Friday, while in San Francisco to push his new book on the liberal conspiracy against Christmas, Fox News anchor John Gibson found himself defending recent murderous comments by Bill O'Reilly and Pat Robertson. I'm sure you all recall earlier last week when O'Reilly and Robertson wished death and destruction on towns who didn't vote the way they wanted. O'Reilly said that if he was President, he would tell al Qaida that they were free to blow as much of San Francisco as they wanted. This was brought on by San Franciscans voting to keep military recruiters out of the public schools. Robertson said that God would turn his back on Dover, PA because they had voted out a pro-Intelligent Design school board. According to Robertson, the Doverites should expect natural disasters and no heavenly mercy because they "voted God out of [their] city." Gibson said he was sure his friends meant their comments in the nicest possible way.
Of O'Reilly, Gibson said:
I can’t imagine Bill meant that. He goes to San Francisco all the time. He does shows from there. He has a good time there. I know he loves the city. I’m sure that’s not what he meant.
By then, O'Reilly had had two days to correct any misunderstanding that might have occurred over his words. He took that opportunity to stand by them. On the same day that Gibson was defending O'Reilly and in the same city where Gibson appeared, O'Reilly was on the radio saying:
HOST: First question, do you stand by what you said?
O’REILLY: Of course I do.
What I said isn’t controversial. What I said needed to be said. I’m sitting here and I’m looking at a city that has absolutely no clue of what the world is.
I don’t think they like the country. I don’t think these people like the country.
Gibson's defense of Robertson was not as firm, but had the advantage of being more correct.
Well, but the point is, Pat says a lot of things. And that’s Pat Robertson.
And then, like the pro he is, Gibson managed to turn the talk to the topic of his conspiracy book.
You talk to him about why he said a certain thing. I think that what a lot of this comes from, especially this declaring ordinary signs of the Christmas season to be religious symbols, and, therefore, have to be out of the public view, is animosity towards Christians because of political considerations. Because Christians are making arguments against abortion, or for intelligent design, or against gay marriage, and people are angry at them about those political positions, and they tend to transfer that over to the practice of the religion.
It seems Pat Robertson says vile things because Christmas-hating liberals have driven him over the edge (buy my book to find out more!). Or something like that. If you can make any more sense out of Gibson's defense, be sure to let me know.