Bill O'Reilly On Letterman

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,289
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Did anyone see it? I taped it Tuesday night because Eric Bana was on :shifty: and also I knew O'Reilly would make for a great laugh. Letterman really gave it to him in his usual subtle but deadly way, it was great :applaud: O'Reilly looked pissed.

I will try to find a transcript/article. Basically Dave laughed at Bill's whole war on Christmas thing and said he didn't want to hear any more about it, and criticized him for criticizing Cindy Sheehan. At one point Dave even said something to the effect of "honest to Christ, you're really not going to criticize her" and asked him why we are even there, etc.
 
from the Late Show web site

Dave: "So how was your holiday?"
Bill: "I had a nice winter solstice."
After a beat, Bill explains, "We can't say ‘Christmas' anymore." Dave was unaware of this turn of events. Bill says it started with Sears and K-Mart where their employees are not allowed to say the word "Christmas" and it is spreading out from there. Bill exclaims that he received a card this season which read, "Have a Blessed Winter." Dave laughs at the silliness of it all, saying how it doesn't affect him and adding he does and says what he wants. Bill gives an example of just how bad it is getting. A school in Wisconsin put on a play and changed the words to "Silent Night." Does that make any sense?
Dave brushes off the outrage and likens it to the type of thing that comes around every 20 years or so where someone wants to put horses in diapers. "Won't this too just go away? Isn't this just nothing?"
Bill says it isn't nothing. It's going to the courts. In Plano, Texas, school children were told not to bring in napkins with Christmas colors. No red or green napkins. Again, Dave says that these are just two minor examples. Bill pipes that he's got millions more he can share. A church wanted to advertise at the local library their Christmas pageant by using the nativity scene. The library agreed, but stipulated they couldn't use the baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, or the Three Wise Men. An urgent Bill O'Reilly exclaims, "Do you think I'm making this up?" Dave says, "Yes, I think you're making this up." :lol:

The conversation turned to Bush and Iraq. Bill says beating up Bush on every turn is not helping in our struggle in Iraq. Democracy in the Mid-East is good for the West. Bill lauds our noble soldiers for what they have been ordered to do on this world stage and adds that for Cindy Sheehan to call the insurgents as "freedom fighters" was awful and we should be careful with what we say. Dave jumps in and says, "Well, you should be careful with what you say also." When asked to expand, Dave says "How can you possible take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?" Bill says although he feels bad for the woman, he believe she's being led by far-left elements in the country. Dave counters with, "Have you lost family members in armed conflict?" Bill says he hasn't. "Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?" Dave follows.
Dave asks about Bush admitting that we went into Iraq because of a mistakes made in intelligence. Whose intelligence? O'Reilly says the intelligence came from the CIA. "So why are we there in the first place?" Dave continues. O'Reilly agrees the intelligence from the CIA was obviously flawed and their information gathering may have to be revamped, but we received the same intelligence from Britain, from Russia, and from Egypt. And so that made it right to go into Iraq, even if our intelligence from more than one source was wrong? "No, it doesn't make it right," says Bill.

Dave concludes his side of this topic with, "I'm very concerned about people like yourself who don't have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan."
Bill counters that there is no way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a ‘freedom fighter' on his program.
Dave: "I am not smart enough to debate you point by point on this, but I have a feeling about 60% of what you say is crap. . . . but I don't know that for a fact." Dave says to Paul Shaffer, "Yeah, 60%. I'm just spit-balling here."
To finish up, Dave says about Bill and his "O'Reilly Factor" program, "I don't think you represent an objective viewpoint."
Bill wants to know specifics. Examples.
Dave: "Well, I don't watch your show so that would be impossible." Then adds happily and extending a hand, "Always a pleasure."

Well, that was something. Very interesting, very entertaining, edge of your seat fun.

Back from commercial, Dave asks Paul, "How do you think that went?" Paul called it "good TV."
Dave says, "I'm told that during that last segment, the kitty called 9-1-1." :lol:
 
I saw a clip of the exchange. The audience was cheering on both sides like a prize fight.

Not much credibility on Dave's part to attack O'Reilly's character without ever watching his show. Opinions based on someone else's talking points turns into empty insult tossing.
 
Letterman wasn't really prepped well for the interview...his retorts to O'Reilly were basically put downs, not any fact-based arguments.

Though he may have been on to something when he said that 60% of whatever O'Reilly says is crap. This from mediamatters.org:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040009

On the January 3 edition of CBS' Late Show with David Letterman, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly appeared as a guest and resurrected his false claim that a Wisconsin elementary school banned the singing of the Christmas hymn "Silent Night." As he discussed his Christmas crusade with Late Show host David Letterman, O'Reilly told Letterman that the school "[k]nocked out the words [to "Silent Night"] and told the little kids to sing" alternative lyrics. According to O'Reilly, this incident "proves there are pinheads at the Ridgewell [sic] Elementary School in Wisconsin. That's what it proves."

But as the weblog Think Progress first noted, O'Reilly and others have falsely attributed the changed lyrics to political correctness. For example, on the December 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly stated that Ridgewood Elementary School in Dodgeville, Wisconsin, "forced the kids to sing" the different lyrics. The conservative legal group Liberty Counsel condemned what it called the "secularized rendition" of the song, which it claimed "mocks one of the world's best-known Christmas songs," and threatened to sue the school district.

In fact, the new song lyrics are part of a 1988 Christmas play called The Little Tree's Christmas Gift, in which a scraggly Christmas tree is informed it may not be sold and will instead become firewood, prompting it to croon the revised version of "Silent Night" while lamenting its situation. Think Progress further explained that the play's creator, Dwight Elrich, is the musical director of the New Covenant Singers at Bel Air Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles -- which a December 20 Washington Post article noted was "former president Ronald and Nancy Reagan's church in California" -- and his play has been performed by churches across the country. According to Elrich 's website, his products "make it easy for you to produce a fantastic Kids Christmas Musical Program." Elrich told the Post: "I'm just flabbergasted. I'm a choir director in a church! I perform 'Silent Night' 40 or 50 times each year! I thought the play was a really charming, wonderful, positive story about love and acceptance ... removing it from the Christian tradition was something I never thought anyone could ever come up with. We were telling a story about a little tree, so we used a familiar tune to help the kids get it."

A December 27 article in the Wisconsin State Journal by columnist Susan Lampert Smith reported that the uproar over the adapted lyrics, spurred on by Moral Majority Coalition founder and chairman Jerry Falwell and Liberty Counsel, ultimately forced the school to sing the original version of "Silent Night." For the winter concert, the elementary students performed "Silent Night" along with other Christmas carols and then, during the play, the child playing the sad tree merely recited the changed lyrics.

Later in the interview, Letterman admonished O'Reilly, asserting "I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. ... I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint," to which O'Reilly replied, "I respect your opinion, you should respect mine."
 
Last edited:
I loved it anyway, no matter how factually inaccurate it was or no matter how ill prepared Dave may have been

Do you really have to watch the O'Reilly Factor to know what he is all about? I agree, he should watch the show but I'm sure he can't stomach it :wink: I'm biased, I love Dave

Then again it is Letterman and not CNN :shrug:
 
http://thepoliticalteen.net/2006/01/04/oreillyletterman/

http://www.onegoodmove.org/1gm/

Letterman 1 - O'Reilly 0

"I have the feeling that 60% of what you say is crap..." and with that Dave Letterman captured the essence of what is Bill O'Reilly. Earlier in the segment Bill O'Reilly said, "The Soldiers and Marines are noble they are not terrorists and when people call them that like Cindy Sheehan; called the insurgents freedom fighters we don't like that. " This quotation is a perfect example of O'Reilly's sophistry. Notice where he pauses, not after that, but rather after Cindy Sheehan, implying not only that does she view the insurgents as freedom fighters but that she views the troops as terrorists. It is exactly the same technique Bush used in linking Iraq and 9/11. It wasn't simply an awkward sentence but a device O'Reilly uses frequently to smear others. You don't debate with someone who has no respect for the facts, for someone who quotes out of context. You point out as Dave did that it is crap. You don't argue the fine points you can never win that sort of argument with a LIAR. When someone flings shit like O'Reilly does, you don't need to identify it point by point you can smell it."


the second site has the full quicktime video


from people.com

On Wednesday, Letterman and his reps had no comment on the previous evening's verbal joust.

O'Reilly, however, went on the offensive on The O'Reilly Factor and his noon radio show. On the TV program he declared that "the culture war plays out on the David Letterman program!" then added that "right now there are two main issues dominating the culture war in America: the role of God in the public arena and the war on terror."

On the radio, O'Reilly called Letterman a card-carrying member of the "secular progressive movement." :huh: funny that never occurs to me when I think about how funny and sexy he is Of his own appearance on Late Show, O'Reilly said of its host: "See, I'm not some dopey movie star that comes in there who is intimidated by him. ... And most of his guests want his approval, and he knows that. So he has a very strong advantage point."
 
Last edited:
MrsSpringsteen said:
from the Late Show web site

Dave: "I am not smart enough to debate you point by point on this, but I have a feeling about 60% of what you say is crap. . . . but I don't know that for a fact."

I think Letterman was being generous with this figure.
 
Well it definitely made for good TV. But am I the only one who thinks its pointless to invite a guest on just to insult their character? Even for the sake of good TV? I dunno, maybe I'm just not into Letterman really. Always been a Leno fan :wink: lol

I really could care less about Bill and what he thinks, same goes for any other political pundit on either side of the spectrum, but he really held his own and actually made good points to which were just basically thrown aside for a "you suck" contest by Dave. I have a feeling if Bill had been just as rude or worse than Letterman people would be calling him a jackass Republican that "can't take a joke" but it's ok for the late-night host who admittedly doesn't even watch the show. :|
 
Have you listened to O'Reilly's radio show? A little tit for tat. And he can use the next day's two hours to eviscerate the previous day's guest when the guest's not there to defend himself. Mr. O'Reilly does NOT take criticism well. That being said, I find him highly entertaining and listen to him a lot. He's a local boy after all, writing seques for Uncle Ted's Monster Hour here.
 
I haven't watched Letterman in ages, so I missed this. Thanks for the play-by-play.

I wish Dave had done his homework, though. He would have been able to skewer O'Liely a lot more effectively that way.

(Edited to add Dave actually let him off pretty easily, considering he didn't even mention the notorious phone sex tapes/sexual harrassment allegations).
 
Last edited:
I found it frustrating. Letterman could have killed him, but didn't do his homework. O'Reilly deserves to be made to look like a complete arse in front of millions, not just a half arse,and it shouldn't be too difficult. Letterman is a smart guy, could have/should have done better. I think the result was Letterman 1, O'Reilly 1.

And I agree, 60% is being very very generous.
 
O'Reilly will take free advertising for his show every day of the week and twice on Sundays. People like Letterman and some of the print media play right into his hand. I thought O'Reilly was very well behaved considering the attitude that Letterman brought to the interview.
 
Letterman has 100 times the talent of O'Liely. O'Liely makes me ashamed to be Irish.
 
Letterman messed up in the end when he admitted he wasn't "smart enought to debate... ...point to point". I kind of expected better from him like a genuine argument or retort. :down:
 
I found it frustrating. Letterman could have killed him, but didn't do his homework. O'Reilly deserves to be made to look like a complete arse in front of millions, not just a half arse,and it shouldn't be too difficult. Letterman is a smart guy, could have/should have done better.

Agreed.

As a comedian, not as a political commentator.

Yeah absolutely....I may think he's a divisive idiot with no conscience (and I do), but he's very talented at his job. O'Reilly that is


O'Liely makes me ashamed to be Irish.

But O'Reilly's American! :wink:
 
nbcrusader said:
I saw a clip of the exchange. The audience was cheering on both sides like a prize fight.

Not much credibility on Dave's part to attack O'Reilly's character without ever watching his show. Opinions based on someone else's talking points turns into empty insult tossing.



sounds like a good description of the O'Reilly Factor, minus all the merchandising.
 
full transcript

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/billoreilly/a/billoreillycrap.htm

O'Reilly column from 2001

The late-night program hosted by David Letterman is the toughest interview show on television.

That's because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table. If a guest begins to sink on this show, the bottom is a long way down.

A big part of doing well on the Letterman show is the audience. A guest not only has to win over the host, but also the people who are sitting a few yards away. It is not a tough crowd, most are happy to be seeing Dave in person, but they are listening. And you better have something to say.

Because of the success of my book, I was booked on the Letterman program. As I walked on stage to begin my segment, I knew what I was going to talk about. But I had no idea how an audience looking for entertainment would receive my thesis of rampant government corruption.

If you watch my television program "The O'Reilly Factor," you know that it is often an intense discussion of political and hot-button social issues. But there is no studio audience. The cheering or booing comes in the form of overnight television ratings.

Thank God, and I mean that literally, the audience seemed to be as fed up as I am with incident after incident of dubious behavior by our leaders in Washington. I was able to joke with Mr. Letterman about a very serious subject -- that the powerful in D.C. protect each other, and that government corruption is out of control. The audience seemed to be with me.

This is a change, I think. All during the Lewinsky scandal we had a deeply divided country. Half of us were outraged that a sitting president would diminish his office by having sex with an intern in the office and then boldly lie about it. The other half of Americans resented the intrusion into somebody's sex life no matter where the actual action took place, and were willing to excuse the president for lying about sex.

But now with these sleazy pardons and the general "forget you" attitude of the Clintons, a drastic mood shift seems to have occurred. The audience at the “Letterman Show” had to be all over the place as far as ideology is concerned. They were just everyday folks who got tickets that night. But I received some big applause when I zeroed in on the Clintons calling them "The Dukes of Hazard" among other pleasantries.

I also got applause when I criticized President Bush for failing to show concern over the pardoning of a major cocaine dealer and a fugitive. The crowd seemed to be just as annoyed with the "let's move on" philosophy as they are with the tawdry conduct of the Clintons.

I believe that finally fair-minded Americans who care about their country are coming to the realization that there is something very wrong in Washington, D.C. Some of the people to whom we are entrusting power are abusing that power, and our investigative agencies like the FBI are often MIA.

There is no way on this earth that the Marc Rich pardon should not be the subject of intense FBI scrutiny. When Denise Rich took the Fifth Amendment and Mr. Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, refused a congressional request to hand over a list of donors to the Clinton Library Fund, all of our leaders in Washington should have hit the ceiling. If a fugitive living in Switzerland funneled money through his ex-wife into an account Bill Clinton has unlimited access to -- well, Houston, we have a problem.

But President Bush wants to "move on" and let the press ferret it all out. The press? The American media is now responsible for keeping politicians honest? Come on, Mr. President, many press people make the Clintons look like Mother Teresa.

Earth to Bush, it is the Justice Department's mandate to investigate public corruption. That's why we have a Justice Department -- to seek justice. OK? U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White is investigating the Marc Rich case, but who's investigating the cocaine dealer pardon in L.A.? Nobody, that's who. And why is the FBI on the sidelines?

President Bush and all of us should be demanding full disclosure about these pardons, and all the other dubious stuff like overseas campaign money, Chinese espionage, FBI spying and on and on. As I told David Letterman, we need to start holding our leaders accountable for what they do. The audience applauded. I've never heard a sweeter sound.
 
nbcrusader said:
I saw a clip of the exchange. The audience was cheering on both sides like a prize fight.

Not much credibility on Dave's part to attack O'Reilly's character without ever watching his show. Opinions based on someone else's talking points turns into empty insult tossing.

Agreed. If HAD ever watched Bill's show he'd have KNOWN that 100%, not 60% of what the hypocritical sexist says is total and utter crap.
 
ImOuttaControl said:
Haha, you liberals are hillarious.

Thank you for the compliment!

I'd much rather be funny than vicious piece of crap. :)
 
indra said:


Thank you for the compliment!

I'd much rather be funny than vicious piece of crap. :)

Actually this thread is hillarious because it is full of a bunch of petty bitchers and moaners. Just my opinion though.


This segment was on the news today during my current events class(I'm a teacher), and my students came up with the conclusion that O'Reilly was lookign for a fight, but Letterman sounded like an idiot. The people in this thread talking like it is a fact that he "got his ass handed to him" need to realize that their viewpoint is not fact--- it is completely subjective and an opinion.

Is everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint vicious?
 
Im reading a Hitchens book right now "Letters to a Young Contrarian" and he does make the case for being vicious in defending your beliefs and dominating the conversation.
 
ImOuttaControl said:


Actually this thread is hillarious because it is full of a bunch of petty bitchers and moaners. Just my opinion though.


This segment was on the news today during my current events class(I'm a teacher), and my students came up with the conclusion that O'Reilly was lookign for a fight, but Letterman sounded like an idiot. The people in this thread talking like it is a fact that he "got his ass handed to him" need to realize that their viewpoint is not fact--- it is completely subjective and an opinion.

Is everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint vicious?

Of course! :shrug:


O'Reilly is just a mean, nasty, spiteful little man. The further away from him and his ilk I am, the better. So people who find him amusing, or even worse, agree with him, have little place in my life.
 
ImOuttaControl said:


Actually this thread is hillarious because it is full of a bunch of petty bitchers and moaners. Just my opinion though.


This segment was on the news today during my current events class(I'm a teacher), and my students came up with the conclusion that O'Reilly was lookign for a fight, but Letterman sounded like an idiot. The people in this thread talking like it is a fact that he "got his ass handed to him" need to realize that their viewpoint is not fact--- it is completely subjective and an opinion.

Is everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint vicious?

I agree with your student's assessment, I thought O'Reilly was himself, an arrogant jerk and Letterman is better served to stick to silly top ten lists and stupid pet tricks.

There was no 'ass-handing' to be done, it was just another political pop culture moment. It was entertaining and sort of funny.

It's not just "liberals" who are hilarious though.

The conservatives who buy O'Reilly's supposed objective BS, are just as hilarious.

He's as slanted as anyone else trying to make money on TV or radio with politics.
 
Last edited:
O'Reilly spend another hour on his radio show bemoaning how he is being treated over this Letterman thing, playing and replaying the clips again. I noticed when he was playing the clip on the war against Christmas, he left in the part about the red and green napkins and cut the part on Silent Night.:wink: He went so far as to say the writer who reviewed the show in People Magazine (??? Didn't know it would get out that quick, so maybe I misheard the name of the magazine) should be fired because the writer only quoted Letterman. I've heard him in the past encourage audience boycotts or letter writing campaigns against various media sources that he felt treated him unfairly, Didn't hear Thursday's radio show, but that is at least 2 hours (Wednesday and Friday) that he devoted going over this Letterman thing. Vindicative, whiny little creature. I think the word is hubris. For me, this personal pettiness completely undercuts anything else he might have to say even if I do get a kick out of his show.
 
Back
Top Bottom