At reason.tv: Gillespie vs. O'Reilly

Watch reason's Nick Gillespie faceoff with Bill O'Reilly over Ron Paul's bid for the White House.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    O'Reilly looks like he needs a PosturePal in that screencap. Slouchy, slouchy, slouchy.

  • ||

    Nick, that was extraordinarily well done.

  • ||

    Despite Nick's Fonz-like demeanor, there's something increasingly Trekkish about him. Old school, of course.

  • ||

    Who's cool and has two thumbs? This guy!

  • ||

    With ya there, Pro Lib.

  • ||

    Despite Nick's Fonz-like demeanor, there's something increasingly Trekkish about him. Old school, of course.

    Nick has always reminded me of a combo of Fonzie, Beretta, and Spock.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Despite Nick's Fonz-like demeanor, there's something increasingly Trekkish about him. Old school, of course.



    It's gotta be the hair.

  • ||

    O'Reilly is the truly frightening character!!

  • ||

    He stood up better against that blowhard than anyone since Rivera. Great job !

    I'm surprised that O'Reilly didn't take him to school for his comment on Iran not having a nuclear program because they actually hid their program for more than a decade and are still illegally processing uranium, even if it can't be shown that it's for a bomb. Of course, if I were them I'd want a couple nukes as an insurance policy myself.

    On the Pakistani front, as if India wouldn't blow them back to the stone age if they tried anything, India's had three wars with them since they gained independence. The US doesn't have to do all the heavy lifting.

  • ||

    Well spoken and well done Nick.


    Eyyyyyy!

  • ||

    Hmmm, whenever nick got to the crux of his point, O'reilly would interrupt him and ask him a new question. way to keep your cool!

  • ||

    Nick was better than I expected. Even so, Bill O is too much of an asshat to be tangled with in his own sty.

  • Jeff Wartman||

    It's amazing to me that someone as ill informed as Bill O'Reilly seems to have such a following.

    Nick Gillespie did a great job - it's just futile to use reason and logic with someone as dense as O'Reilly.

  • Episiarch||

    Despite Nick's Fonz-like demeanor, there's something increasingly Trekkish about him. Old school, of course.

    Actually, it seems more Martin Landau in Space: 1999.

  • Loupeznik||

    Thank you Nick for not backing down when he interrupted you over and over again. We are too nice sometimes.

  • ||

    It's amazing to me that someone as ill informed as Bill O'Reilly seems to have such a following.

    The Know-Nothing Party never quit. They just went underground.

  • ||

    That's not how the Know-Nothing party got their name. It came from their habit of saying "I know nothing" when asked about their party's activities.

    The modern tendency to associate bigotry with lack of intelligence notwithstanding.

  • Episiarch||

    It's amazing to me that someone as ill informed as Bill O'Reilly seems to have such a following.

    He's a populist who says things that are "common sense". Meaning things that sound good to the stupid old lady across the street.

  • ||

    The French have an expression, l'esprit de l'escalier, for the comeback that comes to you after the moment's gone and it's too late to use.

    I bet that hardly ever happens to Gillespie. He seems to have what I hope I'd have said always at the ready.

  • ||

    Fonzie meets Trekkie? It's more like Harlan Ellison circa 1974.

  • Bill O\'Reilly||

    You're all on notice!

  • ||

    I just noticed that Nick is coming perilously close to a cross appearing in the background bookshelf.

  • ||

    Landau, Nimoy, what's the difference?

  • ||

    to having a cross appear in the background....

  • ||

    I wonder what kind of clothes the mirror-universe Gillespie wears? And does he have a Lettermanesque beard?

  • ||

    Nick,
    Good job man. I love the "let me finish" bit. Not only did you express it, you bowled right over him. Way to spin ORLY's tactics back on him.

    It's as if the Fonz knows Judo.

  • ||

    I'd think Dr. Paul would be the first choice of O'Reilly. That dude must pay about 50 grand in income tax per year, wouldn't he rather spend it on fine art of coke and whores?

  • Curious||

    OR coke and whores, dammit!

  • TLB||

    Follow the wacky adventures of stern dad Bill and rebelious son Nick Gold each week in "Gold Standard", from Ayn Rand Productions. Next week: Nick wants to borrow the car, but Bill wants him to take off his clip-on sideburns first. Wackiness ensues! After that: a very special episode about GlobalWarming.

  • ||

    the elitism here makes reminds me of the far left elitism... yes oreilly and his viewers are SO uninformed. and people here are SO enlightened. absurd, but typical of the elitist mindset - that part of the reason others don't think like we do is because they are stupid/uninformed.

    regardless, nick did a great job and presented his points very well. frankly, i disagree with much of what oreilly supports, but i find his show entertaining.

    and he has good guests - such as gillespie.

    now the reason hoi-polloi can return to the "oh we're so superior" circle jerk already in progress...

  • Tom Walls||

    Nick, you should have had my gnome in the background!

    My predictions for Iower:

    Hucklebuck 28
    Plus for hyp-mo-tizing Iowans with not-so-subliminal cross in Xmas ad

    Flip Romney 30
    Plus for being member of Jell-O worshipping cult and having a nice haircut

    McInsane 12
    Plus for doing well last time

    Fred 8
    One-point plus for late, weak surge in coverage

    Ronpaul 13
    Four-point plus for having very dedicated followers; drive of young people will impress old timers

    Ghoulie 8
    Two-point plus for the aw-hell-he's-gonna-win-anyway factor

    Humper 1
    Well, he might get 1.2%

    Of course, I could be wrong.

  • ||

    Nice work, Nick. It's a challenge to be heard through O'Reilly's buffoonery, but you came across as a real class act.

  • ||

    I like the comments when I saw this on youtube. Every one of them said something to the effect of "Oreally - pwned!"

  • ||

    Lamar +1 on Harlan Ellison, that was the first thing I thought of. Gillespie is probably two feet taller than Harlan, though.

    (Don't tell him I said that.)

  • ||

    I can't wait until O'Reilly goes back to work behind the bar of some cheesy Boston pub, pulls beers, and bores the locals about the Red Sox, politics, and how things would be different if only he were in charge.

    Any of you real Boston bartenders out there apologies in advance>

  • ||

    I would like to point out that Fox News has given more air time to Ron Paul and libertarian ideals then say NPR.

    I don't have Cable or a TV for that matter but does anyone know how CNN or the networks are doing on coverage?

  • Charlie||

    Windtell wrote: "I'm surprised that O'Reilly didn't take him to school for his comment on Iran not having a nuclear program because they actually hid their program for more than a decade and are still illegally processing uranium, even if it can't be shown that it's for a bomb."
    --

    As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an absolute right to enrich uranium for civilian energy purposes. The IAEA, after years of inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities, has never found any evidence that Iran was diverting nuclear material to a covert weapons program. That means Iran's enrichment program is perfectly legal, regardless of how much the Bush administration might wish it were otherwise.

    Also, U.S. officials have been predicting since at least the early 90s that Iran was five or so years away from possessing a nuclear weapon. Like any bureaucracies, the military and intelligence agencies have a vested interest in increasing their own power and funding -- particularly by hyping "threats" around the world and, if their intelligence proves faulty, to do their best to try to pin the failure on something other than the agency while at the same time using said failure as a reason for more money. I don't believe that Iran ended a nuclear weapons program in 2003 because I haven't seen any evidence that they ever had one. With a clean track record with the IAEA and without any independent evidence backing up the U.S. intelligence community, I see the '03 claim as nothing more than an attempt to save face.

    If anyone is in violation of the NPT, it's the U.S., which is developing new "bunker-busting" nuclear weapons and actively undermining the NPT by providing enriched nuclear fuel to India -- a country that is not a signatory to the NPT and covertly developed nuclear weapons.

  • ||

    It's amazing to me that someone as ill informed as Bill O'Reilly seems to have such a following.

    Lets see an interview with Nick and back footage of an interview with Ron Paul...

    Maybe he is popular cuz of the guests he interviews?

  • ||

    Sage,
    That's great, but reading YouTube comments causes brain damage. Don't do it unless you are under a doctor's supervision.

  • ||

    youtube comments rival the vapidity of finance.yahoo.com's stock message boards

  • Paul||

    Nick Gillespie's closet:

    Black tee-shirts on the left. Black leather coats on the right.


    A case of hair dye under the sink???

  • Sean||

    Nick, I was in Europe for a few weeks... was it really necessary to send a collection notice for my subscription?!?

  • ||

    Personally, I think Gillespie looks like Bart Simpson when he infiltrated the Shelbyville gang with his Baron Von Disguise kit in the "Lemon of Troy" episode. (Sorry, that's the best pic I could find for now.)

  • ||

    Nick did a great job...thank you Nick. Not a easy task either.

    maybe he is ok with states rights.

  • Your Fourth Grade English Teac||

    Come on, you guys are professional writers. You're supposed to know the difference between verbs and nouns: "Watch reason's Nick Gillespie face off...". Aaargh.

  • dhex||

    a very good job avoiding o'reilly's pace-changer tactics. recommended watching for any future reasonoids going on o'reilly - just steamroll the bastard and never lose your temper no matter what bumfuck stupid thing he says.

  • jp||

    Nice work!

    I'm surprised BO didn't try to out-shout Nick. Does he not do that anymore?

    BO also has some serious turkey action going on with his neck. He might want to put a call in to Kelsey Grammer's doc.

  • ||

    "I would like to point out that Fox News has given more air time to Ron Paul and libertarian ideals then say NPR."

    But was it positive or negative air time?

    NPR's coverage of Ron Paul: "Who is the Ron Paul?

    Fox: "He is the Devil, don't vote for him or the world will end!"

    Not sure selection two is any better because it was "more coverage."

  • Ted McElwee||

    If you believe O'Reilly, then WAR = PEACE.

    Brilliant. Can things be any more obvious at this point?? We're already at least 7 years into our experience of living in the dystopian world of 1984.

  • BakedPenguin||

    ClubMed - you're right. I'd totally forgotten about that. "Hey, look! There's someone's attractive cousin!"

  • Ted McElwee||

    By the way, government is not here to protect the lives of anyone. It is here to protect the liberties and property of everyone. If people's liberties and property are protected, their lives will be better than protected, they will be prosperous!

    O'Reilly intentionally distorts the purpose of government by stating that protecting us from each other is the primary purpose of government by omitting liberty.

    Liberty and freedom are the ONLY things that protect anyone anywhere on the planet from oppression, tyranny, and fear of both individuals AND government!

  • Brian Sorgatz||

    Nick has always reminded me of a combo of Fonzie, Beretta, and Spock.

    In that case, I wonder which side he would take in the epic struggle recorded here.

  • Eric Dondero\'s Eviler Twin||

    Your Fourth Grade English Teacher: Come on, you guys are professional writers. You're supposed to know the difference between verbs and nouns: "Watch reason's Nick Gillespie face off...". Aaargh.

    Hm. That's strange. The dictionary seems to disagree with you. Oh, and "watch" is also a verb in this context. They're not referring to the hunk of metal on his wrist. But I can see how you could be confused.

    Main Entry:
    2 face
    Function:
    verb
    Inflected Form(s):
    faced; fac·ing
    Date:
    15th century

    transitive verb
    1: to confront impudently
    2 a: to line near the edge especially with a different material b: to cover the front or surface of
    3: to meet face-to-face or in competition

  • ||

    Not sure selection two is any better because it was "more coverage."

    Nick seemed to be givin free reign in how he wished to portray Paul and libertarians...on NPR you have two socialists discussing who Paul is.

  • Amnesia||

    Nick, that wuz really neat.
    SOT: turns out King really did interview Paul last night. CNN decided not to air it.

  • Former Copy Editor||

    Sorry, Eviler Twin. You've missed the point on this one.

    The issue isn't whether face can properly be used as a verb. Clearly, it can.

    The issue is whether faceoff (spelled solid) can properly be used as a verb. Faceoff (or face-off) is a noun meaning a certain method of beginning play. (Per Merriam-Webster's 10th ed. Collegiate and the American Heritage Unabridged, 4th ed.)

    Face off (two words, no hyphen) is a phrasal verb meaning to start play by means of a face-off. (Per the American Heritage Unabridged.)

    E.g., "the manager and the ref faced off regarding whether a foul was committed during the face-off."

  • ||

    Fonz? I don't know, I think Nick looks like he could be the Tuscordero sisters' dad.

    """I'm surprised that O'Reilly didn't take him to school for his comment on Iran not having a nuclear program because they actually hid their program for more than a decade and are still illegally processing uranium,"""

    Who says it illegal? They are a party to the NPT, which allows them peaceful nuclear power. Charlie pointed this out earlier.

    """Landau, Nimoy, what's the difference?"""

    Landau was great as Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood. I don't think Nimoy could have pulled it off. But I hear Nimoy sings better. Better than what you ask.

  • Merv||

    I hear Nimoy sings better. Better than what you ask.

    Look no further. Sing it, Lenny!

  • ||

    It's amazing to me that someone as ill informed as Bill O'Reilly seems to have such a following.

    B.O'R. is what happens when a buncha' suits with more money than sense arbitrarily decide some schlub is, or should be, the next big thing. Fact is, you give any marginally talented bum enough media coverage, throw enough money behind them and they'll become a "star"...if only because their presence in the media suggest they already are.

    In other words, Bill O'Reilly is the Julia Roberts of talking heads...

  • Scott Wickham||

    Nick Well done.

  • ||

    Nick did a great job. Every time I see or hear him he comes off as someone who's very intelligent and able to express his thoughts very well.

    Off topic: "The Lemon Tree" is my all-time favorite episode of The Simpsons. So many great gags and lines. "What's wrong boy! Something behind that bush we should beat up?"

  • Rutgers Alum||

    Nick did a great job. Every time I see or hear him he comes off as someone who's very intelligent and able to express his thoughts very well.

    I know. It's kind of amazing that he went to Rutgers.

  • ||

    Bill O'Reilly ate my balls! What an assclown.

  • ||

    Nick looks like that Kligon spy from the Star Trek episode, "The Trouble with Trebles".
    You know where the trebles get into the grain, then some strained attempts at comedy, with the dramatic high point the trebles don't like the commissionar, but does like Spock, and then McCoy tests and discover he is a Klingon, and he then breaks down when Kirk threatens him with more treables. Beats waterboarding, ha, ha...
    Some one please get the picture, you'll see, I am at work

  • ||

    Why all this hostility to a show and a channel that consistently goes coverage to libertarian opinions is beyond me.

    I guess you guys prefer being ignored and shut out rather then confronted and debated.

    Or perhaps i am wrong and you guys can give links to all the appearances that reason staff have gotten on CNN, PBS and the networks.

    I will admit I prefer the coverage that say CSPAN gives Reason. But jesus guys..."You bastards put Nick on the air where he could express his opinion which happens to be very similar to my opinion!! You Bastards!!"

    Truly weird.

  • ||

    Great segment! You were prepared with rational answers to counter his irrational rants and accusations.

    I particularly liked when you cleared up the isolationist issue before he even had a chance to try and attack with it. He seemed caught off guard and backed off the rhetoric, how ever so slightly.

    Overall very impressive and a great job at letting people know about Ron Paul's message of liberties and peace.

  • Ryan||

    I agree with Vega. Big props to Nick for being a gentleman and a scholar in the face of that degree of bile.

  • ||

    Gillespie did a nice job. O'Reilly stepped back, as many neo-conservatives generally do, when they realize they cannot argue Libertarian ideology. It's not like holding a debate between a liberal and conservative.

  • ||

    Joshua,

    Why all this hostility to a show and a channel that consistently goes coverage to libertarian opinions is beyond me.

    You should know the reason we get upset is because they still don't give much chance for a debate. I saw a video a couple of days ago on youtube where Bill was responding to a letter from an RP fan complaining that Bill didn't let him get his points across. Bill said that he couldn't give him 20 minutes for a history lesson. Ultimately, there's no time for building up facts to prove a point. There's only enough time to say what you believe and then be accused of not backing up a point with factual evidence.

    The coverage is certainly nice, but isn't it generally human to always want more? We want a true debate, with time for evidence to back it up. Can you really see Bill granting somebody the chance to actually prove him wrong? It's cold in hell, but it sure ain't frozen over.

  • ||

    O'Rielly is a globalist/fascist only interested in spreading the message of the same fear-mongers and war-mongers. The Fourth Estate has been compromised.

  • ||

    Good Job at sticking up for Paul and defending his ideas - not an easy thing to do with O'Reilly breathing down your neck. Another feather in the Revolutionary cap!

  • ||

    Nice work vs. one of the devils's handmaidens. O'Lielly can barely let anyone else speak, let alone state a cogent argument. Great work representing RP. We're with you.

  • ||

    Nick didn't do a great job...

    1. Know your audience: You started off talking about "strippers for Ron Paul" etc... Unnecessary unless "fringe group" is your desired appellation. You weren't actually trying to appeal on the basis of something other than Reason -were you?

    2. Reason: As in, what are the reasons RP is a "fascinating character"? As if that's important for effective policy..

    3. Tact: You interrupted the big O first. However, he won the battle with a 3-2 margin.... Shocker! (I know, I know.. The "shocker" is really 2&1) But that's nullified by the fact that you started it...

    4. Fear: RP is scary?? We laugh together... I'm sure O was referring to his policies; however, in the snippet of the previous interview RP looks shifty and mole-like. That's kinda scary, I guess...

    5. Middle East Policy: It seems to me that you tacitly agreed to the idea of preemptive strikes by bringing up Iran's nuke program as an empirical reason to stay out of the area. Shouldn't have gone that route -III think...

    -Your last interruption/follow-up was about RP's non-isolationist stance and your ideas for a peaceful middle east... The comment on trade -perfect; the comment on cultural exchange -ridiculous. Please elaborate on what part of our culture should be exported/imposed on the middle east... The Aquarians or Evangelicals? Hope you get the point..

    ~ I found a link to Reason awhile back at http://newcriterion.com:81/constant/links/ They'd probably be terrified of me citing them here but, hey... I'm probably their youngest subscriber; venial sin...

  • ||

    Kerry Howley: I love you....

  • ||

    I just saw it and was pleasantly surprised: Nick held his ground well, and O'Reilly did a reasonable(!) job as devil's advocate, addressing the issues that a non-Paul supporter would want addressed.

    Bookmark this page: it's one of the few times in history you'll hear the words "O'Reilly" and "reasonable" together...

  • ||

    Good answers, good composure, Nick... Is O'Reilly "watching out for you" as he claims in his book? The way our war on Iraq and war on terror are run is by printing unbacked money with the value of toilet paper and by allowing DC the kind of power that the founders knew leads to tyranny. Bill seems to have abandoned the Constitution.

  • ||

    "This election, as have others before it, is being shaped for us. They are telling us who we should be considering. They control the frequency. If they showed more of Kucinich, more people would know of Kucinich and they could just as easily drop the novelty of Clinton and Obama if they wanted to. The media frames the candidates and the debate and they frame us in the process." - Texas Explorer of Democratic Underground.

    "There is nothing puzzling ... about America's gratuitously aggressive foreign policy... What an aggressive foreign policy accomplishes by slow degrees, a state of war accomplishes in a trice. Overnight [war] kills reform, overnight it transforms insurgents into traitors and the Republic into an imperiled realm. Overnight it strangles free politics, distracts and overawes the citizenry. Overnight it blasts public hope." -Walter Karp

    The American public has become so conditioned by crises, by warnings, by words, that there are few, other than the young, who protest against what is happening."
    Senator J. William Fulbright

  • ||

    Looks like O'reilly is suffering from a cranial-rectal inversion. Or to translate he has his head up his a**.
    O'reilly doesn't have the nuts to be a real man cause he's to busy licking them living with his head in excrement like a dog.

  • ||

    I have never heard any pro-war/fake macho conservative come back with a good response to the ridiculous idea that we increase our "security" by depending on a radical corrupt House of Saud to finance a half trillion dollars of our debt...our overstretched military can only fight this "war on terror" with the help of what neo-cons want us to believe are dangerous regimes in Saudi, Russia and China.

    This puts the people of the US in a extremeley vulnerable position to the whims of assholes. Ron Pauls would make us LESS vulnerable to these people.

  • ||

    Bookmark this page: it's one of the few times in history you'll hear the words "O'Reilly" and "reasonable" together...

    Dare I say that O'Reilly is sympathetic to libertarians?

  • ||

    Nice going Nick, you put that windbag in his place

  • ||

    Bill O'Reilly is a rude ass!

  • ||

    Great Job Nick!

    Reason magazine and Ron Paul are excellent ambassadors to the Libertarian Movement!

  • ||

    O rilley is wrong, were does it say anywhere that the federal government is suppoed to protect the citizens from the world, I dont think he has ever read the constitution, the only job of the federal government is to protect our rights, the government nowhere makes a promiss to protect us from enemies, thats congress job, if there is a lagit threat against america to declare war.
    o rilley you are ignorant as allways.
    get off the air stupid.

  • ||

    kudos to oreilly for actually letting Nick be heard on this one and not resorting to incessant bullying. on the other side of the street any of you seen the scullum (spelling??) interview. Absolutely atrocious on oreilly's part.

  • ||

    Joshua is the only guy that gets it. The rest seem to be mindless cheerleaders - just like those glaze-eyed fundies you so abhor.

    Nick looked unprofessional and defensive. He wandered around on pointless issues.

    And in the end Ron Paul is wrong about the ME. This did not start when we put troops there, or even when we interfered in Iran in 1953. Islamic extremists have been spreading terror for centuries, including suicide killings from the 19th century, and massacres for over 1000 years, and now may have access to weapons that can kill millions and/or can be easily transmitted to the US. So you can stick your head in the sand and get your ass blown off or you can confront the problem, however messy that may be.

    Iran may not be an immediate threat, but we had better be damned sure we are capable of nipping any incipient threat as it develops - much easier said than done - or millions will likely perish in a nuclear world war.

  • Todd McGreevy||

    Nick, phenomenal job with Bill0! well done.
    One small, but critical IMO, piece of constructive criticism:

    When NeoCons like this state emphatically, "the number one role of the federal government is to keep Americans safe", i feel the response should be: "Well, I disagree with you. That posture has been abused for decades by those in power and the true #1 role of the federal government is to uphold the Constitution. All else will flow from that. And IF the American people feel that the Federal Government should have additional powers bestowed upon it, then let them elect reps to amend the Constitution. Too many politicians posture behind this fear based statement, keep America safe at ANY cost and that's why our civil liberties are eroding and habeus corpus is no longer in place, etc."

    (you get the idea)

    Granted, tough to get that in on a talking heads show like BillO's in 10 seconds.. BUT you did nod and agree with him when he threw down the "protect America" card... which is easy to do, cause it sounds accurate and right...but i consider it to be a very slippery slope that gets abused by most elected officials.
    The Constitution provides the means and terms by which to protect us, and if it isn't working then we should amend it, not pass the Military Commission Act.

    I would love to know your thoughts on this
    a) do you think this analysis is accurate?
    and
    b) what should freedom and liberty loving voters say to those who throw the Protect at Any Cost card down?

    Extremely well done otherwise.

  • ||

    Nick, great job! I haven't seen a performance like this since you played Ian in Jurassic Park...

    http://www.movieactors.com/characters/Freezes-Characters/jurassicPark149.jpeg

  • Peter J||

    ---

  • ||

    Great job! You kept your cool with Bill! Bill and so many other Americans don't realize what our military is really doing...playing the very expensive role of "rent-a-cops" for the rest of the world. I can say this since I've been in the Marines for over 19 years. And during that time, I haven't done one thing to defend our country. We need to stop being the "police" of the world. Vote for Ron Paul!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement