Hunting The Muse

OH, what a frickin idiot Al Franken made himself out to be. He in now way gave O'Reilly a smackdown. In fact, Frickin idiot was eating a healthy dose of O'Rielly, doo doo>

O'Reilly is a liar, not a mere "mis-speaker" as he implied when attempting to spin his repeated lies claiming to have won 2 Peabody awards. How could one possibly "misspeak" three or four times (over weeks or months) about twice winning the most prestigious award in one's field? In fact they were O'Reilly's unretracted, blatant lies.
BTW, Franken spoke with a stammer, not stutter--Al didn't get stuck repeating single syllables of words. As he is a Harvard graduate, I believe the stammer was part of his intended speaking style, especially when using the stage technique of repeatedly stopping his monologue until the laughter subsided.

I saw the episode and O'Reilly has lost me as a viewer.
I was already irritated by his interuptions of guests.

Pat Shroeder (sp?) and Molly Ivins were a big dispointment.

Molly because she allowed herself to coached into a duet
with O'Reilly and Pat because she promoted it: successfully
pushing Franken off the stage.

Pat then acted the part right-wingers write for liberals to perfrom;
be slow to react, be carefull not to offend, go for the compromise,
and whatever you do don't appear in control or decisive.

To watch the Franken / O'Reilly C-Span piece go to www.booktv.org

Click on watch, and when O'Reilly's solo interview begins, use your player's button to advance to the next video. Once you get to the second video, fast forward to the 40 minute point. That's when the fireworks begin. Have fun!

To watch the Franken / O'Reilly C-Span piece go to www.booktv.org

Click on watch, and when O'Reilly's solo interview begins, use your player's button to advance to the next video. Once you get to the second video, fast forward to the 40 minute point. That's when the fireworks begin. Have fun!

O'Reilly is a liar, not a mere "mis-speaker" as he implied when attempting to spin his repeated lies claiming to have won 2 Peabody awards. How could one possibly "misspeak" (as O'Reilly claimed to have done) three or four times (over weeks or months) about twice winning the most prestigious award in his field?

The FOX News web site rebuts Al Franken's recent exposure of O'Reilly as a liar, and FOX again lies while doing so.

If you go to www.booktv.org and click on the "watch" link of the O'Reilly / Franken incident on C-Span, and use the viewer's button to skip the 16 minute solo interview with O'Reilly, you get to the second clip showing the panel discussion with Molly Ivins, O'Reilly, and Franken, moderated by Pat Schroeder. If you fast forward this second clip (to 28 minutes and 30 seconds) Al Franken begins speaking. He was allotted 15 minutes; he did 20 before stopping at which point O'Reilly begins blurting his ridiculous defenses twenty minutes later (at 48 minutes, 30 secconds).

In the official FOX News online account
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88438,00.html

it is stated by O'Reilly:

". . . The format was this. Molly Ivins, Franken, and I were all supposed to speak for 15 minutes and then take questions from the crowd. Fair enough. Ms. Ivans and I stayed within the allotted time, but Franken went on longer, mostly calling me a liar. After he was finished, I said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: All he's got in six-and-a-half years is that I misspoke, that a labeled a Polk Award a Peabody. He writes it in his book. He tries to make me out a liar.

AL FRANKEN, AUTHOR: No, no, no.

O'REILLY: Hey, shut up! You had your 35 minutes! Shut up! . . . "

Al went five minutes over (total twenty minutes) not 35 as repeatedly lied by O'Reilly on live C-Span, and later by the FOX Web site.

FOX: Fair and Balanced.

Dave Tracy,

Las Vegas, NV

I just happened to see the spat on cspan and thought that o'reilly came off as a pushy jerk. And was disappointed with Molly and Pat who almost seemed to wanna help O'reilly when he was being attacked!

Franken embellishes his objectivity to say the least. He claims that everything in his book, "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot" is the truth..but when it came out Rush published a page and a half of distortions,factual errors..etc. Franken took issue with Limbaugh's conclusions and erroneously reported government statistics on revenue versus expenditures in the 80's and their effects..in the process..the person who claimed to be a "nice guy" made over 100 fat jokes in the book. So much for civility..(Molly Ivins take note)..this is the problem with liberals..they start the fight and dont like it when someone bites back.... For the record, Franken deserved being called on the carpet by O'Reilly. Franken is a "skilled liar"..he seasons his opinions with partial truths..omits facts and presents the entire stew as gospel..go ahead..give him a radio network...he will find out that you need ratings..not equal time to be successful.

"Bill O'Reilly, the conservative talk show host, first decried political commentators who "call people names." Then he called Al Franken, the liberal humorist, an "idiot."
...."As for calling Franken an idiot, O'Reilly told a reporter, "If I said it, I misspoke." Then he said, "I stand by my description."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2003-06-01-book-expo_x.htm

O'Reilly has such an ego he could not bring himself to admit he misrepresented the award the Inside Edition received. He constantly attacks guests who misrepresent the facts but when he is confronted he chooses to attack the messenger or deny the misrepresentation rather than admit his mistake. This same ego will be his downfall. Someday soon the tide will turn and wash O'Reilly into the deep sea of conservative oblivion.

That dumb Bill got spun out to dry with his Peabody between his legs. He needs another witch-slap.

That dumb Bill got spun out to dry with his Peabody between his legs. He needs another witch-slap.

I agree with James that "Franken embellishes his objectivity to say the least. He claims that everything in his book, "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot" is the truth..but when it came out Rush published a page and a half of distortions,factual errors..etc. Franken took issue with Limbaugh's conclusions and erroneously reported government statistics on revenue versus expenditures in the 80's and their effects..in the process..the person who claimed to be a "nice guy" made over 100 fat jokes in the book. So much for civility..(Molly Ivins take note)..this is the problem with liberals..they start the fight and dont like it when someone bites back.... For the record, Franken deserved being called on the carpet by O'Reilly. Franken is a "skilled liar"..he seasons his opinions with partial truths..omits facts and presents the entire stew as gospel..go ahead..give him a radio network...he will find out that you need ratings..not equal time to be successful." On the other foot, Bill should have punched the weasal Al in the pudgy face--some times you have to do what a man has to do. Both are spinners--too bad this is not the Olmpic skating deal and working class Americans get soaked by the ice chips from the likes of both of these skaters, daily. Of course the masses are totally oblivious anyway.

I am not a fan of O'Reilly but Al was not Mr. nice guy either. He was attacking him and saying Bill lied. Al and O'Reilly are rude and both tend to bash and act very rude in front of people. Al also assaulted Alan Colmes in a public at a Washington dinner. So are both nice guys? NO...both are rude and jerks

Why didn't Al find something better to pick at Bill? AL was saying how Bill said "we" and not "I" ? Come on...I think Al looked stupid finding such a stupid issue to bash Bill on. Find something better and shine.

I hate to see ol' Bill liquored up and spouting "Shut up! Shut up!" like he did on the only fair and balanced network to his wife and relations in Appalachia. There are more than Peabody Award lies in Franken's book; can't ait to get my mitts on it.

O'Reilly lied, knowingly, repeatedly, pure and simple. That's a "no-no" in journalism (if that's what you call what O'Reilly does). And as he said repeatedly on C-Span, "once you lie, you're gone, you're out of the Zone, Okay? That's the name of the show, "The No Spin Zone." I myself am a Harvard graduate. You want me to give back my Harvard diploma? As a matter of fact I have two Harvard degrees. Oh wait, sorry, I "misspoke" and really went to a public, state college. Oops! What do you think would happen to Bill O'Reilly if he worked for the NY Times? Ask the two editors who just resigned following the scandal of the lying Times reporter who made the recent cover of Newsweek.

Re: the post above:

"I agree with James that 'Franken embellishes his objectivity to say the least. He claims that everything in his book, "'Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot'" is the truth..but when it came out Rush published a page and a half of distortions,factual errors..etc."

Please provide responsible documentation.

"Franken is a "skilled liar"..he seasons his opinions with partial truths..omits facts and presents the entire stew as gospel.."

Please provide responsible documentation. By the way, I'm not sure what convention two periods between words actually signifies.

" . . . the person who claimed to be a "nice guy" made over 100 fat jokes in the book. So much for civility."

Note the proper use of ellipses and periods above. Franken's "Fat Idiot" Limbaugh expose' was satire, using (although hardly exagerrating [as satire is supposed to do] Flush's own style).

Remember Flush's characterization of Chelsea as "The White House Dog?" Chelsea is Playboy material compared to the substance-addled, fat, ugly Shrub accidents. Chelsea was at (Yale?, now at Oxford?). Help me here.

Dave

Man. Blog author here. What is it with the traffic on this one blog entry? Where are you guys coming from? Not that I mind, I like the readership.

search for "o'reilly" and "idiot" on google and you get this. go figure. rah Al Franken!

Thanks to Bill's loud pie-hole every night about evil ghost writers, Monica and older news, Senator Clinton's book is selling at a record pace. 300,000 sold already, 200,000 more being printed immediately...

When I saw the C-Span bookshow I had to chuckle at O'Reilly's meltdown when he was confronted by Al Franken about his lies about having won Peabodys. He came off as such a jerk! After announcing that he isn't into name calling, he calls Franken an idiot. Then after describing himself as an analyst, he accuses Franken of having nothing new to say in the last six years but confesses to never having read Franken's "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot." Some analyst!

I think O'Reilly should avoid being on any future shows with satirists or people with intelligence. He has neither the tempermant or intellect to participate in an open forum where he is not in control of the discussion. If I were part of the Factor, I would advise Bill to avoid all future risk taking and limit himself to the things he does best - bullying dopey college kids, interviewing right wing has-beens, and spinning his lame books and Factor paraphenalia!

Right-Wing Bullies Caught in Crossfire
by Joe Conason, New York Observer.

If there is anything that modern conservatives hate more than fair taxation, it’s a fair fight. The moment they encounter an equally aggressive opponent on a level field, the instinct of these bullying boys and girls is to run and hide and whine.

That’s why the Republican leadership, confronted by Paul Begala and James Carville on CNN’s revamped Crossfire,
are now loudly whispering about a boycott of the show. Those quiet directives emanating from the offices of the
Republican National Committee, the Senate Minority Leader’s office and other outposts of the right-wing establishment
in Washington—leaked in order to intimidate the liberal Crossfire hosts and their network bosses—are a disgrace to the American ideal of free debate.

So cowardly are these conservatives that they won’t even voice their complaints on the record. But we know how
unhappy they are with the new Crossfire format and hosts because some of them told U.S. News & World Report,
on a not-for-attribution basis. "The word is out: ‘Don’t go on; you’ll get screwed’" was the magazine’s quote from a
"top Senate aide," almost surely a reference to a functionary working for Minority Leader Trent Lott. A House G.O.P.
staffer chimed in: "It isn’t a total boycott, but the show’s last on our list to do."

What is it about Messrs. Begala and Carville that brings out the inner wimp among their opponents, who have been
perfectly happy to appear on Crossfire for so many years? Could it be their enthusiasm for the battle, as when
Mr. Begala confided that he was eager to "kick a little right-wing ass"? Might it be their unwillingness to back down,
as when Mr. Carville forced the Republican Party chairman to admit that he opposes campaign-finance reform?
Or is it just their insistence on factual discourse, as when Mr. Begala instructed conservative host Tucker Carlson
on the vastly greater number of Reagan administration aides indicted and convicted than in the supposedly corrupt
Clinton administration?

No doubt all of the above qualities irritate the conservatives who follow party instructions to shun Crossfire. What has
shocked them is that the new hosts don’t quite fit TV’s stereotypical 97-pound liberal, ready to be worked over like
a talking speedbag. Mr. Carville is a tall, rangy Marine veteran, sports fanatic and jock; Mr. Begala is a born-and-bred
Texan who grew up with guns and still likes to hunt. Both have expressed their powerful distaste for the Democratic
tendency to wilt under attack.

With no disrespect to their liberal predecessors on Crossfire, it must be said that this pair represents a refreshing
departure from tradition. The usual Crossfire host "from the left," facing the likes of Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan,
was neither particularly liberal nor terribly forceful. Michael Kinsley, although indisputably one of the smartest journalists
of his generation, accurately described himself as a "wishy-washy moderate" during his Crossfire years, while others
lamented his vocal tenor and bespectacled, overly professorial demeanor. Bill Press did somewhat better, but in truth
most political talk shows have historically had all the earmarks of a fixed fight.

Which is, of course, exactly what conservatives prefer about the discourse on Fox News Channel, the opinion network
where Sean Hannity roughs up poor Alan Colmes every night, and where Morton Kondracke is mistaken for a liberal
because he sits next to Fred Barnes. They aren’t content to dominate Fox and most of NBC’s cable programming,
where the Wall Street Journal editorial board enjoys its own featured weekly segment and Alan Keyes (a loony even
by his own movement’s standards) now appears on his own nightly show.

What makes the sniveling about Crossfire sound even more pitiful is its hypocrisy. If Mr. Carville or Mr. Begala don’t
always behave as if they’re hosting a Georgetown dinner party, they are considerably more civilized than many icons of conservative broadcasting, which long ago abandoned the genteel erudition of Bill Buckley. Rush Limbaugh became a Republican hero while mocking the appearance of the Democratic President’s 12-year-old daughter. Ann Coulter only prospered by comparing that same President’s wife to a prostitute on national television. Don Imus has broadcast ugly
racist "jokes" for years, but politicians of both parties (and journalists of various persuasions) line up for his show.

Like their counterparts on Capitol Hill, these squawkers long ago learned to parrot the lexicon of abuse recommended
by their mentor, Newt Gingrich. During his crusade to take over Congress, Mr. Gingrich regularly instructed his minions
to "delegitimize the opposition" by tarring Democrats as traitors, pornographers and criminals.

Mr. Carville, by contrast, was too polite to mention that his April Fool’s Day sparring partner on Crossfire,
RNC chairman Marc Racicot, was until quite recently a lobbyist for Enron.
He probably didn’t want to make his guest cry.

Come on Dave get real,
"to "delegitimize the opposition" by tarring Democrats as traitors, pornographers and criminals"
Woe is me! The Democrats are being targeted unfairly!
(1)The nation's highest court disbarred Clinton because of his perjury scandal.
(2)A federal judge sentenced former Rep. Traficant to eight years in prison and fined him $150,000 for demanding kickbacks and favors from his staff and accepting bribes from businessmen in exchange for using his influence on Capitol Hill.
(3)Rep. Barney Frank (D), whose affair with Steve Gobie, an $80-a-pop call boy, was revealed in 1989. Renting a hooker was the least of the offense. It turned out that Gobie was a convicted felon with a prison record. That he ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. That Frank made him a personal aide, paying him $20,000 -- unreported to the IRS -- and giving him the keys to his car. That he wrote letters of reference to Gobie's probation officers. That he had Gobie accompany him to public functions -- once, even, to a White House ceremony. Most pathetic of all was Frank's claim that (ital) he'd (unital) been "victimized" -- that he was just a "good liberal" who was "trying to help" Gobie, but got "suckered."
(4) Kennedys (Pick one!) There isn't enough room on the entire internet for the comments on this one! (Chappaquiddick, rape, adultery etc. etc.)
……….and the list goes on and on and on and on and on……….. You get the drift, right?

It is amazing how people can watch the same program but what they see is diametric opposites. I saw the program and for what it is worth this is my take on it. At one time I was an avid fan of O'reilly. The more I watch, the less I like and I now believe his 15 minutes of fame are just about up. Egos always burn out. No substance, no longevity! That is the law of the land! (At least it should be!) As for Franken, It's good to see he hasn't wasted that Harvard education. When it comes to quips and barbs I believe he is a professional. So he is using his education wisely! As for substance, well that's another matter. I'll leave that to each of you to decide. Were I to draw a conclusion, I would say, when it comes to being obnoxious and self-serving it was dead even! Here is the BIG surprise for me! I felt sorry for Pat Schroeder and I actually listen to Molly Ivins. What the hell is happening to this world? There has always been a very clear line between "them" and "us". However O'reilly, with whom I agree on most issues was so hard to listen to, but Ivins with whom I mostly disagree was so easy to listen to. O'reilly and Franken showed their a** and Molly showed her class. Now before you think I am on the brink of being "converted" I'll end with this, I love Ann Coulter!

Re: the comments of "Right Winger Shooting Back," the topic here is Al Franken and O'Reilly and the latter's compulsive lying. If you want to start a topic about the repercussions and irrepairable damage to the country of Clinton lying and perjuring about the Oval Office blowjob, I suggest start that new topic. Clinton disbarred from the Arkansas and US Supreme Court? To my knowledge he never argued before either of them. He does make a bundle for speaking fees, however, especially for a man from Hope, AK, as opposed to shrubs from Kennebunkport, MA. Please enjoy the following interview w/ Al Franken:

find it at:
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/06/12_franken.html

June 12, 2003

Instant Replay: The BuzzFlash Interview with Al Franken. Bill O'Reilly Gag on this One!

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

During a recent panel discussion on media bias at Book Expo America 2003, Al Franken called Bill O'Reilly on his lies –- and O'Reilly didn't take to it so kindly. The heated exchange, which was covered by C-SPAN's Book TV, became the subject of media coverage around the nation [LINK]. BuzzFlash interviewed Franken about his first round KO against O'Reilly -- and about the larger issue of the media's right-wing bias, which Franken covers in his new book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. (It is scheduled for release in the fall. Check back with BuzzFlash later this summer for more details).

Franken is one of BuzzFlash's heroes. Author of the must-read Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, the audio version of which won a Grammy Award, Franken has also penned Why Not Me? The Inside Story of the Making and Unmaking of the Franken Presidency and Oh, The Things I Know!, a satire on self-help books.

A 1973 graduate of Harvard, Franken performed stand-up comedy before joining Saturday Night Live. Between 1975 and 1980, Franken won five Emmy Awards, four for writing and one for producing. Franken returned to SNL for a 10-year run in 1985, during which time he created one of the SNL Hall of Fame characters, self-help guru Stuart Smalley.

* * *

BUZZFLASH: On May 31, your appearance at a book exposition with co-panelists Molly Ivins and Bill O'Reilly was broadcast on C-SPAN's Book TV. At the event, you confronted O'Reilly about his lie that that he received the prestigious Peabody Award for his work as host of Inside Edition. Could you recap the story -- which is kind of funny when you think about it, lying about an award that honors outstanding achievement in broadcast journalism.

AL FRANKEN: Well, it isn't just that Bill O'Reilly claims he won a couple of Peabody Awards. Whenever he was asked about Inside Edition and it being sort of a tabloid show, O'Reilly would indignantly say that they had won two Peabody Awards. Who says we're a tabloid show? And O'Reilly would offer as proof the Peabody Awards that Inside Edition had supposedly won. And he did this on a number of occasions. I got through watching him once on C-SPAN and then went researching on Nexis. I just followed it up because I couldn't believe that Inside Edition had won a Peabody. And I did the research. And, of course, they hadn't won any Peabody Award. I thought I would call O'Reilly, and that way he could stop saying the wrong thing, which any journalist would be embarrassed about. Instead of being grateful that I had called him, he just got angry. Well it turns out that Inside Edition had won a "Polk" Award a year after he left. And so he got very, very angry and said, "Go ahead – go after me, Al." And so I just thought that it'd be fun to do.

I gave the story to Lloyd Grove at the Washington Post, who called O'Reilly. O'Reilly sort of said, "Well, all I did was mix up a Polk and a Peabody, and Al has this jihad against me," et cetera. Now that's not necessarily worth writing about, but then I discovered that about a week later Robert Reno at Newsday decided to do a column about the fact that O'Reilly had claimed on several occasions to have won Peabodies and hadn't.

O'Reilly then attacked Rob Reno in the most vitriolic way, saying, basically "I never said I won a Peabody. This is a total fabrication. The man's a liar," et cetera, et cetera. And that sort of seems pathological to me, or Bill O'Reilly just felt that he could get away with it. It's sort of emblematic of him.

So I thought that was the example of his lying that I could use at the Book Expo, because my book isn't about him. It's about the whole right-wing media, and how it affects the mainstream media. I also focus on Bush and his administration -- who do a lot of lying -- and how a right-wing media has allowed them to get away with a lot of stuff that, in a different media environment, they probably wouldn't be able to get away with.

BUZZFLASH: Well, you bring up an interesting point, because it seems that one of the tactics of the right wing when they are confronted with the facts or proof of their lies, they just switch gears.

FRANKEN: O'Reilly kept saying during the C-SPAN event, and he kept repeating, "All I did was mix up up a Polk and a Peabody." But that's not the whole point of the story. When confronted with a lie, these guys just deny it.

BUZZFLASH: You stated in your speech on C-SPAN that outside of the mainstream media, there's a well-funded, well-organized, right-wing media –- and you gestured to O'Reilly –- and that it acts as an echo chamber in the news, pushing the right-wing attacks, scandals and ideology. Could you elaborate on that idea of an echo chamber?

FRANKEN: Well, what certainly happened during the Clinton administration was that the American Spectator and the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal would get these things that weren't true and print them. And, after awhile, they became such a part of the echo chamber that CNN and The New York Times and the L.A. Times felt they had to address those stories.

BUZZFLASH: Because we live in a mass media culture, it seems that there's no such thing as any single story really causing that much of an impact. A news story has to be branded, and people have to keep talking about it. It's natural that the news cycle is going to turn very quickly, so even important stories get washed over.

FRANKEN: Right.

BUZZFLASH: But if you have that mechanism and infrastructure, like the right-wing media, you're able to keep a story alive and keep it circulating. You almost brand or market that news story, if you will, for the course of a week or longer.

FRANKEN: The first part of my new book is about the media, and then it gets more into the Bush administration. But, of course, they're married –- this right-wing media and the Bush administration. To make the argument that the media has a left- or right-wing, or a liberal or a conservative bias, is like asking if the problem with Al-Qaeda is do they use too much oil in their hummus. And sometimes they do use too much oil, and sometimes they don't use enough. But the real problem with Al-Qaeda is they want to kill us. And the real problem with the press is all the other biases that they have. Those include: get the story fast; scandal; negativity; sexiness -- you know, ratings will be up if we go to war. It's an establishment bias -- a bias for the "new," which sounds contradictory to the establishment bias, but I think it helped Bush and hurt Gore in 2000. And so they're all these biases in all the media.

But in the right-wing media, they do have a right-wing bias. And they also have an agenda. So their agenda is: we're an adjunct of the Republican Party, and we're going push that agenda every day, and, as you say, brand these stories that help further the right-wing cause.

If you watched Hannity and Colmes during the war, it was hilarious. Hannity would, every day, be saying that Democrats were undermining the President by criticizing the Commander in Chief with criticisms that were so either nonexistent or mild. Whereas, Hannity, if you went back and looked at what he was saying during Kosovo, was attacking Clinton in the harshest terms every day. Hannity deliberately meant to undermine Clinton by saying he's not following his advisors, we're running out of ammunition, he doesn't know what he's doing. He was allowing guests to come on and say this is the worst planned military operation in history, and he'd nod, and say, "Um-hmm."

Here's another example: I do a sort of a case study with the Wellstone Memorial and about the complete distortion of that event in the right-wing media. And that did get into the mainstream media, and it did affect how people around the country thought of the Democratic Party. And I think it had an effect obviously in Minnesota, and in Missouri in the Senate races, and gave the Senate to the Republicans.

There was a piece where Connie Lewis gave the eulogy for Sheila Wellstone, and she started off by saying there was this day where she picked up Paul for one of these 14-hour days on the campaign trail, and Sheila had already left for her campaign day. Paul pulls out this note from a pile of stuff from Sheila, and Sheila tells him in the note where dinner is, and how to put it in the microwave -- you know, he's an absent-minded guy in all these things. And then, at the bottom of the note, it says, "We will win." And Paul looks at Connie, and just gives her this look like, isn't she the greatest? Isn't she the greatest? The whole thing was about their love story. They got married at 19. I barely ever saw Paul without Sheila there. They were a truly incredible couple. And that's what the whole part of that piece was, in the middle of the campaign.

Well, Hannity's show cuts it together and just keeps the "We will win" part to show how partisan the event was, and then puts it together with Rick Kahn's speech and with something from Mark Wellstone. And my image of that was Alan Colmes walking past the Fox edit room that day saying "What are you up to, guys?" "Oh, we're just editing a piece on the Wellstone memorial." "OK." You know what I mean? The right wing machine cranked out lies. There was Christopher Caldwell who wrote the editorial for the Weekly Standard. The only thing he saw, I think, might have been the piece I just described from Hannity and Colmes.

BUZZFLASH: You made an appearance on Donahue's show back in January and confronted Bernard Goldberg about his book that claimed liberals run the media. And you made the comment on Donahue's show that so much of the right-wing media is just flat-out lazy in not tracking down sources or context for what is reported.

FRANKEN: Well, in that one, Goldberg had a chapter called "Left Wing Hate Speech." He uses as an example something that John Chancellor said in the commentary on Nightly News with Tom Brokaw on August 21, 1991 -- that was the day that the coup was put down in the Soviet Union, the one at the Parliament where Yeltsin was on the tank and stuff. And Brokaw gives this impassioned opening to the show, something like, "This is the day where the gray men of the Kremlin were finally put down. And history will speak. And that the people of Russia didn't let themselves go back into the darkness, the state oppression, blah-blah-blah."

Total anti-communist, anti-Soviet introduction. And then, later in the show, Brokaw asks Chancellor, "What does Gorbachev do next?" Because, at this point, what brought about the coup were these horrible shortages that the Soviet Union was having, which were the worst shortages since World War II. And Perestroika, at this point, was six years old. Gorbachev had dismantled the state economy, and there was really no system -– there was no communism any more. And so John Chancellor says, basically, Gorbachev is in the position where he can't blame communism -- the problems are the shortages.

And Goldberg quotes this in his book about "liberal bias" and says it refers to the absurd notion that John Chancellor believes that the shortages in the Soviet Union were not caused by communism. Of course John Chancellor isn't around anymore to defend himself.

So I'm on the show with Donahue, and I'm in San Francisco on a satellite, which is always hard to do, and he's in the studio. And I asked him what happened on that day. I read him the quote. And I said, "What happened that day in the Soviet Union?" thinking that he knew. And then I would just say, "Then how could you leave out that context?" And in fact, he didn't know. Goldberg just didn't know. And Goldberg says, "You tell me, Al," very indignant that I would ask him. And I said, "No, you tell me. It's your book. You tell me." And basically he said, "OK, I don't know." Milton Friedman would have agreed with what John Chancellor was saying that day.

But when you confront the right-wing media about their reporting, all they do is they get mad. Instead of saying, "You know what? I really screwed up." Well, what happened was Goldberg just regurgitated something he got from a right-wing media research center, and just put it in the book and thought that, oh, this proves that John Chancellor thought that communism wasn't a problem or something.

It's the amazing laziness of putting something in your book without thinking, "Huh, let's see, 1991 -- what's going on around that time? Didn't communism fall? Didn't the Soviet Union fall around then? We must check out what this is." And here I am just reading Goldberg's book, and I think this is not what it seems. Well, what happened? What happened around then? That was even before I was writing this book about liars and the right-wing.

BUZZFLASH: Celebrities who have spoken out against the Bush administration, like the Dixie Chicks, have been attacked by the right-wing media. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, for example, were scrubbed from the Baseball Hall of Fame events surrounding the celebration of Bull Durham because of their liberal views. Did you face a backlash after you wrote Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot or after your recent appearance with O'Reilly on C-SPAN?

FRANKEN: No, no. I just tend to get really nasty e-mails. And I just send them back a little e-mail saying, "Thank you for your kind e-mail regarding my" – and I skip a space, and I put a forward arrow – "three-inch penis." Then I skip a space. "As you can imagine, I receive so many positive responses to my" – skip a space, arrow – "three-inch penis, that I'm unable to respond to them all." Then they get mad, yeah.

BUZZFLASH: You stated at the C-SPAN event that the Democrats have taken it for too long and we're not going to take it anymore. And some of our readers have written that they want you to lead the DNC. What would you do if you were the head of the DNC? Or, what would you advise Democrats about the current political situation and how to fight back?

FRANKEN: This is something I'm trying to get together with some other people who asked me to put a show together -– a radio show. I think we have got to start matching their infrastructure. We have got to be able, when the right wing and Bush administration lie, to respond and say, "That's just not true." And we have got to start getting heard. We need leaders who can inspire people, and we need a message that resonates. And I think that we actually have both of those things.

BUZZFLASH: How does your background in comedy give you a better understanding of politics, to see a situation differently or maybe unconventionally? How has it helped you in your political work, or at least your writing and speaking about politics?

FRANKEN: Well, I think that there's a value to comedy in and of itself. I'm a comedian first and foremost, which some people think that doesn't give me the right to do what I'm doing. And I don't quite understand that. What's Hannity? What's O'Reilly? What's their background, you know?

BUZZFLASH: We call them Infotainment.

FRANKEN: Yeah. And I think that being able to make people laugh and write a book that's funny makes the information go down a lot easier and it makes it a lot more fun to read, easier to understand, and often stronger. So there's all kinds of advantages to it.

Now, one of the things that the right wing doesn't seem to get -- they have an unbelievable obdurate resistance to understanding irony. So when you write, "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot," they don't understand. They say, "How dare you call him a big fat idiot?" And at the time, he was very fat, as you know, just a huge fat, fat, fat, fat, obese, morbidly obese, fat man. He's huge. Just his enormous gut and a big fat ass. But he had been engaging in ad hominem attacks, so there was a bit of irony within the title.

I have no doubt the right wing won't get the title of my new book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, as it is meant – it's kidding on the square, as I like to say.

BUZZFLASH: Al, thank you so much for your time.

FRANKEN: Thank you.

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

Dear Dave, Let me respond to some of your comments: (1) "If you want to start a topic about the repercussions and irrepairable damage to the country of Clinton lying and perjuring about the Oval Office blowjob, I suggest start that new topic" I thought I did just that! By the way it certainly isn't anything new! (2)"Clinton disbarred from the Arkansas and US Supreme Court? To my knowledge he never argued before either of them". That's the trouble with liberals. They start forming their rebuttals without really hearing what was said. The statement read, "The nation's highest court disbarred Clinton because of his perjury scandal." He was disbarred "BY" the highest court not "FROM". I guess if you can't comprehend a simple statement, it would sound like a "LIE"! I'm not sure but I believe if Clinton was ever in court it wasn't as counsel but as a defendant. (3) "Clinton does make a bundle for speaking fees, however, especially for a man from Hope, AK, as opposed to shrubs from Kennebunkport, MA". A true Clinton Disciple! They will defend the "leader" of their cult no matter what! (4)"about the repercussions and irrepairable damage to the country of Clinton lying and perjuring about the Oval Office blowjob." Those are your words. Then you follow it up with "Clinton does make a bundle for speaking fees". Typical liberal thinking! If he is making money, how guilty could he be? Yeh, that makes sense! I would not argue the point that O'reilly has lied, but compared to Clinton, O'reilly is a rookie.To be fair, give both of them the boot! I saved the best for last. (5)," the topic here is Al Franken and O'Reilly and the latter's compulsive lying". I responded to your: Post by: Dave at June 18, 2003 05:11 PM. Go back and read it yourself and see how many times " Franken and O'Reilly" were mentioned. I can save you some time. The number is zero! This is just some of the subject matter mentioned: Paul Begala, James Carville, conservatives, Republican National Committee, right-wing establishment, Michael Kinsley, Bill Press, Trent Lott, Robert Novak , Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Morton Kondracke, Fred Barnes, Alan Keyes, Bill Buckley, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Don Imus, Newt Gingrich and Marc Racicot. But " the topic here is Al Franken and O'Reilly and the latter's compulsive lying" right! Not once were they mentioned, but yet you felt the need to "suggest" I stick to the topic. Dave look up the word hypocrite, your picture will be next to it. Thank you for posting Franken's interview but I must decline. Franken is like easy listening music. It is so hard to listen to!

Right wing shooter sez: "Dear Dave, Let me respond to some of your comments: (1) 'If you want to start a topic about the repercussions and irrepairable damage to the country of Clinton lying and perjuring about the Oval Office blowjob, I suggest start that new topic.' I thought I did just that!"

Well, no, shooter. If you look at the title of this page at the top of your browser It's about Bill and Al, not Bill and Monica. Start a new title.

Shooter continues: "That's the trouble with liberals. They start forming their rebuttals without really hearing what was said. The statement read, 'The nation's highest court disbarred Clinton because of his perjury scandal.' He was disbarred 'BY' the highest court not 'FROM'. I guess if you can't comprehend a simple statement . . ."

Well, actually, the terms "from" and "by" are prepositions and in the context used here are practically interchangable and I argue no meaning is lost substituting one for the other.

Shooter brands me: "a true Clinton Disciple! They will defend the "leader" of their cult no matter what!"

Actually, I don't know of any "true Clinton D (sic)isciples. Certainly not Hillary. Not George Stephanopolous. Perhaps Bill's dog Lucky (?).

Shooter sez: "I would not argue the point that O'reilly has lied, but compared to Clinton, O'reilly is a rookie. To be fair, give both of them the boot!"

Clinton is history; why is shooter still obsessed with him? What "boot" could we possibly give B. Clinton in 2003? Unfortunately, I believe O'Reilly will be with us a long time.

Well Dave I must admit it is difficult to know where to start. You have to be the poster boy for liberal double-talk. Instead of responding to the issues I presented, you (typical of libs) evaded, misinterpreted and put your spin on each issue. Let us try again. (1) "Well, no, shooter. If you look at the title of this page at the top of your browser It's about Bill and Al, not Bill and Monica. Start a new title". Well, Dave did you read your own post from June 18, 2003 05:11 PM? It is about Right-Wing Bullies Caught in Crossfire by Joe Conason, New York Observer. That is the one I responded to! It is a real stretch to remotely associate that with "Bill and Al". Since you did not address this in your response I have to assume this is one you can't double-talk around and had rather not follow up on it. That's fine. I understand. At least try to practice what you preach! (2) "Well, actually, the terms "from" and "by" are prepositions and in the context used here are practically interchangable and I argue no meaning is lost substituting one for the other". Dave this one made me laugh out loud. Thanks! Well, actually, if we use this statement as a pattern we could say, "disbarred" is a verb and "in the context used here is practically interchangeable" with the expression "got his lying ass kicked out" and "I argue no meaning is lost substituting one for the other". I believe the key word in your hilarious response is "practically". I have filed this one with the now infamous response, "What is the meaning of "is"? You have learned well "Grasshopper". Let's review the original statement. I said, The nation's highest court disbarred Clinton because of his perjury scandal. Your response? "Clinton disbarred from the Arkansas and US Supreme Court?" Since I made no mention of Arkansas, is it your assertion that the Arkansas Court is the highest court in the nation or is this another example of your inability to comprehend a simple statement? (3) "Shooter brands me: "a true Clinton Disciple"! Branded? I apologize for this statement but I swear I thought you would receive it as a compliment. (4) "Actually, I don't know of any "true Clinton D (sic)isciples. Certainly not Hillary. Not George Stephanopolous. Perhaps Bill's dog Lucky". You have eliminated four and that’s only because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt about Bill's dog lucky (I always thought that was Monica). I am standing by for any additions to your long list. (5) "Clinton is history; why is shooter still obsessed with him"? Let me translate that statement: We know what he has done, please don't keep mentioning his name! In light of the fervent defense of Clinton by his loyal followers (no matter what he does) I would submit to you it is they who are obsessed. (6) "What "boot" could we possibly give B. Clinton in 2003"? You are the one that said he had a lucrative lecture tour. Why not start there? Oh, that's right there are still people that actually listen to him. My bad! Back to you Dave!

Well, Shooter, I'm sure that everyone reading this topic finds our little dialogue just as fascinating as we do, but in case they don't and want to learn more about Bill O'Reilly, they can go to http://www.oreilly-sucks.com (a very good, informative site).

It's just chock-full of examples of O'Reilly's fine character.

Well Dave, it's just a little presumptuous of you to say " fascinating as we do". Maybe you find it fascinating but to me it was just short of interesting. Also it wasn't much of a dialogue when you refuse to give direct answers. Thank you for posting the site: O'reilly sucks.com, but it prompts the very question you asked me about Clinton: "why is Dave so obsessed with O'reilly"? I'll pass on visiting the site if you don't mind. I have found that (a very good, informative site) site doesn't end with "sucks .com". But who am I to say what is a very good, informative site to others. Different strokes for different folks! Also, you said, "It's just chock-full of examples of O'Reilly's fine character". If you were reading my comments closely, it wasn't O'reilly's fine character that was in question. One last thing, I honestly don't think anyone gives a rusty rats butt about our "little dialogue". Why would they? Shooter signing off!

Note: To keep our obsessions in perspective President Clinton has been out of office since January, 2000. O'Reilly made the fore just within the last month, thanks to Al Franken. Here's another fun fact about Bill (O'Reilly, not Clinton). O'Reilly, just like Flush, just like Dick Cheney, just like Jr. Bush, just like George Will, just like Phil Graham (who all posture as hawks), just like all of them (who criticize Clinton for opposing Vietnam), O'Reilly was a Vietnam chickenhawk. Read on.

Vietnam and the Bill O'Reilly Nothing But Spin Zone
Looks Like O'Reilly Avoided The Draft For Vietnam

January 7, 2002

Source: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/01/010702_Vietnam_and_OReilly.html

Jackie Corr, Butte Montana

Nobody who watches television can doubt that Bill O'Reilly is the leader of the pack over at Fox News where he hosts the Rupert Murdoch journalistic centerpiece, "The O'Reilly Factor," a talk show where intelligent people yell and scream at each other to the delight of the host. O'Reilly also has three current books in print, The O'Reilly Factor, The No Spin Zone, and a fictional account of the TV news racket called Those Who Trespass. Not once in any of the three books is the word Vietnam mentioned.

But Vietnam aside, O'Reilly's popularity to a great degree is based on his warm relationship with America's army of Bill and Hillary haters. And his enemy's list is not limited to the Clintons, running from Martha Stewart to Jesse Jackson. Another factor of The O'Reilly Factor, is faithful audience identification, hard-core loyalists who never doubt that the Clintons are guilty and their champion remains the strident and abrasive foe of America's mostly rich liberal elite at whose hands working class O'Reilly has suffered grievously.

Despite the suffering and snubs that have been inflicted on him, O'Reilly never ceases to remind the audience of his nobility and that he is true to who he is: "I'm working-class Irish American Bill O'Reilly." Of course, O'Reilly's definition of working class is as bizarre as that of President George Bush who never worked a day in his life while his spins reek of the same fantasies as those of his brother Foxie, "General" Geraldo Rivera, the savior of Afghanistan. But left out of the O'Reilly past is any evidence of "Just Plain Bill" working at a menial or blue collar job or time served in the American military.

The Vietnam War simply never happened.

So let's get to the point. The striking fact of O'Reilly's past is that the Vietnam War simply never happened. In "Bill O'Reilly's Nothing But Spin Zone," the great eraser works tirelessly and he comes from a world where there is no Vietnam and no draft which is rather strange for someone who grew up in the era. Vietnam, the overwhelming event of O'Reilly's high school and college years is never mentioned in his books nor on his television show. Even in his attacks on Clinton there no mention of "Slick Willie Clinton the Draft Dodger." And the why of it is pretty simple. Bill O'Reilly at least matched Bill Clinton's Vietnam War record.

O'Reilly graduated from Chaminade High School in Long Island in 1967, a year in which 10,000 Americans, some younger then O'Reilly, died in Vietnam. And in these years, 1967-1968, O'Reilly would have to register for the draft and then make a decision. While America's lower economic classes were being drafted or enlisting there was a ways out for many of the despised liberal elite. It was called the college deferment followed by graduate school.

And Vietnam was not something that you just overlooked or forgot about. In 1967-68, American airwaves and newspapers were filled with stories of battles called Operation Cedar Falls and Junction City, of places named KheSan, Locninh, DakTo, as well as the Tet Offensive and the MyLai massacre. And there were massive demonstrations and marches in cities and on campuses including the famous Kent State photograph.

Yet O'Reilly, at his age and single, was high priority draftee material yet never enlisted or was drafted and his record of the Vietnam era remains blank. Today's - but not yesterday's - super patriot, entered Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York in the fall of 1967. He was active as a columnist for the student newspaper The Circle as well as a member of the football team which meant he suffered no great physical handicap which would exempt him from military service.

In the bloodiest days of the Vietnam war we find Bill O'Reilly and Bill Clinton as college students in England.

O'Reilly spent his junior year, 1969-1970 at the University of London. The previous year, 1968, Bill Clinton had entered Oxford. So in the heat of the Vietnam war and its greatest battles, we find Bill O'Reilly and Bill Clinton as college students in England. In these years, U.S. troops in Vietnam topped the half million mark and American combat deaths now totaled thirty-three thousand, a sum greater than the Korean War. And in 1969, Life magazine shocked America with portrait photos of all 242 Americans killed in Vietnam in just one single week.

Then, in the fall of 1970, he returned to Marist College from England, rejoined the football team and graduated in 1971 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history. In that year, 1971, American deaths in Vietnam passed the forty-five thousand marker.

Additionally, at the time of O'Reilly's graduation, a draft extension bill was passed along with what was then known as the Mansfield Amendment which set a national policy of withdrawing troops from Vietnam 9 months after the bill's enactment (wording was later softened to the "earliest practical date"). It was the first time in modern US history that Congress had urged an end to a war in which the country was actively involved

Yet after graduation, and with the conscription law and the draft lottery in full force, O'Reilly would never be inducted. Instead, he was off to Florida where he took a job teaching at a high school. Two years later, in 1973, he was back in college at Boston University for a master's degree in broadcast journalism. By that time he finished at Boston U., the draft and the war were history. And neither would ever play any part in the life of one of America's most vocal defenders of patriotic ways and values.

Despite O'Reilly's historical amnesia, Vietnam and the draft really did happen. Two million Americans served in Vietnam with 500,000 seeing actual combat. The latest number of killed in action totaled 47,244. In addition there were 10,446 non-combat deaths while 153,329 Americans were seriously wounded, including 10,000 amputees and over 2400 American POWs/MIAs.

But in "The Nothing But Spin Zone" you will find not one word about Vietnam or the draft. It simply never happened in Bill O'Reilly's version of the Irish - American working class theme park.

Well Dave I was going to end our "dialogue" but you just won't leave it alone. First let me say you do a lot of cutting and pasting. Do you have any original thoughts of your own? Now to the comments: (1) "President Clinton has been out of office since January, 2000. O'Reilly made the fore just within the last month"- Slick Willy and Howling Hilliary have used every public forum afforded them to criticize the Bush administration (RECENTLY). One of your quotes from a previous post, "Clinton is history; why is shooter still obsessed with him"? If he is history, why is he so visible and vocal? Seems very convenient that you have missed that. I believe you are guilty of selective viewing. Go back to my comments and show me one time I defended O'reilly. Go back and read the post by: What did you see? July 9, 2003 05:28 AM. That is mine! You use typical liberal tactics. Instead of responding to the comments in question, you circumvent the issue by going in a different direction. It's always easier to avoid an issue rather than approach it head on. I believe that is called diversion. You have yet to respond directly to any comments. I don't expect it anymore so it doesn't really matter. (2) "warm relationship with America's army of Bill and Hillary haters". I am a proud member of that army but "haters" is such a strong word. I prefer loathe! (3) "loyalists who never doubt that the Clintons are guilty" - Dave he admitted he was guilty! If you still doubt his guilt just add the word "Blind" to loyalist and that would be …… YOU! (4) "And his enemy's list is not limited to the Clintons, running from Martha Stewart to Jesse Jackson" - By the way, we in the army of haters "lothers" refer to these three as Bastard, Bitch and Buffoon! (5) "Bill O'Reilly at least matched Bill Clinton's Vietnam War record" I beg to differ. I believe Clinton was involved in countless encounters of hand to thigh combat with women from Arkansas to the White House. So he saw a lot more "ACTION" than O'reilly. Let's give the devil his due! (6) "President George Bush who never worked a day in his life"- I find that interesting. When Clinton was in the same office, he was said to be working hard, yet Bush in the same job "has never worked a day in his life"! Interesting "SPIN"! We know neither of them are war heroes. Surely we can agree on that. But to me there is one little itsy bitsy difference. Clinton was Commander and chief of the most powerful military on the face of this planet! I know the same can be said of Bush, but your comparison is between Clinton and O'reilly. (7) "Here's another fun fact about Bill (O'Reilly, not Clinton)" - Well OK! Here's a few fun facts about Bill (Clinton not O'reilly).
-The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance.
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
For the sake of space I just posted a few and did not expound on any!

Shooter quotes another right winger who attempts to define the Clintons (ala Limbaugh et. al.), Dave's responses are in [brackets]:

-The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance [read, lying about blowjob].

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates [note that "friends and associates" is not defined and can mean almost anything the propagandist wishes it to mean].

- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation [this one's a hoot when you compare Clinton's administration to Reagan's; see below].

- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify [???].

- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly [???].

- First president sued for sexual harassment [see http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/paulajones001007.html where it says ". . . The New York Daily News tabloid reported today that the former Arkansas state employee, who once vowed never to pose naked, is to appear in an upcoming issue of the magazine, nude and semi-nude.
The story accompanying the photographs is titled, “Paula Jones Uncovered! She Shows All, She Tells All: How the Far Right Used and Abused Her to Destroy Clinton.” ". . . Clinton was impeached on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, stemming from the Jones lawsuit, in which he gave evasive answers when asked about affairs with other women, including former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Jones had accused Clinton of sexual harassment while he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee."

And from "USA Today" http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/tmoran/tm28.htm ". . . In her Penthouse interview, however, Jones reveals that she felt used by her lawyers and by those who she says pretended to care for her throughout the case. She says her lawyers did not keep her best interests at heart. "I was being used by a lot of people to get to him," she says, as if we didn't already know that. She also says she would have settled the case much earlier if given the choice and calls the integrity of those who represented her into question. . . "]

- First president accused of rape [no indictment, no conviction].

- First first lady to come under criminal investigation [later exonerated].

- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case [???].

- First president to establish a legal defense fund [yes, it is expensive to defend yourself from right wing zealots with unlimited cash].

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions [???].

For the sake of space I just posted a few and did not expound on any!

Thanks, shooter. Read the following rebuttal"

"BACKGROUND: Bill had his problems, but the bottom line is that we had 8 solid years of peace and prosperity. God help us now!

FACT: During Clinton's stay in the White House, over 23 million jobs were created and this country experienced a profound period of peace and prosperity. So far, in the Bush administration, over 2 million jobs have been lost and unemployment is at a nine year high. We are in a non-declared perma-war. Clinton reduced the budget deficit, the Bush administration has it soaring. Cheney's pals, Enron and their like, crashed from corruption, destroying an untold number of family's in their wakes all while the executives leave with hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation.

FACT: The eight-year, nearly $80 million investigation has yielded no indictments on the Lewinsky matter. No indictments on Whitewater. No indictments on the travel office. No indictments on the FBI files. No indictments on the Vince Foster suicide. No indictments all up and down the line.

FACT: Do you know how many Reagan administration officials were convicted -- not just indicted, but convicted -- of crimes while, for conduct while they were in office? Thirty. Do you know how many Clinton Administration officials were? One. The Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Agriculture, in a case that involved football tickets. One person. After eight years and seven independent counsels, dozens of congressional committees, scores of right-wing lawsuits, tens of thousands of investigative journalist pieces -- one person. And that, the Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Agriculture.

Quite simply, shooter, you are full of hot gas.

Well Davey Boy, you put such a spin on this one it was hard to unravel. By the way, you cut and paste other people’s thoughts so much I was wondering if you ever had any original thoughts of your own, (except for: Quite simply, shooter, you are full of hot gas).
I know that has to be yours. Well done! Now let us weave our way through this big old spinner! I‘m not going to respond to every comment. To be honest after the 7th or 8th paragraph it started to be blah, blah, blah. No offense. Oh that‘s right, you didn‘t write it.
Never mind! (1) “another right winger who attempts to define the Clintons”. The Clinton’s defined themselves without any help from anyone (left or Right). (2) “The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance [read, lying about blowjob]”. I believe he admitted he got the blowjob, he just didn’t consider it sex. I guess if that is true, the blowjob was “malfeasance” but it just wasn’t “personal”. Okeedoky! I’ve got it! (3) “Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation [this one's a hoot when you compare Clinton's administration to Reagan's]” So if you compare your “sins” with someone else and theirs is worse, then yours don’t count? Okeedoky! I’ve got that one too! (3) “the former Arkansas state employee, who once vowed never to pose naked, is to appear in an upcoming issue of the magazine, nude and semi-nude” So fully clothed she is honest, nude she is a liar! Okeedoky! (4) “How the Far Right Used and Abused Her to Destroy Clinton.” ". . . Clinton was impeached on perjury and obstruction of justice charges”. Ah ha! So it was the far-right and not Clinton’s “perjury and obstruction of justice” that got him impeached. All this time I though that (SOB) was lying! Boy, do I owe him a an apology. (5) “First president accused of rape [no indictment, no conviction]” Thus the word “accused”. I did notice “not guilty” missing from your responses.(6) “First first lady to come under criminal investigation [later exonerated]” I’m going to use one of your comments to respond:“ because left wing zealots have unlimited cash too”! (7) “Bill had his problems, but the bottom line is that we had 8 solid years of peace and prosperity. God help us now”! Let me see if I’ve got this right. As long as we have “peace and prosperity” The Prez pretty much gets a free pass on conduct? That’s the liberals creed? You are right, God help us now! (8) “First president to establish a legal defense fund [yes, it is expensive to defend yourself from right wing zealots with unlimited cash]” I’m thinking this statement is not so much about the cost as it is about the NEED for “a legal defense fund”. Ok! I’m full of hot gas. Can you guess what I think you are full of? Yep! You got it! Have a nice day Dave!

Hot Gas from non-representative, limited intelligence and education, right-wing shooter. What an idiot. Thank god we need people to sweep the streets. Shooter et. al appear to be having a tough time of it as evidenced by his obsession here. Let's hope Jr. Bush can turn the economy around enough to keep shooter from robbing liquor stores.:

FACT: Do you know how many Reagan administration officials were convicted -- not just indicted, but convicted -- of crimes while, for conduct while they were in office? Thirty. Do you know how many Clinton Administration officials were? One. The Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Agriculture, in a case that involved football tickets. One person. After eight years and seven independent counsels, dozens of congressional committees, scores of right-wing lawsuits, tens of thousands of investigative journalist pieces -- one person. And that, the Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Agriculture.

Quite simply, shooter, you are full of hot gas.

Posted by at July 15, 2003 07:02 PM

Thanks Dave, you did just what I expected. To your credit you held out longer than I thought possible.

"Hot Gas from non-representative, limited intelligence and education, right-wing shooter. What an idiot. Thank god we need people to sweep the streets. Shooter et. al appear to be having a tough time of it as evidenced by his obsession here. Let's hope Jr. Bush can turn the economy around enough to keep shooter from robbing liquor stores."

Wonderful! Finally a response I recognize as all yours! I knew when you ran out of things to cut and paste, I would hear from the real Dave. You didn't disappoint me. When the liberals are overwhelmed with facts, they ALWAYS fall back on what they do best? They turn mean and nasty! They just can't help themselves! I would like to make your day and tell you I am devastated by such cruel and demeaning remarks. But since It is exactly what I expected, coupled with the fact I don't really give a Sh** what you think, I believe I will be able to endure the ranting of a LIB. Sorry to disappoint you! I'm the one with the obsession and you have posted more than me! Can you say HYPOCRITE? I thought you could! "If Bush doesn't turn the economy around and shooter has to rob liquor stores"? Don't you mean OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE! That's the typical lib hysteria! If California came under a nuclear attack from North Korea the first thing libs would do is check to see if the economy was stable. You said I appear to be having a tough time. It appears you aren't going to get anything right. To be honest, I have been enjoying myself. I love to poke you petty little liberals. You always get your little panties in a wad when confronted with that old irritating truth. You are a constant source of entertainment! Don't you know that by now! Thanks for the comic relief! Oh, by the way my hot gas problem is better. I passed a couple of liberals this morning and I am doing much better now! Stay calm Dave! Don't panic! If you don't own any liquor stores, you will get through these "DESPERATE" times relatively unscathed! The bad news for you is, your are going to be "pissed" for 4 more years! The good news is you will have something to bitch about on the BLOGS every day! Oh by the way, what ever you do, don't let the "street sweepers" of this nation find out where you live. They just might show up and pull you down from your lofty perch! Have a great day Saint David, "defender of the evil ones"!

I really can't believe this. Do you guys even read my weblog? This argument has completely devolved. I am just waiting for the inevitable Hitler comparison. Who's going to pull the trigger first?

I apologize Curt. I did read your weblog and it was interesting. For the most part I agree with you. I did respond to the relevant subject matter under a different name. Dave introduced "Right-Wing Bullies Caught in Crossfire" and I just could not resist. Then we just started chasing rabbits. I was just having a little fun with ol Dave. You and I both know the ills of the world will never be settled on a web page. It was entertaining, if for no one else but me. I'm sorry for clogging up your page. Shooter signing off!!

No problem with the clogging, I just don't see participation on my *other* posts. Trying to build a readership here! ;-)

I'm guessing shooter learned political science in boot camp and never contemplated any contradictory views. Bend over and I'll give you ten, Shooter, you worthless pile of maggot droppings! I'm guessing shooter took the belt as a child whenever he challenged authority. I'm guessing that's why shooter listens to talk radio hosted by pussies posing as tough guys like "Savage" (yiddish real name "Wiener," who is going to hell because of forsaking our Savior), who got kicked off of MSNBC and KGO due to his paranoid imagination he used to convince himself that homosexuals actually threaten you and me. Then there's Flush. Never went to college. Just like Hannity. Self taught like Lincoln: my ass. Did you know Flush was once on welfare? Bwahahahaha.

Okay. Where was I?

FACT: Do you know how many Reagan administration officials were convicted -- not just indicted, but convicted -- of crimes while, for conduct while they were in office? Thirty. Do you know how many Clinton Administration officials were? One. The Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Agriculture, in a case that involved football tickets. One person. After eight years and seven independent counsels, dozens of congressional committees, scores of right-wing lawsuits, tens of thousands of investigative journalist pieces -- one person. And that, the Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Agriculture.

See Curt, Now we have met the real Dave.
"I'm guessing shooter learned political science in boot camp and never contemplated any contradictory views. Bend over and I'll give you ten, Shooter, you worthless pile of maggot droppings! I'm guessing shooter took the belt as a child whenever he challenged authority. I'm guessing that's why shooter listens to talk radio hosted by pussies posing as tough guys like "Savage" (yiddish real name "Wiener," who is going to hell because of forsaking our Savior), who got kicked off of MSNBC and KGO due to his paranoid imagination he used to convince himself that homosexuals actually threaten you and me. Then there's Flush. Never went to college. Just like Hannity. Self taught like Lincoln: my ass. Did you know Flush was once on welfare? Bwahahahaha."

Let us review what we have learned:
Dave did not learn political science in boot camp. He always contemplates contradictory views as evidenced right here on this weblog. Endearing quotes from Dave: "Bend over and I'll give you ten". Obviously a man with homosexual fantasies. NOT ME DAVE! "Shooter, you worthless pile of maggot droppings". A gentle compassionate person with great people skills. "I'm guessing that's why shooter listens to talk radio hosted by pussies posing as tough guys like Savage, who is going to hell because of forsaking our Savior." No doubt he is a deeply religious man who has the power to banish people to hell. Obviously a Deity complex! "Then there's Flush" We know he plays poker (I mean the game. We have already established he is a poker if he has a pokee!) "Never went to college" A dedicated advocate for education. "my ass" I believe this is a flashback to the previously mentioned propensity for poking. "Did you know Flush was once on welfare"? He loves to help others and promote the great accomplishments of the liberals (example) welfare. What a great guy!

Now for the sad part! There are subtle signs of Alzheimer's:
"FACT: Do you know how many Reagan administration officials were convicted -- not just indicted, but convicted -- of crimes while, for conduct while they were in office? Thirty. Do you know how many Clinton Administration officials were? One. The Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Agriculture, in a case that involved football tickets. One person. After eight years and seven independent counsels, dozens of congressional committees, scores of right-wing lawsuits, tens of thousands of investigative journalist pieces -- one person. And that, the Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Agriculture."

This is at least the second time he has posted these comments, which by the way are cut and pasted. I would respond to this comment out of courtesy but I'm afraid he wouldn't remember it. It is really sad. Curt please note I make no references to "Hitler" and I honestly tried to leave your page alone. Shooter trying to sign off (if Dave will let me)!

FACT: Do you know how many Reagan administration officials were convicted -- not just indicted, but convicted -- of crimes while, for conduct while they were in office? Thirty. Do you know how many Clinton Administration officials were? One. The Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Agriculture, in a case that involved football tickets. One person. After eight years and seven independent counsels, dozens of congressional committees, scores of right-wing lawsuits, tens of thousands of investigative journalist pieces -- one person. And that, the Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Agriculture.

But wait, There's More!

From Gary Trudeau's Doonesbury FAQ page on MSN's Slate http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/faqs/faq_sl.html we discover:

Number of Reagan administration era convictions in the Iran-contra scandal: 14 (two overturned on appeal).
Number of Reagan officials convicted for illegal lobbying: 2 (Michael Deaver; Lyn Nofziger, overturned on appeal).
Number of Reagan officials convicted in Housing and Urban Development scandal: 16.
Total number Reagan era convictions: 32 (the number cited in the strip -- 29 -- arrived at by subtracting the 3 overturned cases).
In addition, Bush pardoned Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, indicted on 5 charges.

Moreover, the record of actual convictions doesn't tell the whole story. Over 30 additional Reagan appointees resigned or were fired following charges of legal or ethical misconduct, including Secretary of Interior James Watt, Secretary of Interior Raymond Donovan, CIA Director William Casey and EPA Administrator Anne Burford. Many dozens more were investigated.

Contrast this to:
Number of Clinton officials indicted or convicted in Whitewater, Travel Office, FBI files, Monica Lewinsky, Bruce Babbit, Michael Espy investigations: 0
Asst. Attorney-General Webster Hubbell was convicted of embezzlement, a crime he committed before joining Clinton Administration.

The following post is entirely germane to original discussion: the repeated lies of FOX's O'Reilly, a couple of which Al Franken touched upon during his limited time on C-SPAN.

"Right wing shooter" who fails to give a more specific moniker spouts the following, completely irresponsible (responsible to no-one) A.M., talk-radio line re: the Clintons:

-The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance.
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
For the sake of space I just posted a few and did not expound on any!

Posted by Right-winger shooting back! at July 15, 2003

Well, I went to college, where I learned gud to cite my sources. Shooter, however many teeth he has left, don't cite none of his sources but criticizes me-all /we-all for quoting and citing mine, stating that me-all don't have "original thots."

All this is really funny. The Clinton administration is profoundly corrupt. Compared to whom? The Reagan Administration? Let me repeat: compared to whom? The Reagan Administration?

All right, I'll throw my hat in the ring.

Clinton: he was talented, lazy, and flawed. I'm not going to get myself tied up in knots by the sex thing. If I were to rank all the things he did wrong there in terms of seriousness, first would be that he wronged his family. Irregardless of Hillary's good or bad qualities, he wronged his wife and daughter, and that doesn't set a good example to anyone as a man, husband, father, or role model.

As president, he's also held to a higher standard just the same as any other celebrity that is presented as being an honorable man. So in that sense his action damaged the presidency a little bit.

I'm not that upset about it because so many other presidents have damaged the presidency a lot more. And somehow, the presidency just keeps on going. So I kind of roll my eyes at the whole thing.

Separate from the issue of Clinton's adultery (which while being immoral should not be a crime) is the issue of how it was exposed, co-opted, capitalized upon. I believe the right-wingers (which is not synonymous with "republican" in my mind) did a lot more damage to the office of the presidency than Clinton did.

The hypocrisy of their accusations and indignation was ridiculous when compared to the crimes committed in earlier administrations, and while I make the point, I'm again having trouble getting really riled up about it, because it's not exactly stunning news.

In my mind, the adultery was an issue, but not so much the lying. I'm someone who looks at the context of a lie, and in his case, he lied on the record in an investigation that was nothing more than a meritless goose-chasing abuse of taxpayers. (I'm more mad that Clinton didn't do more to obstruct that farce even more.) As for context, we can be certain that his lie about Lewinsky didn't lead to soldiers dying.

Clinton's biggest failing with that whole thing was simply that he let himself get manipulated. He never should have agreed to the independent counsel. At some point in there, he let the right-wingers dictate the terms of the entire debate, and his presidency paid for it. I don't really feel sorry for him about this because when someone attains the office of the presidency, they better damn well be ready to fully accept their power, and Clinton gave some of his away.

I just have to point out something about the stats that right-wing shooter posted. Most sued, most investigated, most accused... four of those things count up the allegations made against them by other people. Allegations are nothing. I could allege twenty times over the next ten days that you had sex with an alligator, and then say that you had the most accusations of having sex with an alligator, of anyone on my blog, ever! I don't see how allegations are a flaw against them. Those are silly statistics.

I suppose you could write back, but I don't think I want to engage with someone who has sex with alligators. ;-) So for that reason I'm closing down this thread. See, I can do that! Isn't that cool?! Yay me!

ps Mind if I call you Alli?