(UPDATE: You can see the entire interview here, or at Crooks and Liars.)
You've got to hand it
to David Letterman: when he's engaged and interested in the person he's interviewing, he can be one of the toughest in
the business, even tougher on his guests than those who consider themselves "hard news" people (are you
taking notes, Tim Russert?).
Take, for instance, Dave's smackdown of Bill O'Reilly last night. You can see a
clip of it on the Late Show web site. After Dave greeted Bill with
a pleasant "How was your holiday?", Bill responded smugly, "I had a nice winter solstice." This
must have set Dave off, because he spent the first half of the interview listening to then dismissing O'Reilly's
crusade against the "War on Christmas," voicing most Americans' opinion on this non-story: "I ignore
stuff like that, it doesn't really affect me, I go ahead and do what I want." Then, as O'Reilly went
point-by-point through each town that has nuttily legislated against even secular Christmas displays, Dave
exasperatedly asked him, "Isn't this the kind of thing where every once in 20 years, someone says, 'we have to put
diapers on the horses,' and that's all there is to it?"
Dave then changed the subject to the Bush Administration. While both agreed that the U.S. should stay in Iraq until the job is done, Dave would have none of O'Reilly's complaints against protester Cindy Sheehan, who considered Iraqi insurgents to be "freedom fighters." When he asked Bill if a member of his family ever died in combat, Bill said no, to which Dave replied, "Then you can hardly speak for her, can you?" Dave continued to fight O'Reilly on the topic, saying "I'm very concerned with people like yourself that don't have anything but endless sympathy for someone like Cindy Sheehan." Letterman's kicker came a few moments later, when he said, "I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling that 60% of what you say is crap."
DAMN! Dave really gave it to Bill all throughout the segment. But the surprising thing was that Bill didn't fight back all that much when Dave called him on his B.S., which is something that O'Reilly does to his guests all the time. O'Reilly was visibly agitated during interview, bobbing his leg up and down as things deteriorated. Looks like Bill can dish it out but can't take it.
Crooks and Liars will have the full interview up at some time today. If they or someone else puts it up, I'll provide the link.
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
TV Squad Ten: Top Ten ESPN shows from worst to first
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1-04-2006 @ 1:19PM
mattjh said...
Is dislike O'Reilly but he's right to be concerned about the war on Christmas, where minority festivals and pseudo festivals are promoted and Christmas becomes a dirty word, it's traditions banned from public places and institutions. I'm not religious in the slightest, but I'll fight to keep our traditions alive in the face of left-wing PC tyranny. I'm surprised this is even an issue in a very Christian country such as the United States.
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 1:27PM
Porchland said...
Taking notes, Tim Russert? I think Russert is tough, nonpartisan interviewer that doesn't let people off with weak answers.
How about take notes, every entertainment reporter that doesn't ask Tom Cruise if he thinks Scientologists know the secret about aliens colonizing the earth?
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 1:28PM
Elliott said...
Some say "left-wing PC tyranny", others say "respect". I would assume that Bill has no problem calling members of our armed forces by the generic "troops" instead of the exclusive "soldiers", and yet; he is angered by companies (which represent thousands of workers and stockholders) use the generic "holidays".
WTG Dave. It was perfect timing with TDS being a repeat last night.
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 1:31PM
Kookiejar said...
mattjh, I couldn't let your comments go unchallenged. This supposed "War on Christmas" is a right-wing lie to make the left look bad. I am a liberal atheist, and so are all of my friends and family. We all have CHRISTMAS Trees and send out CHRISTMAS cards and wish everyone we meet a very merry CHRISTMAS. No one is offended or objects to nativity scenes or Christmas carols. And I defy you to find any liberal who has ever said they were. All you ever hear is the conservatives telling everyone how offended we are by religious displays. Honestly, we couldn't care less.
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 1:35PM
Borat said...
I don't mean to sound insensitive or anything, but when someone joins the army and agrees to fight for his or her country, s/he should be prepared to give up their life. It's not only Cindy Sheehan who has lost a son, lots of other parents/husbands/wives/children have lost their loved ones too. You have to accept it as part of war and whenever you are fighting for your country.
Also, I have to agree with Bill that calling Iraqi insurgents 'Freedom Fighters' is nonsense. And the crowd on the show agreed with Bill only on that point.
Great to see Dave ripping on Bill though. Makes for great TV. That was something neither Leno nor conan could ever do.
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 2:06PM
Brent said...
It is pathetic that Cindy Sheehan has to represent all parents of the military. She is a media-driven story. There are hardly any other military moms or dads prominent in the media. I also feel sad that left-wing groups are using Sheehan.
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 3:08PM
Gordy said...
Bill probably realized that he was in Dave's sandbox. As such, he respected him. That's all you can do when you're in the enemy's territory.
Then again...
Dave's mea culpa came with the first part of the "kicker" noted above:
"I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this..."
This is all O'Reilly [and his fans] needed to hear. In their minds, they won after that, and didn't resort to the liberal rants and "politics of personal destruction". He left that to Dave...apparently.
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 4:25PM
Hilarious said...
Thank God someone like Dave Letterman finally put Bill in his place; he tries to demean and corner every person that comes on his show that disagrees with him. It is a nice change to see it the other way around. On top of being a sexual pervert, O'Reilly's comments about this pseudo-anti-Christmas bullsh*t just goes to show how radical and idiotic he is. Kookiejar, you said it all too well ~ turn the radio to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannidy, or tune into any right wing talk show, and you'll here all about this supposed "anti-Christmas" liberal movement to ban Jesus' Bday. Now go listen to Jerry Springer, Al Franken, or Ed Schultz on Air America Radio and GUESS WHAT? YOU WONT HERE A DAMN THING ABOUT IT! And if they do mention it, its because they comment on how stupid of an idea it is, and how the right wing is using the story as a distraction from the U.S's real problems!! THIS IS BECAUSE NO ONE CARES ABOUT IT besides people like O'Reilly who would love for the attention to be taken off of the people in their corrupt party (i.e. Abramoff, Delay, Bush..... I could go on forever............)
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 4:39PM
patrick said...
I have to comment on your spin...why don't you finish the story of how O'Reilly responded to what you say is the "kicker": Letterman's kicker came a few moments later, when he said, "I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling that 60% of what you say is crap. O'Reilly asked for an example. Letterman had none because he "doesn't watch the show"...Letterman's opinion is not based on first hand experience, but rather by "things he has read". Gimme a break...
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 5:01PM
Mark Allen said...
Letterman was terrific last night. After his surgical evisceration of Bill O'Reilly (which he wisely let the pompous Faux News gasbag do all by himself), David is forgiven for surgically attaching his lips to Oprah Winfrey's ass last year.
To the two O'Reilly fanatics who have blathered (on every site they can find) that Letterman's assertions are baseless because he claims not to watch O'Reilly's show:
Do you need to read "Mein Kampf" to know that Hitler was evil?
Get a grip, Faux News Fans. Your boy had his ass handed to him. Deal with it.
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 5:42PM
MW said...
It was good to see Dave take O'Reilly to task, even if it kind of seemed that they were arguing about enitrely different things -- O'Reilly was saying the war needs to be won even if it was a mistake to get into it, Letterman was rightly asking why soldiers had to die over a mistake. Both pretty much valid points.
One question I haven't heard about the "War on Christmas," though (which seems like a less-than-timely discussion at this point anyway): Doesn't advocating the wishing of a Merry Christmas at retail stores further secularize what has often been argued should solely be a religious holiday? I mean, doesn't the holiday lose its meaning if everyone, even people who don't believe in its religious origins is encouraged to celebrate it? Shouldn't a secular greeting (like Happy Holidays) be used in secular places so as to not cheapen Christmas as a religious celebration?
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 6:38PM
all4america said...
After 9-11, Saddam was toast - and free Iraqis THANK GOD David Letterman couldn't get his narcissistic Lez Moonbeam drilled liberal hack ass elected Indianapolis Dog Catcher, much less POTUS. Not that he'd have the balls or brains to run.
Screw Letterman, screw CBS, and screw the part-time patriot loon left.
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 9:45PM
Canton said...
Uh... You do realize, don't you, that Saddam Hussein was NOT responsible for 9/11; that Iraqis sure as heck aren't free (though they are currently occupied); that Osama bin Laden (remember him?) IS still free; and that David Letterman is smart enough to realize he isn't qualified to be Commander in Chief?
That said, I'm sorry I missed this Late show. Hopefully they'll rerun it.
Reply
1-05-2006 @ 2:38AM
Saad Asim said...
I am a Muslim and I have no problem with Christmas or Hannukah or whatever holiday someone celebrates. A rose is a rose no matter what you call it.
Now Bush on the other hand....
You just can't cover the stench of corruption.
Reply
1-05-2006 @ 2:50AM
Nicholas said...
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004215.htm
And by the way, TV Squad, I could give less than a crap about your political views. Just stick to witty commentary about TV, and we'll get along just fine!
Reply
1-05-2006 @ 2:52AM
Nicholas said...
O'REILLY: No way that a terrorist that blows up women and children is going to be called a freedom fighter on my program. (applause)
LETTERMAN: I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling that about 60 percent of what you say is crap (laughter)...
O'REILLY: 60?
LETTERMAN: 60 percent...I'm just spitballing here.
O'REILLY: Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine (applause.) Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.
LETTERMAN: This fair and balanced...I don't think you represent an objective viewpoint.
O'REILLY: But you have to give me an example if you're gonna make those--
LETTERMAN: Well I don't watch your show, so that would be impossible. (laughter)
O'REILLY: Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?
LETTERMAN: Because of things that I have read, things that I know...
O'REILLY: Aw, come on. You're going to take things that you have read knowing what they say about you? (Laughter).
Reply
1-05-2006 @ 3:57AM
Zach said...
Have any of you Republican types read any literature from a mainstream liberal source indicating that Christmas is evil? (Yes, mainstream is important here; there are always going to be fringe groups on either side who want Christmas illegalized/make Christianity the basis of the law.) I doubt you have; therefore, how can you fault Letterman? It doesn't take much research to know that O'Reilly makes pretty extreme accusations. It takes some serious stones to call someone un-American for having a differing opinion on matters.
It also takes stones to argue with such a vocal leader of a political ideology. Give Letterman some credit for not being afraid of offending folks.
Reply
1-05-2006 @ 10:03AM
LC said...
"Do you need to read "Mein Kampf" to know that Hitler was evil?"
Uh oh. We may have a Godwin's law violation here.
The comparison of example is ridiculous as people could recognize Hitlers evilness by his acts and not his book.
Letterman said he believed 60% of what O'Reilly says is BS yet he says he never watched the show. He also dodged a direct question O'Reilly asked him about equating Insurgents as freedom fighters by answering a question with a question by asking why we were there in the first place.
It was funny to see someone giving O'Reilly a taste of his own medicine by putting him in an unwinnable situation, but isn't this the same tactic that many can't stand O'Reilly for?
Reply
1-05-2006 @ 12:57PM
lovelain said...
while the interview didn't get nearly as ugly as it could have, it was a perfect example of "personal attack" philosophy of people who either have no thought out position of their own or have no ammunition/information to argue w/ (i.e. "i don't agree w/ what you're saying, so i'll just call you a liar/stupid/etc.")
Reply
1-06-2006 @ 3:22AM
OttO said...
No one-sided perspective in this article, is there?
It is apparently easy to make the case that Letterman 'smacked' O'Reilly when you only quote Letterman and completely avoid showing O'Reilly's responses.
For instance, when Letterman (repeatedly) said that Bill was full of crap, Bill asked him for examples and Letterman stated that he couldn't provide any because he never watched the show!
That exchange by itself is all we need to see that it is indeed Dave who is full of crap, Dave who can't provide examples, Dave who is admittedly ignorant on the topics that they were discussing, Dave who simply chose to reject very real stories of Christmas conflicts as 'made up', Dave who seemed to resist the notion that one should respect other peoples opinions.
Letterman should stay and play in the shallow end...
Reply