(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.
TV Squad Ten: Cartoon women who should have Playboy centerfolds
Six Mad Men characters who are in limbo after the finale
Fact or Fiction: Big Bang, Brothers & Sisters and CSI
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
1-06-2006 @ 6:40PM
usarmydave said...
Like the Muslim individual earlier who isn’t offended by Christmas or Hanukkah, I’d like to give one soldier’s point of view.
I’m a full-time patriot serving at Fort Riley, getting ready for a deployment to “over there.” At the same time, I find myself a member of the aforementioned “part-time patriot loon left.” I think that Letterman’s “60% BS” statistic didn’t necessarily have to deal with O’Reilly’s show, that Dave himself confesses to not watch. It could easily apply to the topics Bill discussed only during the interview in question. 40% of the interview was an agreement about the length of time that will be spent in the war on terrorism, as well as the fact that America has the best soldiers. The other 60% was spent on the “War on Christmas” and “Top Ten Reasons That Cindy Sheehan Isn’t A True American” Both BS. I don’t speak for any soldier other than myself, and it’s true that I don’t have any children serving in the military, so please take my words with a grain of salt.
The only reason I can sleep at night is because of all the people out there with yellow ribbon magnets on their oversized SUVs that say they support me.
Reply
1-06-2006 @ 9:06PM
Paul JS said...
I've been an Independent who's been watching Letterman since 1982 but this interview soured me on this fading talk show host.
Cindy Sheehan is a media starved opportunist. She uses her son's death as a halo of sympathy, spouting her anti-American BS veiled as the words of a grieving mother. She needs to go back to California, shut her mouth, and pray that the insurgency ends so the US troops can get home. Instead she sympathizes with them (I've heard her, on more than one occasion).
For Letterman to take up for this woman is a disgrace. O'Reilly can be a blowhard, but he kicked Letterman's ass. I'm switching to Leno. Give it up Dave, it's over.
Reply
1-07-2006 @ 8:48PM
Honz said...
This blog's report is pathetically partisan. O'Reilly had actual examples for his arguments and Letterman had none, yet the blogger feels that Letterman won? Garbage. Nearly all of Letterman's remarks were non sequitors and ad hominem attacks that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Secondly, O'Reilly never claimed to speak for Cindy Sheehan; thus Letterman's remark was utterly meaningless and completely evasive. O'Reilly only criticizes her beliefs, which is well within his rights to do so. Is Letterman implying that Sheehan has freedom of speech but O'Reilly does not? Letterman didn't even address the FACT that Sheehan said that U.S. soldiers are terrorists-yet Letterman didn't respond to this. Why so evasive Letterman? Oh, but !*Bravo*, Letterman really tore O'Reilly a new one.
Reply
1-07-2006 @ 8:51PM
Honz said...
Oh yeah, that last sentence should be read as sarcasm >_^
Reply
1-07-2006 @ 9:08PM
Joel Keller said...
All of the comments I've received from this post are quite amusing. O'Reilly fans think he won. O'Reilly haters think he lost. All I saw was a guy who got confronted when he usually doesn't. If anything, that's what I was applauding Letterman for, not for the politics per se.
Actually, I think the funniest thing is that the O'Reilly fans thought Bill got more applause than Dave! I'll watch the video again, but I think these folks were practicing some selective hearing with the applause. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
Yes, Dave admitted that he didn't watch Bill's show. But I don't think he has to watch "The Factor" to say that 60% of what Bill says is crap. He could have, as one commenter said, been referring to what Bill was saying during the interview.
Look, I used to watch O'Reilly every night until about three years ago. "The No-Spin Zone" is even on my bookshelf (and, yes, I read it and liked it). I even used to agree with him a lot; I'm fairly libertarian in my views, and a lot of O'Reilly's conservative stance -- at least when it came to smaller government, the war in Afghanistan, and the validity of overthrowing Saddam (but not about the WMD thing; I always thought that was an excuse for going in) -- meshed with my own. I'm a social liberal, however, and I thought Bill had his head up his butt most of the time when he went on his "moral crusades" against people like Ludacris and George Clooney.
Anyway, I stopped watching Bill because he started getting more and more silly as time went on. He started concentrating more on the moral stuff like the "war on Christmas" than on political and international matters, on which I think he made a lot of sense. I also think he became cartoonishly confrontational, cutting people off and interrupting them after giving them "the last word" because, hey, that's what "TV's Bill O'Reilly" does. What was once an asset -- his desire to keep people from sidestepping tough questions -- became a detriment soley because he decided to become "Mr. Confrontation."
So, when Letterman gave him a taste of his own medicine, I cheered. Not because I thought Dave was the more effective arguer: he was more going on emotion while O'Reilly was stating examples (which may or may not have been true) along with his bluster. But I cheered because I liked seeing Bill on the receiving end of a lecture for once. Maybe it'll help him get his head out of his ass and get him looking at news stories that really matter, like the administration's evesdropping admission, or the bungling of Katrina, or the Plame case, or -- positively -- improvements in Iraq. If he's doing that, let me know. In fact, this whole essay may become a post in the near future, so if you have examples of what he's doing beyond fighting the "war on Christmas", hold it until then.
Reply
1-10-2006 @ 9:13PM
Ben said...
"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!"
Because they do not want you to have Christams they want it to be called anything BUT Christmas. It is being attacked, you just have to want to see it. And Dave put it to Bill? I don't think so. Dave just showed that he should stick to comedy. You can't comment on a show you never seen. He admitted to never watching it. And he was right about one thing there is no way he could debate Bill. I strong suggest you watch the video again the complete video. Buy the time it was done the people were clapping on things Bill said. He converted them.
Reply
1-10-2006 @ 9:14PM
Ben said...
"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!"
Because they do not want you to have Christams they want it to be called anything BUT Christmas. It is being attacked, you just have to want to see it. And Dave put it to Bill? I don't think so. Dave just showed that he should stick to comedy. You can't comment on a show you never seen. He admitted to never watching it. And he was right about one thing there is no way he could debate Bill. I strong suggest you watch the video again the complete video. Buy the time it was done the people were clapping on things Bill said. He converted them.
Reply
1-12-2006 @ 1:07AM
Derek Schultz said...
Oh Dear God,
It's true that once a lie is repeated enough, a certain percentage of people will take it as truth. I'm from Marshfield, WI & his (Bill O'Reilly) WI school example is totally wrong, the children changed the lyrics of Silent Night, not due to political correctness, but because the play's plot was worked into the song lyrics, every song had different lyrics. This lie, was the start of all this war on christmas crap, and I'm ashamed of anyone who won't take the time to research, info. given to them by ANYONE, and to take it at face value. Always question what you're told.
Reply
1-14-2006 @ 1:35PM
J.Alan said...
What the heck kind of a headline is this?! It doesn't appear that Letterman 'ripped O'Reilly a new one'. It appears to me, watching the whole video segment, that Dave was clueless on the 'war on Christmas' issue and really wasn't interested in hearing any more about it.
The Sheehan issue was basically two people having a debate stating their positions. No one scored on this point.
Letterman looked bad near the end when he stated that he had a feeling that 60 percent of what O'Reilly says is crap based upon what he's read. Geez man...Letterman should really watch the Factor show a few times before he goes off and makes statements like this.
Reply
2-02-2006 @ 11:32AM
kelly said...
All i can say is wow! The person that wrote this article should be ashamed of himself. Letterman in no way, shape or form ripped O'Reilly a new one. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think O'Reilly had 100% more class than Letterman. It's funny how you leave out O'Reilly's responses, why would you have to do that i ask? Hmmmmmmmmm, i wonder.
Reply