Another reason to hate Torre - chatting with Bill O'Reilly? Really?

And, Cashman? I had more respect for him before I knew he talked with that dirtbag.

Hmm. Didn't know Yankee Stadium served falafels.

Jim: Yeah; reason #62,874 to dislike the Yankees.

You're kidding, right Jim?

I am no Bill-O supporter, but if your respect for people is affected by who they're seen chatting with in the press, you're going to be disappointed a lot.

O'Reilly was sitting one section over from me behind the visiting dugout at the Friday Dbacks-Mets game a few days back (the Webb-Maine game, 5-1 Arizona win). He looked just as vacuous and drugged out in real life as he does on TV, and was long gone by the time Drew's home run made the game a formality.

Well Erik this is Bill-O we're talking about - he is about as bad as it gets.

And actually, I respect Torre quite a lot, but what is that moron doing on the field anyway? Doing a story about the homo-erotic overtones of the Jetes/A-Rod flap from last year?

And actually, I respect Torre quite a lot, but what is that moron doing on the field anyway? Doing a story about the homo-erotic overtones of the Jetes/A-Rod flap from last year?

Naw; probably saying that A-Rod being a great player is a myth perpetrated by George Soros.

I figured O'Reilly would be big buddies with Tim Wakefield since they both hate "spin."

Goodnight, everybody!

#1 - What an unconscionably silly, benighted sentiment. And I say that as a someone who yields to no man in their dislike of O'Reilly and his gasbag, cynical, faux-populism.

#7 - I'll admit it, I smiled.

What should Torre have done, turned away without a word?

Please- I'm no O'Reilly fan, but to be polite to him on the field is to Torre's and Cashman's credit.

I'm just pleased the Yankees have the good sense to credential me and not him for access.

There, he was seen chatting with Joe Torre and GM Brian Cashman.

Known as The No WS-pin Zone, of course.

At my past job, one of the speakers at a conference we were hosting had agreed to be on O'Reilly's radio show 20 minutes before his speech. I was around to make sure nothing went wrong with the telephone feed, etc. Of course, someone calls the line we were using and after I explained to call another line, I went to switch back to the one in which we had already connected to O'Reilly shows. Of course, the guest, also tried to do that at the same time and the lines got crossed and I got to hang up on O'Reilly.

The guest told me not to panic - he didn't care whether he went on the air or not - but O'Reilly's people called back about a minute before the interview was supposed to start frantically trying to locate him.

This guest was awesome, by the way. I'm not going to identify him - but he's been my favorite person in the television media since I was in high school.

The guest told me not to panic - he didn't care whether he went on the air or not - but O'Reilly's people called back about a minute before the interview was supposed to start frantically trying to locate him.

Probably an intern who knew he/she would get crucified by O'Reilly if he didn't get your speaker on the phone in time for him.

O'Reilly had some good advice for Torre on how to keep his lineup from leaning so far to the left.

It could have been worse. Lou Dobbs would have dropped a dime on Posada, Rodriguez, Abreu, Cabrera, Cano, Rivera, Cairo, and Vizcaino.

If only O'Reilly had gone up to the Yankees booth and screamed at Michael Kay and Suzy Waldman. "Shut up! Cut his mike! SHUT UP! CUT HIS MIKE!"

If only O'Reilly had gone up to the Yankees booth and screamed at Michael Kay and Suzy Waldman. "Shut up! Cut his mike! SHUT UP! CUT HIS MIKE!"

You have to say "Keith Olbermann" to O'Reilly for that reaction.

Suzy Waldman. "Shut up! Cut his mike! SHUT UP! CUT HIS MIKE!"

Cool!...O'Reilly and Waldman are taking Man of La Mantra on the road!

If only O'Reilly had gone up to the Yankees booth and screamed at Michael Kay and Suzy Waldman. "Shut up! Cut his mike! SHUT UP! CUT HIS MIKE!"

You have to say "Keith Olbermann" to O'Reilly for that reaction.

Looking at their ratings, I bet Keith daydreams more about cutting BOR's mic than O'Reilly does about Olbermann.

Looking at their ratings, I bet Keith daydreams more about cutting BOR's mic than O'Reilly does about Olbermann.

And yet, O'Reilly is the one who did cut the mike and send Fox security after the caller who said "Keith Olbermann" on his radio show....

Torre and Cashman told O'Reilly that being a secular progressive is better than being a fatuous Pharisee.

Conservative Bad!
Liberal Good!
Me enlightened!

<grunt, grunt>

And yet, O'Reilly is the one who did cut the mike and send Fox security after the caller who said "Keith Olbermann" on his radio show....

While I wouldn't be shocked if BOR was that thin-skinned, is there actual proof that the only thing the caller said was O'Reilly's name? If not, it's just "he said-he said."

I have no hate for Bill O'Reilly. That would be to his advantage, he wants you to love or hate him, either way it makes him relevant. I prefer to ignore him.

I prefer to ignore him.

That's what I normally do. Too populist for my own tastes.

Looking at their ratings, I bet Keith daydreams more about cutting BOR's mic than O'Reilly does about Olbermann.

Those are the same ratings that show American Idol is the best TV show on the air.

While I wouldn't be shocked if BOR was that thin-skinned, is there actual proof that the only thing the caller said was O'Reilly's name? If not, it's just "he said-he said."

They've played the call several times on Howard Stern, and that's all there is. The caller was cut off one syllable after saying the O-word.

Here's the transcript:
Mike: "I like to listen to you during the day. I think Keith Olbermann's show--"

[Mike is disconnected.]

O'Reilly: "Mike is... he's a gone guy. You know, we have his, we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit."

O'Reilly's Co-Host: "Maybe Mike is from the mothership."

O'Reilly: "Mike is going to get into big trouble, because we're not going to play around. When you call us, ladies and gentlemen, just so you know, we do have your phone number. And if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security will then contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?"

Conservative Bad!
Liberal Good!
Me enlightened!

<grunt, grunt>

Conservativsm and Liberalism have nothing to do with the fact that O'Reilly is an idiotic blowhard.

Arguing about O'Reilly vs. Olberman's ratings is like arguing who should be the Royals All-Star. They each get fewer viewers than "Spongebob Squarepants" or "Seinfeld" reruns.

While I wouldn't be shocked if BOR was that thin-skinned, is there actual proof that the only thing the caller said was O'Reilly's name? If not, it's just "he said-he said."

Uhh... Check Youtube. Also, it was O'Reilly that cut off a caller who said Olbermann's name. Not the other way around.

Conservativsm and Liberalism have nothing to do with the fact that O'Reilly is an idiotic blowhard.

How dare you rain on his self-pity party like that!

They've played the call several times on Howard Stern, and that's all there is. The caller was cut off one syllable after saying the O-word.

Here's the transcript:
Mike: "I like to listen to you during the day. I think Keith Olbermann's show--"

[Mike is disconnected.]

O'Reilly: "Mike is... he's a gone guy. You know, we have his, we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit."

O'Reilly's Co-Host: "Maybe Mike is from the mothership."

O'Reilly: "Mike is going to get into big trouble, because we're not going to play around. When you call us, ladies and gentlemen, just so you know, we do have your phone number. And if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security will then contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?"

The problem that I see with this is that, since all radio shows utilize a 5- or 10-second delay, the caller might have still said something to O'Reilly that didn't make it on the air. Whether or not it was a criminal or civil matter is another story, of course.

The problem that I see with this is that, since all radio shows utilize a 5- or 10-second delay, the caller might have still said something to O'Reilly that didn't make it on the air.

Yes, I guess we'll never truly know for certain whether Bill O'Reilly is thin-skinned, or whether he did the right thing. The full, unredacted comment from Mike the Caller might well have been "I think Keith Olbermann's show-- f*ck, sh*t, anthrax, kill the President, heroin for babies, vote Sanjaya."

the person who made the call was mike stark. google him and o'reilly.

based on stark's comments at the time, and o'reilly's paranoia, i have little doubt that nothing else was said.

but the 'biggest' talk radio programs have been screening their callers for years and years.

Bill O'Reilly is great. It's fun reading through the knee-jerk groupthink reactions here anytime a conservative's name is simply mentioned, and O'Reilly is not a strict conservative.

Bill O'Reilly... Curt Schilling... Dale Murphy... what do you parrots think about these guys?

Cheerleaders for a phony war tend to bring out the worst in us kooky libs from the Democrat party.

A few weeks ago I saw O'Reilly remark that he now considered the war to be a mistake, and was really quite critical. Now I only catch a few minutes of his TV show here and there (maybe 15 minutes per week, on average), and I've never listened to his radio show, but that doesn't seem too cheerleaderish to me. He strikes me as very opinionated, but generally reasonable, the latter of which is more than can be said for the BTF populace. (The former, not so much.)

The full, unredacted comment from Mike the Caller might well have been "I think Keith Olbermann's show-- f*ck, sh*t, anthrax, kill the President, heroin for babies, vote Sanjaya."

Especially the last part of your sentence. ;-)

Now I only catch a few minutes of his TV show here and there (maybe 15 minutes per week, on average), and I've never listened to his radio show, but that doesn't seem too cheerleaderish to me.

The war's unpopular now.

He strikes me as very opinionated, but generally reasonable, the latter of which is more than can be said for the BTF populace. (The former, not so much.)

If you think O'Reilly is reasonable, then I'm glad you don't think I am.

If you think O'Reilly is reasonable, then I'm glad you don't think I am.

A recent example of O'Reilly's reasonability, discussing the Bush-sponsored immigration bill:

"On the other side, you have people who hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men. Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men, and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure. So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion -- pardon the pun -- of America. Now, that's hatred, too."

A few weeks ago I saw O'Reilly remark that he now considered the war to be a mistake, and was really quite critical.

Only about 4 years behind the curve. Bravo, Bill-O! Remember in 2003, when the blithering gasbag was touting a boycott of all French products (FREEDOM FRIES FOR EVERYONE!) because France (like everyone else with more than seven brain cells) knew the war was ######## and called the Bushies on it.

You got egg on yer face, Bill-O!

I don't know which O'Reilly clip I like more, this one or this one.

Um, whether you like O'Reilly or Bush or not, Corn on Ty Cobb, the french had been bribed to vote the way they did. I don't know if they still have the magical seven brain cells but they sure had some bank accounts with seven figures!

Yes, the French were bribed! The US government says so, so it must be true!

Well I haven't heard everything that O'Reilly has to say (and mind you, he sure has a lot to say), and I definitely will not put myself in the position of having to defend his positions. But I've found him interesting and not too objectionable. I see why he is unpopular with liberals, but I don't see why he is so villified.

So although you don't want to defend his positions, you're willing to say he's "great" and denounce any dislike of him to "knee-jerk groupthink reactions."

You may have a future in right-wing punditry.

O'Reilly comes off as a bully. But he is mildly entertaining. The person I hate is hannity

"It's fun reading through the knee-jerk groupthink reactions here anytime a conservative's name is simply mentioned," heh right, it's funny

I actually hadn't heard that before (honestly)
I'm curious as to who bribed them?
Did they bribe Chretien in Canada too?

Funny stuff, Danny. If you parse the back and forth, O'Reilly never actually takes legitimate issue with the Colonel's statements, he only impugns her character, creates strawmen, misinterprets, and so on. As for the quote in 39,

On the other side, you have people who hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men.

A difficult argument to sustain. Proof would help.

Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men,

Difficult to argue with this, though "professed Christian men" is more accurate.

and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure.

Highly simplisitic. At any rate, one might reasonably object to such a, or any such, concentration of power. Notice that O'Reilly attempts to conflate a hatred of a type of power structure with hatred of America, and he only refers to "hates," not "objects to", or "would like to see a more equitable or representative distribution of power".

So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion -- pardon the pun -- of America. Now, that's hatred, too.

A thoroughly bizarre leap. These unspecified haters of America, pretending compassion, are now promoting completely open borders in order to flood American with non-Whites, said influx which will, I guess, do much to overthrow the white, Christian male power structure.

I'd be curious to know whom, exactly, O'Reilly would argue wants this.

Someone who finds O'Reilly generally reasonable isn't listening to him, isn't parsing his claims and arguments, isn't paying attention. I don't know, really, what to say to people who think he makes general good sense. Take a logic course? Listen more closely?

1) Bill O'Reilly is a d-bag. He's also about as representative of rational, moderate, conservative thought as Al Sharpton is of rational, moderate, liberal thought.

2) Can we please stop throwing around terms like liberal, conservative, Democrat, and Republican, stop using them as a smokescreen, and treat each other with some f-cking respect? God forbid you have an opinion and an idea that has some rational, thoughtful basis behind it. "Oh god he is a liberal he must believe that abortion is right and therefore he believes babies come from storks." It's stupid, it makes you look stupid, and it pisses me the hell off. So please stop it.

3) The French government was against the war for a variety of reasons. But to believe that they were against the war purely for ethical reasons, and that they all had the foresight to know that Iraq would turn into a huge fiasco, is just as naive as believing that the United States government was purely for the war because Iraq was "WMD-Mart" and had ties to Al Qaeda. Yes, I'm more than certain that there were portions of the French government (and the French populace) who were against the invasion purely because of the aforementioned reasons, but you'd be hard-pressed to make me believe that the French government wasn't aware that they were making huge amounts of money from Saddam or that at least part of them didn't want to change the status quo because of it. I hate to break it to you people, but sometimes people can have more than one motivation for doing something, and it is the weight of the multitude that brings them to a decision, not just one reason alone.

Conservative Bad!
Liberal Good!
Me enlightened!

<grunt, grunt>

Project your feelings much?

#50 reflects my opinions perfectly. thanks.

#50 reflects my opinions perfectly. thanks.

It's so typical of people like you to say that.

It's so typical of people like you to say that.

GROUPTHINK!!!!

Anyone that's bemoaning the coarseness of modern political discourse and rampant disrespect for the viewpoins of others:

1)apparently has little background in US History

and

2)would do well to get the Limbaughs, O'Reillys, Hannitys, and Coulters off the air. Sure - bring up the Frankens, the Markoses, etc all you want -- if you look at the timeline, you'll see the rise of the 'angry nasty left' is much newer phenomenon than that on the other side of the spectrum. Speaking from the left, you'll pardon us if we're no longer bringing debate cards into what the Limbaughs/O'Rellys/etc have turned into a knife fight.

Anyone that's bemoaning the coarseness of modern political discourse and rampant disrespect for the viewpoins of others:

1)apparently has little background in US History

and

2)would do well to get the Limbaughs, O'Reillys, Hannitys, and Coulters off the air. Sure - bring up the Frankens, the Markoses, etc all you want -- if you look at the timeline, you'll see the rise of the 'angry nasty left' is much newer phenomenon than that on the other side of the spectrum. Speaking from the left, you'll pardon us if we're no longer bringing debate cards into what the Limbaughs/O'Rellys/etc have turned into a knife fight.

Zonk, anyone with a background in US history would also know that the current incarnation of the "angry nasty left" is the lineal descendent of many other generations of angry, nasty leftists. Try checking out the Communist rhetoric of the early 1930's or the Hitler-Stalin pact eras, or the "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" faction of the anti-war movement. The targets are different but the hatred is every bit as intense.

No question that the nativist right wing can call and raise the left in terms of viciousness in pretty much every period, including this one. But that's less a case of "quality" and more a matter of quantity (as in hours of airtime), and because of the fact that the nativists' appeal dovetails so easily with commonplace prejudices against various minorities. In this regard I'm afraid that the ratings don't lie.

Zonk, anyone with a background in US history would also know that the current incarnation of the "angry nasty left" is the lineal descendent of many other generations of angry, nasty leftists. Try checking out the Communist rhetoric of the early 1930's or the Hitler-Stalin pact eras, or the "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" faction of the anti-war movement. The targets are different but the hatred is every bit as intense.

I would say a key differene is that none of the 'angry left' you mentioned were exactly courted/given access by their nominative 'party'... Limbaugh on the other hand has received a medal from Congress. Ann Coulter was a keynoter at CPAC.

There's a degree of legitamacy that has been bestowed upon the Limbaughs, O'Reillys, HAnnitys, and Coulters that the communists in the 30s or the hippies in the 60s never enjoyed. You can say that's a function of modern media and communications more than anything, but the fact remains....

No argument with any of that, Zonk. My post was simply addressing the nastiness factor, not the relative degrees of success in infiltrating major institutions. If the Communists and their fellow travelers had ever infiltrated the government or the media to one-fiftieth the extent that the various dittoheads have worked their way into the woodwork of the Bush Administration and talk radio, the House Committee on Un-American Activities would have been holding hearings on a 24/7/365 basis.

But you have to admire the right wing for the way that they've packaged their product and marketed it. They've introduced just enough pidgin populist points in their rhetoric to let them get away with hiding their much bigger agenda largely under the radar.

The hows and whys of all that are likely the subject of a few hundred academic studies, which is unfortunately what liberals mainly engage themselves in instead of organizing serious counterforces.

... I hasten to add -

Until the realignment of the 60 and 70s (i.e., Dixiecrat split), the equation was never a simple Democract = liberal, Republication = Conservative, either... I had to laugh at Zell Miller's rant during the 2004 GOP convention -- Thomas Dewey didn't attack FDR's policies because he happened to AGREE with most of 'em! You could make a pretty good argument that Dewey was actually to the LEFT of FDR in 44, and he was almost certainly to the left of Truman in 48.

<blockquote>But you have to admire the right wing for the way that they've packaged their product and marketed it. They've introduced just enough pidgin populist points in their rhetoric to let them get away with hiding their much bigger agenda largely under the radar. <blockquote>

Oh, no doubt -- I absolutely do the same way a Rommel admires a Patton or a Patton admires a Rommel. I don't worship at the alter of a Markos Moulitsas - but he makes some great points in Crashing the Gate --- namely, that the Democrats would be wise to ape the infrastructure that the GOP set up for themselves... beyond just the media/communications components, the think tanks, financially supporting their best and brightest in the realm of policy studiess, media usage, etc.

Borat: "One day my retard brother Bill-O break out of his cage and he get...that..."

I hate to break it to you people, but sometimes people can have more than one motivation for doing something, and it is the weight of the multitude that brings them to a decision, not just one reason alone.

If your premise took root, it could destroy the exercise of politics as we know it. Why do you hate America?