What little ambition it takes....
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-08
In Reply to: Yeah, you get that LAST WORD in, girl - it's - the only thing you do well.
to follow me around belitting me. Make you feel like big stuff, all empowered and everything? lol.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
It takes so little to make you laugh - in fact, it takes nothing at all. NM
x
Difference between ambition and pit-bull aggression.
I'm confused. The old church? The new church. Church? According to the red camp, O is a Moslem terrorist. Moselms do not attend church. Do you really want to take this to politics in the pulpit?
whatever it takes to get what
you want. Sociopathic, much.
If this is all it takes to silence you....
your "issues" must not be worth caring about enough to post. How is it okay to silence me...that's fine. But then you complain that I am silencing YOU. Is this glaring double standard somehow escaping you? Are you so unconvinced in your "issues?"
I thought so. How seriously do you think anybody takes
Your first clue that this "story" just might be a tad suspect would be the fact that it is getting absolutely NO AIR TIME on any respectable media outlet.
We feeble O lovers (that would be the ones with the double-digit lead) have been using computers long enough by now to understand digital doctoring. Let's take a look at a credible source that has actually examined the birth certificate document:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
This is the second time this lawsuit has tried to pass muster, Miss out of the loop. It was discredited TWICE. What part of give up the campaign stunts (they are destroying your candidate's chances) do you not get?
They say it takes one to know one. I think we'd all better do a little praying. n/m
x
It takes an interpreter because someone is i
the statement. The are creating a tempest in a teapot.
Takes the cake is right,
as well as the mixer and bowl, the cake pan and oven. You can keep the empty box, however....
All it takes is a hacker
to break those codes, passwords, etc. It happens.
This person comes over here takes a DUMP on us...sm
and you think someone is supposed to be chasing her down. I agree with GT, don't let the door knob hit ya.
Takes your money and blows it? NM
HA HA
She's got what it takes to stand up to the boys....
I'm working, so I don't have time to read through today. So if this has been posted before, please forgive me.
But if I had any doubts before about Gov. Palin, I think I've just been put in my place!!!
McCain aides whose judgment I trust are impressed by Sarah Palin. One was particularly amused by this exchange: A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she’d be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she’d be facing, etc.:
Palin: “Thanks for the warning. By the way, do you know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom and a Pit Bull?”
McCain aide: “No, Governor.”
Palin: “A hockey mom wears lipstick.”
It takes one to 'know' one, doesn't it?
x
It takes a male and a female . . .
to make a baby, but that is not what I would consider a heterosexual relationship. That's conception. My definition of a relationship goes beyond a plastic cup and a turkey baster.
This takes the CAKE (& icing)!
If this man will lie about a GI bracelet, what WON'T he lie about? Come on, y'all! Wake up!
I didn't copy the entire thing (no no, right?). It appears that you'd have to go to the site to download it. Keep an eye out to see if the drivebys (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, NYT, etc.) mention it. I'm hoping they'll have no choice. There will be a ton of crying and hand wringing beforehand, you can be sure if it ever happens at all.
(H/T D. Keith Howington of www.dehavelle.com)
http://tinyurl.com/45q5r6
or:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/28/family-told-obama-not-wear-soldier-sons-bracelet-where-media
Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son's Bracelet... Where is Media?
By Warner Todd Huston
September 28, 2008
Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.
Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.
Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail.
Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.
But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son's sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte. This begins at about 10 minutes into the radio program. (Download radio show HERE) (H/T D. Keith Howington of www.dehavelle.com)
That is always how socialism takes hold....
promises, pretty speeches, and class warfare. How many posts have you seen here about "I am tired of the rich getting richer" and "we need someone to represent the middle class, not the rich" yada yada. It is already taking hold. And it NEVER works. All you end up with in socialism is all the money at the top (the government and cronies) and the rest of us at the bottom. The middle class DISAPPEARS. Look at venezuela...at Cuba...at the USSR before it broke up...and they will drag us all down the drain with them.
But mark my words...if it happens, won't be THEIR fault. Would be laughable if not so darned sad.
Anyone who takes Fox tabloid seriously is not worth it and
Fox is a one sided propaganda hateful tabloid. It's quite clear to the intelligent people of this world. Think about it for a minute. Sheesh. They lie. lie lie lie and Hannity is the worst one.
I hear you, sometimes that takes a little more time.
Siblings will be siblings.
McCain takes swipe at GOP
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=6459397&page=1
McCain Takes Swipe at GOP on Blago Scandal
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD952J0Q00
McCain Pledges to Work with Obama on Tough Issues
He was GOP leader and candidate of choice. He's is sounding a whole lot more like himself now that he is no longer attached at the hip to SP. Why not take a page out of his book?
More on Blagojevich issue:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/12/republicans_guilt-by-associati.html?hpid=topnews
Republican's Guilt-by-Association Gamble - An even-handed analysis
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081215.wibbitson15/BNStory/specialComment
Latest Smears Prove Obama Foes Getting Desperate - Another proponent of working together
If that is what it takes to close Gitmo
I think you are the one that does not get it.
Takes Americans a while, but they are starting to
nm
That one just takes a little common sense...(sm)
and a little fact checking. You might want to try it sometime.
Umm. That is pretty doubtful since it takes about
nm
I hope globetrotter takes a look at your post...
because a more potent example of elitism I have never met!
that's a load of BS. It takes 2 to tango and a woman
how to use protection. it has nothing to do with a man. If she decides to terminate her pregnancy it's her own decision. the minute a man can have a baby then it's his.
It seems "Barack" takes credit for a lot and blame for nothing.
The debate takes 2 hours. Have it in Washington if that is...sm
where McCain feels he needs to be.
It takes no effort at on on the part of 'cleverness'
Of course, because it takes high thinking to discuss
//
Obama's tax plan basically takes away any
nm
Easy comeback. But, you know, until Obama takes
nm
Let's talk again if (and when) he takes cons. advice
NOPE.OBAMA.TAKES.THE.CAKE.
George Bush was a better President on his worst day than Obama has been on his best day. Period. End of song.
Takes 1 to know 1- Love the Palin drama
Well, looks like the 2 lovebirds are at each other's throats now (Levi and Sara's gal). Levi is now making the rounds talking about how he was moved into the Palin household several months before they split, sharing a room with his gal and now Palin's people are coming back callling the Johnston clan white trash. Of course the same claim came back from Levi's folks against the Palins. You talk about a hypocrit, Sara Palin, preaching but not practicing what is being preached. I love all this drama myself.
Not just mistakes, he is being criticized for every breath he takes!!! nm
x
Jesse Ventura takes on Fox and Friends!
A true American hero, a former SEAL who underwent controlled waterboarding as part of his training, OWNED Fox and Friends. Well done, Governor, but I doubt you will be invited back on Fox in the immediate future.
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/19/ventura-schools-kilmeade/
Chavez Takes Bush to Task Over Iraq War
See link
IMHO, Wilson discredits himself, if one takes a look at the facts.
x
That way I'M not paying for Shaniqua's 9 kids every time she takes them to the ER.
v
One that doesn't care if it takes voter fraud to
xx
*Whatever It Takes* by Peggy Noonan re: Bush's out of control spending
 
Warning: This is a L-O-N-G article, written by a conservative former speech writer for both President Reagan and Bush's daddy. The condensed version for the conservative trolls with admitted limited attention span: Bush is a very UNconservative BIG SPENDER with no means or concern how all this will be repaid. In other words, he represents the complete ANTITHESIS (opposite) of conservative values that you all claim to have. I guess that's what happens when you elect a spoiled, rich kid who was born to privilege and never had to worry about paying for anything.
PEGGY NOONAN
'Whatever It Takes'
Is Bush's big spending a bridge to nowhere?
Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:01 a.m.
George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--But where's the money going to come from?--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying Republicans don't care about black people, and They're always tightwads with the poor.
In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork.
That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--whatever it takes--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.
George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.
This, I believe, is the administration's shrewd if unhelpful reading of history: In a 50-50 nation, people expect and accept high spending. They don't like partisan bickering, there's nothing to gain by arguing around the edges, and arguing around the edges of spending bills is all we get to do anymore. The administration believes there's nothing in it for the Republicans to run around whining about cost. We will spend a lot and the Democrats will spend a lot. But the White House is more competent and will not raise taxes, so they believe Republicans win on this one in the long term.
Domestic politics: The administration believes it is time for the Republican Party to prove to the minority groups of the United States, and to those under stress, that the Republicans are their party, and not the enemy. The Democrats talk a good game, but Republicans deliver, and we know the facts. A lot of American families are broken, single mothers bringing up kids without a father come to see the government as the guy who'll help. It's right to help and we don't lose by helping.
Iraq: Mr. Bush decided long ago--I suspect on Sept. 12, 2001--that he would allow no secondary or tertiary issue to get in the way of the national unity needed to forge the war on terror. So no fighting with Congress over who put the pork in the pan. Cook it, eat it, go on to face the world arm in arm.
As for vanity, the president's aides sometimes seem to see themselves as The New Conservatives, a brave band of brothers who care about the poor, unlike those nasty, crabbed, cheapskate conservatives of an older, less enlightened era.
Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.
A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.
The administration, in answering charges of profligate spending, has taken, interestingly, to slighting old conservative hero Ronald Reagan. This week it was the e-mail of a high White House aide informing us that Ronald Reagan spent tons of money bailing out the banks in the savings-and-loan scandal. This was startling information to Reaganites who remembered it was a fellow named George H.W. Bush who did that. Last month it was the president who blandly seemed to suggest that Reagan cut and ran after the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon.
Poor Reagan. If only he'd been strong he could have been a good president.
Before that, Mr. Mehlman was knocking previous generations of Republican leaders who just weren't as progressive as George W. Bush on race relations. I'm sure the administration would think to criticize the leadership of Bill Clinton if they weren't so busy having jolly mind-melds with him on Katrina relief. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, is using his new closeness with the administration to add an edge of authority to his slams on Bush. That's a pol who knows how to do it.
At any rate, Republican officials start diminishing Ronald Reagan, it is a bad sign about where they are psychologically. In the White House of George H.W. Bush they called the Reagan administration the pre-Bush era. See where it got them.
Sometimes I think the Bush White House needs to be told: It's good to be a revolutionary. But do you guys really need to be opening up endless new fronts? Do you need--metaphor switch--seven or eight big pots boiling on the stove all at the same time? You think the kitchen and the house might get a little too hot that way?
The Republican (as opposed to conservative) default position when faced with criticism of the Bush administration is: But Kerry would have been worse! The Democrats are worse! All too true. The Democrats right now remind me of what the veteran political strategist David Garth told me about politicians. He was a veteran of many campaigns and many campaigners. I asked him if most or many of the politicians he'd worked with had serious and defining political beliefs. David thought for a moment and then said, Most of them started with philosophy. But they wound up with hunger. That's how the Democrats seem to me these days: unorganized people who don't know what they stand for but want to win, because winning's pleasurable and profitable.
But saying The Bush administration is a lot better than having Democrats in there is not an answer to criticism, it's a way to squelch it. Which is another Bridge to Nowhere.
Mr. Bush started spending after 9/11. Again, anything to avoid a second level fight that distracts from the primary fight, the war on terror. That is, Mr. Bush had his reasons. They were not foolish. At the time they seemed smart. But four years later it is hard for a conservative not to protest. Some big mistakes have been made.
First and foremost Mr. Bush has abandoned all rhetorical ground. He never even speaks of high spending. He doesn't argue against it, and he doesn't make the moral case against it. When forced to spend, Reagan didn't like it, and he said so. He also tried to cut. Mr. Bush seems to like it and doesn't try to cut. He doesn't warn that endless high spending can leave a nation tapped out and future generations hemmed in. In abandoning this ground Bush has abandoned a great deal--including a primary argument of conservatism and a primary reason for voting Republican. And who will fill this rhetorical vacuum? Hillary Clinton. She knows an opening when she sees one, and knows her base won't believe her when she decries waste.
Second, Mr. Bush seems not to be noticing that once government spending reaches a new high level it is very hard to get it down, even a little, ever. So a decision to raise spending now is in effect a decision to raise spending forever.
Third, Mr. Bush seems not to be operating as if he knows the difficulties--the impossibility, really--of spending wisely from the federal level. Here is a secret we all should know: It is really not possible for a big federal government based in Washington to spend completely wisely, constructively and helpfully, and with a sense of personal responsibility. What is possible is to write the check. After that? In New Jersey they took federal Homeland Security funds and bought garbage trucks. FEMA was a hack-stack.
The one time a Homeland Security Department official spoke to me about that crucial new agency's efforts, she talked mostly about a memoir she was writing about a selfless HS official who tries to balance the demands of motherhood against the needs of a great nation. When she finally asked for advice on homeland security, I told her that her department's Web page is nothing but an advertisement for how great the department is, and since some people might actually turn to the site for help if their city is nuked it might be nice to offer survival hints. She took notes and nodded. It alarmed me that they needed to be told the obvious. But it didn't surprise me.
Of the $100 billion that may be spent on New Orleans, let's be serious. We love Louisiana and feel for Louisiana, but we all know what Louisiana is, a very human state with rather particular flaws. As Huey Long once said, Some day Louisiana will have honest government, and they won't like it. We all know this, yes? Louisiana has many traditions, and one is a rich and unvaried culture of corruption. How much of the $100 billion coming its way is going to fall off the table? Half? OK, let's not get carried away. More than half.
Town spending tends to be more effective than county spending. County spending tends--tends--to be more efficacious than state spending. State spending tends to be more constructive than federal spending. This is how life works. The area closest to where the buck came from is most likely to be more careful with the buck. This is part of the reason conservatives are so disturbed by the gushing federal spigot.
Money is power. More money for the federal government and used by the federal government is more power for the federal government. Is this good? Is this what energy in the executive is--Here's a check? Are the philosophical differences between the two major parties coming down, in terms of spending, to Who's your daddy? He's not your daddy, I'm your daddy. Do we want this? Do our kids? Is it safe? Is it, in its own way, a national security issue?
At a conservative gathering this summer the talk turned to high spending. An intelligent young journalist observed that we shouldn't be surprised at Mr. Bush's spending, he ran from the beginning as a compassionate conservative. The journalist noted that he'd never liked that phrase, that most conservatives he knew had disliked it, and I agreed. But conservatives understood Mr. Bush's thinking: they knew he was trying to signal to those voters who did not assume that conservatism held within it sympathy and regard for human beings, in fact springs from that sympathy and regard.
But conservatives also understood compassionate conservatism to be a form of the philosophy that is serious about the higher effectiveness of faith-based approaches to healing poverty--you spend prudently not to maintain the status quo, and not to avoid criticism, but to actually make things better. It meant an active and engaged interest in poverty and its pathologies. It meant a new way of doing old business.
I never understood compassionate conservatism to mean, and I don't know anyone who understood it to mean, a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. We did not understand it to mean never vetoing a spending bill. We did not understand it to mean a historic level of spending. We did not understand it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.
I for one feel we need to go back to conservatism 101. We can start with a quote from Gerald Ford, if he isn't too much of a crabbed and reactionary old Republican to quote. He said, A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
The administration knows that Republicans are becoming alarmed. Its attitude is: We're having some trouble with part of the base but--smile--we can weather that.
Well, they probably can, short term.
Long term, they've had bad history with weather. It can change.
Here are some questions for conservative and Republicans. In answering them, they will be defining their future party.
If we are going to spend like the romantics and operators of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society;
If we are going to thereby change the very meaning and nature of conservatism;
If we are going to increase spending and the debt every year;
If we are going to become a movement that supports big government and a party whose unspoken motto is Whatever it takes;
If all these things, shouldn't we perhaps at least discuss it? Shouldn't we be talking about it? Shouldn't our senators, congressmen and governors who wish to lead in the future come forward to take a stand?
And shouldn't the Bush administration seriously address these questions, share more of their thinking, assumptions and philosophy?
It is possible that political history will show, in time, that those who worried about spending in 2005 were dinosaurs. If we are, we are. But we shouldn't become extinct without a roar.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father, forthcoming in November from Penguin, which you can preorder from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Lets make a bet on how long it takes dems to turn
nm
Each brown place in the link takes you to a different article that supports this article...nm
x
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.
You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.
How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?
BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.
But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...
O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.
MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?
You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.
O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.
But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?
All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?
MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.
O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.
MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.
O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...
MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.
In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.
We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...
O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.
MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...
O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.
MAHER: Whatever it costs.
O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?
MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.
O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.
MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.
O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.
MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.
O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.
MAHER: Thank you.
O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.
MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.
O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?
MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?
O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.
MAHER: Yes.
O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.
But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.
There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.
I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.
MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.
O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.
Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?
MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.
O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.
Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.
MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.
O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
It takes money to make money. nm
|
