O'Reilly v. Reality
Bill O'Reilly just commented on the dustup between himself and Al Franken, saying that Franken wasn't worth listening to because (his list) he almost got into a fight with Sean Hannity, he "verbally assaulted" Alan Colmes (both of which are on my lifetime's "to-do" list) and because he called Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot in the title of a book. Look: if Franken almost got into a fistfight with Hannity, that means that Hannity almost got into a fistfight with Franken. Logic says that Hannity was probably at least as guilty as Franken, then. As for Alan Colmes, his whole job is to sit still and call himself a liberal while Hannity verbally assaults him, so he shouldn't get all pissy when someone calls him (my words) a pansy-assed dipshit who gives not only liberals but American manhood itself a bad name.
The weirdest thing, though, is that O'Reilly is mad because Franken called Limbaugh a few bad things, especially when two of those things (at the time) could be proven empirically with either a scale or an extra long tape measure. I don't remember O'Reilly saying that Limbaugh couldn't be taken seriously because he called Tom Daschle the Devil, Robert Reich a dwarf and Chelsea Clinton a dog. Funny how that works.
Finally, he said that in six-and-a-half years of doing his show, only two people have called him a liar. That may be so, (although Atrios shows that this time his lies are easily proven) but many people have questioned his integrity. Remember when he called for a Pepsi boycott and then, when libs were boycotting things they didn't like, he said they didn't believe in the First Amendment and refused to admit that he had done the same thing? O'Reilly is a perfect example of the neocon approach to argument: Say whatevery you want and hope that no one holds you to anything. I for one am glad that there are people like Al Franken out there to call a liar a liar. If you want, you can order your copy of his new book right now.