TV Catfight: Letterman vs O'Reilly
 

Click below if you want to check it out.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002750.html

Thanks for the clip!

I watched some of it last night. Pretty funny.

As much as I love Letterman, and as much as I hate O'Reilly, I wish Dave had had something specific to bring up after saying that 60 percent of what O'Reilly says is crap. Instead, he said it, and O'Reilly says, "Give me an example," and Dave has nothin'. Sort of a missed opportunity.

I like both O'Reilly and Letterman, but O'Reilly is exactly right when he says his critics habitually resort to emotional, personal attacks on him when they simply aren't capable of engaging in rational debate----that's exactly what Dave did. I consider myself pretty centrist politically, and I would puke after listening to either Limbaugh or Coulter for more than 60 seconds, but I wouldn't lump O'Reilly in with that bunch. He is kind of an obnoxious blowhard, but he's got a good sense of humor, and he's certainly not in the "everything liberal is bad, everything conservative is good" camp. I listen to the radio show quite frequently, and I find that he usually gives a fair shot to people of any political stripe if they can form coherent arguments with factual examples. If they engage in personal insults, generalized denigration or vague "feelings" about something, they get shot down pretty quick.

"I'm not smart enough to debate you..." rotfl

I think O'Reilly handled himself exceptionally well.

I have a new respect for Letterman. It's about time someone with the stature of Letterman challenged O'Reily. :clap:

Letterman is an idiot. He's bitching about things based on "things that he's read" about Bill O'Reilly and his Factor program. Whats up with that crap?

Letterman should have said one example of why I think you're full of crap is that you lied on this show in 04 when I asked you about the shut ups in the Outfoxed documentary.

When exactly did that happen? All I could see was Letterman pandering to his audience with blanket generalizations about the Iraq War, Cindy Sheehan, and Bill's show.

Dave didn't have anything challenging to say. Perhaps he should have suffered through a half hour of the O'Reily factor in preperation before attempting to interview someone who argues politics for a living. He certainly could have found plenty of material to work with as the Daily Show seems to on a regular basis.

Glad Letterman did that I cant stand O'Reilly at all, ever since he kicked the guy that was a 9/11 survivor off his show. At least he isnt totally one sided like Rush Limbaugh now thats a guy whos a real idiot

As much as I love Letterman, I really feel that as a host you should always be respectful to your guests. Nothing wrong with a little conflict of opinion, but you should not be insulting your guests. In a way, this was like Rosie attacking Magnum PI, but to be fair O'Reilly is full of crap 60% of the time.

Letterman dropped a notch in my book. Anyone who defends Cindy Sheehan's actions is either crazy or they don't know what she has done and said in the last 6 months. I think this is another example of a celebrity not knowing any of the facts and just spouting off uneducated opinions. At least Letterman basically conceded that point.

BTW: The pencil in the water thing was low and just plain stupid. O'Reily wins the class battle just on that point alone.

Bill O'Reilly bitches about things he makes up. What's up with that?

That whole thing about Cindy Sheehan calling the terrorists "Freedom fighters" seemed off to me - I knew she was being used by some silly extreme left groups who put her up on a pedestal when she is just an average person of average intelligence who mourns the loss of her son, but I doubted she believed that. When I looked it up it was clear that she misspoke once in the phrase she used to describe the people crossing the border into Iraq, and she went on to say that they are committing terrorist acts (fueled by our occupation). If O'Reilly held Bush to the same standard for poor word choice, he'd have to say that Bush wants to be the Dictator of the U.S. - "Things would be a heck of a lot easier if this were a dictatorship" - among the litany of other things he's spouted.

It would have been nice if Dave prepared a little. There wasn't much utility in countering O'Reilly's hot air with gut feelings that he is full of BS - however accurate those gut feelings are.

I don't think Dave really went in there thinking he was going to bash O'Reily but when O'Reily started on that whole war on christmas crap, something in Dave's head said enough of this.

Letterman disqualified himself when he went on and on about O'Reilly's show... and then said that he never watched. :scratch2:

The Hollywood liberals & major media believe one way.
David Letterman says I don't watch your show, but because what I read about you I believe 60% of what you say is crap.
He wouldn't believe about the anti-Christmas stories even though O'Reilly had the facts.
Now what do you think would happen if Letterman had met with the people who were in court about these anti-Christmas?
Do you think Letterman would then believe and maybe question where he gets his news information? Since 1993 when I started to talk politics with liberals to today whenever you show them hard facts on something that goes againest their beliefs they get mad and still don't believe it. So much for open minds.
Pretty much act how David Letterman acted.

The same O'Reily who went with one of these so called war on Christmas stories in Texas or was it Wisconsin that turned out to be false? He even said he was wrong on his own show. :hscratch:

Letterman was a fool for saying that O'Reilly was wrong 60% of the time. What an ass.

The actual figure is something like 70%.

Christian right much? Pot meet kettle.

Look, I can make blanket generalizations too.

What about at that booksellers event a few years ago when Al Franken was on the panel with O'Reilly, and Franken pointed out how O'Reilly had been lying over and over again for years about winning a Peabody Award, and all the ever rational O'Reilly could muster as a response was to get angry and shout personal insults.

But O'Reilly doesn't hold himself to the same standard of bolstering his arguments with facts, and on The Factor he doesn't give people the opportunity to form coherent arguments.

Just because someone or some organization goes to court because they think an institution is crossing the line that is supposed to separate Church and State does not mean that they are anti-Christmas or anti-Christian.

That kind of thinking is a collapsing of viewpoints into simple black and white categories that are too simplistic, and insulting to people of even moderate intelligence that can hold complex ideas in their mind.

If I believe in the principles that our nation was founded upon, and I think that the Government sponsoring Christmas stuff constitutes an endorsement by the Govt of a particular religion, that does not also mean that I hate Christmas, or that I hate Christianity.

Similarly with regards to Cindy Sheehan, her challenging Bush and questioning the motives behind the war in Iraq, do not mean that she supports terrorism or "The Enemy".
Contrary to what the GOP would have you believe, it is possible to hate Bush, hate Osama Bin Laden, and hate Saddam Hussein --all at the same time.

I know that Cindy Sheehan is an American citizen, and therefore has the right to go wherever she wants and say whatever she wants about the President and the war in Iraq.

I also know that her son went to fight in a foreign land.
That's something that Bush was unwilling to do, and something that Cheney was unwilling to do.
Bush's children aren't fighting in Iraq, and none of the children of any of the Republicans in Congress are fighting in Iraq.

Her son died fighting in a war.

How does she not have the right to question the validity of the cause that her son sacrificed himself for?

I would wonder about her sanity if she didn't question it.

As soon as you pull that out as an example, I know you don't know what you are talking about.

Rosie O'Donnell had Tom Selleck as a guest on her show less than a month after the Columbine shootings.
She announced on her show repeatedly in advance of his appearance that she was going to question him about his support of the NRA.
When Selleck appeared on the show and Rosie started challenging him, he acted like he didn't know what was going on and he maintains now that he was "blind-sided" by her.
If Tom Selleck did not know what was going to happen when he went on the Rosie O'Donnell Show, the only explanation is that he is an idiot.