Going to elaborate on the statement from Reilly that I posted last night.
As a matter of logic, one of the following choices is true:
- Reilly flat-out lied about the feelings of his father-in-law because he realized that using him as an example would be strong support for his premise that white people have no business getting involved in fixing a problem that Native Americans don't seem to be jumping up and down over.
or ...
- Reilly had already determined that he was going to write a compelling, contrarian article about how the name of the Washington Redskins was not a big deal to people of Native American heritage, so when he discussed this with his father-in-law, he simply blocked out anything that did not fit with the narrative.
Given the way things have played out, I understand Reilly's reluctance to correct the record when confronted - he used his father-in-law as
the foundation of his entire point, and admitting that he wasn't just wrong, but
that he could not have given an impression of where his father-in-law stands that was at greater odds with reality is something that would have shattered his credibility. So he suppressed it and hoped his FiL would STFU. For someone who likes to think of himself as a journalist, that's like taking something that is as awful as you can imagine to your professional credibility and then taking it to the tenth power.
This is a long way of saying that I consider the statement that he released last night to be about the most self-serving fraudulent POS I've ever read.
Rev is right.
We need to forget this guy exists.