Ron Paul, Bill O'Reilly, 15 Rounds, Bare-Knuckled

David Weigel | September 10, 2007

Set your Tivos to "stun" as Ron Paul appears on the O'Reilly Factor, tonight at 8 p.m. ET. I am taking kickbacks from neither the Paul campaign nor Fox News. I just expect this to be really entertaining.

UPDATE: The video.

Here's O'Reilly with Mitt Romney and with George Bush. See which of these three guys he broke out the knives for.

Comments

|9.10.07 @ 5:47PM|#

I simply expect this to be really entertaining.

Kind of like mud wrestling is entertaining.

severin|9.10.07 @ 5:49PM|#

I expect Paul will clean O'Rielly's clock. But then expect once Ron Paul is off the screen, Bill will rant for 10 minutes uncontridicted about why Ron is wrong on everything!

anon|9.10.07 @ 5:51PM|#

DVR set. Thanks for the heads up.

(Also, if any one is interested micheal moore vs john stossel part II is this friday).

|9.10.07 @ 5:53PM|#

Don't be surprised if Bill O'Reilly engages in anti-intellectual cheap shots and non sequitur.

|9.10.07 @ 5:55PM|#

I'm popping corn!

iih|9.10.07 @ 5:57PM|#

Don't be surprised if Bill O'Reilly engages in anti-intellectual cheap shots and non sequitur.

This Rick is guaranteed. I am sure RP will have his guns ready, because big Billy will.

|9.10.07 @ 6:01PM|#

Paul will try and make his points, O'Reilly will shout him down and interrupt him every time he speaks, and then give a smug little closing one-liner to show the TV audience out there that he's right.

(then again, I still think that O'Reilly plays a character and doesn't believe what he says. Like Stephen Colbert, only not as funny)

iih|9.10.07 @ 6:08PM|#

(then again, I still think that O'Reilly plays a character and doesn't believe what he says. Like Stephen Colbert, only not as funny)

They all are. That is why I am now more inclined not to hate their (O'Rielly, Malkin, Severin, Limbaugh) guts as much -- just despise their choice of profession.

|9.10.07 @ 6:12PM|#

Well, Dr. Paul will be somewhere else via satellite, and O'Reilly will use 2-second gap in communications to answer his own questions before RP can even respond. I think they do that on purpose sometimes.

He'll talk over him, and most likely be a jerk.

It's too bad, because I don't mind the neo-con media most often. But their hatred of Ron Paul shows their true colors more and more. "Fair and Balanced" my ass.

RP will show up with the facts, but the facts don't matter when you've got a war to promote.

|9.10.07 @ 6:15PM|#

Ron Paul manhandled Morton Downey, he should have no trouble with the O'Reilly Divisor.

VM|9.10.07 @ 6:20PM|#

do they have any overlap of beliefs (e.g., immigration, etc.)?

Edward|9.10.07 @ 6:22PM|#

In the broader scheme of things, this encounter will be like two characters from Alice in Wonderland squaring off. The Mad Hatter and the Cheshire Cat?

Anonymo the Anonymous|9.10.07 @ 6:31PM|#

I think the relevant analogy is the old saw about wrestling with a pig: you both get dirty, but only the pig enjoys it.

JBinMO|9.10.07 @ 6:32PM|#

Papa Bear will tear into Ron Paul and then use it as evidence, to say that because he went after a republican he is "fair and Ballanced".

|9.10.07 @ 6:34PM|#

Of course O'Reilly will be dishonest and cheap. The question is whether Paul can fight back and expose his cheap dishonesty for what it is.

I predict Ron Paul will, very likely, clean Bill O'Reilly's clock.

O'Reilly will either not realize that he's been pwned, or will pretend not to notice, and end up claiming victory.

M|9.10.07 @ 6:41PM|#

do they have any overlap of beliefs (e.g., immigration, etc.)?

They both agree that evil is bad, but they disagree as to what constitutes evil.

|9.10.07 @ 6:45PM|#

joe,

I've no doubt Ron Paul will win the argument, just like he won his back-and-forths with Giuliani and Huckabee in the debates.

The question is, will the audience perceive him as winning the argument? Knowing the audience, I don't think so.

Franklin Harris|9.10.07 @ 6:59PM|#

The question is, will the audience perceive him as winning the argument? Knowing the audience, I don't think so.

Then it will end up on YouTube, where the right audience will find it, anyway.

|9.10.07 @ 7:14PM|#

Prediction--while Paul talks about how the war in Iraq is wrong and how American involvement in the Middle East does more harm than good, Bill O will switch the camera from Ron Paul's face to video of angry Muslims burning American flags.

|9.10.07 @ 7:17PM|#

I haven't watched O'Reilly in a while. In which block do they do the interviews? I don' know if I can sit through a whole "No Spin Zone."

|9.10.07 @ 7:23PM|#

I can't wait for Dr. Paul to lay the thoughtful and articulate verbal beat down Mr. O'Reilly so richly deserves.

Fluffy|9.10.07 @ 7:25PM|#

Can you guys liveblog it? I don't think I can bear to watch it in real time.

|9.10.07 @ 7:30PM|#

I've been waiting for Keith Olberman to acknowledge Ron Paul since they have some much common ground on constitutional issues.

This is his chance. Just about every night Olberman highlights O'Reilly in his "Worst Person in the World" Segment. Set your Tivo for Olberman's show tomorrow.

|9.10.07 @ 7:41PM|#

Set your Tivos to "stun"

I thought that phrase was reserved for Kerry Howley appearances.

|9.10.07 @ 8:02PM|#

Ron Paul is to Bill O'Reilly as Richard Feynman is to a box turtle.

|9.10.07 @ 8:12PM|#

Not great for Paul, but not too bad either.

8 pm eastern time is pretty cool for a third tier candidate, tho!!

Thomas Blair|9.10.07 @ 8:12PM|#

Trying to debate anything with Bill O'Reilly is like stapling your man-parts to the floor. Sure, you could do it, but what's the point?

And this "interview" does nothing to buck that trend.

iih|9.10.07 @ 8:13PM|#

Now that I watched... RP should have refused to show up on Fox. But if he had appeared on CNN or other networks, he would have been accused of being a democrat in GOP disguise had he not appeared on Fox. O'Rielly is O'Rielly -- an idiot.

sage|9.10.07 @ 8:15PM|#

Before I read any comments, I happened to see this posted and ran downstairs only to catch the last 30 seconds of the interview. Sigh...Then I ran back up here and sent this to [e-mail]:

Dear Bill,

Your show is hilarious! I don't actually watch it, except for the snippets I happen to see on this other "news" show. It's got a Jewish guy hosting it....what's it called? I forget, it's on "daily." Anyway, keep up the work!

signed,

me



So...how'd it go?

|9.10.07 @ 8:15PM|#

Prediction--while Paul talks about how the war in Iraq is wrong and how American involvement in the Middle East does more harm than good, Bill O will switch the camera from Ron Paul's face to video of angry Muslims burning American flags.

Holy shit, Cesar, you a producer for Fox or just a B.O. fan?

Thomas Blair|9.10.07 @ 8:16PM|#

sage,

How'd it go? It was a joke. If you aren't cut from the same ideological cloth as O'Reilly, you cannot get a word in edgewise.

Fluffy|9.10.07 @ 8:17PM|#

That was the biggest waste of a segment I've ever seen.

The segment would have lost nothing if Bill just showed a picture of Paul's face and talked at it for ten minutes.

Why bother to ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer?

|9.10.07 @ 8:18PM|#

In the interview he's conducting right now with Michelle Malkin, O'Reilly referred in passing to the "Democratic party," and Malkin immediately said, as if correcting him, "the Democrat party." Give O'Reilly credit for least knowing how to speak standard English.

|9.10.07 @ 8:20PM|#

Holy shit, Cesar, you a producer for Fox or just a B.O. fan?

I watch him either when someone interesting is on or when I'm drunk. But the times I have watched, he always seems to pull something like this.

If the guest is against the war, he shows videos of angry Muslims burning American flags or videos of ANSWER protestors.

If the guest is for a more liberal immigration policy, he shows videos of shirtless hispanics holding Mexican flags.

Etc, etc.

|9.10.07 @ 8:25PM|#

They all are. That is why I am now more inclined not to hate their (O'Rielly, Malkin, Severin, Limbaugh) guts as much -- just despise their choice of profession.

Q: What's the difference between a political commentator and a prostitute?

A: There are some things a prostitute won't do for money...

Bob|9.10.07 @ 8:46PM|#

I thought the Congressman more than held his own against Billy O.

|9.10.07 @ 8:47PM|#

What's the difference between a political commentator and a prostitute?

Same shit, different piles.

|9.10.07 @ 8:53PM|#

O'Reilly referred in passing to the "Democratic party," and Malkin immediately said, as if correcting him, "the Democrat party." Give O'Reilly credit for least knowing how to speak standard English.

...or perhaps Malkin was tacitly admitting the imperial ambitions of the neo-con controlled Republican party.

Fluffy|9.10.07 @ 8:55PM|#

I thought it was interesting that O'Reilly considers Iraq old news, and only wants to talk about the merits of an attack on IRAN.

Consider that carefully. Paul is now an anti-American extremist, according to Fox News, because he does not want war with IRAN.

That's how far the internal Republican debate has moved. They have decided that Potemkin Petraeus and his fucking puppet show means that they don't have to justify the Iraq war any more, and that the playing field has now shifted to Iran.

iih|9.10.07 @ 9:02PM|#

Fluffy:

I thought that MoveOn.org's "Betray Us" very well done indeed. Of all people GWB could have chosen, he chose a person with the name Petraeus, err, Betray Us.

|9.10.07 @ 9:23PM|#

I thought that phrase was reserved for Kerry Howley appearances.

That would be "set your TiVos to 'stunning.'"

|9.10.07 @ 9:32PM|#

The "Democrat Party"? Why do so many in the Grand Old Pervert party channel Joe McCarthy's schtick?

|9.10.07 @ 9:46PM|#

The one point I would like to see made regarding the Bush Doctrine is what a truly cowardly policy preemptive war is; like the biggest, baddest kid in school terrified of a big-mouthed runt who makes threats he can't realistically carry out, we have decided it is better to betray a basic principle of "just war" to keep (insert Middle-Eastern country or faction here) from attacking us with a weapon we know they don't have...

|9.10.07 @ 9:49PM|#

Andrew had it called right.What a joke!Bill O'Reilly is nothing but an obnoxious asshole!

|9.10.07 @ 9:57PM|#

Does anyone have a youtube link? I searched, but have found nothing.

|9.10.07 @ 10:02PM|#

LewRockwell has the clip up on his/their blog.

Jay D|9.10.07 @ 10:18PM|#

Bill don't need to know any stinkin' history.

|9.10.07 @ 10:35PM|#

Here here, Jay D.

The money quote: "We don't need a history lesson."

That is the most apt slogan for Fox News I've seen yet. It captures the network's corporate and viewership mindset perfectly.

I would love to see O'Reilly on the receiving end of a curbjob someday not too far off.

robc|9.10.07 @ 10:39PM|#

Republicans are members of the Republican Party.
Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party.
Communists are members of the Communist Party.
Greens are members of the Green Party.

Therefore, following standard rules and understanding that English is a consistent language with very few exceptions:

Democrats are members of the Democrat Party.

If you are going to be the exception, you cant be mad when people screw it up.

Ray G|9.10.07 @ 10:42PM|#

I think they're both morons. It'd be like watching two retarded children fist fight. Oh that humanity. . .

Franklin Harris|9.10.07 @ 10:42PM|#

Therefore, following standard rules and understanding that English is a consistent language with very few exceptions...

Except that no one claims English is a consistent language with very few exceptions. It is loaded with exceptions, which is why it is one of the hardest languages for non-native speakers to learn.

|9.10.07 @ 10:46PM|#

If the guest is for a more liberal immigration policy, he shows videos of shirtless hispanics holding Mexican flags.

Mexican Girls Gone Wild?

|9.10.07 @ 10:55PM|#

Normally, O'Reilly is a clown whose arguments are pathetic. Tonight, however (and unfortunately), Paul looked hopelessly naive and out of touch.

I donated to Paul's campaign. Then I saw Lew Rockwell show up at his campaign events, and now he's losing debates to Bill freaking O'Reilly.

The wheels are coming off...

|9.10.07 @ 10:58PM|#

"If you are going to be the exception, you cant be mad when people screw it up."

Screwing it up is something that happens by accident. Calling it the "Democrat Party" is some kind of solidarity with the uninformed, like people who say NOOK-yoo-ler.

|9.10.07 @ 11:00PM|#

I just find it odd that Democrats get so annoyed by being called the "Democrat Party". Whats the big deal?

anon|9.10.07 @ 11:07PM|#

Is it just me, or is there is a certain perverse logic to oreilly's argument. something like, history is irrelevant therefore we should make the same mistakes in iran we made in iraq (albeit on a grander scale). truly, he takes the art of douchbaggery to new levels.

Untermensch|9.10.07 @ 11:22PM|#

I thought that MoveOn.org's "Betray Us" very well done indeed. Of all people GWB could have chosen, he chose a person with the name Petraeus, err, Betray Us.

Actually, I think the reason for choosing Patraeus is his name: it sounds like he was there with his steely gaze when Caesar strode across the Rubicon to bring his wrath down upon Italy. It sounds like he was there leading the legions into Germania to bring Roman civilization to the unenlightened. Heck, I could even see an SUV called the Patraeus that fords mighty rivers...

"Betray us" is kinda clever, but nowhere near as good as the tough, resolute Latinate sound of his name.

|9.10.07 @ 11:33PM|#

now he's losing debates to Bill freaking O'Reilly.

I thought a debate featured points of view from more than one person.

Miggs|9.10.07 @ 11:39PM|#

Edward | September 10, 2007, 6:22pm | #

In the broader scheme of things, this encounter will be like two characters from Alice in Wonderland squaring off. The Mad Hatter and the Cheshire Cat?

-----------------------

Edward | August 31, 2007, 2:48pm | #

Wow, no sympathy at all for a man suffering the ravages of chemo therapy, but pious reverence for a dead crackpot like Aaron Russo. I'm glad I decided to stop posting in this psycho ward.

|9.11.07 @ 12:03AM|#

"I just find it odd that Democrats get so annoyed by being called the 'Democrat Party'. Whats the big deal?"

Would you want to admit that your party is full of Democrats?

The Wine Commonsewer|9.11.07 @ 12:15AM|#

Tacos wins the thread.

Stunning. Indeed. Nicely said.

{ducks a slap from Mrs TWC]

Derrick Miller|9.11.07 @ 12:18AM|#

It's really OK, nobody takes O'Reilly seriously. I personally feel sorry for him. It's gotta be lonely when you're that big of a dick.

Paul wasted his time going on the show because of course he wasn't able to get his points across. But, it's a good sign that he was invited on. There's word of CNN showing interest in him as well. It seems like the MSM is starting to take him a little more seriously.

SxCx|9.11.07 @ 12:23AM|#

Man, I wish Ron would make other people spell out THEIR logic for a change. Ron explained himself as fully, yet O'Reilly was never brought to task on why he thinks that sieging Iran will make terrorists less interested in killing Americans.

That's why these "debates" often play out as a mere interrogation.

|9.11.07 @ 12:24AM|#

Q: What's the difference between a political commentator and a prostitute?

A competent prostitute will swallow what's put in her mouth - a political commentator wants his listeners to swallow what comes out of his mouth.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.11.07 @ 12:26AM|#

RP smote O'Reilley over Afghanistan.

|9.11.07 @ 12:28AM|#

i don't see how people could watch that and say that there is a winner or loser in that exchange. to do so, we would have to quantify talking points and one liners. we shouldn't expect much from 5 minute segments. what i do know is that, when bill o'reilly presents ron paul with the situation with iran, ron paul tells us that his foreign policy for the future is that neo-con policy was wrong in the past. though that may satisfy our rhetorical sensibilities it does not answer the original question.

Eric Dondero|9.11.07 @ 12:32AM|#

Polls matter.

Latest Gallup/USA Today - Ron Paul at 1%. That's down from 3% in August.

That spat with Huckabee apparently didn't help him any.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.11.07 @ 12:45AM|#

Eric, I was just looking at your site. I'm confused. You list Dana as an elected libertarian but you seem to think Ron Paul is a dog. Is that a misperception on my part?

Ditto for friend of Reason, Ed Royce.

Franklin Harris|9.11.07 @ 1:10AM|#

Eric, I was just looking at your site. I'm confused.

Not to worry. That's a natural reaction.

|9.11.07 @ 1:15AM|#

All of Ron Paul's arguments can never beat Bill O'Reilly's fear.

Video of Muslims burning American flags makes us scared. It really should make us wonder why we think we stand a chance of building democracies in these countries under our current policies.

K.|9.11.07 @ 1:18AM|#

Wow, Bill O'Reilly is a *huuuuuuge* dick. He's like that drunk loudmouth uncle you wish you could just slap.

|9.11.07 @ 1:22AM|#

"O'Reilly is a *huuuuuuge* dick"

I wonder if Andrea Mackris would concur.

It really is regrettable that she took the money to shut up. That asshole's career should have ended in 2004.

-jcr

Edward|9.11.07 @ 1:34AM|#

Latest Gallup/USA Today - Ron Paul at 1%. That's down from 3% in August.

If somehow the Paul camp can keep more people from finding out what Ron Paul's positions actually are, it might just stop the slide and turn this thing around. That could be the strategy behind having him appear on the Bill O'Reilly show. If so, it shows that the Paul people know what they're doing. If Ron Paul is going to get the nomination and win the presidency, he's going to have to do it under the radar. Keep the faith!

|9.11.07 @ 2:37AM|#

Bill O'Reilly: "Hey, I don't need to know no stinkin' history."

Once you fall into the frame of a debate like this, where the frame is that you must suddenly ignore all relevant context, then you've lost. I thought Paul did a good job of avoiding this frame up to a point but then when O'Reilly says "You're not answering the question," I think this is where it would have been good to point out that the question is ill-formed, inappropriate, and or fails to get at the root of the problem.

|9.11.07 @ 3:15AM|#

Kind of like mud wrestling is entertaining.

Someone owes an apology to America's mudwrestling community.

|9.11.07 @ 3:52AM|#

In Austin saturday, a bunch of students were out working the football game crowd with Ron Paul signs/ shirt. No other candidate was represented. Glad to see it.

|9.11.07 @ 5:10AM|#

See which of these three guys he broke out the knives for.

It's an honor for Ron Paul, a good capitalism, and other liberties, loving ethical guy who values peace to be disliked by O'Reilly.

Jerry|9.11.07 @ 6:26AM|#

This just goes to show again that the right, like the left, has it PC trumpeters. The line is just different.

|9.11.07 @ 8:58AM|#

I was disappointed that Ron Paul didn't have an answer to O'Reily's question about Iran giving nukes to terrorists. He could have said that it would be stupid for Iran to invest billions of dollars on a single nuke only to give it to terrorists. Iran needs it for defense against the US and Israel. The US and Israel will be less likely to attack Iran if it has retaliatory nukes for the same reason we don't attack North Korea.

Also, I understand that nukes have "fingerprints". If a terrorist attacked us with a nuke, we could trace back its source to Iran. Iran wouldn't want to do anything to cause the US to retaliate in kind.

|9.11.07 @ 8:59AM|#

Therefore, following standard rules and understanding that English is a consistent language with very few exceptions: Democrats are members of the Democrat Party.

First of all, bwahaha! at the assertion that English is a consistent language with few exceptions. Second, if we had to be consistent, we should call members of the entity whose legal name is "The Democratic Party" Democratics, not the other way around.

I just find it odd that Democrats get so annoyed by being called the "Democrat Party". Whats the big deal?

I don't know, Kaiser.

|9.11.07 @ 9:10AM|#

Deliberately mispronouncing someone's name is rude. It's something you do to be a dick.

Ed, I'd like you to meet my boyfriend, Russ.

Hi, Ross. How's it going?

Fine. It's Russ, actually.

So, Ross, how'd you meet Mary?

Huh? Um, actually, it's Russ.

Whatever you say, ROSS.



It's something a jerk does, in order to be a jerk.

Fluffy|9.11.07 @ 9:12AM|#

"ron paul tells us that his foreign policy for the future is that neo-con policy was wrong in the past."

Actually, this IS an answer.

There is zero historical evidence that Islamic terrorists will be interested in attacking a United States that doesn't intervene in the internal politics of Middle Eastern states and doesn't hand Israel a new stick every time it breaks one over an Arab. Zero.

It is every bit as reasonable for Paul to assert that there won't be a terrorism problem to deal with after he changes US foreign policy as it is for O'Reilly to assert demented "24" scenarios where states hand off nukes to the Avon Lady.

|9.11.07 @ 9:34AM|#

I thought the strangest part was how O'RLY kept trying to get Paul to say he "feared" Iran. O'RLY made it clear that he's pee-pee pants afraid of the guys in Tehran.

Untermensch|9.11.07 @ 9:40AM|#

Eric, I was just looking at your site. I'm confused.

Not to worry. That's a natural reaction.

No kidding. That site is terrible: nothing to orient you or tell you what Dondero is doing. What's the picture of the bald guy have to do with anything? Looks totally old-skool, like a site from 1995 or so.

Dondero, I'm afraid Ron Paul's site is much better, so if you're putting yourself forward as the anti-Paul, you should invest in your site a little more...

|9.11.07 @ 9:58AM|#

I just want to know why Edward is still here. Edward, why don't you keep your promises?

/just askin'

|9.11.07 @ 10:27AM|#

Dondero comes in to remind us where Paul stands in polls...also reminds me why I'll shoot myself in the foot before I vote for Guliani.

With supporters like those, who needs opponents.

Edward|9.11.07 @ 10:31AM|#

Bronwyn

I have no fucking self-control.

dhex|9.11.07 @ 10:39AM|#

i'm fairly cynical, but even i flinched when o'ryl said "we don't need a history lesson here."

|9.11.07 @ 10:50AM|#

"""I was disappointed that Ron Paul didn't have an answer to O'Reily's question about Iran giving nukes to terrorists."""

Iran has nothing to give, Pakistan is a different story. If you're afraid Islam may get the bomb, you're a few year behind the times. It's already a reality.

Don't let O'Reilly fool you, if thought there was a real nuclear threat, he wouldn't work in Manhatan. It's like a story Glenn Beck was running a while ago. He said he has a reliable source that a nuke was already in the US and heading to NYC. If Glenn Beck really belived that he would get the hell out of NYC. You would be king of the stupids to die by a bomb you know was here.

Attacking Iran is a stupid move anyway. It will make a greater mess of Iraq and screw up what little gains we have made. It will give us a bigger footprint in the Mid-East and give the appearence that we are attacking the Muslim world. It would be the best recruiting tool AQ could ever wish for. If O'Reilly hates terrorist, why would he back actions that would increase their ranks?

|9.11.07 @ 11:01AM|#

"If O'Reilly hates terrorist, why would he back actions that would increase their ranks?"

I don't think it's a case of O'Reilly hating terrorism, it's more a case of him liking war. The war mongers need an enemy. The Muslims have taken the place of the Commies.

|9.11.07 @ 11:05AM|#

Bill O'Reilly keeps blabbing about not pulling our troops out of the theater while Iran is a threat, but he never once says what the troops should accomplish there...as if mere presence of foot soldiers near a threat makes America safer. New Flash, BOR: it's the aircraft carriers that perform that function, jackass.

And Iran is not going to give nukes to terrorists because then terrorists would have significant leverage against Iran.

|9.11.07 @ 11:14AM|#

"And Iran is not going to give nukes to terrorists because then terrorists would have significant leverage against Iran."

Good point, Lamar.

|9.11.07 @ 12:13PM|#

O'Reilly should simply dispense with having guests--he would have several more minutes per show to bloviate.

Having said that, Ron Paul doesn't do very well on television. He wants to deliver thoughtful, sophisticated answers on a medium in which you're lucky to be able to delivery a five-second soundbite effectively. And that's on a normal show with a normal host, not a raging egomaniac.

|9.11.07 @ 12:15PM|#

As to the substance of the "debate", RP's best knockout punch would have been to point out that O'Reilly's answer to the Iraqi quagmire is to start another quagmire nearby. Yeah, that'll fix the problem.

K.|9.11.07 @ 12:46PM|#

Having said that, Ron Paul doesn't do very well on television. He wants to deliver thoughtful, sophisticated answers on a medium in which you're lucky to be able to delivery a five-second soundbite effectively. And that's on a normal show with a normal host, not a raging egomaniac.

I think you nailed it. Paul looks smart everytime I saw him speak at length (search on youtube for his speech at Google), and he seemed unconvincing on almost all occasions when he only had a few seconds to make his point (debates, short interviews).

Kurt|9.11.07 @ 2:01PM|#

It's odd that "reason" readers would be confused about Paul not answering false alternative interrogatives "directly." Answering ANY of the questions O'Reilly voiced would be like answering "Do you still beat your wife?"

I loved when Paul stated that the CIA says it will be 10 years before Iran has nuclear capability. O'Reilly interrupted him to point out that "everybody" says it will be five and went on to the next non-question.

Kurt|9.11.07 @ 2:03PM|#

"We don't need a history lesson" is the only quote anybody is going to remember from this exchange. Thanks for that, Bill.

|9.11.07 @ 2:15PM|#

"I think you nailed it. Paul looks smart everytime I saw him speak at length (search on youtube for his speech at Google), and he seemed unconvincing on almost all occasions when he only had a few seconds to make his point (debates, short interviews)."

And O'Reily makes it all the more difficult by constantly interupting his guests and not allowing them to make their points.

|9.11.07 @ 2:17PM|#

It's odd that "reason" readers would be confused about Paul not answering false alternative interrogatives "directly." Answering ANY of the questions O'Reilly voiced would be like answering "Do you still beat your wife?"

And I think that RP needed to be more forceful in calling out O'Reilly on that bullshit. He came across as a bit befuddled, instead.

Sadly, I almost think that RP is too much of a nice guy to run for president. We live in the age of the overt political bully.

|9.11.07 @ 2:19PM|#

"O'Reilly's answer to the Iraqi quagmire is to start another quagmire nearby."

The neocons don't think that will be the case as long as they don't send in troops. They think they can win the war in 3 days by bombing 1200 targets.

Kurt|9.11.07 @ 2:38PM|#

"O'Reilly's answer to the Iraqi quagmire is to start another quagmire nearby."

Similarly, Paul has pointed out (and read into the congressional record) the flaw of those who say that bringing the troops home would be a disservice to soldiers who have died. So more will die, and by that line of reasoning we'll need to stay longer to respect them, which will cause more to die, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

"we've lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing is saving face. It's time we came home!"

|9.11.07 @ 3:05PM|#

I'm not sure what a honest person such as Ron Paul thought to gain by having an interview with a proven habitual liar and sexual harassment pro such as Bill O'Reilly. Perhaps Dr. Paul just wanted more practice for when he debates any of the other Republican, neo-con, sex crazed (e.g. Craig/Foley), pandering, lying hypocrites that he'll encounter in the upcoming debates. Ron Paul may not have all the answers but does know how to tell the truth and keep his pants zipped-up. American needs more men like Ron Paul! VOTE RON PAUL!

|9.11.07 @ 3:24PM|#

"""The neocons don't think that will be the case as long as they don't send in troops. They think they can win the war in 3 days by bombing 1200 targets."""

Are they taking a page from Clinton Yugoslavia campaign? Even then there were troops on the ground.

But you have to understand the neocons new war rules.

Rule 1. We have the right to attack you.
Rule 2. It is a crime for you to attack back.

|9.11.07 @ 3:47PM|#

If it were purely a matter of taking out or severely crippling Iran's emerging nuclear capabilities, then sure, it's "bombs away." But without any boots on the ground, we would have zero control over the aftermath.

And I'm not sure the neocons or the Bush Administration think about Iran in such limited strategic terms.

The Middle East has been a nasty pit of vipers since Antiquity, and it will be long after we are gone. No amount of American troops will change that.

Greg|9.11.07 @ 3:59PM|#

Bill O'Reilly is like all other trash-talk hosts, they are unable make a point without screaming and overrunning their guest with lies and distortions. His popularity truly makes you wonder about our country and its people. Bill's dad you know is Morton Downey, Jr. :)

|9.11.07 @ 4:51PM|#

i think he did a great job.

|9.12.07 @ 9:06PM|#

I finally watched the video. I think Paul did a fine job. I think he's right too.

|9.12.07 @ 9:08PM|#

"""But without any boots on the ground, we would have zero control over the aftermath.""

Yeah and since the nuke targets are underground we would have little ability for accurate damage assessment.

|9.13.07 @ 2:40PM|#

WOW is everyone on here a socialist pretending to be a libertarian or something? Who is the guy who said OLBERMANN RON PAUL ARE SIMILAR ON CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES!!! GO BACK TO MMFA AND GET YOU COMMUNIST ONE SIDED PROPAGANDA THERE. YEAH RIGHT KEITH OLBERMAN WANT'S TO DSTROY OUR CONSTITUTION AND MAKE THIS A COMMUNIST STATE, EXCEPT HE WILL PERSONALLY ASSINATE ANYONE NOT WEARING A BLUE TIE. Don't ever compare him and Ron Paul ever again.

As for the debate I call a rematch I guess O'reilly did make some good points but, there wasn't enough time for paul to get into specifics and O'Reilly go all offended at the history lesson which did matter.