Maher. Listen to him on any topic other than the war or protection of children, and he’ll name the left and right as equivalent extremists every time. Sometimes that is indeed a valid view, but so very often it is disingenuous, done only so he can pretend to be middle-of-the-road, and proclaim himself a fair arbiter of the truth of an issue.

A very wise pastor I know says that the only things you find in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead skunks.

Pick a side and take a stand.

Freelancer on October 17, 2006 at 4:57 AM

Freelancer, you may not realize it, but you are in really, really good company:

Concerning the bounds of unity; the true placing of them, importeth exceedingly. There appear to be two extremes. For to certain zealants, all speech of pacification is odious. Is it peace, Jehu? What hast thou to do with peace? turn thee behind me. Peace is not the matter, but following, and party. Contrariwise, certain Laodiceans, and lukewarm persons, think they may accommodate points of religion, by middle way, and taking part of both, and witty reconcilements; as if they would make an arbitrament between God and man. Both these extremes are to be avoided; which will be done, if the league of Christians, penned by our Savior himself, were in two cross clauses thereof, soundly and plainly expounded: He that is not with us, is against us; and again, He that is not against us, is with us; that is, if the points fundamental and of substance in religion, were truly discerned and distinguished, from points not merely of faith, but of opinion, order, or good intention. This is a thing may seem to many a matter trivial, and done already. But if it were done less partially, it would be embraced more generally.

… From Sir Francis Bacon’s “Of Unity in Religion.” My bold. Those last two lines were written c. 1600 A.D. I laugh at the “and done already” bit everytime I read it. Bacon’s talking about the Church’s unity; but I think of this when I notice O’Reilly doing what you noticed O’Reilly doing.

I also think of Mr. Miyagi, in the Karate Kid, saying: Karate Yes, Karate No: Karate Maybe–squash like grape. But I’ll keep that one to myself.

Axe on October 17, 2006 at 6:06 AM

O’Reilly: It’s not about me… It’s not about me…

Sure it’s not.

Did anyone else see this segment as incredibly pathetic for O’Reilly? Michelle and KP were great, but O’Reilly just came off as a whiny baby, upset that he’s not cool enough to be on Oprah. I guess he’s always a whiny baby (or that’s how he comes across to me), but this just seemed especially pathetic even for him.

tiekitwist on October 17, 2006 at 7:02 AM

I see that the slow boat is right on course.

Kid from Brooklyn on October 17, 2006 at 9:26 AM

Oprah Who?

Yea, yea… I know… I’m a hetrosexual white male conservative. I dress poorly, and I only see in sixteen colors.

E L Frederick on October 17, 2006 at 10:08 AM

I’m still waiting for my girls Ladies of Hot Air calendar. Make it happen AP!

Number 2 on October 17, 2006 at 10:35 AM

I’d be first in line to get that calendar :-)

dalewalt on October 17, 2006 at 11:06 AM

You know, Allah, in addition to the obvious brains and beauty, what KP has that makes me swoon is intellectual honesty. That and she wisely noted that it was all about Bill.

Ennuipundit on October 17, 2006 at 11:12 AM

This was a great O’Reilly segment. Thanks for the video capture.

That line — “say hello to the ladies at the view” was a killer!

georgej on October 17, 2006 at 11:41 AM

The reason why TV is currently 10-1 in favor of liberals is that IMO conservatives will typically watch liberal programing and liberals won’t typically watch conservative programming.

So instead of complaining about it, stop watching liberal programming. I bet that inside of a year you’d see some more conservative programs on TV.

Benaiah on October 17, 2006 at 12:14 PM

I’m with Mojave Mark above: Vent vs. View, CAT FIGHT!

All we’d need is for Michelle to crash the “View” studio and whap ol’ Rosie across the face a couple of times with a gauntlet while saying, “I say that you are an insolent bully, and I demand satisfaction!” Then throw the gauntlet on the floor.

Meantime, I’ve gotta move along here, before a merry-go-round vision of Julie, Kiran, Rebecca, Michelle et al keeps me from getting any work done at all.

Spurius Ligustinus on October 17, 2006 at 12:29 PM

All we’d need is for Michelle to crash the “View” studio and whap ol’ Rosie across the face a couple of times with a gauntlet while saying, “I say that you are an insolent bully, and I demand satisfaction!” Then throw the gauntlet on the floor.

Please, don’t let Big Rosie throw her weight around Michelle. We’d lose big if Big Rosie does that.

batperez on October 17, 2006 at 4:05 PM

I think we should all email O’Reilly to reciprocate with a visit to Hot Air’s ‘View’. If nothing else, he has a very negatve view of the blogosphere (due to hysterical attacks on him that go on all the time) and needs to see how it can be done right and with dignity.

Of course, if he won’t, I’d gladly line up alone without pads against any NFL offensive line for the same invitation (they’d have to shoot that interview in ICU, of course, but it’d be worth it :)

Mike O on October 18, 2006 at 12:20 AM

Thinkin’ Carville and Matlin of the blogoshere, here.

B Moe on October 17, 2006 at 1:52 AM

No way, KP isn’t a deranged lying nut like Carville.

RightWinged on October 18, 2006 at 10:07 PM