Bogus "Lipstick on a pig" controversy

[sgs89]

This has to have its own topic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/ap_on_el_pr/obama_lipstick

McCain has sunk to a new low. Is he serious with the accusation that this is an attack on Palin's gender? I will be even more disappointed than usual if the American public falls for this kind of attack.

This is worse than "swiftboating" someone.

[greydt]

"Challenged about how she could be sure that Obama was referring to Palin, (former Massachusetts governor Jane) Swift replied, "She's the only one of the four presidential or vice presidential candidates who wears lipstick."

*sigh* We are a country of morons lead by bigger morons...

[Gothic Walrus]

"Challenged about how she could be sure that Obama was referring to Palin, (former Massachusetts governor Jane) Swift replied, "She's the only one of the four presidential or vice presidential candidates who wears lipstick."

...that we know of. :shock:

[Reality's Fringe]

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a low-key jab at her, but who the fuck cares?
If it was indeed a shot at her, then Obama is a dick... and the McCain party is a collective of whiny pussies.

Anyone addressing REAL issues this election period?

[KingBroly]

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a low-key jab at her, but who the fuck cares?
If it was indeed a shot at her, then Obama is a dick... and the McCain party is a collective of whiny pussies.

Anyone addressing REAL issues this election period?

The time for addressing issues has past.

The time for mudslinging is now.

[sgs89]

I mean, even if Obama had in mind Palin's comments about lipstick on a pitbull, I still don't see how this comment could in any way be heard to mean that Palin is a pig. It might be a riff on the imagery she used, but nothing more.

At least the swiftboaters had *some* claim to being *somewhat* factual -- they were there, no way to prove what happened for sure, etc. -- this is just plain absurd.

[homeland]

Mccain needs to stop bitching and start talking...all he says is, My friend, complaining about how mean the democrates are, and change.. Would love to see him give a speech were he actually says what he intends to do and not lie in the same speech.

[Koggit]

I mean, even if Obama had in mind Palin's comments about lipstick on a pitbull, I still don't see how this comment could in any way be heard to mean that Palin is a pig. It might be a riff on the imagery she used, but nothing more.

It has nothing to do with Palin... it's a saying.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lipstick%20on%20a%20pig

A good analog to this would be had McCain said "pot calling the kettle black" in regard to DNC hypocrisy and Obama played the race card.

[Travelsized]

It's the same line that McCain himself used when talking about Hilary Clinton's healthcare policy, almost a year ago, back during the primaries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w

[lilboo]

Well she IS a pig [-(

[sgs89]

It has nothing to do with Palin... it's a saying.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lipstick%20on%20a%20pig

A good analog to this would be had McCain said "pot calling the kettle black" in regard to DNC hypocrisy and Obama played the race card.

I know it has nothing to do with Palin personally, but it can be seen as a riff on her "lipstick on a pitbull" comment. That's why the controversy is so bogus.

[Ikohn4ever]

Well she IS a pig [-(


aren't pigs supposed to be intelligent though?

[lilboo]

aren't pigs supposed to be intelligent though?

I don't think she's dumb, I just think she's a pig. [-(

[lilboo]

http://bovinefeces.com/press/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/lipstickpig.jpg

Do we really want THAT as (vice)president? [-(

[rumblebear]

Well judging by his audience's reaction it seems they knew what Obama meant. It's similar to when Obama was in the middle of a sentence bashing Hillary, then stopped and used his middle finger to scratch his cheek. His audience's reaction tells it all.

[Msut77]

The woman referred to herself as a bitch with lipstick.

Is anyone that gullible to believe she would be offended even if it was aimed at her?

[mykevermin]

This is smart for McCain.

The longer they paint Palin as a victim, seeing as how the media has such a fucking crush on her, the longer they can keep their momentum going, generate sympathy, and avoid talking about the actual issues that matter in this country.

If we talk about lipstick between now and November, it's McCain's victory.

I think a succinct "McCain's old and fucking stupid" should suffice as a response from Obama.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Obama should apologize for using an expression. He should also apologize for McCain calling his wife a cunt because McCain was probably using an expression there, too.

[sgs89]

The longer they paint Palin as a victim, seeing as how the media has such a fucking crush on her, the longer they can keep their momentum going, generate sympathy, and avoid talking about the actual issues that matter in this country.

Interesting take on the media's treatment of Palin. If you listen to the right (including the McCain campaign itself), Palin is the victim of a left-wing media smear campaign. And here you are suggesting the exact opposite -- that the media is fawning all over Palin.

Both interpretations can't be right.

Which one is it, boys?

[mykevermin]

Between this (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/09/paul-begala-rips-msm-republican-operative-for-flat-out-lying-about-palins-record/) exchange from CNN where John Roberts shows video of Palin expressing support for the bridge, then gladhands Alex Castellanos to lie about the issue, ending the segment with a flippant sort of "we'll leave it up to you to decide if she lied or not" demeanor, coupled with O'Reilly's interview of Obama where he tells Obama he passed a lousy bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BEF4qdtwDs

Well, I think the answer is obvious if you aren't a blithering idiot. Imagine anyone on CNN telling a Republican to their face that they passed a stupid bill. They'd be out the door due to feigned outrage before you could say "Dan Rather."

Palin has not faced a SINGLE question since she was announced. She has delivered ONE speech, the same speech she gave at the RNC, dozens of times, not deviating from the script.

The fact that the McCain campaign is unabashedly up front about how they're not letting anyone interview her (at the same time acting apalled that Oprah allegedly won't have her on, which is untrue, of course) - put it together. Do the math.

We have media people talking about Weather Underground and telling candidates their bill stinks on one hand, and absolute stunning silence and campaign managers talking on another.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I say.

[Koggit]

The fact that "liberal media" is generally accepted proves we have very, very conservative media.

[sgs89]

The fact that "liberal media" is generally accepted proves we have very, very conservative media.

Tell that to Keith Olbermann and MSNBC.

Or the New York Times.

[Frogurt.man]

Tell that to Keith Olbermann and MSNBC.

Or the New York Times.

Naming the New York Times as part of the "liberal media" just points out how much of a flip flop that newspaper is.
IIRC most of your Pro Iraq War articles came from the New York Times back in 2003. A chick by the name of *****JUDITH MILLER***** comes to mind.

Hmmm.....made the case for the Iraq War yet part of the "liberal media" you say?

I'm sorry but everytime I see somone claim the New York Times as part of the "liberal media" it gets my blood boiling. Honestly this just goes to show you how good the Republicans are at revisionist history.

[CaseyRyback]

Tell that to Keith Olbermann and MSNBC.

Or the New York Times.

The media isn't impartial, but labelling it one way or another isn't correct. The media is neither conservative nor liberal.

This election stinks more and more like 2000 as it goes on. Also if we really had a liberal media George Bush wouldn't be our president, and all those lies conservatives made about what Gore said wouldn't have been allowed to stand.

[sgs89]

Naming the New York Times as part of the "liberal media" just points out how much of a flip flop that newspaper is.
IIRC most of your Pro Iraq War articles came from the New York Times back in 2003. A chick by the name of *****JUDITH MILLER***** comes to mind.

Hmmm.....made the case for the Iraq War yet part of the "liberal media" you say?

I'm sorry but everytime I see somone claim the New York Times as part of the "liberal media" it gets my blood boiling. Honestly this just goes to show you how good the Republicans are at revisionist history.

Is being pro-war conservative? Not if you are Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul.

Is it liberal? I wouldn't say that.

The point is, one's position on the war in 2003 was not clearly divided along political lines. Most "liberals" were "for" the war. (Robert Byrd and Barack Obama notwithstanding)

Here is what the NY Times said about the issue of its bias:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d01e7d8173df936a15754c0a9629c8b 63

As a reader of the NY Times I am surprised that someone would honestly argue that it doesn't, in general, have a liberal slant. There are exceptions, obviously, but for the most part, it clearly does.

And it was wise on your part not to say anything about MSNBC and Olbermann. There is no argument there.

[camoor]

And it was wise on your part not to say anything about MSNBC and Olbermann. There is no argument there.

That Scarborough - what a hippie!

And Pat Buchanan, omg is he Communist or something?

[sgs89]

That Scarborough - what a hippie!

And Pat Buchanan, omg is he Communist or something?

They can't have all marxists! They need a foil now and again, man.

[Frogurt.man]

Is being pro-war conservative? Not if you are Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul.

Is it liberal? I wouldn't say that.

The point is, one's position on the war in 2003 was not clearly divided along political lines. Most "liberals" were "for" the war. (Robert Byrd and Barack Obama notwithstanding)

Here is what the NY Times said about the issue of its bias:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d01e7d8173df936a15754c0a9629c8b 63

As a reader of the NY Times I am surprised that someone would honestly argue that it doesn't, in general, have a liberal slant. There are exceptions, obviously, but for the most part, it clearly does.

And it was wise on your part not to say anything about MSNBC and Olbermann. There is no argument there.

Don't fool yourself into believing that there were a lot of people who bought into the war. Democratic senators and congressman voted for the war in Iraq out of pure fear.
Fear of the attack ads they would face come election time if they had a record of being against it. They feared the Republican spin machine they would be up against.

Don't fall for this bogus term. Don't fall for this "liberal media" horse crap. This is just something the Administration, Republicans use to drum sympathy and support.

Yes the NYT does have a lot of editorials with a left slant. But that does not mean it is part of this "liberal media". To me that whole term has been made up as a scape goat.
It doesn't exist. The last guy in charge made up the same thing. He called it the "right wing conspiracy".

[Frogurt.man]

The media isn't impartial, but labelling it one way or another isn't correct. The media is neither conservative nor liberal.

This election stinks more and more like 2000 as it goes on. Also if we really had a liberal media George Bush wouldn't be our president, and all those lies conservatives made about what Gore said wouldn't have been allowed to stand.

:applause::applause::applause:

[Thomas96]

Don't fall for this bogus term. Don't fall for this "liberal media" horse crap. This is just something the Administration, Republicans use to drum sympathy and support.


That's a good point, look at Sean Hannidy. On his radio show, he criticizes the "liberal media" however he has his own television show [Hannidy & Colmes] that comes on around 8 or 9pm, everday Monday through Friday. He's a straight conservative republican. Also, I don't know how they did it, but the GOP has a complete monopoly over talk radio.

[MSI Magus]

I blame Democrats and Obama. Seriously for years now Republicans have gotten away with saying whatever they want knowing Democrats either dont hit back or dont hit back hard enough. Worse Fox News now does this same kind of shit. They know they can get away with talking about things like Jamie Lynn Spears and how underage teenage mothers are a huge problem then turn around and feign outrage over Sarah Palins daughter.

Democrats need to stand up and be angry and be loud and stand on the facts. Yes they are going to loose some elections over it, but I think in the long run they will decimate Republicans. When Obama was attacked over being a closet Muslim he should have stood up and been outraged. He should have said I am not a Muslim I am a Christian. I am outraged, not by the fact that my Christianity is being attacked though, but that you use being a Muslim as an attack which is disgusting. Whenever this whole lipstick on a pig thing was brought up he should have rolled his eyes and said I didnt mean it that way and its a joke taht you are even covering this. And when O Reilly was being a dick and said I know 1,000s of people and none are like that Obama should have replied, no you dont, because you are that guy and pointed out his own hypocrisy on many issues from his sex scandal to the before mentioned Palin/Spears baby thing.

The problem with both politics and our nation is that there are too many morons out there who are rarely outraged at anything and when they are its the wrong damn thing. The problem is that too many of us that know about it dont voice our opinion. We should be happy to tell others the facts and happy to tell others they are morons and point out why.

I really dont think our politics or are nation are going to change till its on the verge of collapse and we tear it down because of stuff like this.

[Sc4rfac3]

The Republicans are the masters of the misdirection. Right now they are the equal to the guy that yells out "look over there" while picking your pocket. I love how this non-issue is an issue. Who cares if he was talking about her. She has said worse about Barack Obama during her speech. I just wish the media would end the school boy crush on Palin and grill her on the issues. Like Barack said yesterday the only people that will lose is us.

[xycury]

I blame Democrats and Obama. Seriously for years now Republicans have gotten away with saying whatever they want knowing Democrats either dont hit back or dont hit back hard enough. Worse Fox News now does this same kind of shit. They know they can get away with talking about things like Jamie Lynn Spears and how underage teenage mothers are a huge problem then turn around and feign outrage over Sarah Palins daughter.

Democrats need to stand up and be angry and be loud and stand on the facts. Yes they are going to loose some elections over it, but I think in the long run they will decimate Republicans. When Obama was attacked over being a closet Muslim he should have stood up and been outraged. He should have said I am not a Muslim I am a Christian. I am outraged, not by the fact that my Christianity is being attacked though, but that you use being a Muslim as an attack which is disgusting. Whenever this whole lipstick on a pig thing was brought up he should have rolled his eyes and said I didnt mean it that way and its a joke taht you are even covering this. And when O Reilly was being a dick and said I know 1,000s of people and none are like that Obama should have replied, no you dont, because you are that guy and pointed out his own hypocrisy on many issues from his sex scandal to the before mentioned Palin/Spears baby thing.

The problem with both politics and our nation is that there are too many morons out there who are rarely outraged at anything and when they are its the wrong damn thing. The problem is that too many of us that know about it dont voice our opinion. We should be happy to tell others the facts and happy to tell others they are morons and point out why.

I really dont think our politics or are nation are going to change till its on the verge of collapse and we tear it down because of stuff like this.

Democrats angry!!! Democrats smash!!! /hulkvoice

They need some gamma radiation and a backbone transplant.

Totally agree, it's about time they call this crap out in the open... make people realize that mudslinging holds no weight after the voting process is made, and either one fell for the BS or not.

"you can put lipstick on BS... but..."

[speedracer]

The point is, one's position on the war in 2003 was not clearly divided along political lines. Most "liberals" were "for" the war. (Robert Byrd and Barack Obama notwithstanding)
I think that's proof positive that most "liberals" were against the war. The only Democratic candidate yelling for reason at the time is now the undisputed leader of the party. You don't rise like he has without speaking to the base's problems with the former leadership.

[sgs89]

I think that's proof positive that most "liberals" were against the war. The only Democratic candidate yelling for reason at the time is now the undisputed leader of the party. You don't rise like he has without speaking to the base's problems with the former leadership.

But that argument ignores the obvious - namely, that EVERYONE is now against the war (except for the neo-con, hardcore maniacs).

I mean, most conservatives are against the war now. At the time, most people -- yes, even most "liberals" --- supported it.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

But that argument ignores the obvious - namely, that EVERYONE is now against the war (except for the neo-con, hardcore maniacs).

I mean, most conservatives are against the war now. At the time, most people -- yes, even most "liberals" --- supported it.

That's right. With everybody against the war now, why are we still there?

[MSI Magus]

But that argument ignores the obvious - namely, that EVERYONE is now against the war (except for the neo-con, hardcore maniacs).

I mean, most conservatives are against the war now. At the time, most people -- yes, even most "liberals" --- supported it.

Thats because most people are morons. I remember waking up on September 11th and after the intial feeling bad for those that died or lost someone laughing to myself and thinking well this should be fun and interesting. Next thing you know people were pushing for not just war but not even the right god damn wars.

[camoor]

They can't have all marxists! They need a foil now and again, man.

No.

A foil is someone like Holmes or the freaks that O'Reilly lets out of the closet when he wants to play. "Lipstick on a pig? Spider caught a fly, bring out the gimp (and slap a liberal byline on her)"

When you call a show "Morning Joe" and give former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough the anchor position and loudest mic, he is no longer a foil.

MSNBC is somewhat conservative in the morning and increasingly liberal in the afternoon. But what of it? Fox news is hard-core balls-to-the-wall radical right all day long 24/7 no ifs, ands, or buts. Fair and balanced - more like fairly unbalanced. Plus Fox News is the most watched cable news. So how long are we going to keep up this mythos of ubiquitous liberal media if Faux News is the station polluting the most minds in America?

[sgs89]

Plus Fox News is the most watched cable news. So how long are we going to keep up this mythos of ubiquitous liberal media if Faux News is the station polluting the most minds in America?

Ah, there's the point. The most conservative (at least, Republican, because many of its positions are not truly "conservative"), by far, of the news media outlets, Fox News, is the most watched. What does this mean? The media, on average, is far more liberal than the general American populace. Hence, the "liberal media" tag is born.

Now, they might not seem liberal to you -- hell, you might be left of Chairman Mao for all I know -- but they are certainly more liberal than the average American.

They've done studies where they've compared the political views of those working in the main network newsrooms to those of the American public. Yep, the newsies are more "liberal" on all the issues, from abortion to gun rights to taxes.

[homeland]

Obviously he doesn't make the comment, but someone who hates name calling and degrading the opponent I'm surpised Mccain did not correct the comment the woman made..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o

[camoor]

Ah, there's the point. The most conservative (at least, Republican, because many of its positions are not truly "conservative"), by far, of the news media outlets, Fox News, is the most watched. What does this mean? The media, on average, is far more liberal than the general American populace. Hence, the "liberal media" tag is born.

Now, they might not seem liberal to you -- hell, you might be left of Chairman Mao for all I know -- but they are certainly more liberal than the average American.

They've done studies where they've compared the political views of those working in the main network newsrooms to those of the American public. Yep, the newsies are more "liberal" on all the issues, from abortion to gun rights to taxes.

Of course most news professionals are liberal - after all most white-collar professionals in general are liberal. It doesn't necessarily interfere with the way they do their jobs.

[MSI Magus]

Ah, there's the point. The most conservative (at least, Republican, because many of its positions are not truly "conservative"), by far, of the news media outlets, Fox News, is the most watched. What does this mean? The media, on average, is far more liberal than the general American populace. Hence, the "liberal media" tag is born.

Now, they might not seem liberal to you -- hell, you might be left of Chairman Mao for all I know -- but they are certainly more liberal than the average American.

They've done studies where they've compared the political views of those working in the main network newsrooms to those of the American public. Yep, the newsies are more "liberal" on all the issues, from abortion to gun rights to taxes.

Disagree. I think that the media is more liberal then the VOTING public yes. The problem is that young people, most more people....hell most Americans just dont vote or pay attention to politics. The people that do are by and large political junkies and old people.....who would mostly be conservative and thus watch fox news.

I think by and large most Americans are pretty centrist. They are liberal on some views, conservative on some....and feel one party or the other is going to far on different issues. For instance look at Welfare, I bet most Americans would be fairly liberal feeling there is a place for it in our system and more of a place then Republicans think. However I bet most would feel far too many people are eligible for it that shouldnt be. Similar with immigration, abortion and most other major policies.

I think if anything we are a nation that would probably lean to the left but we vote to the right. This is why we see polls time and time again showing Democrats having a fair lead, but then loosing. Because most Americans are centrist leaning to the left....most voters sadly are not.

[Koggit]

someone who hates name calling and degrading the opponent ... Mccain


...

what?

[sgs89]

...

what?

I took his comment to be facetious.

But the video wouldn't work for me, so I'm not sure what the point was. (I assume it was the one where someone in the crowd calls Hillary a bitch.)

[SpazX]

Ah, there's the point. The most conservative (at least, Republican, because many of its positions are not truly "conservative"), by far, of the news media outlets, Fox News, is the most watched. What does this mean? The media, on average, is far more liberal than the general American populace. Hence, the "liberal media" tag is born.

Are you sure that's what it means? The journalists themselves may very well be more liberal than the general public, but I don't think that's really the reason why fox news is the most watched any more than its the reason why Rush Limbaugh is more popular than the programs on NPR.

[sgs89]

Are you sure that's what it means? The journalists themselves may very well be more liberal than the general public, but I don't think that's really the reason why fox news is the most watched any more than its the reason why Rush Limbaugh is more popular than the programs on NPR.

Well, what is the reason then?

Why didn't liberal talk radio take off? Conservative talk radio sure as hell did.

I assume you are suggesting that any appeal to the lowest common denominator would be more popular, but if that's true, then the market would bring forth similarly popular liberal lowbrow programs. (Jerry Springer show, anyone?)

[KingBroly]

Well, what is the reason then?

Why didn't liberal talk radio take off? Conservative talk radio sure as hell did.

I assume you are suggesting that any appeal to the lowest common denominator would be more popular, but if that's true, then the market would bring forth similarly popular liberal lowbrow programs. (Jerry Springer show, anyone?)

Because conservative talk radio (Aka Rush Limbaugh) made it a business. Liberal talk radio was more about guy or girl with a megaphone on a wooden box instead of trying to support themselves financially.

[MSI Magus]

Because conservative talk radio (Aka Rush Limbaugh) made it a business. Liberal talk radio was more about guy or girl with a megaphone on a wooden box instead of trying to support themselves financially.

Doesnt hurt that their willing to be loud mouthed arogrant assholes which is what people seem to like out of talk radio. Being willing to lie about issues doesnt hurt either. The liberals that are assholes in general are more snide and snarky which works great for blogging but not so well over the radio.

[sgs89]

Because conservative talk radio (Aka Rush Limbaugh) made it a business. Liberal talk radio was more about guy or girl with a megaphone on a wooden box instead of trying to support themselves financially.

Then make it a business. If the market is there, it will find it.

It hasn't happened and I postulate that at least part of the reason is that there are fewer people in America that would listen to it than would listen to an otherwise similar conservative show.

[SpazX]

Well, what is the reason then?

Why didn't liberal talk radio take off? Conservative talk radio sure as hell did.

I assume you are suggesting that any appeal to the lowest common denominator would be more popular, but if that's true, then the market would bring forth similarly popular liberal lowbrow programs. (Jerry Springer show, anyone?)

Well the market certainly has brought more Jerry Springer-like shows. That's what reality TV basically is.

I wasn't, however, suggesting that it was simply appealing to the lowest common denominator, but rather that conservative radio and TV is simply more entertaining and appeals more to pent-up emotions. I've found fewer liberal shows that are as absolute and divisive. The reason why Fox is popular with conservatives is about the same reason why The Daily Show and Colbert Report are popular with liberals except that the latter are on a comedy network where they belong.

The more you try to inform people about news without some entertaining commentary the more you bore them and lose their attention.

[camoor]

The reason why Fox is popular with conservatives is about the same reason why The Daily Show and Colbert Report are popular with liberals except that the latter are on a comedy network where they belong.

Damn SpazX, you keep hitting them out of the park. That is an excellent point!

[depascal22]

I'm the new guy in the political convo but I did notice one thing yesterday. I've been watching more CNN and Fox News lately and Fox News always has more yelling. It seems that conservatives resort to yelling and name calling to cloud the issues while there is more civil discourse on CNN. Also, Larry King had four women on last night. Two Democrats and two Republicans. They got a little feisty but Larry managed to keep it civil and nip any hostilities in the bud. Fox, on the other hand, relishes in it's image as the WWE of the news. Can't get your point across? Hit the other guy over the head with a chair. That always works.

[sgs89]

I'm the new guy in the political convo but I did notice one thing yesterday. I've been watching more CNN and Fox News lately and Fox News always has more yelling. It seems that conservatives resort to yelling and name calling to cloud the issues while there is more civil discourse on CNN. Also, Larry King had four women on last night. Two Democrats and two Republicans. They got a little feisty but Larry managed to keep it civil and nip any hostilities in the bud. Fox, on the other hand, relishes in it's image as the WWE of the news. Can't get your point across? Hit the other guy over the head with a chair. That always works.

I'd pay to see a Bill O'Reilly v. Keith Olbermann Hell in a Cell match.

[depascal22]

I'd pay to see a Bill O'Reilly v. Keith Olbermann Hell in a Cell match.


Hell yeah. For once, I'd like to see these guys drop their public personas and say what the hell they really mean. At this point, they all just pander to their base and spew garbage.

[MSI Magus]

My fav O Riley moment was where a kid questioned the Iraq war and Bush and O Riley called him a disgrace to his dead father and cut off the kids mic. The kids dead father had died in 9/11.

[depascal22]

I used to like O'Reilly at first but his "conservative hack" persona has taken over. He was all about exposing government overspending and hypocrisy at first but that's mostly reserved for the left now. Not very fair and balanced at all.

[sgs89]

My fav O Riley moment was where a kid questioned the Iraq war and Bush and O Riley called him a disgrace to his dead father and cut off the kids mic. The kids dead father had died in 9/11.

Classic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IwIRNM5noY

[galvatron2k1]

Wow, I had never seen that before. I typically don't watch O'reilly because I know he is a complete nutjub but damn, that was crazy. I wish the kid would have said to him, "Out of respect of my father?!! You didn't even know my father." Agreed, this is classic.

[sgs89]

The other classic O'Reilly moment was when he got eaten alive by Phil Donahue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctlmholr45c

[MSI Magus]

The other classic O'Reilly moment was when he got eaten alive by Phil Donahue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctlmholr45c

O Riley is a nut pure and simple. As Franken put it the guy is such a loud mouthed pathological lier that legally you cant even do anything because the judges essentially say hes crazy you dont know when he is telling the truth or when he is lying. I think this is most of the far right though, I mean they have since Reagan took over just done such horrid things yet convinced themselves its for the good of America and culture. The Respectable conservatives like Hagel and Paul are too few and far between...and the saddest thing is Bush the father who was actually a halfway moderate and reasonable man is remembered very unfairly.

[Koggit]

I actually like O'Reilly. He's the one thing on Fox News I enjoy watching, and one of the few things on Fox News I can take seriously. You guys are being far too hard on him.

[sgs89]

How can you take him seriously, with all his moralizing and posturing, knowing that he was involved in his own sordid sex scandal? The guy is a hypocrite, pure and simple.

[rumblebear]

Just watched the clip again and yep, it's quite obvious his audience knew EXACTLY who he was referring to with that pig comment. Obama might have plausible deniability, but his supporters certainly read between the lines and understood it was directed at Palin.

[MSI Magus]

I actually like O'Reilly. He's the one thing on Fox News I enjoy watching, and I one of the few things on Fox News I can take seriously. You guys are being far too hard on him.

Did you not watch those last 2 videos? Have you not heard the many examples of him being hypocritical such as the recent you cant attack Palin because her daughter is Pregnant.....yet just a few months ago was attacking the spears family and talking about how it shows a lapse in American family values?

Seriously, iv debated with you on stuff like religion before and not agreed......but how can you respect O Reiley at all?

[mykevermin]

Ah, there's the point. The most conservative (at least, Republican, because many of its positions are not truly "conservative"), by far, of the news media outlets, Fox News, is the most watched. What does this mean? The media, on average, is far more liberal than the general American populace. Hence, the "liberal media" tag is born.

That assumes that equal portions of the American populace all watch 24 hour cable news channels, in ratios relative to their population distribution. That's not something I'm willing to bet is true.

They've done studies where they've compared the political views of those working in the main network newsrooms to those of the American public. Yep, the newsies are more "liberal" on all the issues, from abortion to gun rights to taxes.

They're more Schwarzenegger (still have a hard time typing that in a political context) than Kennedy.

These studies you speak of show liberal leanings on social issues, but conservative leanings on economic issues.

Moreover, such studies treat each member of the media as equal. A columnist for my podunk-town paper, if selected, counts as much as Wolf Blitzer, as Bill O'Reilly, as Larry King, as - well, you get the idea. Treating one person as equal to another in the media is inappropriate, since they have vastly different audience demographics, vastly different sizes, and thus, vastly different spheres of influence.

The thing about FOX is that it's aggressive reporting. It's hypermasculine. For all the flak someone like Dan Rather got, or Larry King gets, I have NEVER seen them wear their ideologies on their sleeve the way members of "Fox and Friends," "The Big Story with John Gibson" (which was canceled, I think), "Hannity and Colmes," or "O'Reilly Factor" do. We *think* we know how Larry King might lean politically, or Anderson Cooper, or Chris Matthews - but we *KNOW* how Brit Hume, O'Reilly, Hannity, Shepard Smith, John Gibson, Steve Doocy, and ALL the FOX crew vote.

Meanwhile, CNN has a conservative blowhard in Glenn Beck - where's CNN's liberal counterpart? The person who spews invectives, repeats, verbatim, party-line talking points (whether right or wrong)? The person who labels anything "Far Right" when talking about Republicans?

MSNBC had Michael Savage, who managed to shoot his mouth off in a way that bested everyone else out there. They had to fire him.

Olbermann, sure, is the liberal. But who else? Anyone you see that you're comfortable betting me $100,000 that they vote liberal? A personality whose bias/leaning is so prevalent that it can be demonstrated, not just at all, but by randomly selecting any television program they've made, and just waiting for the inevitable?

FOX is not just a "conservative" news channel. It's hardly even a news channel.

Find me one person who is clearly liberal on a cable news channel who's half as disrespectful to their guests as anyone on FOX.

[sgs89]

I'm certainly not going to defend Fox News. I hate Fox News. It is a disgrace.

That said, I think that many national news figures have liberal leanings. It is true, most not to the extent that O'Reilly/Hannity/etc. have, but they are there. The other thing is, these are the anchor-types I am talking about, not the opinionated blowhards who are, in a sense, supposed to be biased.

Tom Brokaw. Wolf Blitzer. Katie Couric. Dan Rather. Peter Jennings. They were all liberals, pretty clearly, and they were/are the face of "serious" news.

On the rabid lunatic front, no one is any worse than Keith Olbermann. He is worse than O'Reilly in a lot of ways. And then MSNBC had the temerity to have him anchor news events. (But we've already beaten that horse.)

So, while Fox News might be the most over-the-top and flagrantly biased of the bunch, that can't change the fact that network news has, for a long time, leaned to the left (at least as it concerns social issues, as you say). Fox News is so flagrant, I think, partly as a reaction to the long-perceived liberal slant of the rest of the media.

[mykevermin]

I'm not asking you to defend FOX News. But would you bet your house on your certainty of Katie Couric's political views? Or Dan Rather's? Or anyone you listed not named "Keith Olbermann?"

I'm curious why you think Olbermann is worse than O'Reilly.

[MSI Magus]

I'm certainly not going to defend Fox News. I hate Fox News. It is a disgrace.

That said, I think that many national news figures have liberal leanings. It is true, most not to the extent that O'Reilly/Hannity/etc. have, but they are there. The other thing is, these are the anchor-types I am talking about, not the opinionated blowhards who are, in a sense, supposed to be biased.

Tom Brokaw. Wolf Blitzer. Katie Couric. Dan Rather. Peter Jennings. They were all liberals, pretty clearly, and they were/are the face of "serious" news.

On the rabid lunatic front, no one is any worse than Keith Olbermann. He is worse than O'Reilly in a lot of ways. And then MSNBC had the temerity to have him anchor news events. (But we've already beaten that horse.)

So, while Fox News might be the most over-the-top and flagrantly biased of the bunch, that can't change the fact that network news has, for a long time, leaned to the left (at least as it concerns social issues, as you say). Fox News is so flagrant, I think, partly as a reaction to the long-perceived liberal slant of the rest of the media.

Heres the difference. Most of the leftist news personalities may lean left but they are not openly left nor obnoxiously left. I can pull up dozens of people on Fox that openly mock the position, views and candiates of the left. I can pull up almost as many that openly are hostile tossing insults out. You cant do that on the left. Maybe a few people seem like they lean left.....but no one comes out and acts the way the Fox News team does.

[sgs89]

I'm not asking you to defend FOX News. But would you bet your house on your certainty of Katie Couric's political views? Or Dan Rather's? Or anyone you listed not named "Keith Olbermann?"

I'm curious why you think Olbermann is worse than O'Reilly.

Bet my house? No, but you wouldn't bet yours on [insert favorite conservative commentator bogeyman here] either. No one ever KNOWS how someone votes in private. My point is that there is a slant to their reporting of the news. And you haven't denied that.

Why do I think Olbermann is worse than O'Reilly? He bores me to death with his personal vendetta against Fox and BO'R. Enough already. We get it. You don't like Fox. Move on.

And then I get really angry that someone who is so forthright with his political views (which is fine in the right situation) would have the audacity to then anchor news events. Reporting on the same people he bashed a few hours earlier wearing his "other hat."

O'Reilly doesn't do that (probably because he doesn't have the opportunity). They are both blowhards, but Olbermann's attitude bugs me a bit more.

[sgs89]

Interesting take by Andy Rooney on Dan Rather:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIU2qE6YzUo

So, yes, I would bet my house on how Rather votes.

[mykevermin]

Oh, I get that about Olbermann - I've seen him go off on Fox, but have never honestly watched his program.

He reminds me of WCW wrestling, or TNA wrestling - trying to make a name for themselves by constantly putting down the WWF/WWE. They exposed how second-rate they were by doing that.

If I had a house, I would absolutely bet it on FOX analysts voting patterns. As long as (1) they didn't know, and (2) I had a house. ;)

[Don Chubo]

Find me one person who is clearly liberal on a cable news channel who's half as disrespectful to their guests as anyone on FOX.

Easy. Rachel Maddow.

Oh, I get that about Olbermann - I've seen him go off on Fox, but have never honestly watched his program.

I find that surprising.

[mykevermin]

You'll have to find me a clip of Maddow hosting a show and being disrespectful. Seeing as how she's been on the air for 1 - 2 weeks at best (again, haven't seen that either), it's tough to sort through the typical youtube detritus to find something you might have to argue that point.

[depascal22]

If I had to cover the news everyday, I'd be more liberal also.

So, news anchors and newspapers have to print about shootings and gun violence in every major city in America but it's not acceptable for them to say something about it? Then the right stands up and claims a media-led liberal plot to get the Second Amendment thrown out. "They're getting rid of our guns." My step father keeps telling me that.

The news claims that five soldiers died but the right stands up and says they aren't covering the 999,995 soldiers that lived and fought. At the same time, the right wants to claim that the media don't honor the dead. What?

[MSI Magus]

If I had to cover the news everyday, I'd be more liberal also.

So, news anchors and newspapers have to print about shootings and gun violence in every major city in America but it's not acceptable for them to say something about it? Then the right stands up and claims a media-led liberal plot to get the Second Amendment thrown out. "They're getting rid of our guns." My step father keeps telling me that.

The news claims that five soldiers died but the right stands up and says they aren't covering the 999,995 soldiers that lived and fought. At the same time, the right wants to claim that the media don't honor the dead. What?

Agreed then add in all the Republican scandals, hypocrisy on issues like family values and other crap and again its kinda hard to not atleast in voting lean to the left if you know the facts. Dont get me wrong Dems have their fair share of the same crap.....but nowhere near the level Reps have for the last 20 years. I had a teacher I think that put it beautifully, Dems are owned by lobbyists....just the lobbyists they are owned by are easier to live with.

[depascal22]

Yeah, the lobbyists are out of hand. I think if we ever tried to remake the government, the corporations would step in and assert power.

[MSI Magus]

Yeah, the lobbyists are out of hand. I think if we ever tried to remake the government, the corporations would step in and assert power.

Well I was just using that as a representation. The Dems are ruining the country and dont care enough for the people that put them in office.....however their BS, hypocrisy and evil is slightly easier to live with.

[depascal22]

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying that the lobbyists are becoming the real form of government.

[camoor]

I actually like O'Reilly. He's the one thing on Fox News I enjoy watching, and one of the few things on Fox News I can take seriously. You guys are being far too hard on him.

I really do not know who is more entertaining - O'Reilly or Colbert.

Some days I get the feeling that Colbert's job is redundant - I mean, he's essentially a parody of a self-parody.

If Colbert wasn't such a gifted comic, the show wouldn't work.

[camoor]

Bet my house? No, but you wouldn't bet yours on [insert favorite conservative commentator bogeyman here] either. No one ever KNOWS how someone votes in private. My point is that there is a slant to their reporting of the news. And you haven't denied that.

Why do I think Olbermann is worse than O'Reilly? He bores me to death with his personal vendetta against Fox and BO'R. Enough already. We get it. You don't like Fox. Move on.

And then I get really angry that someone who is so forthright with his political views (which is fine in the right situation) would have the audacity to then anchor news events. Reporting on the same people he bashed a few hours earlier wearing his "other hat."

O'Reilly doesn't do that (probably because he doesn't have the opportunity). They are both blowhards, but Olbermann's attitude bugs me a bit more.

I have yet to hear Olbermann say "cut off his mic" or just yell over his guests, or continually offer to "give the last word" only to never actually let his guest give the last word!

And Olbermann has the honesty and decency to admit he has an opinion about political leaders he disagrees with - as opposed to O'Reilly who continually tows the "fair and balanced" BS.

You can like one over the other - no accounting for taste - but IMO Olbermann is a hero. Sure he may anger some establishment players, and sometimes I think his zest gets the best of his manners, but you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Finally, I leave you with two great vids :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-DkRuXzx94

[sgs89]

I have yet to hear Olbermann say "cut off his mic" or just yell over his guests, or continually offer to "give the last word" only to never actually let his guest give the last word!

And Olbermann has the honesty and decency to admit he has an opinion about political leaders he disagrees with - as opposed to O'Reilly who continually tows the "fair and balanced" BS.

You can like one over the other - no accounting for taste - but IMO Olbermann is a hero. Sure he may anger some establishment players, and sometimes I think his zest gets the best of his manners, but you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.


I never said Olbermann and O'Reilly were the same. They are both irritating for different reasons. As I mentioned, Olbermann's Fox persecution delusion is boring and tiring. I also don't like the way he pretends to be an unbiased anchor of news events -- O'Reilly doesn't do that.

I wouldn't cry if they were both canned.

A hero? OK, no accounting for opinions about heros, I guess.

[Msut77]

O'Reilly doesn't do that.

No spin zone?

[thrustbucket]

I had a teacher I think that put it beautifully, Dems are owned by lobbyists....just the lobbyists they are owned by are easier to live with.

I'm not sure how, since most of the most powerful lobby's today play both sides equally.

Have you seen the list of largest campaign contributors? They are virtually identical for each party.

Yeah, the lobbyists are out of hand. I think if we ever tried to remake the government, the corporations would step in and assert power.

That's because the U.S. government essentially is a giant hand puppet for corporations, and has been since the early to mid 1800's.

Well I was just using that as a representation. The Dems are ruining the country and dont care enough for the people that put them in office.....however their BS, hypocrisy and evil is slightly easier to live with.

I can buy that, only because they tend to do less to hide it or lie about it.

It doesn't hurt AS bad buying a lemon when you remember the car salesman winked at you several times.

[MSI Magus]

I never said Olbermann and O'Reilly were the same. They are both irritating for different reasons. As I mentioned, Olbermann's Fox persecution delusion is boring and tiring. I also don't like the way he pretends to be an unbiased anchor of news events -- O'Reilly doesn't do that.

I wouldn't cry if they were both canned.

A hero? OK, no accounting for opinions about heros, I guess.

O Reily doesnt pretend to be unbiased. Wow you really are not watching the same show as the rest of us. He claims it all the time in addition to touting how he is an "independent".

[thrustbucket]

And Olbermann has the honesty and decency to admit he has an opinion about political leaders he disagrees with - as opposed to O'Reilly who continually tows the "fair and balanced" BS.

I also don't like the way he pretends to be an unbiased anchor of news events -- O'Reilly doesn't do that.

So cute. Nothing like the CAG P & C forum in the morning.

I wouldn't cry if they were both canned.


Could never happen. The rabid extremists of each side need these heroes to give them daily fuel for forums. ;)

[mykevermin]

Can we pick better terminology than "extremist?"

bin Laden is an extremist.

Shoko Asahara was an extremist.

The United States Communist and National Socialist Parties are extremist.

But even O'Reilly isn't extremist. Not is Olbermann. Charicatures, perhaps. Exaggerated versions of party-line towing folks. But to use the word "extremist" really deflates the power of the word.

When you hear "extremists on the left" from O'Reilly, it semantically takes away the weight of a phrase like "Extremist Terrorism" (for as redundant as that already is).

Watching FOX, accusations of "leftist extremism" or being a member of the "far left" loses meaning - virtually everyone who doesn't sound like Droopy Dog is a member of the "far left." So it carries no meaning - to me, anyway.

So let's pick better words to use, ok? I may not like O'Reilly, or I may think that Olbermann is weighed down by his anti-FOX nonsense. But they're simply not "extremists" by any stretch of the imagination.

There's a whole cadre of people wanting the government to fully redistribute wealth and income, people wanting to bomb abortion clinics, kill homosexuals, take over the government, annex Mexico, fight the NAFTA superhighway, etc. - and they're upset that you're putting wimps and servants of the system like those two news-nerds in the same category as them.

[sgs89]

O Reily doesnt pretend to be unbiased. Wow you really are not watching the same show as the rest of us. He claims it all the time in addition to touting how he is an "independent".

Please read the entire quote. I said that O'Reilly doesn't anchor news events while pretending to be unbiased -- the "anchor news events" part is key. Yes, he has his show, but Fox didn't make him their #1 anchor for, say, convention coverage, as MSNBC inexplicably did with Olbermann.

[thrustbucket]

Can we pick better terminology than "extremist?"

bin Laden is an extremist.

Shoko Asahara was an extremist.

The United States Communist and National Socialist Parties are extremist.

But even O'Reilly isn't extremist. Not is Olbermann. Charicatures, perhaps. Exaggerated versions of party-line towing folks. But to use the word "extremist" really deflates the power of the word.

When you hear "extremists on the left" from O'Reilly, it semantically takes away the weight of a phrase like "Extremist Terrorism" (for as redundant as that already is).

Watching FOX, accusations of "leftist extremism" or being a member of the "far left" loses meaning - virtually everyone who doesn't sound like Droopy Dog is a member of the "far left." So it carries no meaning - to me, anyway.

So let's pick better words to use, ok? I may not like O'Reilly, or I may think that Olbermann is weighed down by his anti-FOX nonsense. But they're simply not "extremists" by any stretch of the imagination.

There's a whole cadre of people wanting the government to fully redistribute wealth and income, people wanting to bomb abortion clinics, kill homosexuals, take over the government, annex Mexico, fight the NAFTA superhighway, etc. - and they're upset that you're putting wimps and servants of the system like those two news-nerds in the same category as them.


Fair enough. I was being extreme in my assessment of both blowhards.

[mykevermin]

*rimshot*

[camoor]

A hero? OK, no accounting for opinions about heros, I guess.

Haha, yeah I know I'm probably alone on that one here. However I think a hero stands up for what he believes in, even if it may not be popular or politically correct (that's a real problem for other liberal commentators). It also doesn't hurt to have a larger-then-life persona.

Hero is so watered down in modern parlance, we even make heroes out of victims and actors - that's not what being a hero is all about.

His interview with Carlin was one of the more interesting things I've seen on TV recently. What can I say - the guy makes me laugh but I think he's also sincere.

[sgs89]

Haha, yeah I know I'm probably alone on that one here. However I think a hero stands up for what he believes in, even if it may not be popular or politically correct (that's a real problem for other liberal commentators). It also doesn't hurt to have a larger-then-life persona.



So, is Bill O'Reilly a hero, too? He stands up for what he believes in, even though it isn't popular among large swaths of America. And, yes, his personality is larger-than-life.

[thrustbucket]

As a side note, have you ever listened to O'Reilly's radio show? Wow what a bore.

It just goes to show that what works on tv doesn't work on radio.

[sgs89]

As a side note, have you ever listened to O'Reilly's radio show? Wow what a bore.

It just goes to show that what works on tv doesn't work on radio.

I've heard snippets and, yes, it is ungodly boring. Then again, I find his TV show boring, too.

On a related note, have you ever seen Larry King's TV show? It just goes to show that some people (and their faces) should have never left the radio.

[camoor]

So, is Bill O'Reilly a hero, too? He stands up for what he believes in, even though it isn't popular among large swaths of America. And, yes, his personality is larger-than-life.

Even a child knows that's not true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv10ow6rLmU&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11/even-children-know-oreill_n_118245.html

[sgs89]

Even a child knows that's not true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv10ow6rLmU&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11/even-children-know-oreill_n_118245.html

Boy, that is one mean, bitter man. I wonder what went wrong in his life to cause him to be so angry.

But, the point still stands -- he fits your definition of a hero, even if not your type of hero.

[depascal22]

It's not that he's really a bitter old man. It's just that bitter old men sell books and get alot of advertising revenue. He skewed to the far right just after he started on Fox News. It might've been the higher ups or his own business sense kicking in.

[bmulligan]

That's because the U.S. government essentially is a giant hand puppet for International Banking Cartels, and has been since the early to mid 1700's.

Fixed.

[thrustbucket]

Fixed.

I actually knew that, I just didn't think the crowd was ready to hear it. The peanut gallery usually equates such facts with conspiracy theories.

[camoor]

Boy, that is one mean, bitter man. I wonder what went wrong in his life to cause him to be so angry.

But, the point still stands -- he fits your definition of a hero, even if not your type of hero.

O'Reilly doesn't stand up for what he believes in.

He's Mr. Family Values on TV and behind the scenes he's a married man with a family who is sexually harassing his co-workers. Now he's attacking John Edwards for adultery - isn't that good for a laugh! While we're at it, let's ask guest commentator Mark Foley to come in and talk about Larry Craig's sexual scandal.

[bmulligan]

I actually knew that, I just didn't think the crowd was ready to hear it. The peanut gallery usually equates such facts with conspiracy theories.

I know you know, it just had to be said.


O'Reilly doesn't stand up for what he believes in.

He's Mr. Family Values on TV and behind the scenes he's a married man with a family who is sexually harassing his co-workers. Now he's attacking John Edwards for adultery - isn't that good for a laugh! While we're at it, let's ask guest commentator Mark Foley to come in and talk about Larry Craig's sexual scandal.

To be fair, Oreilly isn't running for public office and he got called out on his sham lifestyle. Edwards, sice he's dedicating his life and reputation to public service as a virtue, should be put to the same scrutiny regardless of who's doing the screwing.

[mykevermin]

^I think you know better than that.

Should Edwards be held to a high standard? Sure. Now that we know his political career is done, done, done, I can't help but wonder why Newt Gingrich never fell under that same level of scrutiny for his sexual escapades.

Why does the liberal media fail me like that, and then fail to gain the approval of you knuckleheads!?!?!

As for O'Reilly, it's not about them being equal. It's about one person who has done the deed taking the other to task. It's like Bill Bennett calling out a gambler, Larry Craig calling out anonymous gay sex solicitors, or Sarah Palin calling out parents of pregnant, unwed teens. Irrespective of equal, irrespective of standards, it's simply absurd, unprofessional, and classless to chastise another person for fuckups you personally have done.

[Koggit]

O'Reilly does indeed stand up for what he believes in and is, in fact, rarely hypocritical. You can't use a show like the Factor as grounds for condemning the host. He doesn't have complete control of the show, he has to say/do what the viewers want.

Most of you guys bashing him don't watch him, I think. I'm a fairly long-time viewer and still remember the days when he had to cover celebrity gossip trash on The Factor and always made these veiled comments that were obviously contempt for having to cover such "stories"... he used to choose viewer mail that called him out on it, and in response he'd apologize for covering Paris Hilton and what-not stating flat out that he has to do it and it isn't his choice.

People like O'Reilly have to make a lot of decisions regarding their shows for business reasons. Just as Jerry Springer probably cares more about child abuse than midget fights but midget fight Springer eps outnumber child abuse eps twenty to one... O'Reilly giving Edwards more attention than Craig isn't evidence for O'Reilly being biased or hypocritical or whatever.

[camoor]

O'Reilly does indeed stand up for what he believes in and is, in fact, rarely hypocritical. You can't use a show like the Factor as grounds for condemning the host. He doesn't have complete control of the show, he has to say/do what the viewers want.

Most of you guys bashing him don't watch him, I think. I'm a fairly long-time viewer and still remember the days when he had to cover celebrity gossip trash on The Factor and always made these veiled comments that were obviously contempt for having to cover such "stories"... he used to choose viewer mail that called him out on it, and in response he'd apologize for covering Paris Hilton and what-not stating flat out that he has to do it and it isn't his choice.

People like O'Reilly have to make a lot of decisions regarding their shows for business reasons. Just as Jerry Springer probably cares more about child abuse than midget fights but midget fight Springer eps outnumber child abuse eps twenty to one... O'Reilly giving Edwards more attention than Craig isn't evidence for O'Reilly being biased or hypocritical or whatever.

He was just following orders? That cop-out never works.

[Koggit]

He's exec producer, it's not really following orders so much as it is doing what gets ratings -- like Springer.

[thrustbucket]

O'Reilly does indeed stand up for what he believes in and is, in fact, rarely hypocritical. You can't use a show like the Factor as grounds for condemning the host. He doesn't have complete control of the show, he has to say/do what the viewers want.

Most of you guys bashing him don't watch him, I think. I'm a fairly long-time viewer and still remember the days when he had to cover celebrity gossip trash on The Factor and always made these veiled comments that were obviously contempt for having to cover such "stories"... he used to choose viewer mail that called him out on it, and in response he'd apologize for covering Paris Hilton and what-not stating flat out that he has to do it and it isn't his choice.

People like O'Reilly have to make a lot of decisions regarding their shows for business reasons. Just as Jerry Springer probably cares more about child abuse than midget fights but midget fight Springer eps outnumber child abuse eps twenty to one... O'Reilly giving Edwards more attention than Craig isn't evidence for O'Reilly being biased or hypocritical or whatever.

Back when I had cable and would watch him sometimes, I saw exactly what you are talking about.

Specifically the whole Anna Nicole Smith death stuff. I'll never forget, he was vocally disgusted with the fact that he was covering it and promised he wouldn't talk about it again. A couple days later he ran another segment on it and prefaced it with "I know I promised I wouldn't talk about this vitriol, but producers are producers and ratings are ratings".

O'Reilly doesn't have total control over his show or what he talks about, neither does anyone running a show like his.

[camoor]

Back when I had cable and would watch him sometimes, I saw exactly what you are talking about.

Specifically the whole Anna Nicole Smith death stuff. I'll never forget, he was vocally disgusted with the fact that he was covering it and promised he wouldn't talk about it again. A couple days later he ran another segment on it and prefaced it with "I know I promised I wouldn't talk about this vitriol, but producers are producers and ratings are ratings".

O'Reilly doesn't have total control over his show or what he talks about, neither does anyone running a show like his.

Ah the ol' good cop/bad cop routine. I don't want to give you this story, my producers made me read it. That's why even if it was a publicity stunt, I've gotta give it up to MSNBC for this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VdNcCcweL0

Now are you going to tell me that Mika B. has more pull then O'Reilly on the O'Reilly factor? If O'Reilly's brand of trash is the kind of media you want to spend your time protecting then Good Night, and Good Luck.

[Msut77]

He's exec producer, it's not really following orders so much as it is doing what gets ratings -- like Springer.

He put his name on the show, end of story really.

[KingBroly]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you pay attention to the news on the weekend, you are paying attention to the wrong news.

[thrustbucket]

Now are you going to tell me that Mika B. has more pull then O'Reilly on the O'Reilly factor? If O'Reilly's brand of trash is the kind of media you want to spend your time protecting then Good Night, and Good Luck.

I think maybe you missed the part where I said I don't have cable, nor do I watch him anymore. "O'Reilly's brand of trash" is as valuable as all talking heads shows on cable news. It's just the most popular, so most picked on.

[MSI Magus]

Ah the ol' good cop/bad cop routine. I don't want to give you this story, my producers made me read it. That's why even if it was a publicity stunt, I've gotta give it up to MSNBC for this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VdNcCcweL0

Now are you going to tell me that Mika B. has more pull then O'Reilly on the O'Reilly factor? If O'Reilly's brand of trash is the kind of media you want to spend your time protecting then Good Night, and Good Luck.

Exactly. O Riely can do any damn thing he wants, what he wants is to be a loud conservative asshole then blame it on other peoples so he can maintain "independent status". He could not cover something if he choose to, he just actually wants to. Even if he didnt have legal control then you know what do as that Mika chick did and show you have a pair...show you have some journalistic integrity and refuse to cover the story.

[bmulligan]

^I think you know better than that.

Should Edwards be held to a high standard? Sure. Now that we know his political career is done, done, done, I can't help but wonder why Newt Gingrich never fell under that same level of scrutiny for his sexual escapades.

Why does the liberal media fail me like that, and then fail to gain the approval of you knuckleheads!?!?!

As for O'Reilly, it's not about them being equal. It's about one person who has done the deed taking the other to task. It's like Bill Bennett calling out a gambler, Larry Craig calling out anonymous gay sex solicitors, or Sarah Palin calling out parents of pregnant, unwed teens. Irrespective of equal, irrespective of standards, it's simply absurd, unprofessional, and classless to chastise another person for fuckups you personally have done.

Gingrich did fall under the same level of scrutiny as Edwards. It's part of the reason he's a news commentator instead of ever being a potential vice presidential candidate. Why you probably don't remember it is probably because it was being overshadowed by impeachment. Although, the better observation is why McCain, who cheated on his first wife in Gingrich fashion, is deemed worthy of a nomination from the party of family values.

And regardless of the interrogator, the crime is still a crime, whether a legal or moral one. The message isn't invalidated just because the messenger is tainted. Dems shouldn't be able to admonish Reps for negative campaigning or vice-versa according to your rules - but they do.

Should all we sinners just keep quiet when we see others sinning ? If that's the case, eventually, no one could be called to answer for any transgression since there's no one pure enough to sit in judgement.

[depascal22]

Because cheating on your wife doesn't get the same condemnation from pundits. Hell, Spitzer wouldn't have gotten in as much trouble if he had cheated with an intern instead of a call girl.

At the same time, I feel it's 100% more ethical to bang call girls instead of interns, daughter's best friends, or the nanny.

[MSI Magus]

Personally as long as they arnt running on a family values campaign or claiming some kind of moral high ground I dont care if they are banging their 18 year old handicapped male intern. Its not hurting anybody and it has nothing to do with the job your doing in office. If your are doing a great job your doing a great job....so who cares what your putting your penis in.

[depascal22]

Maybe politician's wives should just start putting out more and stop acting like they're the one that made it to the top.

[MSI Magus]

Maybe politician's wives should just start putting out more and stop acting like they're the one that made it to the top.

You probaly meant that as a joke but I personally take the unpopular and not so politically correct stance that there is truth to that statement. A lot of people that cheat are just assholes who only care about themselves, but I believe there are also a lot of people out there that have cheated and wouldnt if their sex life was better. Woman tend to have alot more sex early on in a relationship when they feel they havnt nabbed a guy yet then later on the sex slows. This naturally makes men unhappy but most feel they cant bring up the issue, and even if they do woman are generally defensive over the issue. So the man begins to resent the woman and next thing you know their relationship sucks. At this point it becomes easy for a man to justify consciously or subconsciously that its ok for him to cheat.

I am not saying this is an excuse for a man to cheat, I went through a 3 year rough patch with my significant other and didnt cheat...and things still arnt the way I feel they should be even if she feels they are fine. I am just saying there is truth to the statement that if wives put out more men would be less tempted to cheat. Iv never known someone who isnt an asshole to cheat when they were in the early stage of a relationship where they are getting crazy sex all the time after all....its always later in the relationship where communication, feelings and sex have all fallen apart.

[thrustbucket]

Exactly. O Riely can do any damn thing he wants, what he wants is to be a loud conservative asshole then blame it on other peoples so he can maintain "independent status". He could not cover something if he choose to, he just actually wants to. Even if he didnt have legal control then you know what do as that Mika chick did and show you have a pair...show you have some journalistic integrity and refuse to cover the story.

I've only ever seen O'Reilly mention being forced to run a story that was tabloid trash and had nothing to do with politics or partisan issues (like anna nicole smith). So I fail to see how that qualifies him for your above conjecture.

[depascal22]

You probaly meant that as a joke but I personally take the unpopular and not so politically correct stance that there is truth to that statement. A lot of people that cheat are just assholes who only care about themselves, but I believe there are also a lot of people out there that have cheated and wouldnt if their sex life was better. Woman tend to have alot more sex early on in a relationship when they feel they havnt nabbed a guy yet then later on the sex slows. This naturally makes men unhappy but most feel they cant bring up the issue, and even if they do woman are generally defensive over the issue. So the man begins to resent the woman and next thing you know their relationship sucks. At this point it becomes easy for a man to justify consciously or subconsciously that its ok for him to cheat.

I am not saying this is an excuse for a man to cheat, I went through a 3 year rough patch with my significant other and didnt cheat...and things still arnt the way I feel they should be even if she feels they are fine. I am just saying there is truth to the statement that if wives put out more men would be less tempted to cheat. Iv never known someone who isnt an asshole to cheat when they were in the early stage of a relationship where they are getting crazy sex all the time after all....its always later in the relationship where communication, feelings and sex have all fallen apart.

I agree with you. I didn't mean it as a joke. Bill might have been a horn dog but I'm pretty sure that Hillary is a frigid chick that never gives up that ass.

[mykevermin]

Gingrich did fall under the same level of scrutiny as Edwards. It's part of the reason he's a news commentator instead of ever being a potential vice presidential candidate. Why you probably don't remember it is probably because it was being overshadowed by impeachment. Although, the better observation is why McCain, who cheated on his first wife in Gingrich fashion, is deemed worthy of a nomination from the party of family values.

I bet it has nothing to do with his failure with the "Contract With America" or his incredibly low approval ratings and the way his own party felt he failed them as speaker by not having significant elections gains in 1998, when, given the Clinton scandal, they should have expected.

Likewise, Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi might expect the same backlash if (when) the Democrats fuck up this election. Whether or not they deliver divorce papers on their spouse in the hospital so they can marry someone 30 years their junior who they've already been schtupping for 6 years.

And regardless of the interrogator, the crime is still a crime, whether a legal or moral one. The message isn't invalidated just because the messenger is tainted. Dems shouldn't be able to admonish Reps for negative campaigning or vice-versa according to your rules - but they do.

Newscasters should be able to discuss any transgression, sure. But it's simply silly for someone to opine on the moral nature of someone who has committed the same (well, similar, since Edwards fucked a willing accomplice, and didn't stalk her/leave creepy messages/sexually harrass her/end the issue with a settlement, NDA, and an unwillingness to address the issue) violation.

Leave it up to the reporters, and chastise those who have made violations you have not. Otherwise, you're simply unfit to say anything.

Should all we sinners just keep quiet when we see others sinning ? If that's the case, eventually, no one could be called to answer for any transgression since there's no one pure enough to sit in judgement.

Well, I've never stalked anyone or been unfaithful, so I can pass judgment if I want.

Though call me out should I ever chastise someone for being a drunkard.