You’re right. But, he is purposely being a dick. When he made the talk show circuit for Rush…Liar, he said he purposely was using all the dirty tricks right out of the Republican manual (I’m forgetting the name of the Chair of the Republican committee who set out the rules of engagement). These include name calling, inuendo, baiting, digging up dirt, misquoting, purposely misstating your opponent’s point of view, and severe media spinning. Franken said outright that his Rush book had misquotes and things taken out of context… just like Rush does.
The point is not the point he’s making, but that he’s using the outrageous tactics that his opponents use against them.
So, if you find Franken to be distasteful and unfunny and rude and so ignorantly ideological, then he’s made his point.
And given how many people say they hated both O’Reilly and Franken, then Franken made his case perfectly. Franken was just holding a mirror up to O’Reilly, and O’Reilly knee-jerked attacked it like a parakeet.
Peace.
You’re a jerk. You’re a jerk. Heh, that’s original. Heh, that’s original. Stop repeating everything I say. Stop repeating everything I say. Quit it! Quit it!
That chairman of the Republican Party was none other than Roger Ailes, founder of the Fox News Network. Doesn’t Bill O’Reilly have some connection to the Fox News Network?
But I found Franken distasteful, unfunny, rude and ignorantly ideological before I ever even heard of Bill O’Reilly.
He may claim to just be using his opponents’ tactics against them, that it’s all intentional, an act to show how bad the other guy is. If he constantly uses these tactics, don’t they become his own at some point? When does the act drop?
Lateline, Stuart Smalley, his portable satellite uplink headgear correspondant gag, and his various talkshow appearances all struck me as either one-note gags or promising ideas that didn’t go anywhere. I’ve hated him enough that after a while, I would change the channel if I saw he was on the panel on Politically Incorrect. Is the man even capable of making a joke at the expense of people from his ideological side?
To use the tired cliche, O’Reilly and Franken are two sides of the same coin that make me want to wash my hands after I come in contact with.
widdershins, could the fact that you don’t like Franken’s humor (since his SNL stuff is hardly political in nature) have colored your view of him as a pundit?
dantheman, I suppose it’s possible, although I like to think I am capable of separating my opinion of someone’s work from my opinion of them as a person in most cases. I can definitely think of examples of people I know personally as well as in the media and popular culture who I have a harder time being as objective about.
But I think my distaste for him stems more from another factor. I consider myself a moderate liberal, yet I loathe the Clintons. Franken is very fond of them, no secret there. I realize they inspire fierce loyalty in some just as they inspire venom and endless ire in others. It could be that my already low opinion of what I’ve known of Franken’s work (I have specifically not mentioned his books since I haven’t read them) combined with the knowledge that he is a staunch defender of people who set off my bullshit detector. I “get” Franken’s humor, I just view it as overrated and obvious; I don’t “get” what he sees in the Clintons. I suppose Franken is, for me at least, a special case. So I wouldn’t consider “hate” in refering to him whereas I would in the case of most other pundits of any political bent.
Understood, widdershins. I think the best comedians are the ones who polarize the audience, anyway - don’t want generic comics who don’t piss anyone off.
I have read his stuff. Mildly amusing. However, this winter I got a copy of The CEO at the Breakfast Table and I just could not finish it. Way too vituperative, unfair, and unreasonably partisan for my taste. The guys visceral distaste for Senator Clinton is way over the line for political commentary and is just badmouthing and not in the least amusing, in my judgement.
Plus he’s a short guy from Toledo, Ohio. I’ve seen Toledo. With apologies to one of the Mods who lives around there, the only thing a guy from Toledo has to brag about is the fact that he got out of there. The best thing about the place is that it is the route to Put-IN-Bay (We have met the enemy and they are ours). This from a guy from Bellefountaine, which is likewise no prize
O’Rourk is a smarmy, arrogant, conceited hatchet man. That’s what I have against him. Where is Herb Schriner or George Goble when you need them. I guess my real problem is the tendency for political humor and social comment to follow the cheap path of insult comics as blazed by the likes of the little bald guy who thinks “hockey puck” is a witty retort.
Oreilly really can’t win here. He is much more popular than Franken. Oreilly is a household name with the most watched cable news program on the dial. Franken is a nobody who is looking for any attention that can help him sell books.
Oh, and the clips that I heard on the Howard Stern show of this meeting clearly had Oreilly winning the war of words.
It’s similar to Janine Garafalo admitting to gaining poplularity over her anti-US stance during the war. It’s ok to piss off 90% of the country as long as the other 10% go buy your book or see your movie.
I would expect clips shown on any other FOX TV program to also show O’Reilly winning the war of words. I somehow doubt Howard Stern is much of a Franken fan.
Haley Barbour, perhaps? The one guy the Federal Elections Commission wanted to proceed against for taking illegal Chinese campaign contributions (though that got lost in the cloud of indignation)?
But I suspect you’re referring to Lee Atwater, Bush I’s 1988 campaign manager, who quite literally repented on his deathbed for those things you listed and must therefore be forgiven. His colleague Roger Ailes was Bush I’s media man in that campaign, the foster parent of the Willie Horton ad, and he now runs Fox News. Their 2000 election-night coverage was run by John Ellis, Bush I’s nephew and Bush II’s first cousin.
Bill O’Reilly’s career has come a long way in numbers, but not in quality, from his days at Boston’s Channel 7, where the big star on the news program was Zip Rzeppa on sports: [Example](http//www.boston.com/globe/magazine/ 2002/1201/coverstory2.htm)
debaser, Howard Stern’s edit showed O’Reilly “winning”? Did you expect to surprise anyone with that?
Dewey, my problem with O’Rourke is his refusal to explain how he reached the worldview he now holds. It’s all “When I was young, I was drunk all the time and held liberal views. Now that I’ve sobered up, my pendulum has swung the other way.” He doesn’t even address the possibility that his view of liberalism is tied into hate of the drunken self he used to be. He can be funny in a hatchet-man sort of way, but he is not a source of any real thought or insight.
FTR, the Willie Horton ad did not come from the Bush campaign. It was created by an independent group. The Bush campaign ran the “revolving door” ad, which noticeably (1) did not mention Willie Horton and (2) did not have any black faces in it.
**
Meh. I always considered “and then I grew up” a perfectly adequate explanation for conversion from liberalism to conservatism.
Spavined: I got CEO of the Sofa as a gift and was mostly disappointed with it. Read Parliament of Whores. Seriously, it’s really good.
Huh? Howard Stern is a radio DJ, my cave dwelling friends. You really need to get out more, methinks.
He isn’t really political but definately isn’t conservative at all. I don’t listen that often to he bashed Bush heavy during the elections and other republicans from time to time.
They were actually having a pizza eating contest in the studio and were using the clips of Oreilly vs Franken as filler while there was dead air.
Right! Dead body? What dead body? I never saw no dead body, officer.
I have no doubt that the fine coordination of theme and timing between the “independent” Willie Horton ad and the “official GOP” revolving door ad was a pure coincidence, the happy intervention of chance. We all know that the “official” Republican PR people shun the “independent” PR people like the very plague. Surely the cross-pollination of ideas is beyond belief. I an shocked, sir, shocked at the suggestion.
And, by the way, we don’t need no stinking badges.
Oliver Stone to the Pit…Oliver Stone to the Pit…Spavined requests your presence in the Pit…
The Bush campaign decided to make the Massachusetts furlough program an issue in the '88 campaign. It is therefore unsurprising that they would run an ad (“Revolving Door”) designed to highlight that program.
The Horton ad ran once. Once. It is absurd to suggest that the Bush campaign, in crafting “Revolving Doors,” was trying to create some kind of connection with an independent ad that most people never actually saw broadcast.
Dewey: I don’t know what to think of Spavined’s assertion, but saying that the “Horton ad ran once” and that “most people [never] actually saw [it] broadcast” is disingenuous and irrelevant. The “Daisy” ad ran exactly once, but EVERYBODY knows about it. The same with the Horton ad. It was the talk of the nation as soon as it hit the air. That few people actually saw it themselves is irrelevant.
You can argue against the conspiracy theory all you want; I haven’t formed an opinion on it yet. But I don’t think your point really addresses the issue at all.
Ugh. We KNOW that. (my comment “any other Fox show” meant any other than O’Reilly’s).
And just like it’s not surprising why other Fox shows would be pro-O’Reilly, there are other reasons why it wouldn’t be too surprising for Stern to be pro-O’Reilly. I know enough about Stern to know he wouldn’t be too sympathetic to a “bleeding heart” liberal like Franken.
I disagree. The whole complaint with the Horton ad is that the picture of a big, scary black man was supposed to be scary to all the timid white voters, inducing them to vote Republican. It was the ad’s imagery that caused outrage. The conspiracy theory suggests that the Bush campaign crafted the “Revolving Door” ad to capitalize on the Horton ad – to remind those timid white voters of the scary black man they had seen earlier without actually using his picture. That being the case, the number of people who had actually seen that imagery is quite relevant – the conspiracy theory doesn’t work unless lots of people had seen the Horton ad’s images.
Even if you want to suggest that lots of people were aware of the ad due to media coverage, you’ve got a tough case to make. You’ve got to believe the Bush campaign would (1) covertly develop the ad, (2) run it once, (3) ask that it be pulled, (4) engineer massive negative media attention towards their campaign to increase the Horton ad’s exposure and (5) run the “Revolving Door” ad to remind folks of the prior Horton ad they had seen on the nightly news. Even Jim Garrison would have trouble swallowing all that.
The simple fact is crime in general and the Massachusetts furlough program in particular were issues in the 1988 campaign. Bush had talked about the Horton case at several campaign stops before either ad aired – with no mention of Horton’s race. The race angle was nothing but a transparent attempt by the Dukakis campaign to neutralize an issue with which the Bush campaign was having great success. It was silly then, and it’s silly now.
debaser, look up “showed” and you’ll find it often means “demonstrated, not necessarily visually”. Get a grip, kid.
Dewey, you’re once again showing your fine ability to discuss any matter at all in the narrow, technical, content-free way a legal counsel would. Unfortunately, we’re discussing politics here. Note in passing that you’re conceding the basic point, that Ailes and Bush I and the “independent” (gimme a break, even you know better) Republican/conservative organizations were willing to use race-baiting tactics. The rest of us are free to think that’s their true moral level, aren’t we? If you’re willing to defend it, what are we to think of your true moral level, while we’re at it?
