Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
O'Reilly v. O'Bama
According to this story from Michael Wolff, Barack Obama had a Johnny Sack-style sit down with News Corp's Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, wherein they brokered some sort of truce. If my occasional viewing of Fox News is any indication, I'm not sure exactly what was required on Fox's end; they are, after all, as hostile to Obama now as anytime in the recent past. But I suspect that, whatever the details of the discussion, the broader mission was to get Obama to submit to an interview with Fox's resident pitbull, Bill O'Reilly. Part one aired last night and O'Reilly was, by turns, deferential and caustic. Full credit to Obama, though, for dishing it right back.
Also, not being a regular viewer of The O'Reilly Factor, I was unaware that Papa Bear (now) believes that Iraq was the "wrong battlefield."
Elemenope|9.5.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Huh. It cracks me still that Obama will go on O'Reilly but
McCain won't go on Larry King.
As far as substance, it's a little weird talking about national
security on the presidential level in this day and age. What can a
candidate say other than "I won't give away the keys to the city, I
swear!"
I too was shocked, BTW, with O'Reilly's "wrong war, wrong time"
thing on Iraq.
Ben|9.5.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Bill O'Reilly is quite good at making sure he is always on the right side at all times. He was not saying "wrong war, wrong time" when it was not popular to do so.
|9.5.08 @ 4:58PM|#
O'Reilly is a tool par excellence. The guy deserves to
be lampooned by Colbert, and it annoys me no end that anyone takes
him seriously. But a ton of people do, unfortunately.
He's one of those people where if you say something completely
logical, that if you thought about it, made sense--but what you are
saying is the opposite of conventional "wisdom"--he will act as if
you said the moon was made of green cheese. He doesn't think for
one second--he just reacts.
|9.5.08 @ 5:01PM|#
O'Reilly is a massive tool. I can't believe that anyone would submit to his moronic, hypocritical bullying. Back in the day, I used to listen to conservative talk radio *embarrassed cough* but even I had to turn it off when Bill came on. What an asshole.
|9.5.08 @ 5:01PM|#
Bill O'Reilly is a humerous commentator. A breath of fresh air
with both his take on the issues and his pnetrating but fair
questioning style.
I'm gonna go puke now.
|9.5.08 @ 5:02PM|#
O'reilly's an asshole. He can be hypothetical but Obama can't. He pretends to have a crystal ball yet checks Obama with "you can't know that."
BDB|9.5.08 @ 5:03PM|#
Shorter Bill O:
What about Iran? When are we gonna bomb Iran? Come you gotta bomb
Iran! War with Iran! NOW!
Elemenope|9.5.08 @ 5:04PM|#
Epi --
Yeah, and no. I mean, since when has the mediascape not been
dominated by blowhards? O'Reilly's strength is that he is readily
identifiable as such; it is not hidden behind layers of
professionalism and poise. He's an asshole and he sounds...like an
asshole.
You're right about the instant reaction thing, and it is the thing
that freaks me out the most about...well, most people in general.
Almost nobody takes time to think things out anymore.
O'Reilly's write-up of Obama was shockingly nice. He basically
said, "yeah, Obama can take the bear!" Even while painting him,
some what distortedly, as the second coming of communism.
|9.5.08 @ 5:05PM|#
You're right about the instant reaction thing
My grandmother does this and it DRIVES ME NUTS.
|9.5.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Hmm, I can't stand O'Reilly and will never vote for Obama. That said, I thought both of them did pretty good in that interview.
|9.5.08 @ 5:10PM|#
it is not hidden behind layers of professionalism and
poise
Yeah, but not for lack of trying. O'Reilly is always trying to
paint himself as a fair and balanced interviewer, who always allows
his victims interviewees a chance to respond. What a load of
bullshit. He cuts people off so much that you don't even know what
he's disagreeing with half of the time.
Stranger|9.5.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Did anyone tell BillO that we sent Special forces troops into
Pakistan yesterday?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/03/terror/main4409288.shtml?source=mostpop_story
Elemenope|9.5.08 @ 5:12PM|#
My grandmother does this and it DRIVES ME NUTS.
The worst part of it is that decisiveness and immediacy have been
elevated to cardinal virtues, so any attempt at verbal nuance
automatically weakens any verbal charisma one may have. I find
myself often having to restart sentences five or six times to get
out the entire point I'm trying to make, because I get interrupted
by someone or other who thinks they know what I'm gonna say and
what I'm gonna say WILL BE WRONG. The kicker is that then you get
accused of hedging or you start to sound like you are slow or have
a stutter.
|9.5.08 @ 5:15PM|#
I get interrupted by someone or other who thinks they know
what I'm gonna say and what I'm gonna say WILL BE WRONG
The way you deal with this is, simply, scorn. When someone does
this, you have to make them feel stupid for it, because it
is stupid.
Elemenope|9.5.08 @ 5:22PM|#
Epi --
You've never met me in person (I think), so it might shock you to
know that I'm just too damn mellow to get in people's faces about
interruption. Srsly. It is more likely for a Quaker to punch a guy
in the nuts than for me to yell at or be rude to or even scornful
of an interlocutor.
Except family, of course. Everyone can get into it with family.
They just *know* how to get under the skin.
Usually I can come out on top in a conversation; I'd just really
prefer if I didn't have to repeat myself six times to get
there.
|9.5.08 @ 5:56PM|#
I eagerly await O'Reilly's apology to all the people who went on
his show in 2002-2007 saying Iraq was the wrong war and who he
basically accused of being traitors.
Epi, I usually treat that behavior like so: Once they interrupt me,
be silent and stare at them silently until they stop talking. Once
they stop, remain completely silent for a beat--creating a very
uncomfortable moment of silence. Then I say quietly, "Will you let
me finish this time?" Usually works like a charm, they're too
embarrassed to interrupt again.
Elemenope|9.5.08 @ 6:06PM|#
I eagerly await O'Reilly's apology to all the people who
went on his show in 2002-2007 saying Iraq was the wrong war and who
he basically accused of being traitors.
O'Reilly "has no memory of such incidents". Hee hee.
Elemenope|9.5.08 @ 6:11PM|#
Brian24 --
That approach, rightly or wrongly, has always reminded me of the
Canadian ambassador from South Park: Bigger, Longer, and
Uncut.
"Please, can I finish! [...] OK, I'm finished."
Elemenope|9.5.08 @ 6:35PM|#
R C Dean --
That train filled up so fast you'll have a hard time finding seats.
The guy is the Platonic Form of Tool.
|9.5.08 @ 6:38PM|#
O'Reilly is a standard populist -- one of the torches and pitchforks crowd. He's not, and never has been a classical liberal, standard conservative or a neoconservative. He's always in search of a mob to lead in order to increase his viewership, and to sell books and crappy merchandise. He's no different from Lou Dobbs and similar types, and is probably closest to Pat Buchanan in his world view. Obama shows that he's a tool just for appearing. Would be much more meaningful if he were interviewed by Brit Hume or Chris Wallace of Fox.
Djyrn|9.5.08 @ 6:44PM|#
First Saddleback Church, then O'Reilly.
I have to give credit to Obama for being willing to play an away
game now and then.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.5.08 @ 6:49PM|#
Barack Obama had a Johnny Sack-style sit down
nice turn of the phrase.....
The Wine Commonsewer|9.5.08 @ 6:52PM|#
I would have asked if Obama has sent his brother a sandwich
lately.
[ducks Joe's backhand]
Elemenope|9.5.08 @ 6:57PM|#
Obama shows that he's a tool just for appearing. Would be
much more meaningful if he were interviewed by Brit Hume or Chris
Wallace of Fox.
Obama *was* interviewed by Chris Wallace. Perhaps you missed
it.
And I don't think that one can properly call a guy a tool for
stepping into the lion's den in order to address a basically
hostile audience.
Kip|9.5.08 @ 7:14PM|#
"Also, not being a regular viewer of The O'Reilly Factor, I was
unaware that Papa Bear (now) believes that Iraq was the "wrong
battlefield." "
I watch O'Reilly every night. Right after catching the tail-end of
MSNBC's show with David Gregory and all of PBS's The News Hour (the
latter beig the best of the three and I can tell you with certitude
that you needn't have added the parenthetical "now". He always has
said Iraq was a mistake.
I also read daily, the San Francisco Chronicle, the LA Times, the
Boston Globe, the Weekly Standard on-line, the Wall Street Journal,
etc. To be fully informed, one needs to read and view as diversely
as one can. Which is why I worry about Joe.
Kip|9.5.08 @ 7:22PM|#
(the latter being the best of the three) is what I meant to
write.
BTW, I do all the newspaper reading at the office. It's about all I
do and yet they keep forcing raises on me. Man, I love my job!
Nash|9.5.08 @ 7:23PM|#
This basically reinforces for me why I'm not going to vote
Obama. I knew I didn't agree with his economic policies but I was
skeptical of his foreign policy. While his rhetoric is less hawkish
than McCain's, it's still lock stock status quo. We will continue
to fund Israel, we will continue to broker deals with corrupt
regimes all over the Middle East and we will continue total troop
deployment absolutely everywhere.
I see the value in using a stick but I just don't think we need to
use it against absolutely everyone all over the globe.
Kip|9.5.08 @ 7:25PM|#
"How do you know Joe doesn't?"
Because of what he writes. No one can at once read diversely and
remain so rabidly partisan. Of course I could be wrong -- I'm open
to that possibility, but as I said, I worry.
Kip|9.5.08 @ 7:26PM|#
"I see the value in using a stick but I just don't think we need
to use it against absolutely everyone all over the globe."
Ditto.
angry d|9.5.08 @ 7:34PM|#
I only catch the first few minutes of BOR as my wife watches Greta Van S (BTW, Caylee Anthony is still dead!) and the TiVo runs a few minutes into the next show. But I can affirm what Kip says, BOR has never been behind the Iraq War. Really of all of the Fox talking heads, he GOP cheerleads the least (not counting the idiot token Democrat Colmes that they put on to look balanced)
|9.5.08 @ 7:34PM|#
I would have asked if Obama has sent his brother a sandwich
lately.
LEAVE SARAH PALIN'S FAMILY ALOOOOOOOOOOONE!!!1!
Uh, Kip, have noticed something about my relationship to the
political viewpoint of Reason magazine? Just throwin' that out
there.
|9.5.08 @ 7:36PM|#
But I can affirm what Kip says, BOR has never been behind
the Iraq War
I wouldn't say "never." He was a big supporter before it began, and
while "major combat operations" were going on.
But only because of the WMDs - he was never on board with the Grand
Democratic Crusade and Bases program. He turned against the
decision to go to war pretty quick once it became clear there were
no WMDs.
Granger|9.5.08 @ 7:45PM|#
"I wouldn't say "never." He was a big supporter before it began,
and while "major combat operations" were going on."
Link please?
B|9.5.08 @ 7:54PM|#
"Almost, but not quite, a real interview, like a real journalist
would do."
Yeah, he didn't kiss Obama's ass enough to qualify as a real
journalist, did he joe? I would be willing to bet you think Keith
Olbermann is a real journalist though, don't you?
B|9.5.08 @ 7:56PM|#
"Also, not being a regular viewer of The O'Reilly Factor, I was
unaware that Papa Bear (now) believes that Iraq was the "wrong
battlefield."
You know the part where you claim you watch O'Reilly every now and
then? Well, you should probably take that back. O'Reilly has been
speaking out against the Iraq war for years. If memory serves me
right, he has always been against the war in Iraq.
B|9.5.08 @ 7:58PM|#
"O'Reilly is a tool par excellence. The guy deserves to be
lampooned by Colbert, and it annoys me no end that anyone takes him
seriously. But a ton of people do, unfortunately."
It annoys me to no end that anyone thinks Colbert is some cutting
edge and hilarious satirist. But a ton of people do,
unfortunately.
Granger|9.5.08 @ 8:00PM|#
"It annoys me to no end that anyone thinks Colbert is some
cutting edge and hilarious satirist. But a ton of people do,
unfortunately."
Sorry to offend, but I think he's funny as hell.
B|9.5.08 @ 8:00PM|#
"I eagerly await O'Reilly's apology to all the people who went
on his show in 2002-2007 saying Iraq was the wrong war and who he
basically accused of being traitors."
Total bullshit. O'Reilly has been criticizing the Iraq war as
foolish and mismanaged from the outset. It is pretty obvious you
don't watch any O'Reilly at all.
Anonymoose.|9.5.08 @ 8:01PM|#
Kip | September 5, 2008, 7:14pm | #
"Also, not being a regular viewer of The O'Reilly Factor, I was unaware that Papa Bear (now) believes that Iraq was the "wrong battlefield." "
I watch O'Reilly every night. Right after catching the tail-end of MSNBC's show with David Gregory and all of PBS's The News Hour (the latter beig the best of the three and I can tell you with certitude that you needn't have added the parenthetical "now". He always has said Iraq was a mistake.
I also read daily, the San Francisco Chronicle, the LA Times, the Boston Globe, the Weekly Standard on-line, the Wall Street Journal, etc. To be fully informed, one needs to read and view as diversely as one can. Which is why I worry about Joe.
Where the fuck do you find that kind of time?
B|9.5.08 @ 8:04PM|#
"How do you know Joe doesn't?"
Well when a person writes anything even remotely critical of Barack
Obama, he accuses them of being Bushbots merely repeating
Republican talking points. That standard response gives me a pretty
good idea he doesn't.
Kip|9.5.08 @ 8:07PM|#
"Where the fuck do you find that kind of time?"
Efficiency + delegation = a shitload of free time.
In truth, I'm in the office 9 hours per day and read on-line media
for about 6 to 8 hours. As I said, I love my job.
|9.5.08 @ 8:15PM|#
"O'Reilly is a tool par excellence."
Epi has it. Nothing more need be said, and so
Elemenope|9.5.08 @ 8:17PM|#
Kip --
That's a shitload of delegation. Where do you work...and are there
any openings? :)
Kip\'s Addendum|9.5.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Every morning, I start with the Atlanta Journal Constitution's
"The Vent" then Drudge, ,Minneapolis Star Tribune, Boston Globe, LA
Times, San Fran Chon, San Fran Examiner, St. Paul Pioneer Press, MN
Daily, then lunch.
Afternoon -- Opinion Journal, National Review On-line, American
Spectator, Weekly Standard and then the actual Atlanta Journal
Constitution (I hate how Editor Cynthia Tucker laments that state
of young black males while at the same time heavily promoting TI
and his ilk. Now THERE'S a fucking hypocrite!
.
If I still have time left, I read dailies ranging from the
Jerusalem Post to the Houma Courier. Or else I take a walk or go
shopping.
Kip|9.5.08 @ 8:22PM|#
"That's a shitload of delegation. Where do you work...and are
there any openings? :)"
On can do that most anywhere.
Kip|9.5.08 @ 8:24PM|#
One can do that most anywhere.
Man, I gotta slow down on the cab this evening. These typos are
killing me.
hotsauce|9.5.08 @ 8:42PM|#
If my occasional viewing of Fox News is any indication .... Also, not being a regular viewer of The O'Reilly Factor ...
[Moynihan's Thought Process]
Gotta get invited to the next left-lib cocktail party.
[/Moynihan's Thought Process]
KenK|9.5.08 @ 10:15PM|#
Obama reminded me a lot of GW Bush when he refused to even consider that he was wrong about the surge.
Daniel Reeves|9.5.08 @ 10:50PM|#
Kip:
Being "informed" is overrated. Can you tell me every news story you
read two months ago? No. It's because most news comes and goes. The
important stuff (Palin, the Russia-Georgia conflict) you hear about
if you aren't completely ignorant, and the mews that's relevant to
your interests you can find in a blog or magazine that specializes
in your interests. In summary, you're just wasting your time, time
that you could be using reading books to form good arguments... or
sleeping.
|9.5.08 @ 11:31PM|#
See, B, this is what makes you such a pathetic hack.
Yeah, he didn't kiss Obama's ass enough to qualify as a real
journalist, did he joe? You looked at that interview with Bill
O'Reilly (or, probably didn't, given the willful ignorance you seem
so at home in), read my description, and gosh darnit, ZOMG, joe iz
teh partisan!
Take off your fucking blinders. That was a sorry-assed excuse for
an interview. Everybody else on the thread - left right libertarian
- everybody except you can figure that out. They can look at that
steaming pile passed of as a serious interview, and realize that
Bill O'Really is a tool. You, on the other hand, read the
observation that Bill O'Reilly is a tool, and it sends your sorry,
partisan ass to the barricades.
Bill O'Reilly? You're calling me out, letting me make a spectacle
of you, because I insulted the journalistic skills of Bill
O'Reilly? How does a person end up like you? I don't get it.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.5.08 @ 11:46PM|#
LEAVE SARAH PALIN'S FAMILY ALOOOOOOOOOOONE!!!1!
Are you out of your mind? This is great stuff.
Levi Johnston's Facebook page is worth a week of laugh's at other
people's expense.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.5.08 @ 11:47PM|#
What the fuck is a "cocktail party"?
For some unknown reason, that is about the funniest thing I've seen
all day.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.5.08 @ 11:48PM|#
Man, I gotta slow down on the cab this evening.
Wrong. It is not the wine.
alan|9.6.08 @ 12:47AM|#
What the fuck does BO' think Hezbollah is going to do with a
nuclear weapon? Invest in fallout gear and sell it to survivors
after blowing up the neighborhood? Sheesh.
That is what labels BO' a Neocon in my book. The lack of curiosity
for what motivates the other even to the point of denying
a rationale, and the ability to create stark, paranoiac fantasies
as an axiomatic starting point for policy.
BTW, to extend a theme from yesterday, Obama should send BO' a
dozen flowers, and a note reading, 'thank you for being you.'
JMR|9.6.08 @ 4:25AM|#
Obama should now go on Colbert ASAP. Thank God for Steven Colbert, too. As long as there's a blowhard that blowhard-y out there, SOMEONE needs to literally make a living mocking his pompous ass.
mnuez|9.6.08 @ 4:59AM|#
All policy questions aside:
Why would anybody watch this guy? Does any light
ever come from his interviews?
More to the point, all of the popular network shows are
geared toward generating the largest possible audience (for simple
capitalistic reasons) and therefore are entirely unstimulating,
unsatisfying and uninteresting to those of us who dwell in the
higher percentiles.
I personally watch this stuff because it's about as good a
diversion as you'll find on television, but to actually
discuss it? This stuff wasn't made for us. It was made for
the masses, and they happen to like it. It's too bad that
capitalism holds sway such that Arrested Development gets canned
while Fox makes O'Reilly its flagship show, but hey - you guys are
the naked, cocksucking, cheerleaders of capitalism, so enjoy
sleeping in the shit-speckled Idiocratic bed you've made.
mnuez
|9.6.08 @ 8:35AM|#
It's too bad that capitalism holds sway such that Arrested
Development gets canned while Fox makes O'Reilly its flagship show,
but hey - you guys are the naked, cocksucking, cheerleaders of
capitalism, so enjoy sleeping in the shit-speckled Idiocratic bed
you've made.
Besides the fact that you are a douchebag, Fox cans great shows all
the time. They're utterly trigger happy on the cancellation gun.
There's an episode of Family Guy which lists all the good
shows Fox prematurely canceled, and it's a long list.
But hey, let's blame "capitalism" and not the monkeys in suits that
schedule Fox!
(They canceled Drive
after FOUR episodes. Why even put it on and pay for it if you're
going to do that?)
|9.6.08 @ 8:51AM|#
It's too bad that capitalism holds sway such that . . . Fox
makes O'Reilly its flagship show
Right. Since other systems so effectively counterbalance partisan
rhetoric and propaganda. LOL
|9.6.08 @ 9:16AM|#
alan,
What the fuck does BO' think Hezbollah is going to do with a
nuclear weapon?
But let's take this a little further. Iran developed nuclear
weapons. Later, "someone" sets off a suitcase nuke in Tel Aviv. The
leadership of the Iranian government starts whistling and looking
down at their shoes. "Haven't the foggiest. How do you think that
happened?"
BillO thinks nobody could possibly figure that out.
Kip|9.6.08 @ 9:37AM|#
"Kip:
Being "informed" is overrated. Can you tell me every news story you
read two months ago? No. It's because most news comes and goes. The
important stuff (Palin, the Russia-Georgia conflict) you hear about
if you aren't completely ignorant, and the mews that's relevant to
your interests you can find in a blog or magazine that specializes
in your interests. In summary, you're just wasting your time, time
that you could be using reading books to form good arguments... or
sleeping."
I agree that reading books is a good idea. Who new readig the media
and reading books were mutually exclusive? I suggest you read
"Personal Knowledge, Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy" by Michael
Polyani, and then get back to us.
And as to what was going on two months ago? I seem to recall
something about oil being around $147/bl and Freddie and Fannie
tanking, but I could be off on that.
And to The Wine Commonsewer -- Touche'!
alan|9.6.08 @ 11:46AM|#
It's too bad that capitalism holds sway such that Arrested
Development gets canned while Fox makes O'Reilly its flagship show,
but hey - you guys are the naked, cocksucking, cheerleaders of
capitalism, so enjoy sleeping in the shit-speckled Idiocratic bed
you've made.
You are being sarcastic, right? Since those of us who 'dwell in the
higher percentiles' would realize how historically myopic and
reality challenged this sort of statement would them appear to be.
Pretty clever and bold of you to take such a risk your personal
reputation to make an indirect point. After all, we all know that
the assumption of such an argument that capitalism is the dominate
cultural strain here and the fact that we had the misfortune of
television technology coming about during the high water mark of
Managerialism (as Burnham called the 'post capitalist' creeds of
the West and the East, at the time) where the airwaves were defined
as a public utility and cable transmission was suppressed for fifty
years had nothing to do with shaping the culture is an invalid
assumption to make.
A culture, no matter the economic orientation, is no better than
the people who are born into it at a given time, so what are your
alternatives? You can force people at gun point to listen to Chopin
and fund symphony orchestras and ban 'capitalist rock 'n' roll' but
that does not make the people any less aggressive or willing to
engage in wars, or even less barbaric (see Soviet history). You can
corral the children into institutions of public instruction to
shaper their minds into
higher cognizant beings . . . oh, wait, we already do that. How is
that working out for you?
alan|9.6.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Obama has the smooth, elegant personality of a mid century talk show host like a Jack Paar. As long as he keeps his cool no matter what BO' asks him, he comes out on top. He should ask to be a guest of The Factor every week up to the elections, he can't but to look golden compared to BO'. Obama even appears more manly in that clip when he is calm and even toned while BO', over compensation personified, becomes more shrill and jittery as the argument he is trying to make in his question loses focus.
jokertim777|9.6.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Bill's question about Barack's willingness to "prepare" for
attack on Iran is deceptive. It is designed to create a difference
between McCain and Obama that doesn't exist.
Perhaps people don't realize that the Pentagon is constantly
"preparing" for war with everyone. It doesn't require a POTUS to
direct their planning agenda. The plans for the bombing, invasion,
and occupation of Iran are done and ready to go (and probably have
been for some time now).
Our military machine stands ready to attack any enemy that the
President can successfully sell to the American people as
dangerous.
|9.6.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Weird. Twenty-four hours later, and none of the commenters who
were corrected about the nature and duration of O'Reilly's Iraq-war
stance have piped up to at least say, "Oh, I didn't realize that."
Let alone, "My bad. I guess I was making ill-founded
assumptions."
Yeah, actually it's not that weird.
|9.6.08 @ 9:17PM|#
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602220007
Talks about how O'reilly wanted immediate withdrawal but previously
called the people who wanted to leave Iraq immediately "pinheads"
and compared them to Hitler appeasers.
|9.6.08 @ 11:02PM|#
O'Reilly has been saying he feels Iraq was the wrong battelfield
for years now.
What's interesting about this interview is that Obama confessed
that the surge - that McCain was the first supporter of and Obama
was totally against - was a "success beyond my wildest dreams".
|9.6.08 @ 11:06PM|#
Yes, O'Reilly changed his mind about the initital case for the
Iraq invasion around the same exact time as Hillary Clinton, Joe
Biden, and John Kerry.
I disagree with O'Reilly on that. I still am glad Bush took
Saddam's regime down (though Bush was rather incompetant in the
exeuction).
But the fact is, O'Reilly changed his mind at the same time as the
leading Democratic Senators who voted for the war changed their
minds.
Maybe you should give O'Reilly credit for being willing to admit he
felt he was wrong. Which he has done for years now.
And it was nice that O'Reilly got Obama to admit that he was wrong
about something (dead wrong): the surge.
|9.6.08 @ 11:12PM|#
O'Reilly's style may bug some people, but he does have integrity. He's a conservative but he's not in the tank for the Republican Party. He's always bucked that party. For example, he's strongly against the death penalty, in addition to his view that Iraq was the wrong battlefield (which he has said for years).
|9.6.08 @ 11:14PM|#
His comepetitor, Keith Oldermann, IS in the tank for a party,
the Democratic Party. Olbdermann flip-flopped on the FISA issue,
for example, just because Obama flip-flopped on it. Before Obama's
flip-flop, Olbermann said you had to be a Nazi to take the view
Obama ended up taking. After Obama took that view, it was perfectly
okay with Olbermann.
O'Reilly may have annoying tendencies and personality traits, but
he has a hell of a lot more integrity than that.
Famous Mortimer|9.7.08 @ 2:14AM|#
"It annoys me to no end that anyone thinks Colbert is some
cutting edge and hilarious satirist. But a ton of people do,
unfortunately."
We know, a parody of the truth hurts.
Famous Mortimer|9.7.08 @ 2:17AM|#
"thinks they know what I'm gonna say and what I'm gonna say WILL
BE WRONG. The kicker is that then you get accused of hedging or you
start to sound like you are slow or have a stutter."
Online debate should have taught you long ago that you need to hit
first, and often.
Hedging in discussion merely to appear balanced, and exact won't
gain anyone's attention.
People like BO may take it to a whole other level, but you can't
speak to people on important subjects in an overtly passive
manner.
I hate it when intelligent people with the right argument do
this.
They have the brains, but not the guts.
|9.7.08 @ 2:03PM|#
FranticFlinstone,
He lied to his viewers in regards to the sexual harrassment claim.
He told the woman to put up or shut up. O'reilly was the one to
shut up and he won't talk about it now. He's quick to throw up the
I'm not going to talk about it anymore.
Doesn't really reach my definition of integrity.
|9.7.08 @ 2:10PM|#
"""Olbermann is an even bigger tool, though""""
Every 24 hour news channel pundit is a tool. Argue the degree of
tool all you want. Their purpose is to spin the news and influence
your belief of the news.
|9.7.08 @ 2:16PM|#
"""What the fuck does BO' think Hezbollah is going to do with a
nuclear weapon? Invest in fallout gear and sell it to survivors
after blowing up the neighborhood? Sheesh. """"
It's still the mushroom cloud scare that Condi and the admin was
hawking. It's the grand boogie man.
|9.7.08 @ 8:42PM|#
Here's the thing about the surge - yes it has been effective at
reducing violence. But what it has not been effective in is
furthering the capacity of the Iraqi government to be able to exist
without US troop support.
This is a shining example of what passes for politics these days -
set no discernable goal and then when ANYTHING gets accomplished,
claim victory. Remember Bush in the aircraft carrier - Mission
Accomplished? Right.
War on drugs? Yeah it'll be over... when.. people everywhere stop
using drugs, read NEVER. War on terror? it'll be over when.. noone
ever attacks another person with malicious intent.. read NEVER. War
in Iraq? What exactly were our stated goals again? Right..
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245