'Just 'Cause You're Louder Doesn't Mean You're Right'

J$P Video! Bill O'Reilly appears on The View!

From The View, October 18, 2006:

A clip from Mr Bill's raucous session with Rosie O'Donnell et al. Talk of Oprah's guest list then swerves into the debate on gay marriage [QuickTime video]:

posted: Wed - October 18, 2006 at 01:19 PM j$p send

Fox Fan
Rosie has no room to talk about being loud. I watched the portion of the show with O'Reilly in entirety. Rosie's shrieking never stops; The View is God-awful daytime talk garbage. I'm off to bleach my eyeballs now.
October 18, 2006, 2:25:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Well, she was certainly correct about O'Reilly having more conservatives on. Media Matters took out a survey of all guests and how they self-identified themselves on O'Reilly program when they came on. 66% Republican. But oh wait, they took money from Soros, it must be a lie even if they provide an exact listing, SOROS COMMUNISTS!

God, you people are pathetic. Want to take any bets out on how many conservatives he'll have on tonight? And better yet, Hannity % Colmes. I'll make a bet here, right here and now, that Hannity & Colmes will have at least 2 more conservatives than liberals on tonight, if they haven't any liberals on at all. And if they do, it'll only be Bob Beckel or Kirsten Powers, or that Laura Schwartz character, or better yet "I hate Democrats" Pat Caddell. Because sock puppet liberals are the only ones allowed on, and of course the Trojan Horse so-called Democrats like Zell Miller, Ed Koch or Pat Caddell.

Anyone like to place any bets?
October 19, 2006, 9:51:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
By the way, just last night Hannity excluded Democrats from the debate in favor of 5 Republican including Ken Melhman, and excluded discussion of the Mark Foley scandal or Curt Weldon's corruption probe. Instead they brought on 5 Republicans and sat around talking about Democratic "sex scandals", including the fact that Democratic gubernatorial candidate once hired a man who later exposed himself to children, for he was fired (instantly), unlike Republican who allow them to continue to operate.
October 19, 2006, 10:03:24 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Oh gee, Hannity excluded Democrats? You mean, he didn't let Alan Colmes on the set? Besides which, you are factually wrong. There were several Democrat guests on last night's program. So it would help if you got your facts straight.

As for the "studies" by Media Matters, their "list" of O'Reilly guests is as skewed as their website. Proof? Here:

http://johnnydollar.us/2004a/C1049953760/E20060525012119/index.html
October 19, 2006, 10:56:01 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Ira
If I remember correctly, the discussion on the upcoming election on H&C had three guests: Democrats Pat Caddell & Bob Beckel and only one Republican, the head of the Virginia GOP.

And they held over that 2:1 Dem ratio for two segments!
October 19, 2006, 12:09:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Pat Caddell ISN"T a Democrat, and YOU KNOW IT. He defended Republicans during the Terri Schiavo fiasco, when the ENTIRE COUNTRY was against government intervention. BS. He's not a Democrat, he's a Zell Miller ex-Democrat who uses Fox News to vent. And by the way, the presence of Dennis Miller on H&C is evidence of its bias right there. Think they would let Lewis Black do comedy routines? Doubt it.

And anyone here who thinks that no matter what the ratio of conservative to liberal guests is on H&C, it'll always be "fair and balanced" as long as Colmes is there, you are a complete idiot. Honestly. Hannity PICKED Colmes to be his co-host, which Fox News admitted, since Hannity didn't want to have to deal with any real liberals who are actually tough in defending their ideas. Alan Colmes is just a walking strawman argument.

By the way, would anyone like to count up the guests tonight and the topics they'll be discussing? Something makes me doubt you guys are up for that. Might make fools out of yourself when you see the endless stream of conservatives coming on. Hell, we could count Cavuto's and Gibson's guests too.
October 19, 2006, 12:58:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
By the way, that post did not debunk Media Matters. You entirely proved that you can win the debate on the actual 50/50 split of Fox News guests unless you actually list who is conservative and who is liberal. You don't rely on "what the discussion is about". That would serve for another study. Fox News claims it is 50/50 when it comes to its guests. Linda Chavez is a conservative, counting her as a liberal because of one position she takes when she comes the O'Reilly Factor is absurd and you know it, just like it would be absurd for CNN to bring on Bob Casey Jr. for a discussion about how abortion will play out as a subject in the midterm elections opposite Rick Santorum and claim they're both conservatives. They're not, just because Casey happens to be pro-life.
October 19, 2006, 1:02:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
"Alan Colmes is just a walking strawman argument."

Attacking Alan Colmes is the last refuge of the Fox hater. I've asked this question dozens of times, and nobody has ever had the courage to respond, but maybe you will. What are the major policy or political issues on which Alan Colmes does not take the liberal position?

> You don't rely on "what the discussion is about".

Well, I didn't rely on "what the discussion is about" either. But unlike MM, I told the truth about who these people were and didn't lie about their philosophies just to serve a phony "survey". And any survey that is doctored to reach a pre-determined result is phony.
October 19, 2006, 1:24:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Any survey at all by MM about Fox is phony. It's like taking a survey about Iraq from Cindy Sheehan's Peace Moms. Either one is guaranteed to get the result the surveyor wants. MM finding only 66% conservative guests on O'Reilly is a surprise, considering the source. Their survey error margins are + or - total irrelevance.
October 19, 2006, 1:39:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Oh, but a survey from Brent Bozzell and the MRC is accurate right? In no way pre-determined right? Give me a break. You can't deal with the substance or metholodyg used by Media Matters, all you can do is whine that they are liberal and therefore must be liars.

As for Alan Colmes, why isn't he a real liberal? We'll, let's see:

1.) He endorsed and voted for Rudy Guiliani for governor of NYC
2.) He defended Trent Lott from accusations of racism after the Strom Thurmond birthday remarks, ignoring Lott's ties to the CCC, a white supremacist group in the South
3.) He told USA/Today (it was either that or Time magazine) that he's "actually quite moderate, centrist"
4.) Sean Hannity PICKED Alan Colmes himself to be his co-host, and Fox originally listed the H&C Show to be "Aggressive Conservative and 'Liberal to be determined'"

Alan Colmes was chosen because he's a push over and anyone with any shred of common sense who isn't virulently partisan can see that. A geeky, thin guy with a low voice, glasses and almost gaunt looking. Perfect counterpart for heroic, good-looking Sean Hannity to argue against.

And are you going to sit here and deny that the H&C Show focuses narrowly on conservative topics? For example, what specials have they done? Illegal immigration, "outrageous left-wing professors in academia", attack John Murtha and Cindy Sheehan ongoing specials. Can you name any H&C specials about poverty, or homelessness, the mounting deficit, the failures in Iraq, etc....?

Nope. Also, would you like to accept the challenge of counting up O'Reilly and H&C's political guests tonight? Doubt it.
October 19, 2006, 2:07:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I'm going to ignore all the copy-and-pasted nonsense and just see if I can get a straight answer to one question. let's try it one more time...what are the major political or philosophical issues on which Alan Colmes does not take the liberal position?
October 19, 2006, 2:49:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Did I mention Brent Bozell? You're diverting because you know MM surveys are irrelevant.

Colmes has a liberal talk show, The Alan Colmes Show. Colmes wrote the book Red, White, and Liberal: How Left is Right and Right is Wrong. Colmes is on top of every liberal talking point in every debate.

Your say that Fox originally listed the show as "Aggressive Conservative and 'Liberal to be determined'". This was when Hannity was already chosen and Colme's spot had not yet been filled, hence 'to be determined'. Your point means nothing. Of course Hannity chose Colmes, it's Hannity's show.

Are you also saying that Colmes doesn't mention "the failures in Iraq"? You should watch the show if you're going to make outrageous claims like that.

For your challenge, even if I did count up the political guests tonight you wouldn't accept the findings. It would be a continuation of nitpicking like "he/she is not a real liberal". More interesting would be if both of us did it and compared numbers.
October 19, 2006, 2:52:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
By "cut and paste nonsense", I guess you mean you want to dodge the fact that Colmes was brought on to serve as a wimp liberal who will not act aggressively instead of actual Democrats who can debate issues, Franken, Begala, ect...

As for "Of course, it's Hannity's show..." So you admit that Hannity & Colmes is run by Sean Hannity? Good, now that we've got that out of our way, you're admitting it's biased?

You call MM surveys irrelevant. Why's that? Because you don't like their findings? Seems like it. You were utterly unable to refute it. YOu just brushed it off. Pathetic response.

How can you admit that it's Hannity's show, and then pretend that it's 50/50? Are you stupid? Are you joking? Sean Hannity chose Colmes because Colmes does not put up a fight and we all know it. Both of you dodged literally every single thing I noted.

Name:
1.) A campaign H&C has gone on that had a liberal theme to it, the way their illegal immigration, 'outrageous liberal professors in academia', 'WMD allegedly found in Iraq', 'Murtha is a traitor', 'Sheehan is a traitor' campaigns played out? Name one. You can't.
2.) Prove MM wrong by listing their guests for a whole week and count up all of the liberals and conservatives.
3.) Observe the biased headlines on each and every show alleging Democratic mischief or Republican heavenliness
4.) Name a single Democratic author who was brought onto H&C in the last month to talk about his hot new book, the way conservatives are brought on every week, whether it's David Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Mike Gallagher, WSJ/NRO authors, talk radio show hosts and right-wing columnists

Admit it, Colmes is a kiss up to conservatives, he's a walking strawman argument. The only Dems ever brought onto the show are Bob Beckel, Laura Schwartz and Kristen Powers, period. Newt Gingrich probably gets more airtime than both of them combined.
October 19, 2006, 3:08:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
I never said I wouldn't count up the numbers, btw. I'll watch tonight and do it myself. I already know Katherine Harris is going to be on. H&C is doing a Republican campaign for the rest of the month trying to boost Republican candidates. Diane Irey. Michael Steele. Tom Kean Jr. Nancy Pelosi's challenger last night. They're absolutely desperate to give Republicans as much airtime as possible. Alan Colmes throws softballs at them in a weasely little soft voice.

Not a single Democrat running for office yet.
October 19, 2006, 3:10:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> Colmes was brought on to serve as a wimp liberal

Right. What are those key issues again where Colmes does not take the liberal position? Third time I've asked, and apparently, once again, the Fox haters do not have the courage to give an honest reply. I only ask three times, however, and if you duck the question a third time I'll assume you just can't answer it. An odd situation, given the confidence of all your cut-and-paste from MM, such as:

>Fox originally listed the H&C Show to be "Aggressive Conservative and 'Liberal to be determined'"

Fox never listed the H&C show as such. See, this is the problem you have when you cut-and-paste a headline from MM and don't realize that you are swallowing propaganda rather than truth.
October 19, 2006, 3:37:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Actually that was from "FAIR", not MM, so obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. Colmes is ideologically a liberal if you wish to call him that, but obviously his heart isn't in it. You duck and dodge inconvenient facts about Colmes being chosen specifically because Fox knew he wouldn't put up a fight, and you simultaneously ignore about a dozen points I make in previous posts, and then you whine because I refuse to answer whether Colmes is a clear-cut liberal? Who's to say he is? His positions are wishy-washy on most things. He hasn't developed a very consistent philosophy on air. I don't know his position on half the topics at hand. Partly because Hannity has more air time and more speaking time than Colmes does, and most interviews are on conservative topics because most guests are conservatives, not 50/50, and thus they spend most of their time talking about conservative outrages of the week.

Colmes is a just a pushover Hannity handpicked because he knew he would be a pushover. Hannity's a coward without the guts to face off against a real liberal pundit.
October 19, 2006, 5:33:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
By the way, I proudly wear the title "Fox hater". I love how you right-wing nuts love to use titles like "bush basher" or "Fox hater" as though that somehow diminishes our argument. In 2004 Rasmussen took out a poll that showed about 34% of Americans believed Fox was biased towards Bush, and Pew took out one showing 38% thought it was biased towards Bush. Those were years ago. Undoubtedly by now either a plurality or majority recognize Fox as the most biased name in news. That it has higher ratings does not mean anything since studies show clearly that conservatives enjoy cable media more than Democrats, and that about 80% of Fox's audience is self-identified Republican.
October 19, 2006, 5:35:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> I don't know his position on half the topics at hand.

Bingo!

> Actually that was from "FAIR", not MM

Bingo again! I knew it wasn't from a primary source, since your statement was blatantly false, and you haven't even attempted to claim otherwise. I prefer to deal in truth.

> Colmes being chosen specifically because Fox knew he wouldn't put up a fight

Where did you pick up this gem from, DailyKos? Document it. Who said so?

> a poll that showed about 34%...

FNC doesn't get 34% of Americans as viewers. NO cable station does. So a poll of the ignorant is cited as proof by the uninformed? Wow. Impressive.

> 80% of Fox's audience is self-identified Republican.

Source? Documentation?

> I proudly wear the title "Fox hater"

Why am I not surprised?
October 19, 2006, 5:51:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Source? Fox has admitted as much. Bill O'Reilly draws 87% conservatives, more than Rush Limbaugh, which he noted on The Factor once.

Also, you're an idiot if you think everyone in this country hasn't turned on Fox at least once. Just because, at any given day of the week, 33% isn't watching, doesn't mean that most Americans haven't turned it on at SOME POINT, and decided for themselves that it is the most biased name in news.

Christ, you're not that intelligent, are you?

And what's with questions about Kos concerning Alan Colmes not putting up a fight and being chosen to be a wimpy punching bag? Do conservatives like you base your opinions on what others say? Because you seem to think that having an opinion isn't good enough, you need to have a source for a subjective opinion. Guess you're been worshipping Rush LImbaugh and Bill O'Reilly too long.
October 19, 2006, 6:45:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> Source? Fox has admitted as much. Bill O'Reilly draws 87% conservatives

First of all, the audience for one particular program does not constitute what you called "80% of Fox's audience". Second, where has Fox "admitted as much"? Why is it so difficult to get people off their talking points and provide an actual source? Third of all, same question for the 87% figure for O'Reilly.

Either you can provide documentation for what you claim or you can't. It's starting to look like you can't.

> you're an idiot if you think everyone in this country hasn't turned on Fox at least once.

Talk about idiotic. Everyone in this country doesn't even OWN a television. And if they did, would turning it on Fox ONCE be an informed basis for making a judgment? Just because it's enough for you doesn't mean it's enough for clear thinkers.

> Alan Colmes not putting up a fight and being chosen to be a wimpy punching bag?

Ah yes, another statement I requested documentation or a source for. And another request that has been ignored.
October 19, 2006, 7:05:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Documentation? How the hell do you document subjective terms such as "wimpy". Just watch his interview with Katherine Harris online, he didn't even throw a punch or a hardball question. You really are a weasel, you know that? You have absolutely no way of defending Fox News or it's blatant bias, so you demand documentation of subjective terms, which are impossible to provide. You have no common sense whatsoever.

Additionally, you are now demonstrating your ignorance by claiming that less than 34% of Americans have watched Fox News at some point. That's simply pathetic. We're discussing the percentage of the American public that has an opinion of Fox News, one way or the other, and Rasmussen reported that about 70% of those interviewed either thought Fox was "fair", "trying to elect Bush" or "trying to elect Kerry". Elect Bush being the winner, of course.
October 20, 2006, 6:02:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
When cornered, attack. And avoid telling the truth. I didn't ask for documentation of subjective terms. I asked for documentation of your claim that Colmes was selected BECAUSE they deliberately wanted someone wimpy.

I knew you couldn't provide it, of course. Because it was just one of a series of falsehoods that you tossed out, apparently on the theory that you can make up anything you want if the purpose is to smear Fox. 80% of Fox's audience, 87% of O'Reilly's audience, "Aggressive conservative...", just one fabrication after another.

You can't document or source this stuff because none of it's true.
October 20, 2006, 9:36:55 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
I've made about 15 points so far in this thread, you haven't answered a single one. It's interesting how the mindless zealots of Fox insist that others prove it is biased, and when they do, instead of debunking any of the claims, such as the fact that Fox only has conservative political anchors or numerically it's conservative guests outnumber Demorats by 2-1, they begin throwing out random demands and if you do not comply they claim they've won the argument.

You're the ones claiming Fox is fair and balanced. Why don't you prove it? I've certainly proven it isn't. Cavuto, Gibson, O'Reilly, Brit Hume, WSJ editorial report, John Kasivich, the Beltway Boys. All Republican programming. Every one of them is a conservative. Now, where are the liberals? Alan Colmes? Co-host on Sean Hannity's show, and Hannity picks the topics to be discussed, hence why the program has only conservative specials such as "outrageous liberal professors". Greta Van sustren? LOL. She doesn't do politics, will only bring a politician on as a guest once every few months, specializes on non-political crimes and celebrity trials and does not have an opinion segment (talking points memo, political grapevine, my word, common sense).

Your rebuttal?
October 20, 2006, 12:20:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
John Kasivich? Who's that?

I don't think you even watch Fox, which really makes your arguments worth about as much as anything I'd have to say about the National Hockey League, or what it's like to live in Oklahoma...
October 20, 2006, 12:30:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
You can make 115 points, but if all your "facts" are made up, it's a waste of time.

You pull that trick yet again: conservatives guests outnumber Dems by 2-1? Bull. Document that, and then explain this:

http://johnnydollar.us/2004a/C1049953760/E20060926232328/index.html

Mort Kondracke is a "Republican"? Shep Smith is a Republican? If so, explain this:

http://johnnydollar.us/2004a/C168863457/E20061017112948/index.html

> Greta Van sustren? LOL. She doesn't do politics...

Hahahaaa! I guess North Korea, the war on terror, elections, Bill Clinton, Newt Gringrich, Hillary Clinton, and John Dean don't count as politics.

Hey expert, who anchored more hours of national convention coverage on Fox than anyone else?

> Hannity picks the topics to be discussed

Says who? You? The guy who claims Fox's audience is 80% Republican based on a made-up number you concocted in your sleep? The guy who says his show was originally billed as "Aggressive Conservative vs...", another falsehood? The guy who claimed there are no Democrat video interviews on fox's website?

Please. Come back when you decide it's time to start telling the truth.
October 20, 2006, 12:32:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
OverHere, John Kasivich is that guy who works with Greta van "Sustern". Hahahahaaa.
October 20, 2006, 12:36:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Go easy on the guy johnny! He's obviously in way over his head in Kool Aid. Your 25 nails in his coffin above aren't enough to muffle his whining. You could prove him wrong 1000 times and he'd still come back just for the attention. I'm sure he's getting all kind of street cred over at newshounds by bragging that he got you to spar with him.

Face it Tom, you have no facts, just made up percentages that you've failed to back up with credible sources.
October 20, 2006, 1:23:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Guest
John Kasich, typo, fool. Although apparently you don't even know who he is, while claiming I don't watch Fox, rofl. Irony.

Kool Aid? YOu're pathetic. Swallowing O'Reilly cliches is as sad as it gets, but at least it's your way of admitting that your idol is a Republican.

Let's see now, what point to debunk first? Media Matters took out a study and proved that about 70% of the guests on H&C alone were conservative in the 3 months it surveyed, and Fox news as a whole favored conservative guests by 201. You offered no counter to it, you simply brushed it off because you didn't like the results. You complained that the methodology was actually TOO FAIR, because all it asked was whether the guests were Republicans or Democrats.

2.) Greta Van Sustren doesn't talk about politics from a political perspective and that is obvious. Fact: O'Reilly, Gibson, Cavuto and Hume give their opinion. Fact: Sustren doesn't. Fact: O'Reilly, Gibson, Cavuto and Hume have opinion segments (talking points, my word, grapevine, etc...). Fact: Sustren doesn't.

3.) I never claimed there were no Democratic interviews on Fox News Website, you're flat out lying. I claimed there were no Democratic interviews on the "politics" and "you decide 2006" tabs. There are Democratic interviews, but the Republican interviews outnumber the Democratic interviews by a margin of literally 6 - 1. If I'm wrong, why don't you pluck the names and post them? Or would that require admitting that you're lying to exaggerate what I said in order to argument against a Straw Man?

You actually remind me of Carl Cameron, the gutless little Republican weasel who likes to pretend he's a journalist. Cameron absolutely LOVES Strawman Arguments, just like you. Maybe it's because without them, his party can't win. Well, to be fair, they can't win anyway. Hence the impending disaster you people are heading for in November.
October 20, 2006, 1:41:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> Media Matters took out a study...

I already gave you a link proving that MM studies lie by labeling independents and Democrats as Conservatives or Republicans. I'd like to see the link to their survey that found Fox News as a whole went 2-1.

Greta doesn't have a defined commentary slot, but that doesn't mean she doesn't give opinions. Hume's "grapevine" segment is not a commentary or opinion segment. I wonder if you know what you're talking about when you make a claim like that.

> I never claimed there were no Democratic interviews on Fox News Website, you're flat out lying.

Funny, in the other thread I find you posting this:

"Fox New's own video archive on its website only lists interviews with Republicans."

Do you think you can get away with rewriting what you say when it's sitting just one thread away?
October 20, 2006, 1:48:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
You cropped the quote. My original quote was "Click on the "politics" or "you decide 2006" tabs. You jumped ahead and skimmed until I reworded it to be more brief in typing it out so you could snatch it. You're flat out lying through your teeth because you can't win the argument on the issue of how many conservatives and Democrats there are on Fox News website archive. Now, how many are there? Would you like to count them up? You have utterly and continually refused to do so, because if you do then you'll have to admit Fox is biased, because it is so lop-sided. Instead you're nitpicking at the exact wording of several of my points like a child.

So, one last time, would you like to count up the politicians and pundits on the Fox News video archive and make comparisons, or not? What's wrong, you all talk and no action?

By the way, I read your attempt to debunk the study, it was absurd. You offered no real examples of independents who were grouped as conservatives, and you made a ridiculous demand that MM identify Linda Chavez, a hardlining Republican, as a "liberal" because of a segment in which she was brought on to discuss illegal immigration in which she happened to take the more leninet, liberal viewpoint. By your own logic, that means Pat Caddell, Zell Miller and Ed Koch would have to be included as conservatives in the MM study whenever they come on to defend George W. Bush's Iraq policy or Republican interference in the Terri Schiavo affair.

Now do you have any proof whatsoever that the number of Republicans interviewed on Fox matches the Democrats? Because their own video archive disagrees with you. Also, I read that ridiculos page you set up to show Democrats who appeared on Fox News. So let me get this straight, because a dozen Democrats have appeared on Fox News at some point or another, therefore it's balanced? Are you actually naive enough to believe that? I could name 20 consistent Republicans who appear on Fox News on a weekly basis. Other than Laura Schwartz, Bob Beckel, Michael Brown or Kirsten Powers (who, by the way, is a conservative-Democrat, and if you don't believe that, go read her blog, she's a big kissup to Michelle Malkin and likes to rage about how liberals make her mad), how many Democrats could you name that come on a weekly basis? Guests, also, I'm discussing, not panelists. If you include panelists, that means I could name 25-30 Republicans.

Oh, by the way, as for Mort Kondracke, I never claimed he was a Republican. I claimed the Beltway Boys is Republican, which is an accurate statement. Why? Fred Barnes is a Republican and Mort Kondracke is a centrist and has stated that he is not a Democrat or a liberal, which is why he takes the "center" position on Brit Hume's panel. Which means the show automatically tilts towards the right, since it's center versus right. It would identically tilt toward the left if it were Juan Williams versus Mort Kondracke.
October 20, 2006, 1:58:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Since you have decided you would rather dodge the issue of who is Fox News video archive, I will go ahead and list them for you.

Republicans:

1.) Rick Santorum
2.) Mick Huckabee
3.) Katherine Harris
4.) Tom Delay
5.) Katherine Harris (TWO interviews, one on H&C and on on Fox daytime coverage, you guys really are desperate to boost her pathetic numbers, aren't you?)
6.) Conservative crusading against affirmative action in Michigan, interviewed on O'Reilly
7.) Bush himself
8.) John Boehner (cavuto interview)
9.) Pat Buchanan (o'reilly interview)
10.) GOP'er running against Pelosi
11.) GOP'er running against Ted Kennedy (Jesus, you people really are desperate to boost GOP candidates, aren't you?
12.) John McCain
13.) Melanie Morgan (trashing Cindy Sheehan, H&C interview)
14.) Republican senator John Thune

Now, how about Democrats?
October 20, 2006, 2:07:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Mike Denunzio and Kenneth Chase are the names of the GOP candidates. I know you would complain if I didn't include their exact names.
October 20, 2006, 2:09:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Now, on the Democratic side? Let's see here...

1.) Bill Richardson
2.) Bill Richardson (second interview, Greta)
3.) Left-wing reverend, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (O'reilly interview)
4.) Obama

Can't really see any others, other than some nutty professor who thinks Bush blew up the Twin Towers. Include him if you want.

Oh, by the way, a 15th for the Republican side is ANOTHER GOP'er running in 2006, whose name I can't pronounce, an O'Reilly interview, he's the guy who took the mariachi band across the Mexican border on an elephant. So let's just call him:

15.) Mariachia GOP'er candidate runnig in Pennsylvania
October 20, 2006, 2:13:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> you made a ridiculous demand that MM identify Linda Chavez, a hardlining Republican

Untrue. I made no such demand.

> You offered no real examples of independents who were grouped as conservatives

Untrue. I gave multiple examples.

> would you like to count up the politicians and pundits on the Fox News video archive

No. First you said there were none. Then I offered to prove there were three, and you backed out of that. (No wonder since your own count came up with four.) Now you want me to search their entire archive (which has HUNDREDS of video interviews). Sorry, I'm not going to take hours to disprove one of your statements when so many of them have already proven inaccurate. Falsus in Unum, Falsus in Omnibus.

> because a dozen Democrats have appeared on Fox News at some point or another, therefore it's balanced?

No, that was a PORTION of ONE DAY of news programming.

> Other than Laura Schwartz...

IN addition to the people you rattled off, I know that Ellen Ratner, Eleanor Clift, Wesley Clark, Martin Frost are on at least on a weekly basis. That's just off the top of my head. I'm not going to take on another research assignment from you to try to prove your claims inaccurate. You've done a fine job of that on your own.

> Which means the show automatically tilts towards the right

Beltway Boys is not a strict left/right dichotomy like Crossfire or H&C. Yes, Kondracke is more of a centrist than a liberal. But as you so wisely pointed out, one should not focus on a single program (like Olbermann) but on the programming schedule as a whole.
October 20, 2006, 2:13:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Scott Ritter is a left-winger apparently. According to wikipedia he's actually a Republican, but since he came onto O'Reilly to criticize Bush, you can claim he's a member of the left.

That's 5.) for sure, 6 if you want to include the professor who is generally a nut, and not a politician, and wouldn't be fair to include since almost everye single candidate on the GOP side I included were actual politicians. This guy is just a conspiracy theorist.
October 20, 2006, 2:16:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Now you're just retreating because I'm listing the actual political guests and making a fool out of you. By archive you know I mean the video box that comes up and the hundred or so interviews it has there. There are no real "archives" for the REAL past (i.e. months ago), and making a request that you systemtically go through them is ridiculous. This is another example of you twisting my words to dodge being defeated.

Click on the video box and look through the interviews they have there. There aren't that many. Most are non-political because they include health topics, celebrity tabs, etc...

But for the political interviews they seem to include interviews going back maybe 2-3 weeks. And those interviews clearly are skewed towards Republicans. GOP'ers outnumber Dems by a margin of about 3-1.

Those are the facts. Duck and dodge them all you want.
October 20, 2006, 2:20:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Uh oh, Republican congressmen coming up on Fox news just in a couple minutes! What do you know, another Republican congressmen on a solo interview.
October 20, 2006, 2:20:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> There are no real "archives" for the REAL past (i.e. months ago)

Wanna bet?

> And those interviews clearly are skewed towards Republicans. GOP'ers outnumber Dems by a margin of about 3-1

Well that's a bit different from "none", isn't it? Generally the most newsworthy interviews are the ones that get posted with video. And we know that many of the most newsworthy Dems refuse to appear. Or they insist that they'll only appear if they are interviewed by Colmes (solo) or Greta. These include Kerry, Edward, Dean, Byrd, Clinton (Hill and/or Bill), and many others. So if the most prominent dems don't appear in the video archives doesn't mean dems don't appear on the channel. FNC puts Dems on the payroll just so they can have balance to make up for the ones who are strangely picky about whom they will talk to.

I have to run out and do some real world errands, so I can't play for a while. Until I come back, perhaps you can work on some of that documentation I asked about, the MM link about Fox's "overall" guest list, etc.
October 20, 2006, 2:32:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
"Well that's a bit different from "none", isn't it?"

ROFL. Translation:

"Yeah, well, you might have been right and I might have been completely wrong, but I'm still arguing against a Strawman Argument, so I'm half-right!"

God almighty. Get it through your skull, I never claimed there were none, if you read through my posts you'll see me stating 5/6 times that there were only a few, and only once, around the third of fourth time of repitition, did I claim there were "none", in which you KNOW I was discussing not the entire website but the "politics" and "you decide 2006" tabs.

Admit it, you were wrong and I was right. And now you're in full retreat.
October 20, 2006, 2:35:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
Hey fool, I *KNOW* who John KASICH is, and I knew that's who "John Kasivich" was supposed to be. But come on, John Kasick would be a typo, not John Kasivich. You didn't know what his name REALLY was until you looked it up, I'm sure.
October 20, 2006, 2:36:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
"Uh oh, Republican congressmen coming up on Fox news just in a couple minutes! What do you know, another Republican congressmen on a solo interview."

What about the two Democrats who were on in solo interviews this morning? Oh wait, I know, now you're going to go back to saying you have to count up the ENTIRE DAY OF THE ENTIRE NETWORK, not just one show.

You must really exhaust yourself backtracking and changing your arguments up like this all day long...
October 20, 2006, 2:37:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Oh oh oh, what do you know? Cavuto's got conservatives on-his-show? Yes, yes, yes, dear Tom you say, here come conservatives all the live-long-day!

Tony Snow and conservative strategist up on Cavuto's show today. No Democrats. What a shame.
October 20, 2006, 4:18:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
You know what, though? I think this is good. It reinforces my smug confidence about the impending doom of the GOP, because Fox is obviously desperate to get Repubicans out there as much as possible so they can hammer their message. You can just smell the desperation. Rick Santorum. Roy Blunt (today). John Boehner. Tony Snow. Michael Steele. Mike DeWine. A whole week of Bush segments on O'Reilly. Katherine Harris (ROFL, nothing can save her).

Fox certainly knows how to cheer a liberal up.
October 20, 2006, 4:21:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
Looks like a count of three conservatives and only one Democrat so far on the Big Story. Guess it's all a coincidence. It's all just liberal lies against the fair and balanced network!

Hoekstra (R)
John Ashcroft (R)
Powers (D) v. (R) Strategist
October 20, 2006, 5:55:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
*YAWN* Tom you've gotten boring. You've proven nothing but go ahead, fall over patting yourself on the back there.
October 20, 2006, 6:05:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom
No rebuttals? What a surprise. Guess it's all a coincidence.

I've never seen conservatives so desperate to defend their propaganda institutions, honestly. When was the last time you saw members of the Democratic Party screeching in defense of the New York Times, CNN or MSNBC, the supposedly "liberal media"?

Maybe because the Democrats don't have any delusions that the media is on their side, but conservatives like johnny dollar here is self-conscious about his party's propaganda outlet.
October 20, 2006, 6:57:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
Tom, here's some advice, if you want to be critical of someone/something, it helps your credibility a LOT if you can get the names right.
October 21, 2006, 9:02:07 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
>When was the last time you saw members of the Democratic Party screeching in defense of the New York Times, CNN or MSNBC, the supposedly "liberal media"?

How about after every single treasonous report out of the NYT that revealed national secrets through anonymous sources? The liberals screeched in defense then, displaying for all their lack of support for national defense and counterterrorism. How about when the liberals defended CNN for embedding with Hezbollah recently? I'm sure there are tens of thousands of other occasions but those two recent ones come to mind.

>Maybe because the Democrats don't have any delusions that the media is on their side...

It wouldn't be a delusion.

The media IS on their side and Fox threatens that by showing the moderate, bipartisan view. Before Fox the moderate media choices were slim to none with CNN, BBC, NYT dominating the press with their liberal agendas. Now that Fox is on top, far left people like you are concerned because somebody might get both sides of the story and make up their own mind.
October 21, 2006, 11:38:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
Well Fox Fan, clearly you don't know how it is... everyone who agrees with Tom *IS* making up their own mind, but the rest of us clearly have to be blindly following someone else since we dare to disagree with him. Only those who agree with him are allowed to be viewed as having thought for themselves.

Kinda like Cindy Sheehan is thinking for herself but those of us who have lost a loved one in Iraq but don't hate the President or the military are brainwashed...
October 21, 2006, 6:24:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply