Late Show 1/3 Bill O'Reilly

[brianric]

I have one Tivo and two Replay TVs. I watch Leno first, then Letterman. After watching Letterman stand his ground against Bill O'Reilly, I got a lot more respect for Letterman. It will now be Letterman first, then Leno.

[RegBarc]

I have more respect for both of them now. I'm no big fan of either guy, but I liked to see this side of Lettermen (he had a good grasp on what he was talking about) and a the more calm side of O'Reilly (he also had a good grasp of what he was talking about). I thought Letterman was a little...brash...with O'Reilly, but it was an interesting change from his usual form.

On a side note, how's Pennsville? Alloway/Woodstown native here, and I was active with those ambulance squads in the likely event you know someone.

[edc]

Originally Posted by RegBarc

I thought Letterman was a little...brash...with O'Reilly, but it was an interesting change from his usual form.

I think it was high time someone told O'Reilly "60% of what you say is just crap!"

The kitty and 9-1-1 was very amusing

[barrettd]

I didn't think Letterman had a good grasp on anything, including his own anger. He basically dismissed O'Reilly and then admitted he had no idea what he was talking about because he's never seen his show. I like Letterman and all, but he really let his emotions get the best of him.

[Michelle5150]

I was taken aback a bit by it. I'm no O'Reilly fan, and I love Letterman, but Dave seemed ready for something before O'Reilly even came out (witness him swirling his pencil in O'Reilly's cup before he walked out). But O'Reilly had an agenda to stir up trouble before he came out too. He was looking for a fight. Makes me wonder if something didn't happen backstage pre-show.

Dave was a little out of character last night. I think he could have made better arguments, he's a smart guy, but he seemed to let O'Reilly get to him too much and it knocked him off his game a bit.

But the end was priceless: "It's always a pleasure Bill".

[loubob57]

Not to get political here (hard not to with this subject!) but I don't understand Letterman's apparent stance that you have to agree with everything Cindy Sheehan says or you aren't showing her any compassion. Those are two very different things.

[Bierboy]

...and, of course, Letterman leveling accusations that 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap, then admitting he doesn't watch O'Reilly.

[Magnolia88]

Originally Posted by Bierboy

...and, of course, Letterman leveling accusations that 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap, then admitting he doesn't watch O'Reilly.

I don't watch O'Reilly's show but I still know that almost everything he says is crap. I've seen his comments in clips on other shows, and I've also seen him on numerous occasions on other talk shows, and 90% of what he says on all of those occasions is complete crap. For example, all that crap about the school changing the lyrics to "Silent Night" is total and complete crap. But he gets away with it because nobody bothers to challenge him most of the time. I applaud Dave for at least calling him on the fact that he's full of crap.

[ElJay]

Originally Posted by Bierboy

...and, of course, Letterman leveling accusations that 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap, then admitting he doesn't watch O'Reilly.

Perhaps Letterman was talking about the accusations right there on his show? For instance, that Red/Green ban story is complete crap but O'Lielly repeated it anyway. Then he talked about "M One Six in Britain." M 1 6???? Did he actually prepare to say that?

IMHO 60% is a rather generous number.

[Clarkey]

So let me get this straight, Howard Stern and Bill O'Reilly got along during their interview recently on FOX, while David Letterman and Bill O'Riley didn't on The Late Show on CBS? I would have thought it would have been the other way around, "chachkies" aside. (I've viewed these segments and I'm both surprised and entertained at the same time.)

[edc]

Originally Posted by Michelle5150

I was taken aback a bit by it. I'm no O'Reilly fan, and I love Letterman, but Dave seemed ready for something before O'Reilly even came out (witness him swirling his pencil in O'Reilly's cup before he walked out). But O'Reilly had an agenda to stir up trouble before he came out too. He was looking for a fight. Makes me wonder if something didn't happen backstage pre-show.

But the end was priceless: "It's always a pleasure Bill".

The very end of the show where he thanked *some* of the guests was even more priceless.

(1) The "crap" comment, in Quicktime

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cbs...ly_060103a.mov

(2) Some seem to think this this is a reaction to one of O'Reilly's previous appearances on the Late Show, where he lied to Letterman's face about "Outfoxed."

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/10/bi...rman_video.php

[nedthelab]

I watch the daily show every night and have seen John tear a new one on many guests he finds reprehensible, plus his stunt on Crossfire. But the two times Bill O has been on, John seem to kiss his A$$ and cower into the corner sucking his thumb. If any one could put bill in his place - which is a iron maiden - it should be John Stewart - IMHO

[barrettd]

Originally Posted by Magnolia88

I don't watch O'Reilly's show but I still know that almost everything he says is crap. I've seen his comments in clips on other shows, and I've also seen him on numerous occasions on other talk shows, and 90% of what he says on all of those occasions is complete crap.

And I'm sure that none of these "clips" you've seen were taken out of context or anything...Mind you, I'm not an O'Reilly fan, but at least Dave could have answered Bill's arguments instead of going, "Well, why are we in Iraq," or "Cindy Sheehan blah blah blah". Dave started the argument but then changed subjects when Bill answered his accusations.

[daperlman]

well no matter what you think of either of them - it was great TV. I greatly dislike O'Reilly but he certainly got the better of that exchange.

[iceturkee]

actually, i don't think o'reilly got the best of the exchange. even when he called letterman out on the 60 percent crap thing, i knew he would respond with the you can't believe everything you read in the media. i don't think he had a solid argument to back him up.

one of the things i love best about farenheidt (spelling) 911 is when mike moore and the mother of a soldier killed in iraq are walking around the capitol, asking congressmen with children old enough to enlist, would they allow their children to go to this war. of course, they all respond hell no.

when dave asked him if he had a child who had been killed in war and o'reilly responded no, it drove the anger in me. ask yourselves, of all the members of congress who voted for this war, would send their child? that should tell you how two-faced most of these politicos (including our president) are.

btw, i am a veteran, which should explain most of my anger on this subject.

[stujac]

Originally Posted by barrettd

And I'm sure that none of these "clips" you've seen were taken out of context or anything...Mind you, I'm not an O'Reilly fan, but at least Dave could have answered Bill's arguments instead of going, "Well, why are we in Iraq," or "Cindy Sheehan blah blah blah". Dave started the argument but then changed subjects when Bill answered his accusations.

How many times must you say you're not an O'Reilly fan for you to believe it? I don't.

[rizzlebizzle]

Originally Posted by Magnolia88

I don't watch O'Reilly's show but I still know that almost everything he says is crap.

Sound logic...

[Steveknj]

I lean left on my politcal views, but to me, guys like O'Reilly and Stern (on the other extreme), are entertainers. They say outrageous things to get a reaction, to publicity. Heck, we are all talking about it here. That's his shtick. He throws things out there and it gets us to discuss. Of course most of what he says is crap, same with Stern or anyone else, including most of our politiicans out there. What annoys me more than what they say, is the reaction by "activists" on both sides of the fence who take what they say as the "gospel truth" and spin it to better their political views. I didn't see the Letterman show, but THAT is the tact i would take with O'Reilly. I would say, "Bill how much of this crap do you say for publicity? How much of it do you say just to get the extreme right riled up?"

[Hansky]

Originally Posted by Steveknj

I didn't see the Letterman show, but THAT is the tact i would take with O'Reilly. I would say, "Bill how much of this crap do you say for publicity? How much of it do you say just to get the extreme right riled up?"

I finally watched it, and that is about what Dave did. Bill may or may not be correct on the subject matter, but I do not believe Dave came back with a single response or counter-argument. All he did was sit back and come up with meaningless quips like "I don't believe you," "That is 60% crap," etc. No substance at all.

That, and the responses you propose, play well with people who don't actually know, or want to know, the real facts and only want to see a good spat.

The tactic I would use is actually learning the issue and facts, and challenging the other person on that basis.

[daperlman]

Originally Posted by iceturkee

actually, i don't think o'reilly got the best of the exchange. even when he called letterman out on the 60 percent crap thing, i knew he would respond with the you can't believe everything you read in the media. i don't think he had a solid argument to back him up.

one of the things i love best about farenheidt (spelling) 911 is when mike moore and the mother of a soldier killed in iraq are walking around the capitol, asking congressmen with children old enough to enlist, would they allow their children to go to this war. of course, they all respond hell no.

when dave asked him if he had a child who had been killed in war and o'reilly responded no, it drove the anger in me. ask yourselves, of all the members of congress who voted for this war, would send their child? that should tell you how two-faced most of these politicos (including our president) are.

btw, i am a veteran, which should explain most of my anger on this subject.

Well I do think most of what O'Reilly says is crap. But Letterman said that and O'Reilly basically asked what he meant and to which Letterman basically says that is what I heard, but I don't watch your show...so I dunno. Advantage O'Reilly there. Then Letterman basically accuses O'Reilly of being heartless and cruel for not sympathizing with Sheehan (which is a totally lame arguement... of course everyone sympathizes with a parent who loses a child, but that doesn't give carte blanche on what they say).

[Fish Man]

Originally Posted by loubob57

Not to get political here (hard not to with this subject!) but I don't understand Letterman's apparent stance that you have to agree with everything Cindy Sheehan says or you aren't showing her any compassion. Those are two very different things.

Me too!

I'm NO FAN WHATSOEVER of O'Reilly, but Dave seemed to be saying that it's appropriate to call terrorists who target civilians and go for maximum body counts "freedom fighters", as Sheehan does. We also all know that these "freedom fighters" would set up a Tahalaban-like uber-oppressive regime if they ever were to gain power.

One of O'Reilly's few comments that elicited applause from Dave's audience was that he would never allow such murderers to be called "freedom fighters" on his show.

Feeling Cindy Sheehan's pain and agreeing with her ultra-ultra-mega-uber-super liberal agenda are two completely different things.

There are plenty of other parents who have tragically lost children to the Iraq war who's political opinions run the full spectrum of those of the US population in general. Grieving for a loved one lost in Iraq would appear to have no correlation to one's political views on the subject of the war.

I do however agree that about 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap!

[barrettd]

Originally Posted by iceturkee

one of the things i love best about farenheidt (spelling) 911 is when mike moore and the mother of a soldier killed in iraq are walking around the capitol, asking congressmen with children old enough to enlist, would they allow their children to go to this war. of course, they all respond hell no.

when dave asked him if he had a child who had been killed in war and o'reilly responded no, it drove the anger in me. ask yourselves, of all the members of congress who voted for this war, would send their child? that should tell you how two-faced most of these politicos (including our president) are.

btw, i am a veteran, which should explain most of my anger on this subject.

The problem with that argument is that we have a volunteer military, which means it is up to each individual to decide whether or not to enlist. Parents don't "send their child" to the military.

[Hansky]

Originally Posted by iceturkee

actually, i don't think o'reilly got the best of the exchange. even when he called letterman out on the 60 percent crap thing, i knew he would respond with the you can't believe everything you read in the media. i don't think he had a solid argument to back him up.

Letterman had nothing but meaningless, non-factual comebacks. He didn't even try. Is that what you look for in a debate?

one of the things i love best about farenheidt (spelling) 911 is when mike moore and the mother of a soldier killed in iraq are walking around the capitol, asking congressmen with children old enough to enlist, would they allow their children to go to this war. of course, they all respond hell no.

... when dave asked him if he had a child who had been killed in war and o'reilly responded no, it drove the anger in me. ask yourselves, of all the members of congress who voted for this war, would send their child? that should tell you how two-faced most of these politicos (including our president) are.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. At what point in the history of this country were members of Congress (or any branch, for that matter) restricted to acting on matters that only affect their family? How do you think that form of government would turn out?

For someone who claims to have served, you fall for the ridiculous lines normally reserved for people who don't have a clue. Those are the lines reserved for people who have much more emotion that common sense.

Let us know, as a former soldier, how you'd feel if the country were attacked and the only people who could vote on the war were families of killed soldiers. Yeah... great common sense and grasp of government and history.

[stujac]

You missed his point and I'm sure it was because you wanted to. Keep drinking that Kool Aide.

[Hansky]

Originally Posted by stujac

How many times must you say you're not an O'Reilly fan for you to believe it? I don't.

Originally Posted by stujac

You missed his point and I'm sure it was because you wanted to. Keep drinking that Kool Aide.

Did someone mention meaningless, non-factual comebacks? Great examples of Dave-type lines on the show. Thanks

[DrC4]

Originally Posted by iceturkee

when dave asked him if he had a child who had been killed in war and o'reilly responded no, it drove the anger in me.

Actually, it went this way:

Dave: "Do you have children?"

Bill "Yes I do. I have a son the same age as yours."

Just needed to get that clarified

BTW, Got that from the clip off the link above.

[sketcher]

Originally Posted by iceturkee

one of the things i love best about farenheidt (spelling) 911 is when mike moore and the mother of a soldier killed in iraq are walking around the capitol, asking congressmen with children old enough to enlist, would they allow their children to go to this war. of course, they all respond hell no.

btw, i am a veteran, which should explain most of my anger on this subject.

You should be careful of the "facts" you take away from Farenheit 911. There aren't very many accurate "facts" in it. 59 deceipts in Farenheit 911

Early in this segment, Moore states that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, "Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq."

Moore’s second statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to "sacrifice" his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty in the Judge Advocate General Corps; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes. Seven members of Congress have been confirmed to have children in the military.

How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.

Why not count Duncan Hunter's son? Note the phrasing: "only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." Although Hunter's son "enlisted" in the Marines, he is a Second Lieutenant, which means that he is above the rank of an "enlisted man." But why hide from the viewers how many Congressmen really have sons serving in the military in Iraq?

The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:
….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.
What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’"
Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading" after viewing the interview in question.

[Redux]

Originally Posted by Hansky

The tactic I would use is actually learning the issue and facts, and challenging the other person on that basis.

Hopefully Letterman's agent will suggest this change of career path to him. With Nightline gone (replaced by Nightline Light), I can see Letterman reinventing himself as you suggest and establshing the Tonight show as Koppel's real.successor.

[eMarkM]

Originally Posted by Michelle5150

Dave was a little out of character last night.

Actually, that combativeness was far more in his character back in the old NBC days. He was much more irascible back then and willing to mix it up with his guests. Now he has to compete with ass kiss Leno and can't afford to piss guests off lest they refuse to come back again.

I agree with most of the posters that he stumbled in his debate with O'Reily (who, whatever you think about his politics, is a very good rhetorician), but look at buzz surrounding this. That was Old School Letterman! And despite stumbling through his arguments, I prefer that Letterman to the one who fawned all over Oprah. I hope he challenges more of his guests like he used to.

[lajohn27]

I think Letterman was on point with his Christmas arguments. This are really isolated incidents. And in the case of the Silent Night story - flat out wrong .. the song was changed as part of a Christmas play written in 1988 by the choirmaster at Ronald Reagan's church.. They were performing that play at that school. I doubt that Reagan's choirmaster is against Christmas or part of the Christmas-Jihad.

To take Sheehan's comment about freedom fighters out of context is absurd. She doesn't praise them. Quite the opposite. I've read the quote, I'd really like to hear it. Because I can almost hear sarcastic quotes around the words 'freedom fighters' when you read the rest of the paragraph.

And regardless.. she may just be referring to them as they refer to themselves. Freedom really is a matter of perspective. I don't agree that they're freedom fighters, but I assure you that they believe they are.