portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

media criticism

Oreilly gets skewered by Al Franken on C-SPAN2

If you dislike Bill O'Reilly, this is for you.
 http://www.booktv.org/ram/feature/0603/btv060803_4.ram

The whole clip is pretty good. But if you just want to watch Bill O'Reilly get skewered, here're the instructions:

The link should bring up Real Player.

The first clip is Bill O'Reilly taking calls before the panel. Skip to the end of that clip, and a second clip should load. Skip about 41 minutes ahead. Al Franken recalls how Bill O'Reilly claimed to have one a Peabody award while working for Inside Edition, a claim that turned out to be false. Bill O'Reilly is on the panel while Al Franken recalls the story, and he is visibly outraged by what he's hearing.

Franken tells the story well, taking about 5 minutes. He then continues on a somewhat different track for a couple of minutes, and then gives up the podium.

O'Reilly responds by yelling "Shut up! You took 35 minutes you had your chance. Shut up!"

After watching O'Reilly treat many guests in the same manner on The Factor, this felt particularly good.

The whole discussion will be replayed on CSPAN2 Sunday night at 5:30.

Thanks for the link! 06.Jun.2003 10:48

Moby

I'd tried watching this discussion via a CSPAN link, and it kept stopping and starting, sometimes several times within a minute, making the attempt a rather frustrating experience. Using this link, I was able to watch the whole thing uninterrupted. Thank you!

It was great to finally see and hear Molly Ivins and realize she was just like I expected her to be from reading so many of her columns over the past few years. O'Reilly actually made a bit more sense than I expected him to make. While I think there's a lot to be said for self-discipline and self-reliance, which have certainly worked for him, it's also obvious that he discounts the role a truly compassionate government can play. Molly made a good point in saying she'd like to see everyone get an equal start, and after some bluster from O'Reilly that that will never happen, she said an equal start is certainly worth working towards.

Al Franken certainly nailed O'Reilly regarding O'Reilly's claim that "Inside Edition" had won two Peabody awards. But it turned out that really what had happened was O'Reilly had substituted "Peabody" for "Polk," a different award (the Polk is apparently prestigious also, although I think the Peabody is better known). It also appeared that whatever the award, one of those awards came after O'Reilly had left "Inside Edition," and O'Reilly had seemed to give the impression that he had something to do with both awards. O'Reilly certainly needs to clear that up for his audience, although given his style, I wonder if that will happen.

It was certainly interesting to see O'Reilly attempt to shout down Franken, as he is so used to doing on his show. Shouting down the opposition and cutting them off is a trademark of the right-wing talkmeisters (although it's not confined to them - I watched a few nights of "Crossfire" and gave up on it after realizing everyone was shouting down everyone else, right or left). Of all the interrupting on this CSPAN book show, most of it came from O'Reilly.

I tried watching O'Reilly's show once. He claims it's a "No-Spin Zone," but after 45 minutes I had to turn it off. It made me dizzy. Truth in advertising obviously is not Bill's forte.

great!! 06.Jun.2003 11:44

haha

that was so great. Orieley...whatever...getting roasted...hahahaha

First time I've seen Bill O'really 06.Jun.2003 12:14

PHH

When he says thrity-five minutes it only proves he's lying.

I was struck by how much he was like Mike Savage, or Wiener, or whoever he is.

Good tip on the link. Now maybe I can finally see Chomsky.

Oh Really? 06.Jun.2003 19:13

PHH

I watched the rest of it and did not see any great O'Really victory but you could hear him braying in the end.

I think James had it about right.

Skewered is a bit hyperbolic. 11.Jun.2003 10:43

Kevin

I happened upon the show when flipping around and found the exchange entertaining but my reactions were: (1) If that's all Al Franken has to "nail" Orielly that's pretty weak because from what Al was describing an interviewer was insinuating that Bill's show was "tabloid" and Bill was,understandably, defensive and showing some pride he said that the show got Peabody awards. Nothing wrong with a person being proud of what they do and being defensive in the face of insult. So he wasn't working there when the award was given, so what. I refer to my employer as "we" without qualifying when I started employment...trivial. In fact I often say "we" won the superbowl in such and such year because I'm a Wisconsin citizen and we all like to be a part of the Packer family. (2) Bill should not have gotten angry because by doing so he lost credibility because,afterall, he had made a mistake and he should have acknowledged it calmly; if he had, then Franken's 'gotcha' bit would have seemed even more petty and childish than it already did. (3) So what? If that was the best that Al Franken could come up with for his "book" then what a lightweight he is. What about real issues that matter? I think Al Franken is funny but he didn't elevate himself above the status of simply being an entertainer in my opinion.

O'Reilly Raises an interesting point 21.Jun.2003 14:56

Kirk

If any normal person wants to waste their money on a book revolving around a mistake that Bill O' Reilly made...go ahead. Contribute to this Franken's guy cause. He is the reason that the republicans are now in charge of the house and senate. He is so flagrantly liberal that it makes the democratic party look like a bunch of desperate politicians.

Franken's Point 21.Jun.2003 20:17

Joel

I think one of Franken's points is that in journalism, when you make a mistake, you print/broadcast/publish a retraction or a correction. In politics, you gloss over it or deny that it happened. If you watch the clip from start to end, you see in Bill's book presentation him state that he never has had to make retractions, then Al points out that he called him a few months prior pointing out an error, and, rather than making any retraction in the previous months, Bill got defensive ("Go ahead, come after me Al") and changed his story completely rather than making any sort of retraction. Was Bill's mistake a gross lie? No. It's the way he handled it that shows how he is different than a journalist.

Now, I hope Al isn't calling himself a journalist either. Bill and Al are no different than Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh or PJ O'Rourke. They try to get attention ("rattle cages" as Bill puts it) by selectively pointing out truths to suit their point of view. I just hate it when that type of bias gets portrayed as "news". It's not news, it's propaganda. Unfortunately, this propaganda is becoming part of the news, whether it's being "reported" by a propagandist or whether it's being addressed by a major (boring) news organization because their viewers have heard about it and want to know the scoop. As soon as the major's pick it up, it becomes "news" whether newsworthy or not.

come on 22.Jun.2003 06:06

Josh jboze3131@hotmail.com

someone needs to buy a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "yelling." More nonsense from a true leftie. Franken spews so much nonsense it's frightening...he concentrates on one mistake (don't forget Franken has NEVER made a mistake in his life) that Bill has even admitted was a mistake, and tries to call it a lie..O'Reilly vs Franken, get real- it's nearly equal to O'Reilly vs Pauly Shore.


What is an O'reilly 25.Jun.2003 14:02

John Holiday

Bill O'Reilly is a pompous Rush wannabe. (We all know what that is) Unlike Rush Limpbaug, who has a large network and audience O'Reilly has a captive little audience of right wing nut cases that have to tune in daily for their direction of the day. One of the failures of cable tv is that a station can be profitable with a very small audience compared to network stations. Unfortunately this attracts the likes of Bill O'Reilly who had Peter Principaled on Inside Edition. Of course I am being balanced and fair with my opinion.

Why skip ahead. 16.Aug.2003 10:03

PhilMahnken PhilMahnken@aol.com

Skipping the call in with Bill O'Reilly prior to the skewering by Franken, is to miss an amazing display of O'Reilly skewering himself. On the panel he announces that he doesn't engage in name calling, but on the call in he describes Todd Gitlin as "an NYU pinhead." To a woman who complained of his unspeakable behavior to the son of the WTC victim, and to his constant overtalking of his guests his response was:You are leftwing in so surly a manner as to shame Bob Grant. To a man who said he had compared the Koran to Mein Kampf he shouted: That's a lie.
Don't miss it, it will cure you of any curiosity towards the man.

Franken v. O'Reilly 16.Aug.2003 23:58

Clark kevin6or9@yahoo.com

The difference between O'Reilly and hacks like Franken is that the former challenges bad ideas and misbehavior while the latter attacks individuals. I live in Hollywood and wouldn't call myself a Conservative. I also don't like everything Bill says, but in this case Bill seems to be the valedictorian who gets heckled by a class clown. Al isn't likely to win the "Most Likely to Succeed" award either.

I read most of the comments here too... None of the negative comments about Bill seem to contest the accuracy or content of his stories - they just attack HIM. Didn't the Nazi's do that to Jews and homosexuals when they couldn't articulate a good reason to dislike them? I'm a little sickened by my "liberal" neighbors. Seig Heil!

CB

Franken's Point: They're Both Entertainers 20.Aug.2003 13:13

Davconn davconn@aol.com

Franken is simply making the point - and doing it in a highlyt entertaining way - that neither he nor O'Reilley are journalists - something O'Reilley constantly pretends to be. They are both entertainers. Franken illustrates this by giving us an EXAMPLE of O'Reilley lying. O'Reilley NEVER retracted his incorrect claim of winning the Peabody. Even Molly Ivans chides him for that. If a lie is defined by avoiding the truth O'Reilley is simply guilty of lying and no amount of spin is going to change that. Franken has written an ENTIRE BOOK of such examples from the right... Hey, I love Franken, but even I don't want to hear EVERY example of the right's lies on a venue like CSPAN. It would just be too depressing. Rather, I will buy the book now because Franken's moxy in the face of established conservative mendacity is hilarious and long overdue.

Franken A Necessary Evil?? 26.Aug.2003 17:48

Kerr Avon

I think it's a shame Al Franken has to be the one to do the mainstream press' job! For years conservatives have been hitting below the belt, exagerating(sp) subjects, putting themselves on the side of God, and outright lying about just about everything! Al was so right when he said,"we've been taking it and taking it!" You try to be adult and mature, but the "right" has lost all control or perspective it seems! The attacks, misinformation, and outright hatred spewed out by people like Ann Coultier, Roger Ailes, and the like have to be contested by someone!! It was bad enough when they tried to bring a president down, commenting on his private life (while doing the same things behind the scenes), but they have embarassed us to the 'nth' degree in the eyes of the world! They are petty, vindictive, and beyond contempt when they take advantage of the huddled, stupid masses that make up our great country! We want to believe our leaders, the 4th Estate (press), and the judiciary!! I have little faith in any of them! Bush lies, the press forgets their responsibility to call him on it, and the courts have stepped in to decide elections!! Where does it stop??

If the attacks and the misinformation are true, thats too bad for you 26.Aug.2003 20:59

screwtapes

All readers should note that no specific examples of lies and misinformation are presented in the above post. This is why people have stopped listening to liberals...lack of substance and valid arguments. Specifically, :how they could support Clintons bombing of innocent Iraqi's without a peep of protest, and turn on Bush. They say Bush stole the election in Florida....but they have no specific example of how Bush tried to deprive voters. However we do know Gore tried to keep out military votes. This sort of stuff is why people have stopped listening to lunes like Franken. They have no moral compass. Bush = terrorists (or at least terror for the Democrats) They oppose cutting taxes due to a large deficet, but during the Clinton surplus never proposed cutting taxes once for the rich OR POOR. Gray Davis has driven California into the ground in hopes of bringing our national ecomomy with it, (perhaps hoping to harm bush) but he's gone too far. The economy is in fact rebounding and his state is now a big fat eyesore for extreme liberalism and its failures.. A Right wing conspiracy? Ya, sure its the republicans that have driven business from the state and made people flee from high property taxes. We had it all planed. damn...lefties give us too much credit. If the so called attacks are true, they're not attacks... but the truth. If all conservatives authors had to say had no basis in fact, they'd be facing all sorts of lawsuits . The fact that a book like Frankens took so long to emerge, shows you how dire the left's situation is.

screwtapes, here are my specifics, where are yours? 26.Aug.2003 22:11

researcher

"how they could support Clintons bombing of innocent Iraqi's without a peep of protest"
While it's true and disgusting that most democrats and republicans said nothing either about Clinton's many bombings or his support of the sanctions which killed at least 1.5 million Iraqis, you must remember that most of the people who are protesting Bush now were protesting Clinton then. Sure, lots of democrats are talking about how bad Bush is, but they aren't the ones out protesting for the most part (except in the most publicized anti-war marches, like March 15th).

"but they have no specific example of how Bush tried to deprive voters"
How about these:
1) Katherine Harris admitting in court that she was under orders to illegally remove over 90,000 black and democrat voters from the voter rolls in Florida.
2) Voting machines in predominantly black counties being set to not notify voters when their ballots contained stray marks leading to as many as 1 in 8 ballots from black precincts not being counted.
3) Numerous documented instances of roadblocks and voter harassment directed mostly at black and minority voters
4) Violating the constitution by bypassing the state supreme court which is the ultimate authority in state elections.
5) Paying republican supports to stage protests to stop legally mandated recounts.
6) Violating the constitution by accepting a judgment by the supreme court which was a) out of their jurisdiction b) declared to "not set precedent, thereby violating the role of the supreme court, and acknowledging that Bush v. Gore was an unconstitutional ruling and c) stated that allowing recounts would hurt Bush's chances for winning, thereby highlighting their biases.
7) Continued to deprive voters who were illegally removed from the voter rolls in 2000 the right to vote in the 2002 election because there "wasn't enough time" to return them to the voter rolls.
8) Violated at least 2 court orders by illegally requiring that felons convicted in other states apply for voting rights in Florida.
Should I go on, or do you get the picture?

"They oppose cutting taxes due to a large deficet, but during the Clinton surplus never proposed cutting taxes once for the rich OR POOR"
I don't know where you're getting your facts but Clinton not only proposed tax cuts, he enacted them in 1997, although the republicans do enjoy taking credit for them. Of course, like Bush, those cuts did not benefit the poor, although they did benefit the working class substantially more than Bush. And, of course, saving the surplus would have been the wiser thing to do given the economic collapse under Bush. And saving under a time of prosperity sure beats record spending and deficits during a recession in terms of financial and economic sense.

"Gray Davis has driven California into the ground"
You're confusing Gray Davis Pete Wilson who oversaw the energy deregulation scam that destroyed the California economy. Davis may be a poor governor, but it was Wilson who holds the blame for the economic troubles as anyone with any understanding of economics can verify.

For someone accusing people of lies and misinformation, one has to wonder why you haven't bothered to do even the slightest amount of research yourself.

A Huge Thank You; Researcher!! 27.Aug.2003 02:52

Fiero425

I really appreciate the back up!! I should have listed those exact same things, but denials would flood your screen!! Actual tape (audio or video) of these events and the "Right" will absolutely deny all culpability!! They might condemn a few fringe elements, but they, "the loyal patriots of America" (them), will never admit to doing ANYTHING wrong!! Thanks again!!

Awful,...funny, but awful 27.Aug.2003 05:09

David Michael

Al Franken's skewering came off as a bit mean spirited and trivial, but Bill O'Reilly has been making a living off of being trivial and mean spirited for years now. Perhaps he shoudn't dish it out if he isn't ready to take some himself. It is absolutely sickening when O'Reilly does it, and it was awful when Franken followed suit. Even so, maybe Bill will think twice before punking someone on his show the way he recieved it on C-Span.

Thank you for allowing me to see this show! 27.Aug.2003 11:48

Jazzman

It was great to watch someone confront O'Reilly in a format where he couldn't control the microphone. God Bless Al Franken.

specifics 27.Aug.2003 16:48

screwtapes

Clintons tax cut or tax reform was actually a tax hike for those paying incometaxes, while giving tax credits to those who paid no income taxes...ie handouts. They were called "targeted " tax cuts It would seem odd for Clinton to propose a tax cut after vetoing the GOP's tax cut the Previous summer, which was for 792 billion and included eliminating the marriage penalty. I won't defend Katherine Harrris's bad behavior assuming your research on that is correct...hope its better than the Clinton tax cut reasearch...

The Same people who protest Bush now protested Clinton then? Well maybe, perhaps a silent protest underground. ...well I'm thru here peace

Skewered!! 27.Aug.2003 20:34

Fiero425

Screwtapes; you poor thing!! You don't know if you're coming or going!! Seems the life has just been sucked out of your body!! Throw a few examples of 'right' deception and hypocrisy and you wilt!! It's hard to defend something that is built on lies, exaggerations, and total misinformation for too long!! The brainwashing will subside one of these days!! lol!! The truth will set you free!! Please give up on the Clinton bashing; times were never so good as during his stewardship!! Even without a single 'right' vote, the country made out great under his tax plan!! Boneheads like Robert Novak still can't bring themselved to admit the economy flourished; 23 Million jobs were created, the national debt was going down, and we had a surplus!! Within 3 years it's all gone; a loss of over 2 million jobs, the economy stagnant or crumbling, and the deficit the largest in history!! Bush should also give up on blaming Clinton for his incompetance!!

LOL! 28.Aug.2003 20:46

screwtapes

Clinton ignored the first towers bombing treating it as a homicided rather than international terrorism ...He passed Bin Laden up when the Saudis offered him...and he aided the North Korea Nuke program trusting in the good will of Kim Jung ilg (Thank you Madiline Albright)! Yes, wonderful times under the Clinton stewardship, you must look back on them fondly ... want me to stop Clinton Bashing...then stop throwing hissy fits about the Florida election which was counted every which way. If the tables were turned I could just as easliy whine how Gore stole the election by depriving overseas votes/ absentee ballots. Kathrine Harris doesn't strike me as a deviant, based on your idea of what a tax cut is I'm reluctant to take your "reasearch" at face value. if she was trying to keep out votes of convicted felons ...too bad. No sympathy here. Sorry I know how democrats depend on the scum of society vote.
Gray Davis.....and you think I'm brainwashed ? you can't even hold this guy accountable for his own state? Then Bush isn't accountable for Colin Powell's failed diplomacy. Brainwashed am I .....yea there are a lot of us these days, considering Republicans hold both houses. Not surprising after the Well stone Memorial America got an inside look at shameless liberalism. You can whine about the economy being bad, but we just fought two wars after having the economic capital of the world incinerated,...all that and the stock market is bouncing back. " Tax cuts have worked for Reagan and also worked for your beloved JFK . If cuting taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then it would follow that raising them would...taxing people who are already struggling.. yea that'll help
"the brainwashing will subside one of these days lol!!" Maybe democrats will win an election one of these days lol!! Keep laughing, it'll keep you from crying in 04.lol!!

Go bill 30.Aug.2003 15:20

anthony

Al Frankin spouts so much nonsence its obsurd.. Orielly is right, that guy is a totally idolog. As I recall i thought they they had 15min to discuss their book.. Frankin took 35 min bashing the others in the podium.. Many of you in here that bash his show and call him a right winger show how lefty you are! He cuts people off becuase unlike many other shows where they let them talk for hours he actually asks the questions MODERATES have.. People like al frankin micheal moore are going to distory the democratic party as it will turn off 60 percent of the voters who are swing voters..

clip doesn't quite work as instructed 02.Sep.2003 07:46

gene

When I skip ahead the picture disappears. What's up with that?

No more video clip? 04.Sep.2003 06:19

Brian

I tried to load the clip but received an error. As instructed, I went to the MicroSoft link to get more help with the player but it said invalid link. Will you be reposting the clip soon? I rather like the idea of observing Mr. Franken kidding Mr. O'Reilly on the square!

To Anthony 07.Sep.2003 13:19

m.

Anthony, what nonsense did Al spew? Are you going to site anything at all or just throw out a few buzzing sounds and hope that everyone will say "Yeah, nonsense..." (insert Butthead laughter here)? Just curious.

screwtapes, what a simplistic world you live in 07.Sep.2003 14:23

researcher

Why would I want to stop you from bashing Clinton? I didn't vote for him, and I thought he was terrible president. Although, one has to admit, there is not a single aspect of policy or character that Clinton wasn't better than Bush Jr on. We went from someone who rarely tells the truth to someone who never tells truth, and from someone whose policies were substantially destrutive to someone whose policies are monumentally destructive. Don't you get it? These false dichotomies limit the extent to which you can think about and understand the world. The simplistic republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, with us or against us bullshit is all completely meaningless and only serves to limit those who believe in it. So go ahead and keep bashing Clinton, and I'll keep pointing out how the Florida election was rigged.

"the Florida election which was counted every which way"
Except of course, for 180,000 votes that weren't counted. They were, however, categorized so that we could see the effects of various scenarios. Download the data for yourself. What you'll find is that Gore would win most scenarios, expect, most notably, and most widely reported, the scenario under which Gore had his initial request of recounts in 4 counties only. But again, the counting is only one aspect of the story. Other aspects include that Katherine Harris admitted to illegally purging over 90,000 voters (who were not convicted felons, despite their claims, which they knew were lies) from the rolls in 2000 and 2002. Jeb Bush was under 2 court orders which ordered him to stop purging alleged felons from other states who had moved to Florida from the voter rolls as they had never lost their right to vote in Florida. 2 court orders, understand? He ignored the first one, they issued the second, and he ignored that one too. Furthermore, the Florida legislature admitted that regardless of the recounts they would certify Bush Jr, thereby circumventing the constitution. Not that circumventing the constitution was a problem for the republicans involved since the Supreme Court did it by ignoring the constitutional requirement that states are the ultimate authority of their elections and by deciding on an unconstitutional "non-precedent setting" case.

The bottom line is why do the republicans not want to support democracy? Why did the republicans push for voter systems that were such miserable failures in terms of achieving democracy (but wildly successful in ensuring that republicans were elected) be mandatory in all states by 2004? Why are the democrats the ones pushing legislation to make sure their is a paper trail for all electronic votes? Why don't people in this country embrace the idea of democracy and react with disgust at those trying to rob it?

As for tax cuts, you should do some reading on the matter. Clinton may have been a terrible president but he was the most fiscally responsible president we've had in decades. There were tax cuts under Clinton, but he did not throw the surpluses away. As we've seen the results of the republican tax cuts under bush destroying the surpluses and creating the largest deficits in the history of this country (along with the reckless abandon with which the republicans are increasing the size of government, and governmental spending) we can see that Clinton's tax cuts were good cuts, at a good time. Return some money, and save some money. Bush and his beneficiaries are just looting. They get 50% of the multi-trillion dollar tax cut, they're robbing the treasury, they're robbing their employees and shareholders (since there's no accountability for corporate crime under the Bush administration), they're robbing the taxpayers in new spending, and they're putting the country into the largest debt it has ever seen. What happened to republicans being conservative? I guess that just like compassion it's something that sounds good, but ultimately it's much more profitable to steal from people than provide for them.

As for 04, you better hope that the republicans can pull a much bigger election-rigging job without it leading to a revolt. Otherwise, Bush is completely screwed; just look at how fast the republican party is hemorrhaging voters. And why shouldn't it be given the record of this presidency. If people want fiscal responsibility, criminal accountability, and less government spending, as well as better economic, domestic, and foreign policy they will be looking to the democrats next time around.

I cant stand conservatives 16.Sep.2003 22:29

Josh

someone on this message board said "Al franken is the reason why the republicans are running the country." YES you are correct sir. Now that you figured it all out, what the hell is your argument? You want a Peabody award for saying that? I can just picture some moron with an american flag on his shirt eating doritos and frowning every time he sees something that is not status quo. "uh I have to think outside the box?...NO that's CRazY! GOD BLESS AMERICA! Where's the remote? I wanna watch Fox news. Get me some fair and balanced news. All of the news today is so entertaining.. I luve it. Its like watching BAywatch only just a little less skin. I luve sensationalism . you know war, keeping america stupid....Dubya...I can relate to him cuz he's like that dude....Ernest from Ernest goes to Camp. He's a Big ol' cowboy but in a How DEE Doo Dee kinda way. Know whut Ah mean? ...Liberals..they're so PC? trying to make us all repressed an whut not. "

That's the best Al's got on O'Reilly? 17.Sep.2003 01:07

libertarian

So the best Al's got on O"Reilly is that he once said Peabody instead of Polk, and then denied it later? If Al understood what the definition of the word lie is, He'd realize that to prove someone is ling you need to show that they were deceptive on purpose. Showing an untrue statement does not prove a lie. Even the fact that O'Reilly denied the statement, if true, isn't a proof of a lie. He may have forgotten the statement or never even realized the error. So this is al Al's got on O"Reilly, but that was enough to put his picture on the cover, as a lying liar. Al should look up the term slander in the dictionary after he's through looking up the term lie.

That's the best Al's got on O'Reilly? 18.Sep.2003 12:01

Fiero425

Liberterian?? I'm not going to attack you, but I really wonder what hospital you're locked up in!! For anyone to defend Bill O'Reilly except maybe a family member, I have to believe they are under a doctor's care!! Bill O lies a lot; no doubt about it!! He's the type that never makes a mistake, has lived everywhere, has done everything, and knows everyone!! I can't tell you how many times he's been caught "misspeaking" and then totally denying all later!! It a little pathalogical with him!! I would feel sorry for him, but he's so full of himself, I'll just let him destroy,crash, and burn on his own and laugh!! Be sure to stay on those meds now!!

must we revisit this 22.Sep.2003 16:03

screwtapes

Nixon could've called for a recount, but he didn't. He chose not to go kicking and screaming like Gore, who only wanted recounts in select counties that were heavily controled by democrats in the hopes that he could win there. If he really wanted every vote counted, then why not the whole state? Furthermore the lead lawyer for the Gore Campaign in Florida issued a 5 page memorandum in which he listed the many ways military ballots could be technically disqualified from the Florida vote. Such as they had to be postmarked on the exterior of the envelope, However under federal law absentee ballots didn't need a post mark to be elligible to be counted. I'm sure you see no problem with not counting the votes of the men and women who risk their lives every day for this country, but to not count the votes of convicted felons, who do nothing for this country other than fill prisons and cost tax payers money, ....well thats an outrage. A simplistic world I live in? Have you been listening to your own party lately? "President Bush is a miserable failure." I stand in awe of the depth of that statement.
Anyway the miderm elections had no ambigutiy to them, so what's your excuse there? I'll be anticipating your next conspiracy theory.

I know you're having trouble, but try to understand 22.Sep.2003 17:44

researcher

"Nixon could've called for a recount, but he didn't."

Maybe he should have... But I can't imagine he didn't understand the cost/benefit analysis. He did what he thought was best for him at the time, just like all politicians.

"If he really wanted every vote counted, then why not the whole state?"

True enough, and the final irony is that if Gore had gotten what he initially requested he still would have lost. However, those recounts were not the issue because Gore's request was refused because only a state-wide recount would be legal. The state supreme court tried to do the right thing by issuing a state-wide recount, which Gore would have won. It was pathetic that Gore stooped to the tactics of Bush, and more reasons I was glad I didn't vote for the weasel, but the fact remains, the ultimate authority for determining whether there was a recount was the state supreme court. The US supreme court's decision was completely unconstitutional, as was evident from their ruling.

"I'm sure you see no problem with not counting the votes of the men and women who risk their lives every day for this country, but to not count the votes of convicted felons"

Well, then you're wrong, and you're not listening. I'm advocating that all votes be counted. And in the 2000 election in Florida, Gore would have won the state if they had. Now, there were some legitimate concerns over the absentee ballots. There were numerous reports of ballot fraud for US service men and women who said that other people have filled out ballots and voted for them. There were also many reports of people voting after the election, which is illegal, and is where the postmark issues came from. You are not allowed to vote after an election and many people, seeing that the race was close, decided to do so. Ultimately, their numbers were insignificant so as the Gore tam correctly assessed, it wasn't worth taking the effort to go after these individuals.

As for the "convicted felons" I don't understand why you don't seem to get this, I cannot put it more plainly: We're not talking about "convicted felons" we are talking about non-felons falsely identified as felons and being removed illegally from the voter rolls. In Jeb Bush's case we are also talking about the 2 court orders he was under to not illegally remove felons convicted in other states from the Florida voter rolls. He violated the multiple laws by disobeying those orders. And what this demonstrates is the complete lack of respect these people have for the law and for the democratic process.

"Have you been listening to your own party lately?"

My party? Are you still under the mistake impression that I, or anyone else here, is a democrat? I am not a democrat, but I believe in democracy and I hate seeing the ruling parties piss all over the constitution while their followers lap up their bullshit like it was candy.

As for the statement "President Bush is a miserable failure" I'd have to say it depends entirely on what one's values are. He has been a tremendous success and increasing the wealth of the richest 1% of this country. However, that has come at a cost of the economy, foreign relations, the lives of US soldiers, national security, and all measures of social progress (health and health care, education, poverty, unemployment, etc). So whether Bush is a miserable failure or a complete success depends entirely on one's values and position.

"Anyway the miderm elections had no ambigutiy to them, so what's your excuse there?"

No excuses or conspiracy theories needed. The democrats didn't offer anything to compel people to come out and vote for them. They should have known better, if you offer people a republican or a democrat running on a republican platform, people will choose the republican every time. It looks like 2004 will be quite a bit different. From the look of things, despite the best efforts of certain republicans to rig the machines the democratic candidate will probably win in a landslide (well, maybe not Lieberman for reasons stated above).

I'm not supporting the democrats, but I do support democracy, and for those that believe in democracy I would encourage you to support the initiatives to have a paper audit trail for all electronic voting machines such as HR 2239 "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003'' and to support election exit polling as a check on the system. For those who believe Bush is going to win in 2004 you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting these measures.

If you want to learn more about the Florida election and don't feel like reading you should check this out:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram

Or you can do the reading here:  http://www.gregpalast.com/bestdemocracymoneycanbuychapter1.pdf

Unconstitutional? Justice Scalia says the same thing 22.Sep.2003 19:53

screwtapes

Under the 14 Amendment's equal protection guarentee, there was no standard for counting these votes. Its not easy to get a bunch of politically objective people to decide on voter intent. There were dimpled chads and the pregnant chads etc They're going to decide how they think someone voted? How are they going to be judge who voted for who, and by whom should these votes be counted? These ballots would not have been treated equally (was basically the argument) Plus there was a deadline set by Federal law State legislatures to choose electors. There was no way the votes could have been counted by then and the Florida court made exceptions to continue counting past that. The law is the law....... So Scalia also made exceptions of his own, in saying that since this was a national presidential election, not a state election, the Supreme court could step in. No question theres a lot of partisan motivation in all of this on both sides. Guess we'll see what happens in 04. A demoratic landslide you predict, but you're not a democrat? ....come on now Liberman won't get the nomination. He's too reminicent of the guy on Alf. I think Hiliary will run with that army general as her VP, if that happens it'll be one of the most emotional, heated elections of all time.

researcher . . . a little research of my own 14.Nov.2003 23:55

Tired (of the anti-Bush hype)

Your list of specifics from August sure is interesting, if misleading. I'll only discuss some of your drivel; life is too short to get deep into the specifics.

1) Clinton, in fact, presided over the largest tax-grab in U.S. history (in terms of dollars)! His much bally-hooed surplus was a direct result of over-taxation. Newsflash for you here kiddies: a Federal Government budget surplus means the government took too much of your money! The tax cut did go into effect in 1997, but it was a direct result of a GOP lead veto-proof bill in Congress. It was NOT Clinton's tax-cut. Compare now, if you will, George W. Bush: the man campaigned on tax cuts. He wasn't in office more than a few months and I received a check! I know you did too, Researcher! Perhaps you should have sent it back to Washington to protest that big, bad President for having the audacity to return some of your money to you. A year later, wow . . . ANOTHER check followed. Funny, I don't remember receiving any tax rebate checks while Clinton was in office . . .

2) The claims of ballot-tampering in Florida are ludicrious. Every move Ms. Harris made was a direct result of Florida State law. The claim that she "illegally removed 90,000 black and minority votes from the registers" and even denied them the ability to vote in 2002 is shameless fabrication. What actually happened, as happens in EVERY election, is that a percentage of ballots were "uncountable", owing to such problems as voting for two candidates for the same position, not marking anything on the ballot, or marking it in such a way as to render reading it impossible. In systems using mechanical means to mark ballots, the rejection factor is anywhere from 2 to 10% DEPENDING ON THE SKILL OF THE VOTERS! It has nothing whatsoever to do with Florida's Atty General, unless you are willing to say she went from booth to booth across the state and encouraged voters to "misvote". That would make you QUITE the conspiracy theorist. Also shameless was the way the Left encouraged black and minority voters, MANY OF WHOM HADN'T VOTED INITIALLY, to demand a revote . . . but only in counties where there was any possibility of a Gore victory. You'll remember that the Bush campaign actually suggested trashing ALL the votes in Florida and letting the ENTIRE STATE vote again to decide the issue once and for all. It was Campaign Gore that said no. They only wanted certain counties recounted or revoted. Point of order, Researcher, I agree with you on one point: the courts should not have a role in deciding political elections . . . which is why I blame GORE for being the first losing presidential candidate in U.S. history to sue the winner! Also, Bush didn't "steal" the election, as the Left so often likes to claim: he won it fair and square according to the rules of the Electoral College. True, he lost the popular vote, but the U.S. has NEVER used the popular vote to choose the president. On a county-by-county basis, the election was a Bush blow-out! Gore even lost his home state! So, enough about that, please.

3) Okay, and now for war. Clinton spent his entire eight year reign cutting away the strength of America's military. He directly weakened national security, and ignored the one good chance the U.S. has ever had for catching Bin Laden. When compelled to use military power, like when the U.S.S. Cole was bombed, he made a token gesture by lobbing a couple of cruise missles into Afghanistan, missing the target. In Somolia, he sent in a force that was woefully undermanned, shamelessly undergunned, and they got slaughtered. I know some of you probably LIKE images of the locals dancing on the still-smoking wreckage of a U.S. helicopter, but I'm not one of them. He did nothing . . . NOTHING . . . in response to the first attack on the World Trade Center, thereby emboldening America's enemies to take another swipe at it. And, just for good measure: he awarded China Most-Favored-Nation trading status and GAVE them most of our most technologically advances weapons secrets. What a coincidence that only a few years later China launches a man into space. Well done, Mr. Clinton. For the record: for those of you who like to say Bush is arrogant in the way he deals with other nations regarding U.S. national security, and for the way he steamrolled into Iraq in the face of U.N. opposition, consider this . . . Clinton never once even ASKED the U.N. to endorse any of his military moves. At least Bush tried! If you'd rather have your national security decided by the government of France, move to France!

4) Finally, Researcher, we come to a topic you completely ignored: Moral grounding and personal integrity. Where do I start? Clinton has, in order: refused military service, going so far as to attend Oxford to avoid the draft (Bush served as an interceptor pilot); lied when asked about his drug use, remember "I didn't inhale" (Bush admitted he used to have an alcohol problem, but has been dry now for years); was involved in shady land deals and stock swindles, making him wealthy (Bush made his money honestly in oil and sports, but is often criticized for it by the Left); stands accused of rape while serving as Governor of Arkansas (no such charges haunt Bush); had repeated extra-marital affairs, and lied about it . . . under oath . . . to a Grand Jury (Bush, nada); was IMPEACHED for his conduct (last time I checked Bush had not been impeached); and last, but not least, performed questionable last second pardons to the likes of Marc Rich, multi-millionaire tax cheat whose wife had donated very, very generously to the Clinton-Gore campaign (now some of you might want to make a big too-doo about the fact that Bush-Cheney received money from the legitimate branch of the Bin Laden family . . . keep in mind . . . that was pre 9/11 AND Usama (and possibly his son) is (are) the only criminal(s) from that family, which has totally disowned him!). As we can clearly see, morally speaking, there IS no comparison.

I'm done. The Left may now rant on . . .

pretty poor research 15.Nov.2003 01:31

researcher

Regurgitating rhetoric from right-wing blogs hardly constitutes research.

In response to your points:

1) Clinton didn't increase taxes to achieve a surplus (which might constitute a "tax-grab"), the economy was doing so well that people were earning more money and hence paying more in taxes. Clinton had the intelligence to use that money to pay the wildly inflated national debt run up under Reagan and Bush thereby proving that the democratic party is the only party with any concern for being fiscally responsible (watch vast majority of true conservatives vote against Bush in the next election for his reckless spending and presiding over the largest increase in government in the history of this country). It's true there was much haggling between Clinton and the republican house because the house wanted to give all the money away and not pay down the debt (thereby passing it on to future tax payers, our children). Clinton also pushed for more money to go to the working class as opposed to the republicans who wanted the bulk of the tax cuts to go to the very wealthy (as they have under Jr.). The massive give-aways that this president has given to the rich of this country can only be considered looting with over 50% of the tax-cuts going to the richest 1%. If you fall into that income "tired" than I don't blame you for supporting Jr. but the rest of the country realizes they've been had (most report that they have not noticed a tax decrease). It's funny how one would consider Clinton's surplus a tax grab but not the running up of the largest deficits in the history of this country which are nothing more than a tax grab from future tax payers.

2) "The claim that she "illegally removed 90,000 black and minority votes from the registers" and even denied them the ability to vote in 2002 is shameless fabrication." Well, you'd have to ignore the fact that Harris admitted to illegally removing those votes under oath in NAACP v. Katherine Harris. You should look it up. And yes, Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush's office also admitted publicly that they would not restore those illegally removed voters in time for the 2002 election. You also should read up on how minority counties had their voting machines set to not notify voters of faulty ballots (as reported by Greg Palast and confirmed by several election officials). That's why as many as 1 in 8 votes were not counted in heavily minority counties. It had nothing to do with "the skill of the voters" but rather the decisions made on how to set the voting machines by election officials. One county on replacing their white republican election official went from 1 in 8 ballots not being counted in 2000 to being on par with the state averages in 2002.

"You'll remember that the Bush campaign actually suggested trashing ALL the votes in Florida and letting the ENTIRE STATE vote again to decide the issue once and for all." No, I don't remember that, do you have a source? Given the fact the Bush would lost so many of the gains he made with the faulty ballots and the other electoral fraud I would doubt they ever suggested a thing (plus I've done enough research that I would have heard of it) so where's your source.

Now, as I said (not to repeat myself too much) Gore did push for only certain counties and that was a shameless attempt to steal back the state. But Gore's shameless and attempted illegal actions don't negate those from the Bush family. Remember in addition to the 90,000 voters purged illegally by ChoicePoint DBT (Forbes winner of the war on terrorism remember) Jeb Bush was also illegally removing voters who were convicted in other states despite 2 court orders on the issue which he ignored. The list of illegal actions goes on and on, and all for 1 purpose: to make sure Florida was delivered to Bush. Let's not forget the voting machines themselves, which mysteriously changed their vote counts immediately after it was reported that Gore was winning. In one county of about 300 voters Gore got approximately -16,000 votes on diebold machines which are now known to have massive security flaws that allow anyone with access to the machines locally or remotely to change the voter counts and erase the log of having done so.

And we can talk about Gore's campaign and how badly it was run but that still does not change the fact that massive electoral fraud was conducted in Florida which cost Gore the election.

3) "Clinton spent his entire eight year reign cutting away the strength of America's military. He directly weakened national security." Popular rhetoric, do you care to back that up? I think cutting military spending can only lead to increased efficiency instead of bloated pentagon projects many of which never yield results. Efficiency and decent military pay is the key to strength, and while I don't agree with much that Clinton did at least he wasn't paying millions of dollars for submarines that fire troops out of the torpedo tubes like Bush is.

"ignored the one good chance the U.S. has ever had for catching Bin Laden"

If you conveniently forget that Bin Laden was offered to President Bush twice by the Taliban. What, the Taliban couldn't be trusted you say? Well, first no one knows if the offer to turn Bin Laden over to Clinton could be trusted and Clinton declined because it would have been in violation of international law (which Bush Jr. obviously cares nothing about). Second, Jr. could have given an ultimatum to turn Bin Laden over within 24 hours. This is a tough one for Bush supports but I'll ask it anyway: why do you suppose Bush didn't choose to offer an ultimatum for the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden? I mean, they did offer him up twice.

"Clinton never once even ASKED the U.N. to endorse any of his military moves."

I agree, and I look forward to the day that Clinton and Bush Jr. and Sr. are all tried as war criminals by the ICC.

4) You know I probably wouldn't have even bothered responding to such a delusional person if it hadn't been for this last post which made me laugh so hard and put me in a really good mood. Okay, "Moral grounding and personal integrity"

Bush: Arrested 3 times (and the charges, wow... )
Clinton: never arrested

Bush: arrested for cocaine use, later had his record cleared by a backroom deal with his father and the judge
Clinton: never arrested for drug use, never had his father cover up his arrests for drug use

Bush: used cocaine and was an alcoholic (and never admitted to using cocaine, lie by omission, in something this important I would say so)
Clinton: probably smoked marijuana and lied about it

Bush: dodged the draft by using his father's connections (scoring a 25% on the entrance exam to the texas air national guard) then went awol for over a year
Clinton: dodged the draft on moral grounds (which to many shows a lot more personal integrity)

Bush: made his first million with partner Salem Bin Laden (one of Osama's closest brothers) and was given cushy jobs with no responsibility (basically just hand outs from daddy's friends), also had close ties with Arthur Anderson who were responsible for the wave of corporate scandals (to which no one has been brought to justice), and awards reconstruction contracts at the tax-payers expense to corporations that donated heavily to his campaign
Clinton: no conclusive evidence to suggest anything crooked but could have been involved in crooked dealings

Bush: accused of rape (while serving as the Governor of Texas), accuser recently killed
Clinton: accused of rape

Bush: alleged to have impregnated a woman that ended in an abortion prior to Roe v. Wade
Clinton: no allegations of illegal abortions

So I'd say there is a very easy comparison. Both Bush and Clinton are totally corrupt lying politicians and both pretty much fit the definition of scum-bag. But we'll have to focus on Bush since he's the one ruining the country at the moment; Clinton had his 8 years already (and sadly most people want him back).

Hardly an honest word has ever escape Bush's mouth during his entire political career. And when one day he is called to testify on any one of the many scandals he is involved is I'm sure we can expect him to lie repeatedly under oath to congress, and to a grand jury. Whether it is what he knew about the impending 9/11 attacks, his failure to prevent the corporate scandals carried out by his friends, the robbing of the treasury, the reasons for his illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and many more we can be assured that not one word of truth will come from GW. Look at all the lies he's told in the past 4 years. They are simply too numerous to list at this point. But some people will never be bothered by that. They're too busy trying to prove that they are right despite all evidence to the contrary. They will ignore all evidence that their beloved king is decreasing the security and prosperity of this once great nation. They will continue to rely of faux conservative rhetoric despite an administration that has been the antithesis of conservative policy. They will support the continued removal of all the rights once protected by the constitution that helped make this country a beacon of freedom. And they will remain convinced that they are right until their dying day when perhaps they will gain some insight into the world. But perhaps sooner, if they are willing to acknowledge the one thing that so many people in this country cannot acknowledge: that they could be wrong and that they could be supporting a tyrant. Those who supported Clinton most definitely supported a lying genocidal fascist and now Bush Jr. has taken everything that Clinton did to destroy this country and furthered those policies in previously unimaginable ways. Well, the Bush supporters better hope that the voting machines from diebold, ess, and sequoia are indeed rigged in their favor. Otherwise they will be looking at quite possibly the largest landslide defeat in the history of this country in 2004.

Franken/ O,Reily Feud (Why Can't We All Just Get Along?) 23.Nov.2003 22:08

Daniel

Franken had it exactly, right when he described O'reily as a typical school yard bully. He can dish it out but when the heat is on he can't handle
it. O'reily is another big bag of hot air who is full of himself, I believe he has a genuine hatred of Al Franken (cause he tells it like it is).
Yeah, O'reily might beat Franken in a fist fight (who cares). The truth is Al franken's brain alone chops O'reily into little pieces.
No I am not another LIBERAL, I'm just sick and tired of how so many good Americans have fallen for the lies from the Bush machine. "If you are
not for Bush, or you are not for this war, you are a traitor". So says all the talking heads, Rush, Weiner,Hanity, O'reily, Etc. etc. (who are spotlighted
by the so-called liberal media.)
The hard cold facts remain that every man that concocked this war (Pearl, Wolf, Cheney, Bush) are all Chickenhawks (did everything possible to stay
out of uniform during wartime) do your homework . Plus every Radio Rambo, and Wordsmithing Rambo in newsprint, are Chickenhawks. Each and
everyone of them. They blow the horn for War from their safe little studio and play a (I'm more patriotic than you game) but never put on a uniform in
their life (nor will their children).
As far as I can see, little Al Franken in his spectacles, has more real balls than most of his detractors. He told the truth about the lying liars and the
mess they got us into. He's as much as an American patriot as any of the phonies who wrap themselves in the flag and reap a nice paycheck while
yelling War!! What did Ike really mean when he told us to "Beware of the military/industrial complex" I think he was in a position to know what he was
talking about. God Bless America!

Won is spelled "won" not one. 25.Nov.2003 10:29

Jim Rudy

While attempting to bash someone you should always use spell check or run the risk of looking like an ass.

something to check out 08.Jan.2004 21:22

anonymous

I stumbled on this site and it's awesome. check it out.

www.u.arizona.edu/~bobbola

you lose your cool, you lose the fight 16.Feb.2004 13:19

john

As a police officer, I know from dealing with situations that could become hairy that if you lose your cool and bring emotions into the situation, you are going to lose the eventual fight. O'Reilly lost his cool and began screaming at Franken and truly made himself look like an ass. He could have kept his composure and dismissed Franken's point as petty. But because he is truly a pseudo-intellectual, he couldn't do that. He had to revert to the only thing he has in his arsenal, which is shouting down his opponent rather than forming a rational eloquent argument for his side of the topic. True, Franken was probably being petty about the Peabody thing, but his job is to push buttons and I'd say he did a REAL good job of it here.

bill blew it 07.Mar.2004 13:26

Scott Hendison

After Al Frankens show, bill reacted exactly like I would have. He lost his cool and blew it.
It goes to show you he's human, I guess.

Al Franken misused platform 31.Mar.2004 10:58

Paula K leimo_2000@yahoo.com

It's obvious that Bill got upset, and I would have too. I'm not a strong supporter of Bill O'Reilly, I just see the clip for what is shows me. Al Franken used the platform to make personal attacks on Bill and in my opinion, looked worse then Bill O'Reilly. I don't know enough about either one of them to know who I would support on issues, so this was interesting to me. What I've been hearing on and off about O'Reilly yelling to Franken to 'Shut Up', seems justified to me now. This was very interesting.

Bill O'reilly 23.May.2004 05:47

anonymous

Bill O'reilly is a jerk, all he does is say what he believes which is usually some schum and then after that when its his guests time to speak its.... "ohhh.. now for a break." It's like... um whats the point of having a guest if your going to be a fasicious jerk the whole time. Ive never seen 1 epsiode when he agrees maybe one but whatever.
By the way this site is really cool and I still do like Bill even though hes a jerk, it's all the stuff in a show i want to watch sometimes.

Bill's OK 30.May.2004 20:47

Roark

I think Bill was very professional to sit there quietly while Franken called him a liar on national tv. Bill was patient to wait to respond until after Franken was done with his time at the podium. I don't think Bill "lost it" at all; I think he was justified in telling Al to shut up. Al is lucky that Bill doesn't want to go to jail or get sued because Bill shoulda smacked him. I am glad that Bill didn't shake Al's hand afterward; that would have been dishonest.

For those who hate Bill, Bill makes no secret that he is a commentator--that is different from a reporter. He does opinion news or news analysis and gives his opinion as to what the news of the day means. The "fair and balanced" stuff comes from the fact that he usually has a guest on who holds the opposite opinion from him. That makes for good debate. We, the viewers, then get "both sides." Nobody ever said you had to side with Bill just because it's his show. You can side with his guests if you like, or with no one. I don't think Bill makes any secret of the fact that he is also a "performer;" in other words, sometimes, he's acting and that is part of his job.

I think Bill is pretty genuine except for two things, both related to ratings: 1) I question his frequent references to looking out for "the kids"--I think he may bring that up a lot in order to seem sensitive so he can get female viewers (women are 51% of the population). 2) Though he seems smart enough to be an atheist and doesn't seem very religious in practice, he brings up God and Jesus just enough to get on the good side of the Christian demographic, which is HUGE in America (about 90% of the population believes in at least God). Jesus = ratings, so I have to wonder if that's why Bill mentions him sometimes. I wouldn't fault Bill for doing what he has to do to get ratings; after all, that's the name of the tv game and that's how he brings home the bacon to support his wife and kids--more power to him--I wish I had a husband like that.

I think Bill has been in the Biz long enough to know that when you're hot you gotta ride that wave for all it's worth because fame and fans are both fickle f*ckers and they will turn and leave you on a dime. I think Bill is busting his azz to make as much money as he possibly can right now, hence all the books and appearances, the radio show, the factor gear, etc. He's a smart guy. He got the ball, and he knows enough to run with it. Once again, more power to him.

Another thing regarding inconsistent statements. Bill is often accused of being a "liar" because of occasional contradictions. Think about it though, I wonder how any of us non-famous people would come out if everything we said ended up on tape somewhere? I am sure we would find we all contradict ourselves sometimes. Lucky for most of us, we aren't on record so we can't be impeached by our own testimony. People like Bill have to be extra careful every time they talk or someone just waiting to pounce will produce a tape! Let's cut these famous folks some slack.

kevin and kirk 11.Jun.2004 21:51

jude

the blind lead the blind.............

Eh 01.Jul.2004 08:03

Mook

Bill's too smug and thinks that he's hilarious, it wont be so hilarious when I throw pebbles at his car

What do I know 10.Jun.2005 19:59

GenericSmith

Just a quick comment.

I see a lot of posts saying that all Franken has on Bill is that he made a mistake calling a Polk a Peabody. If you actually read his book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" you could actually find quite a few examples of Bill's "mistakes" (I better not say LIES, that might piss someone off). I've read/listened to the book a couple of times (audiobooks are great) and not only find out some of Bill's other lies (whoops I said it) but also Ann Coulters' lies (I said it again. damn) and even some gems by Sean Hannity (and by gems I mean lies).

And if somebody else did recommend the book in a different post, I missed it. I do apoligize.