Moore to appear on O'Reilly factor?

[dave_a]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127140,00.html (scroll to bottom)

According to a column written by O'Reilly today (Tuesday), Moore will be on his show for 8 minutes Wednesday night.

I have no use for either man believing both to be empty, self promoting blowhards, but this match up should be pretty good entertainment. Only thing better would be a tag team matchup of Franken and Moore vs. O'Reilly and Limbaugh with Howard Stern being the moderator/referee. :popcorn:

[livius drusus]

Man, I hope O'Reilly breaks a habit and airs the interview unedited. It's bound to be a great wrastle. :D

[dave_a]

well according to O'Reilly the interview was unedited except for a commercial break, but overall I found the interview to be pretty lame.

I really expected that one or both would raise some great points and press them home, but neither really did. I would say O'Reilly won overall, but neither really got into much and they only exchanged a few questions each.

There were 2 (at least) disappointments for me personally. The first was when O'Reilly was pinning Moore down on labelling Bush a liar for leading us into Iraq under the pretense that Iraq had WMD and strong ties with AlQueda. O'Reilly said it was a mistake rather than a lie and Moore really floundered in his response. He did mention once that Cheney set up a task force in the CIA to "make" evidence that Iraq had WMD, but then let it go. I thought that should have been the point Moore focused on.

Then Moore, at the end of the interview/debate asked O'Reilly if he would be willing to sacrifice his child to secure Fallujah. O'Reilly said he would be willing to sacrifice himself(which implies not his child) and Moore then came back with a brilliant question "Would you sacrifice someone else's child?" and O'Reilly visibly stumbled. Moore, instead of remaining silent and letting Bill struggle longer and possibly respond with something really stupid said "You would really go to Iraq? Let's sign you up" which just got a couple laughs from both of them and the debate was over.

As I said in my OP I have no use for either man believing them to be empty self promoters, but as such I think the least they could have done was provide a few more sparks.
:yawn:

[PastorFreud]

I was fine with the lack of sparks in the segment. We get enough hateful sparking from Fox already.

But I disagree that O'Reilly did better. Moore apparently lost on semantics, but O'Reilly clearly lost in morality. He refused to acknowledge that dictators can be overthrown by anything less than violence and justified American interference in world politics. True, Moore should have let him struggle more with the question. I am guessing the fast pace of TV is why Moore interrupted.

Moore may be self promoting, but I don't see that. Moore is clearly more about the issues than he is about making a buck or getting ratings. O' Reilly's personal agenda is more clear to me. I don't want to defend Moore. He uses some innuendo and fallacy to create emotional reactions in his favor. I don't believe these means should be employed. However, I do support his end, peaceful resolution of conflict, over O' Reilly's, which seems to be might makes right.