Edwards vs. O’Reilly vs. Olbermann…
Quite a to do going on between John Edwards, Bill O’Reilly, and Keith Olbermann the past couple of days over the issue of homeless veterans. It started with O’Reilly criticizing Edwards’ stump speech about the number of homeless veterans in the country. ABC News’ Political Radar has a breakdown of that.
Last night, Keith Olbermann went after O’Reilly for criticizing Edwards’ claim. Here’s the video of that…
Olbermann Watch takes issue with the takedown…
I don’t think we’ve heard the last of this…
Why would O’Reilly even go down this path? With all the things to attack candidates about why would he choose one about the number of homeless veterans? Which he turns out to wrong about.
Comment by Steve — January 17, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Does anyone seriously believe (as Olbermann said at the beginning of his show last night) that “Bill O’Reilly hates veterans”? Yet another piece of slime by a piece of slime.
Comment by William — January 17, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
This is stupid Bill. Don’t pursue it. Bill has his veterans facts wrong and Keith is stupid too.
Comment by Aaron — January 17, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Someone explain BOR’s(subhuman filth) position to us. That the veteran’s organization that is citing the 195,000 figure is lying or that they are all sleeping on warm cots in homeless shelters instead of under bridges?
Comment by elmonica — January 17, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
It’s called they get the figure by asking homeless people… Who claim they are vets. Can you actually believe homeless people? Most of which are mentally ill. The homeless need to be institutionalized.
Comment by jmkaib — January 17, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Elmonica, do you even watch O’Reilly? Or do you just guzzle the Kool-Aide Olbermann gives you??? Why do you allow yourself to be swayed by Keith’s obsessive hatred? Start forming your OWN opinions.
Comment by John-O — January 17, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Perhaps they should just all shut up.
Comment by Liz — January 17, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
jmkaib can anyone actually belive you? no offence you do got a point that vets or even soilders who come back from these wars do become “mentally ill” some atualy need treatments to get used to living back in their normal lives
some cannot be treated and loose everything a war like this causes more divorces, troubles getting used to living in their normal lives instead of horrors from the “war zone”
if all else fails they loose everything and left sleeping homeless on the street
I aint making this up, i seen speicals done long time ago on stuff like this on many diffrent outlets
Comment by don — January 17, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
Okay, let’s actually do a little research here folks, and see what the facts ACTUALLY are.
The IAVA stands for “Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America” (in case you didn’t know). HOWEVER, according to the IAVA “Homeless Veterans Fact Sheet” (see: http://www.iava.org/learn-the-truth/what-we-do/homelessness-among-veterans) there are aproximately 400 homeless vets in their jurisdiction.
Let me say that again… there are an estimated 200,000 who identify themselves as “homeless vets” in the country at the moment… BUT, out of that number, only 400 are from the recent conflicts. That means the other (estimated) 199,600 are from Vietnam, Korea, the first Gulf War, etc.
To me… that seems like a bit of a high estimate.
Additionally, some of their other stats seems to be a little questionable. For example:
-They say, “Almost 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. More than 335,000 veterans were homeless over the course of 2006.” If that’s correct, what happened in 2007 for there to be 135,000 LESS by 2008? That’s a huge decrease, why such a dramatic change?
-According to the fact sheet, an “additional 1,000 OEF/OIF veterans” have been identified as “at risk” for homelessness. They don’t define what “at risk” means or how those stats are determined… except to say that “72,000 GWOT (Global War On Terror) veterans are paying over 50% of their income on rent” and that means they’re “highly vulnerable to homelessness.” Really? Half your income spent on rent means you’re “at risk?” Really? I had no idea I was bordering that “at risk” category… I just thought I had a nice place, and a decent job.
Bottom line… this is yet another “easy to spin” story for the O’Reilly haters. O’Reilly questions something, and because he doubts the stats (which have every right to be questioned) he’s the bad guy. He is right to question the stats, that’s freedom of speech people.
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 17, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Get an effing clue alert.
If I watch an opinion show at 5:00 I watch Olbermann, and I would bet money that my opinions are derived from a much wider range of source than the drones that watch Bill O’Reilly.
jmkaib, I get it now. Homeless people are lowlife scum who can’t be trusted.
Is there any doubt why I hate these people.
Comment by elmonica — January 17, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Elmo, from everything you’ve posted on this blog, you really only have two opinions… “Republicans/FOX News/Anyone-who-disagrees-with-me are stupid and terrible people who don’t deserve to be alive.” And, “See opinion number one. Lather, rinse, repeat.” So I’m not exactly sure how many sources it takes to get that opinion… I’m pretty sure you could limit yourself to Bazooka Joe comics, and still arrive at the same conclusion.
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 17, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
Well INB, I did do some research reading at the US Department of Veterans Affairs site and it certainly appears BOR is wrong on this. Yes, he has the right to doubt anything he wants but perhaps he should do some research before spouting off against what Edwards said?
Comment by myview — January 17, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
http://www1.va.gov/homeless/page.cfm?pg=1
INB there are government statistics and the exact page quoted by Keith.
Btw, INB on the IAVA website, it even has this graphic on the page you linked to http://www.iava.org/images/graphics_learn_the_truth/homelessstatistic.gif
INB about the 335,000 number, read the fact sheet footnote for that piece of information. ” In 2006, there were an estimated 336,637 veterans who were homeless at one point”
#5 What you say is stupid and outrageous. Obviously you must not trust the Census Bureau or any other government statistic. This fully discredits any argument you want to make since about only 1 in 5 homeless people suffer from severe mental illness.
Comment by Aaron — January 17, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
http://www1.va.gov/homeless/page.cfm?pg=1
INB there are government statistics and the exact page quoted by Keith.
Comment by Aaron — January 17, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Btw, INB on the IAVA website, it even has this graphic on the page you linked to http://www.iava.org/images/graphics_learn_the_truth/homelessstatistic.gif
INB about the 335,000 number, read the fact sheet footnote for that piece of information. ” In 2006, there were an estimated 336,637 veterans who were homeless at one point”
Comment by Aaron — January 17, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
#5 What you say is stupid and outrageous. Obviously you must not trust the Census Bureau or any other government statistic. This fully discredits any argument you want to make since about only 1 in 5 homeless people suffer from severe mental illness.
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Whois.pdf
Comment by Aaron — January 17, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Seems Bathtub Boy is more fixated on Bill O. than he is on getting help for our veterans…Not surprised though! HEY, Bathtub boy, either shut-up or lend a hand!
How can a guy so brilliant be so stupid?
P.S. Where did he get the nickname “bathtub boy”?
Bill, the ball’s in your court..respond.
Comment by A.M. — January 17, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
I am veteran, my husband is a veteran. I’ve been in multiple war-zones. My husband spent 2 christmases in Iraq.
I have a diagnosis of ptsd. My husband doesn’t realize it yet - but he probably does too.
All that said - the VA tells me I’m 100% disabled - and that since we don’t have a years’ worth of expenses in the bank - I am at high risk to be homeless.
I actually had one nurse tell me I should divorce my husband because spousal income can be considered in claims. Um, I’m not making any claims. I work part time and freelance.
The VA is so full of left wing anti-everything wanna be do-gooders I have little polite to say about the civilian staffers.
And I have no respect for any statistics they generate.
grrrrrr.
And that said - Oreily is frequently wrong on things military.
Comment by daubermaus — January 17, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
Okay, Aaron… looking at the first link you sent, I have to assume the number is true. Very high… surprisingly high… but I have no reason to doubt it.
HOWEVER… this whole story is being put in the context of how many homeless vets there are right now, with an implied line of false logic that those are the number from THIS CURRENT conflict. Especially when numbers like that come from the IAVA. But that’s not true… according to the fact sheet only 400 of the total homeless vet population come from GWOT.
And I did see the footnote for the 2006 stat… but that doesn’t answer the question. At one point in 2006 there were 135,000 more homeless vets than there are now. That’s a 40% less between now and then! So what caused it? And isn’t that a good thing?
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 17, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
INB: Implied line of false logic? It doesn’t take an Einstein to know he was talking about homeless veterans as a whole not from this conflict only.
Comment by myview — January 17, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
The homeless need help, no doubt. What they need is mental help. They need substance abuse help. The gov’t ought to do more to help our veterans who come back. But most of the homeless vets right now are from other conflicts other than Iraq. What many in the MSM are trying to do is tie that huge statistic with the Iraq war. We need to help end poverty, but instead of that, many people are using the homeless to make a cheap political point.
Comment by jmkaib — January 17, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
People ar always playing games with homeless numbers..so it’s no surprise that the Sliky Pony would be doing it after all if he’s willing to exploit his Wife’s cancer for political gain why not play games with Homeless Vets.
As for KO he’s only using this to bash O’Reilly and to suggest that Bill doesn’t care about Vets is a joke …O’Reilly has gone to Iraq and Afghanistan a couple of times to visit them while old Bathtub boy KO stays in his studio waiting for his next talking point memo from Clinton’s Media Matters.
If KO wants to really get outrage about something..howabout the New York Times slamming our Vets by trying to suggest that returning Vets are turning into mass murders because about a hundred of them have been involved in murders since coming back….even though those numbers make up only 1% of all returning vets the Times is trying to suggest their all blood thirsty Killers…theres your outrage KO.
Back to the Homeless it’s funny during the 80’s and early 90’s all we heard about was the Homeless during the Reagan and Bush 1 days but as soon as Clinton became President nothing..then when Bush 2 took over their was concern about them again..as if there suddely was no Homeless problem for 8 years then suddely it started again..LOL!!!…so it’s never been about the Homeless it’s about attacking Republicans….by the way how many homeless has Ol’John invited into his Mansion anyway?
Comment by mlong — January 17, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
lol myview, I remember you were spouting off about something on BOR and the funny thing was the link was right there for you to click to find the truth.
Want me to dig up the post?
and Aaron, you said GWB stole the 2000 elections but from all the reports, recounts, studies, it showed GWB winning. So now you trust all these studies and statistics but not the one for GWB?
Comment by Lurker — January 17, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
If KO wants to really get outrage about something..howabout the New York Times slamming our Vets by trying to suggest that returning Vets are turning into mass murders because about a hundred of them have been involved in murders since coming back….even though those numbers make up only 1% of all returning vets the Times is trying to suggest their all blood thirsty Killers…theres your outrage KO.
Nice smear. The times did no such think all they did was note, with respect, the effects of deployment on service members over the last 6 years. And one of them has been an increase in different forms of murder as compared to the previous 6 years. How you can spin that into slamming the vets is astounding.
Comment by Steve — January 17, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
or that they are all sleeping on warm cots in homeless shelters instead of under bridges?
Elmonica: Didn’t the New York Times tell us that these vets were busy committing crimes?
BTW, I’m not surprised that you were conveniently absent around here while MSNBC went to a judge to prevent Dennis Kucinich from participating in the Nevada debate.
Maybe you were too busy spitting on Fox News in defense of Ron Paul.
Comment by Ira — January 17, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
^
OMG!!! This guy is really drinking the kool-aid….. lol
Comment by Lurker — January 17, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
As someone who spend 18 years working with homeless teens, the number of near 200,000 seems low because I worked with that population. It’s made up of people who are crashing on couches of relatives, people who live in their car, people who are what we think of as “traditional” homeless.
But to paint them all with the mentally ill brush is the same as saying that everyone who watches Fox News works for the Republican Party. Yeah, some do, but not the majority. And if this controversy gets some focus on the problem, it would be great. It’s not that it “went away” in the 90’s, it’s that people got tired of it and moved on to something else.
Comment by Cory!! Strode — January 17, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
No Lurker that is quite alright.I do remember the incident but what the heck does that have to do with this???
Comment by myview — January 17, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
Lurker:Oh never mind answering I got what you were trying to say.Hardly the same thing..me spouting off here and O’Reilly doing that on TV. Also way back then at least I admitted I hadn’t checked out that specific link.:)
Comment by myview — January 17, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
Steve and others: Just watched the segment.
O’Reilly does not question the 195,000 homeless figure but with Edwards’ assertion that these numbers are caused by the economy.
If you missed the segment, watch the O’Reilly Factor replays and get some needed education.
Comment by Ira — January 17, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Ira:So he didn’t say this last night?
“O’REILLY: They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK. So, if you know where there is a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it.”
Comment by myview — January 17, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Tonight’s talking point was about last night - he clarified…..
1st time I’ve watched him in a few years - hasn’t changed much, but my channel did ifter the talking points….
Comment by daubermaus — January 17, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
#18 INB…What you say is true about the false logic.
Also, about the 135,000 at one point in 2006. While I was searching earlier I came across some govt. stat bout how one night people can be “considered homeless” and the next night not. It seems that there is no reliable number but the current 200,000. Also, 72k GWOT vets are paying 50%/more on rent so that leaves them at considerable risk. If someone wants to accurately measure the GWOT vets then we would ahve to wait until at least 2010 minimum to build a database of reliable statistics on that.
Comment by Aaron — January 17, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
Steve and others: Just watched the segment.
O’Reilly does not question the 195,000 homeless figure but with Edwards’ assertion that these numbers are caused by the economy.
If you missed the segment, watch the O’Reilly Factor replays and get some needed education.
Yeah who are we going to believe you or our lying eyes and ears. O’Reilly has now twice denied the facts. The first time saying
“That was Edwards’ concession speech last night. I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy’s brain. ”
Then the next time after Ed Schultz brought up Edwards making that same statement O’Reilly replied
“BO: Well, we’re still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed. So if you find anybody, let us know. Because that’s all the guy said for the last
ES: Well, they’re out there, Bill. Don’t kid yourself.
BO: They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK?”
So first he implies that Edwards is out of his mind fot stating that fact, then he says maybe there are homeless veterans but nowhere near that number so Edwards is lying. So yeah he did question the number, so maybe you should watch the segment again and get some education.
Now what’s the next line of spin going to be? That the clips of the Fox News website are actually put there by evil secular liberal bloggers designed to make O’Reilly look bad?
Comment by Steve — January 17, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
When you get right down to the core of the issue, O’Reilly doesn’t believe Edwards because he’s a Dem, and because what he’s saying makes us look bad. And it does make us look bad.
Comment by Arthur — January 17, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
BOR doesn’t believe Edwards primarily due to Edwards continued use of class warfare.
Comment by Rich — January 17, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
Arthur: I don’t understand your post.
Please read my #30 again or maybe just watch the re-air. O’Reilly does not question the number, just Edwards’ implied reasoning.
Aaron: It would be nice if we had annual statistics going back about 20 years. I think it would prove that the number of homeless vets has little to do with the national economy.
Comment by Ira — January 17, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
This latest disgusting screwup by O’Reilly just proves that no matter how low the smear, the right will rally around whatever LimPbaugh or Orally is responsible for their latest embarassment. Truly sad.
Comment by Shaun — January 17, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
Yes, it is truly sad that we don’t unthinkingly buy into every smear thrown out by the left. I’ll cry myself to sleep over that one. I’ll also readily admit that O’Reilly seldom admits when he is wrong(Shawn Hornbeck, anyone?).
Sounds to me as though he made a flat statement last night to the effect that such people don’t exist, and then ‘revised and extended’ it tonight. All too common with him.
Comment by laural — January 18, 2008 @ 12:03 am
Here’s a question, maybe one of our resident Homeless experts can answer for me.
The statistics they’re using, I wonder if they’re a little over zealous in their counting. After all, an organization that’s designed to deal with a problem, looses their money if the problem goes away, or if the problem appears to be insignificant.
Here’s a theory… a lot of younger people go off to fight in the army, when they left they were living with their families, and when they return… they’re living back with their families. Now, technically, they have no home to their name… they don’t (necessarily) pay rent, although they do have a place to sleep. Are they considered homeless?
It’s like when someone graduates college, but before they get a real job. I know I lived with my folks for a few months… I guess I was technically homeless (if they wanted to kick me out, there was nothing I could do or say to stop them), but far from living on the streets.
Anyone know if those people are considered in those statistics?
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 18, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
ImNotBlue,
No, they aren’t, if they list their parent’s home as their permanent address. A Homeless person is someone without a permanent address. For example, a college student who can’t afford to live in the dorm and stays in different friends’ houses during the week is technically homeless.
The stereotype of a Hobo who lives under s bridge warming themsevles up by a burning garbage can is rarely reflected in reality. I didn’t comment on the O’Reilly clip because I hadn’t seen it, but now that I’ve seen the segment, it’s clear that he thinks of homeless people as that stereotype which is bad form for a journalist (but right on par for a opinion -based host), and he shoudl be issuing corrections and explanation rather than blustering through claiming he’s right and everyone else is wrong without offering up any facts as to WHY the established facts and stats are wrong.
Most homeless teens just don’t have a place to stay, and go to a shelter or a friend’s house (most call it couch surfing). Another example is when a family is evicted and stay with a series of relatives is considered homeless, but if they stay in single home with relatives (moving back in with mom, sharing a home with a sibling) they aren’t considered homeless.
From the worker’s end, the hardest part for a homeless person is the insecurity and instability of not knowing where they will be able to spend the night, nor having a single place an employer can contact them.
Comment by Cory!! Strode — January 18, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
AP story today about homelessness among veterans:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080119/ap_on_re_us/homeless_on_the_homefront
It sounds like Iraqi war vets are having the same psychological problems returning vietnam war vets had only sooner and worse, because of the neverending multiple deployments.
Comment by Arthur — January 19, 2008 @ 6:00 pm