Rock the Vote? Game the Vote! (Or Bye-bye Lieberman)

[Brian Rucker]

A couple Salon reviews of the new book "Dispatches From The Culture Wars: How The Left Lost Teen Spirit" by Danny Goldberg seem to be getting pretty good play on that site - both are the lead stories today.

Interestingly in one of the reviews videogames, along with music, are mentioned as something the the democrats are attacking in a misguided policy of trying to attact 'centrist' voters and steal 'family values' from Republicans. That's not what Democrats have traditionally stood for and it's what's cutting the legs out from under them.

Goldberg makes a pretty good point that big conservative contributors and corporate economic dominance of the political landscape is nothing new. What offset it was the charisma of the leadership and attractive populist messages of the left. By alienating younger voters as well as those tied into entertainment and the arts the left is turning away its original source of strength.

Personally, I don't think that's the whole problem but it's a very important aspect of things. What is interesting to me is the idea that video gamers (and by extension computer gamers) could become a political demographic if strategists read this book, and it seems they might well. About damned time. Bye-bye Libermann.

[Jakub]

Lieberman is more of a Nazi than Cheney.

And no, this isn't irony. I know he's a Jew, and I'm pretty sure he does too ;)

Actually, on a related note, Brett has a column (http://firingsquad.gamers.com/features/the_firing_line_2/) about the backlash against violent games.

[Tyjenks]

Imus has been going on and on about this book. I do not, normally, have time to read books where I will actually learn something, but I think I will pick this up.

I was a huge Dem. back in the day and I do feel like they have lost their way. None of them, I repeat none of them, are representing the common man: me. I have no idea what they believe any longer and if there is something, they sure as fuck are not getting the message out very well. Check that, they do all firmly believe they know what is best for "the people"; whether the people are aware of what that is, is another story. They also believe staying in office by any means necessary is a must.

Maybe I will pick it up for my beach trip and bring it back up in the Book forum when I get back. Maybe by then someone will have also actually read Hillary's "biography" and can correct my misrepresentation of what is and is not in it.

[DennyA]

As a moderate (shut up, you damned Europeans, that IS too a conviction) with liberal human rights values, I feel totally unrepresented. I used to lean Democrat overall because, while both parties have been corrupted into political machines about a century, at least the "evil" quotient was either lower or better-hidden than with the Republicans.

But now it's a choice between "evil" and "stumbling around in circles." Some choice.

[Tyjenks]

I believe that is what the book touches on (have not read the reviews linked to above yet...sorry) Denny. We have been deserted and we are searching for somewhere to put are votes....Libertarian...Green Party...Al SHarpton.....they do not so much as match up with our values and beliefs as they are a damn sight better than to two groups of power/money whores that are entrenched in federal, state, and local governments.

Sorry if I derailed things. I will excuse myself until I read the book.

Nader in 2004!!!

[Aleck]

Quick question -- does anyone have a link to a decent summary of what Lieberman has proposed re: violent video games? IIRC, it wasn't a ban but some kind of retailer-based regulation (but I honestly can't remember the details).

Thanks!

asjunk

[Brian Rucker]

Sorry, didn't provide a link - Salon (http://www.salon.com/) does require subscriptions but sometimes free access is provided by a sponsor.

To tell the truth I don't despise Lieberman as much as some folks do, well at least not for his stance on restricting M rated games - if I mistrust him it's because of his ties to the insurance industry, but I do think that by sucking up to pollsters and 'mavens' as Goldberg puts it the Democrats are really putting themselves out of touch with any natural constituency.

You have to really claim some meaningful ground that will excite excitable people and then lead others to understand and embrace the issues you're talking about. Otherwise you end up with lukewarm candidates in a desperate race to avoid alienating anyone rather than really running on ideas. The 2000 election was a huge national embarrasment for the Democrats and, IMHO, the country as a whole. The Republicans were running a well funded facade of a campaign while managing to keep the kooks and creeps quiet while the Democrats weren't willing to take on the deeper issues that could well offend their own new corporate friends or any of the nebulous demographic groups, often with conflicting outlooks, in any key region.

If the nuts, or idealists, on either side are told to shut up for fear of alienating mainstream voters then how do those voters know what either party really stands for? How many folks that voted for Bush have the least clue what the official Republican platform is and visa versa?

[Tyjenks]

The M rated thing...meh...big deal. My problem is he's a J...what, the sherrif's a N......

It is amazing how many of us feel, i dunno, lost when it comes to party allegiance. The stiffs available are bland at best and offensive at worst. If one would step out and take a stand on something, Dean maybe, I would probably throw my vote their way just on principle.

Just say some - thing!!! Offend people. I would never have voted for Jesse "The Body" in Minnesota, but at least he said and did what he felt and was elected by doing that. Minnesota is still standing as far as I know and maybe he made someone think by sparking debate rather than politicking to stay in office throughout his entire term. Same thing, but to a lesser extent with McCain. Not sure I could vote for him, but he will occasionally buck the Republican system and say some unpopular things.

Hooray for diversity. I am afraid we are moving to an All Thing government where everyone is sharing one brain and that brain keeps chanting "steady as she goes...change is bad...staus quo..."

[steve]

Lieberman is more of a Nazi than Cheney.
Why do you say this? Is it because of his videogame stance? Do you actually know what he has proposed regarding video games? Do you know what Cheney actually stands for?

I don't like Lieberman for various reasons, but none have to do with anything as inconsequential as videogames.

[steve]

Goldberg makes a pretty good point that big conservative contributors and corporate economic dominance of the political landscape is nothing new. What offset it was the charisma of the leadership and attractive populist messages of the left. By alienating younger voters as well as those tied into entertainment and the arts the left is turning away its original source of strength.
There was an interview with Harry Shearer on The Onion's AV Club where they asked him why the right dominated talk radio, and he made a really interesting point. The people representing the left on radio are typically politicians like Mario Cuomo, wheras the big formerly 400 pound gorilla from the right Rush Limbaugh was originally a DJ. Guess who knows more about radio, how to reach people, how to draw in listeners, etc.?

The right attracts people because it sounds like the party of strength; I've rarely heard a passionate leftist not sound like a whiner.

[Tyjenks]

I don't like Lieberman for various reasons, but none have to do with anything as inconsequential as videogames.

Same here steve.

Of course, it is hard to know what Cheney stands for because he is all but invisible in this administration. Does he leave his mad scientist bunker to do anything other than pounding that gavel occasionally in Congress? It has been established that he does not like revealing any information about himself or his actions as VP and the fact that he never makes a peep makes this cowpoke very, verrrrry nervous.

[Jakub]

Lieberman is more of a Nazi than Cheney.
Why do you say this? Is it because of his videogame stance? Do you actually know what he has proposed regarding video games? Do you know what Cheney actually stands for?

I don't like Lieberman for various reasons, but none have to do with anything as inconsequential as videogames.
Oh sorry, I didn't mean that to be taken as a serious comment. Well, not completely serious.

It's just interesting how two parties, liberal and conservative, each of which at one time or another embraced the values of freedom, have both aimed themselves squarely at decidedly non-free ideals, for completely different reasons.

[Chris Nahr]

Just say some - thing!!! Offend people. I would never have voted for Jesse "The Body" in Minnesota, but at least he said and did what he felt and was elected by doing that. Minnesota is still standing as far as I know and maybe he made someone think by sparking debate rather than politicking to stay in office throughout his entire term. Same thing, but to a lesser extent with McCain. Not sure I could vote for him, but he will occasionally buck the Republican system and say some unpopular things.

That's rather self-defeating, isn't it? "Do something that will make me not vote for you... but at least I'll really like you!" I think overall politicians would like to get votes rather than sympathy, much like Bill Gates doesn't care how much you hate him as long as you buy his software.

Maybe this ubiquitous blandness is precisely because nobody actually votes for people with outspoken strong convictions, no matter how much they might profess to respect them. America is still stable and wealthy, so who would want to vote for someone who might rock the boat?

[Anders Hallin]

I think it works long-term to be outspoken in issues. Then you can for short periods of time not ruffle any feathers while people remember that you stand up for what you believe in and then vote for you because of that.
To have a policy of not ruffling any feathers doesn't work in the long run, I think.

[Tyjenks]

Just say some - thing!!! Offend people. I would never have voted for Jesse "The Body" in Minnesota, but at least he said and did what he felt and was elected by doing that. Minnesota is still standing as far as I know and maybe he made someone think by sparking debate rather than politicking to stay in office throughout his entire term. Same thing, but to a lesser extent with McCain. Not sure I could vote for him, but he will occasionally buck the Republican system and say some unpopular things.

That's rather self-defeating, isn't it? "Do something that will make me not vote for you... but at least I'll really like you!" I think overall politicians would like to get votes rather than sympathy, much like Bill Gates doesn't care how much you hate him as long as you buy his software.

Maybe this ubiquitous blandness is precisely because nobody actually votes for people with outspoken strong convictions, no matter how much they might profess to respect them. America is still stable and wealthy, so who would want to vote for someone who might rock the boat?

Sorry. I was not clear as to why I would not vote for those two specific guys. They are Republicans and many of their party's beliefs do not run parallel to mine. I meant to say that I wish some Democrats would take the lead and be outspoken on some issues in the same fashion so I could possibly vote for them. At this point, the few Democrats that have tried to in local politics have done so as a gimmick to get elected and then did nothing once they were in office.

If John McCain had run against the two fuck-ups that we had in the last gubernatorial election in Alabama, I would have elected him governor in a second. Same with the Senate seats here in the state.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

A lot of Democrats I know would love the chance to vote for McCain. Yeah, he's conservative, but he strikes people as having an open mind about things. You get a reputation for honesty and "straight talk" and people start to believe all kinds of things about you - with or without evidence.

I'm a huge McCain fan, myself. He has this righteous indignation that burns in his belly that doesn't come off as contempt. And he really believes everything he says. Corporate money is ruining democracy. The country can't afford more tax cuts. America shouldn't be afraid to flex its muscles overseas. We are a country of values - not just interests. In a less cynical time there'd be folk tales about him.

Troy

[Tyjenks]

I think it works long-term to be outspoken in issues. Then you can for short periods of time not ruffle any feathers while people remember that you stand up for what you believe in and then vote for you because of that.
To have a policy of not ruffling any feathers doesn't work in the long run, I think.

You would be amazed how many politicians in the states get elected and then practice just that. Stay quiet, under the radar, build a fat political money chest, and spend 95% of your time in office insuring that you get re-elected. Our Senators and representatives do not have term limits as out president does and there in not a chance in holy hell that they will ever pass a law that enacts term limits. They are not citizens who run for office to help their fellow Americans make the country better, they are career politicians that can get rich and powerful by simply staying the course.

[Tyjenks]

A lot of Democrats I know would love the chance to vote for McCain. Yeah, he's conservative, but he strikes people as having an open mind about things. You get a reputation for honesty and "straight talk" and people start to believe all kinds of things about you - with or without evidence.

I'm a huge McCain fan, myself. He has this righteous indignation that burns in his belly that doesn't come off as contempt. And he really believes everything he says. Corporate money is ruining democracy. The country can't afford more tax cuts. America shouldn't be afraid to flex its muscles overseas. We are a country of values - not just interests. In a less cynical time there'd be folk tales about him.

Troy

Exactly, what I like about McCain. Democrats do not get pissed and want to suggest fixes any longer. They bitch, moan and whine about how the Republicans want to rape your women and eat your babies. It is like they cannot think of any possible solution to the problems of our country and by demonizing the other side, they will get into power and figure it all out later.

WHether it is true or just an act for his show's entertainment value (probably equal parts of each) I feel the same way about conservative talkshow host Bill O'Reilly. I had always thought he was a run-of the-mill right wing talking head. Once his radio show debuted where he is a bit more natural and laid back, he gets pissed about a lot of the same inequities and nonsense in our government that I do. Some of his societal views are nutty, but I find myself agreeing with him more than I could have imagined 10 years ago. Maybe even 5.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I can't share your appreciation for O'Reilly, Ty. Maybe he really is an intelligent guy with interesting things to say. To me he'll never be more than his TV act - a loudmouthed bully who attacks his guests when they disagree with him, facts and nuance be damned. As I age, I find have less patience with people who yell, unless they are at a ball game or something.

On McCain, I think that most of it is his honest self. He got burned in the S&L thing early in his Senate career and has been working to atone for that error and fix whatever put him in that place. But he has also become ubiquitous. He is so reliable for soundbites that he risks overexposure. The more he's out there, the fewer risks he seems to take. Despite his principled opposition to the tax cut, all his Sunday morning appearances seemed to be focused on Iraq, where he backs the administration firmly.

Troy

[Skinner]

I believe that is what the book touches on (have not read the reviews linked to above yet...sorry) Denny. We have been deserted and we are searching for somewhere to put are votes....Libertarian...Green Party...Al SHarpton.....they do not so much as match up with our values and beliefs as they are a damn sight better than to two groups of power/money whores that are entrenched in federal, state, and local governments.

Sorry if I derailed things. I will excuse myself until I read the book.

Nader in 2004!!!

I just reserved a copy from the library even though they are still on order. I'm looking forward to reading it.

At the last primary when they asked me to declare a party I told the dude Federalist. He looked at me like I was strange. :)

As far as Democrats go, I was kinda of hoping they still stood for civil liberties but I don't know anymore. I like Rebuplicans in the White House and liberals on the Supreme Court.

[Skinner]

You would be amazed how many politicians in the states get elected and then practice just that. Stay quiet, under the radar, build a fat political money chest, and spend 95% of your time in office insuring that you get re-elected. Our Senators and representatives do not have term limits as out president does and there in not a chance in holy hell that they will ever pass a law that enacts term limits. They are not citizens who run for office to help their fellow Americans make the country better, they are career politicians that can get rich and powerful by simply staying the course.

Where the hell are you? Alabama?

[Jason McCullough]

The right attracts people because it sounds like the party of strength; I've rarely heard a passionate leftist not sound like a whiner.

I'd expect this for any party defending the status quo vs. changing it.

I'm pretty that a "friend of the working man" wouldn't tell the son of someone who died in the WTC to shut up (http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2003_02_02.html#000159).

[Tyjenks]

You would be amazed how many politicians in the states get elected and then practice just that. Stay quiet, under the radar, build a fat political money chest, and spend 95% of your time in office insuring that you get re-elected. Our Senators and representatives do not have term limits as out president does and there in not a chance in holy hell that they will ever pass a law that enacts term limits. They are not citizens who run for office to help their fellow Americans make the country better, they are career politicians that can get rich and powerful by simply staying the course.

Where the hell are you? Alabama?

Birmingham. A lot of my relatives are from COlumbus though. Hilliard and Grove City. I am a rare bird down here considering I was born and raised in the land of Bull Connor, barking dogs, fire hoses, crooked black politicians, crooked white politicians, and Civil Rights marches. That's a subject I could go on about for days and possibly double my post count in a week.

[Tyjenks]

I can't share your appreciation for O'Reilly, Ty. Maybe he really is an intelligent guy with interesting things to say. To me he'll never be more than his TV act - a loudmouthed bully who attacks his guests when they disagree with him, facts and nuance be damned. As I age, I find have less patience with people who yell, unless they are at a ball game or something.

He steamrolls people on his TV program and I do not enjoy it. I do not believe I have made it through one entire broadcast. Now when I watch the TV version of Bill, it seems a bit like a SNL skit. His radio show, OTOH, he is not as rushed (2 hrs. where he covers 2 topics, one per hour) and is quite dry and witty. Very much the environmentalist and protector of children. Today he was railing on SUV's and how they were mainly the means of transportation for people with more money than sense and how horrible they are for other drivers an the environment. He all but called Lincoln Navigator drivers selfish bastards. 6 miles to the gallon and more space then any normal human could need, much less a 100 lb. woman on her cell phone with nowhere special to go.

His indignation on the radio seems much more genuine. His TV persona seems like a ramped up version for the camera. Believe me, I tried to hate him from the onset of his show on TV. I avoided it like the plague and still do for the most part (his pleasant conversation with Mrs. Ozzy was decent), but once I stopped and really listened to him on the radio, all of his "act" seemed to be based in real concern for the country's well being.

Also, he may just have me duped. That is the conclusion most people have when I tell them I enjoy the AM radio show. For now, he bitches about the shitty illegal immigration problem and the governments complete inaction, crooked politicians on both sides, Jeb Bush ignoring the fucked up Child Services Dept. in Florida, how useless Ashcroft and that homeland security guy are, and many other issues where i completely agree with him, put on or no.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I can't share your appreciation for O'Reilly, Ty. Maybe he really is an intelligent guy with interesting things to say. To me he'll never be more than his TV act - a loudmouthed bully who attacks his guests when they disagree with him, facts and nuance be damned. As I age, I find have less patience with people who yell, unless they are at a ball game or something.

He steamrolls people on his TV program and I do not enjoy it. I do not believe I have made it through one entire broadcast. Now when I watch the TV version of Bill, it seems a bit like a SNL skit.

The SNL O'Reilly is a lot of fun.

"Let me stop you right there. How can you say California is most the populous state? I was walking along a Malibu beach the other day and saw no one. But I come back to New York City, and I see people everywhere. For my money, New York is the most populous state. Maybe New Jersey."

Troy

[XPav]

O'Reilly's latest takes on the internet are quite amusing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89499,00.html

Wahh! Wahh! People say bad things about other people on the Internet and you can't get them to say the truth!

[Ben]

That link with O'Reilly and Glick? I can completely understand O'Reilly's behavior. How do you respond to someone who thinks George Bush trained the 9/11 bombers?

[Skinner]

You would be amazed how many politicians in the states get elected and then practice just that. Stay quiet, under the radar, build a fat political money chest, and spend 95% of your time in office insuring that you get re-elected. Our Senators and representatives do not have term limits as out president does and there in not a chance in holy hell that they will ever pass a law that enacts term limits. They are not citizens who run for office to help their fellow Americans make the country better, they are career politicians that can get rich and powerful by simply staying the course.

Where the hell are you? Alabama?

Birmingham. A lot of my relatives are from COlumbus though. Hilliard and Grove City. I am a rare bird down here considering I was born and raised in the land of Bull Connor, barking dogs, fire hoses, crooked black politicians, crooked white politicians, and Civil Rights marches. That's a subject I could go on about for days and possibly double my post count in a week.

Get the hell outta here. I grew up in Hilliard and my mom still lives there. I gradauted in '89 before all the farms were sold and all the cheap housing went up. Small world. I wonder if I know any of your relatives. Hilliard was small back in the day and everybody knew everybody.

edit - sorry went off topic.... :)

[Jason McCullough]

That link with O'Reilly and Glick? I can completely understand O'Reilly's behavior. How do you respond to someone who thinks George Bush trained the 9/11 bombers?

He didn't say Bush trained the 9/11 bombers; he said George Bush's father trained the afghan Mujahadeen. One of the mujahadeen was bin Laden; bin Laden was behind the bombing. It's true that the bombers themselves weren't trained by the CIA, but he didn't say that. The guy behind them, bin Laden, sure was.

(edited for brevity)

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...
GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...
GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.
O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.
GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?
O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!
GLICK: So what about George Bush?
O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.
GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.
O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.
GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...
O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...
GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

[Brad Grenz]

I'm pretty that a "friend of the working man" wouldn't tell the son of someone who died in the WTC to shut up (http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2003_02_02.html#000159).

Some people really should shut up, and I think O'Reilly had every right to rethink giving that man time on national television. I'm sure there are all sorts of horrible people related to victims of 9/11.

[XPav]

But I just love the way O'Reilly does cut him off...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?
O'REILLY: Shut up! Shut up!
GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.
O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...
GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...
O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...
GLICK: ... not the people of America.
O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...
GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.
O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.
But then, O'Reilly, Hannity, Druge, Limbaugh, et al are good at cutting mics (http://www.scoobiedavis.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_scoobiedavis_archive.html#90998547).

edit: And a funny joke that I just thought up:

Q: Why don't you hear about liberal talk show hosts muting callers?
A: Because there ARE no liberal talk show hosts!

Hah! Hah!

[Jason McCullough]

Hilarious. He's a "horrible person" for pointing out something that's perfectly true.

[Brad Grenz]

I didn't say he was horrible, I just pointed out tha being a relative of a victim isn't some magical, all encompassing pass for bad behavior for the rest of your life. You may wish to commit to the ideal that no one related to a WTC victim should ever be told to shut up, but I think that's just a naive bit of rhetoric on your part.

[Met_K]

Let's all start a fund to get Jason on The O'Reilly Factor. Now that would be entertainment.

[Jason McCullough]

Uh, so let's back up here:

Relative of guy who died in WTC goes on the air.
Relative says perfectly accurate things about Afghanistan & the CIA, in addiiton to editorializing that he doesn't see a need to invade Afghanistan.
O'Reilly blows a fucking gasket, calling him a disgrace to his family, etc.

In response to this, you say:

Some people really should shut up, and I think O'Reilly had every right to rethink giving that man time on national television. I'm sure there are all sorts of horrible people related to victims of 9/11.

Because, you know, O'Reilly made a mistake giving him national television airtime, what with him being absolutely correct on the facts and furthermore possessing the opinion that one-third to one-half of the country does. How dare he!

And what was "all sorts of horrible people" about, then, if you weren't implying he was? Just a non-sequitor?

[Brad Grenz]

My statement made no value judgement. I said that O'Reilly can put on or take people off the air if he so chooses. It sounded to me that he was more concerned with his own reaction than stifling that Click's voice. So he showed some restraint and put an end to it.

What I took issue with was the way you try to spin the fact that he told a relative of a victim to shut up. You've taken the absurd position that such a thing is unacceptable.

As to Glicks comments themselves, to each his own. I think had it continued Glick was well on his way to blaming that act of terrorism on the Bush administration, which is frankly absurd. The CIA "trained" and armed those "extremists", well you could say that. Or you could say we support revolutionary fighters in their struggle against tyrrany. It turned around and blew up in our face, that's for sure, and that's gratitude for you. Glick seemed to think that made 9/11 the Bush families fault. O'Reilly thinks that's an obscene distortion of reality, and I tend to in his direction. Afghanistan may have been mishandled, but people in the developing world have completely unrealistic expectations of America. For all we know we could have gotten into nationbuilding once the Soviets had been defeated, and still gotten a black eye from extremists who were demanding our complete withdrawal of presense in Afghanistan. It's that Damned if you Do, Damned if you don't think that's been haunting the US for a while.

[steve]

My statement made no value judgement. I said that O'Reilly can put on or take people off the air if he so chooses. It sounded to me that he was more concerned with his own reaction than stifling that Click's voice. So he showed some restraint and put an end to it.
The issue is that O'Reilly does this all the time with anyone who dares hold a different opinion or points out his own errors or logical fallacies. If he's going to have a "debate" show, he should actually debate, not cut off mics and tell people to shut up.

If you brought a guy on your show to give a certain point of view, let the guy say what he wants to say then tear it apart. Otherwise, what's the point of having him on in the first place? The guy had, up to that point, restated facts. If his conclusion was, "The CIA is to blame for 9/11," that's when you go after that statement.

[Stroker Ace]

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/001498.html

On Thursday night, the Fox News talk host Bill O'Reilly, used the word "wetback" as he fumbled for the word "coyote" to describe smugglers who transport illegal immigrants over the border.

Mr. O'Reilly returned a call to say: "I was groping for a term to describe the industry that brings people in here. It was not meant to disparage people in any way."

Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, whom Mr. O'Reilly was interviewing when the word slipped out, said in a statement: "Of course, he didn't intend to say it. But the fact that 'wetback' is a part of his vocabulary and slipped out is a clear sign of where his views fall."

[Ben Sones]

O'Reilly is a hypocritical dork. This columnist (http://www.msnbc.com/news/856672.asp?vts=061820030450) gets it about right...

[curst]

The issue is that O'Reilly does this all the time with anyone who dares hold a different opinion or points out his own errors or logical fallacies. If he's going to have a "debate" show, he should actually debate, not cut off mics and tell people to shut up.

Actually, I'd dispute that. Not to defend O'Reilly in this particular case (or, really, him in general since I can't stand the way he and many other talk show hosts argue), but part of why this particular case is so unusual is that, well, it's unusual. He does not "do this all the time", making a habit out of cutting people off, telling them to shut up. His show is basically like Crossfire - a bunch of people shouting straw-man arguments at each other. Generally his guests give as good as they get from him, which accomplishes nothing but can sometimes provide pretty good entertainment. (I'll admit that one of my favorite radio segments EVER was hearing Al Sharpton and Sean Hannity going at it on Sean's radio show - it was kind of bewildering but undeniably funny.)

Again, this was an example of O'Reilly really flipping the fuck out! And I think that's the issue here - that neither he nor anyone else I've seen normally resorts to this sort of stuff.

[curst]

Heh... my stupid ass just read XPav's link. Okay, so let me clarify - on O'Reilly's TV show, he doesn't make it a point of cutting mics and telling people to shut up. Maybe his radio show is a whole different ballgame.

[Jason McCullough]

As to Glicks comments themselves, to each his own. I think had it continued Glick was well on his way to blaming that act of terrorism on the Bush administration, which is frankly absurd.

Well *I* think he was about to invite Bill over to the house for some ice cream. God knows it's about as likely; mind reading is fun!