Liberal Oasis Interview with Paul Krugman (great quote about O'Reilly)

[Dudley_DUright]

<snip>

LO: You just had a raucous encounter with Bill O'Reilly on CNBC's Tim Russert. What did you learn from that experience?

PK: What I learned is how hard it is to argue with a pathological liar.

Because the problem is in real time, as it's happening, you can't fact check everything.

We now know, a couple of people have checked it, in talking about the war, he talked at length about what Hans Blix told him on his program before the war, except Hans Blix never was on his program before the war.

So what do you do? Somebody just makes shit up, how do you deal with it?

So it was an interesting experience.

more...

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/080804.htm#081204

[Hoping4Change]

1. Interesting. thanx for the link.

[obelus]

2. Krugman looked like something the cat had in the alley

I saw the encounter. Paul Krugman is an astute, writerly person who is probably a helluva tough hombre at a word processor, but no good in a bar fight. O'Reilly had him literally shaking in fear. He couldn't hold his hands steady and fear was in his eyes.

O'Reilly is the master at this shuck and jive. I have noticed that he regularly does autopsies on the nervous systems of liberal "guests" he has on his show. First, he doesn't book a Carville or a Moore or someone with a known ability to swing back. The liberal chum he offers his viewers are usually timid, foppish looking academics that emit an unmistakable "elitist" glow. He then lights into them like a bar room bully after the house has cut him off from his jack-n-coke supply. The "guest" attempts to act put out, then surprised, by the verbal assault, then inevitably falls into that trait that led him to be a foppish academic to begin with rather than a roustabout on the North Tundra; he starts grinning a panicked grin and thinking how he will write about this later after he salvages whatever manhood he can under the hot TV lights and gets the hell offa the set. His nervous system is saying "Run! Run! Away!" while his mouth tightens into a frightful grimace and says "Well, I think that is a gross misrep...may I spea...am I allowed to spe...please Mr. O'...now, that is clearly outrageous." All the while Bill is ranting on in his inelegant and boorish sophistry that dolts out in the heartland eat up like gravy. O'Reilly has this patented and it is one-hundred-percent shobiz hoo ha.

The sole purpose of the Russert segment was to stage this act for the cameras. Krugman and his elitist, bearded visage gets clubbed around by the words spewing forth from the square-jawed O'Reilly and Russert thanks them for a spirited discussion. Krugman silently thanks God he did not urinate himself on TV. O'Reilly thanks Russert for letting him sit in and solo.

Now, what would put jello in O'Reilly's mashed potatoes would be if lefties with a spine and an ounce of factual knowledge took on O'Reilly, Hannity, Scarborough and the other ridiculous Sophists out in the open. C'mon, offer to arm wrestle them with words and then use nothing but their own fatuous, preening, ridiculous public statements to deconstruct them into the knuckle-dragging bafoons they are.

Remember Charles Caughlin? He was once an enormously popular critic of the New Deal. People thought he was the 2nd Coming; one of the most popular hosts of a radio show of all time. But now Roosevelt is remembered and this guy is all but forgotten, and in such a short while. All these demagogues that have been spawned in the confusion and short-sightedness of our modern age will be forgotten as well. In 30 year's hence, no one will care when they pass on and they will leave no legacy worth carrying on. Like the Sophists, they are nothing and mean nothing.

[Richardo]

3. Very nice write-up, obelus - welcome to DU

I've been thinking about Coughlin lately myself...I'm sure he'd seem quite tame compared to the RW vomitus that passes for 'mainstream' today...

[GOPFighter]

5. It's not a matter of arm wrestling with words...

Krugman is right, "What I learned is how hard it is to argue with a pathological liar." Even the quickest wit or brightest of the bright cannot win an argument with someone who yells over your voice, and is willing to tell a lie, no matter how blatent, that will win the arguement.

The best way to skewer O'shithead is to document his most blatent lies and publicise them through ads in the Wash Post, NYT, LAT, all over the country. And liberals should then refuse to have anything to do with him ever again. A complete and total shun.

[dorktv]

9. Krugman needed a sharpie and then he could have used

those papers to write "this guy is lying" "I am suprised this guy can even Dress himself in the morning"

[Skittles]

6. Krugman wasn't shaking in fear

the guy is just genuinely surprised at how low and scummy O'Reilly could be. And for that I fault him because anyone who has ever seen his piece of shit show knows what a lying gasbag O'Reilly is.

[pfitz59]

12. Krugman recoiled from "Ole' Yeller"................

Didn't want to get bit by a rabid dog. He stood up to O'Reilly, called him a "liar" and said "you can't turn off my mike." O'Reilly was frothing at the mouth.

[NV1962]

7. I saw it too - that wasn't fear, it was barely contained rage (n/t)

[Jackpine Radical]

4. O'Reilly can only win with his lies because there is a lack of

"institutional memory" among his guests. Each new victim comes on the show not knowing about the lie technique, and so it keeps working.

Suppose a Dem Strategist or somebody were to prep our guests by giving them a lot of researched examples in which O'Reilly had lied in the past.

Now, during the show. O'Reilly springs something on the guest. The guest immediately challenges O'Reilly: "You're lying, Bill--just like when you falsely claimed you had interviewed Hans Blix. Remember that?" Note that the guest doesn't have to be right in the accusation.

You have to hit him fast with this, before he has time to shut off your mike. And even if you're wrong about the specific accusation, he won't be able to defend himself on the spot, and you will also have gotten in the point that he has told lies in the past.

A few experiences of this and O'Reilly is going to quit with the lies.

[Spiffarino]

11. Citing examples of O'Reilly's past lies won't help

A few brave souls have tried this. The bullying O'Reilly cuts them off with a few "shut ups" and they never have a chance to get a point across. You can never win with a person who is as immune to logic as O'Reilly. No, the only way to beat O'Reilly would be to literally beat him.

A modest proposal
Let's all pester Russert to invite a really large Democrat to debate him. I'm thinking a Bill Bradley or some other ex-athlete who could easily dispatch O'Reilly. Then, before the show, have our guy take him into a back alley, kick his ass, steal his lunch money, tie him up, and tape his lying mouth shut.

After that, drag him back into the studio bound and gagged long enough to let our guy tell his story. Then, rip the tape off O'Reilly spotty face (and hope he forgot to shave that day) and make him answer for all of his lying lies.


on edit: punctuation

[WoodrowFan]

8. good point on "job creation"

Good interview, thank you for the link. I especially liked PK's point about job creation...

"Every time I hear Bush talk about 1.5 million jobs, I think about Dr. Evil saying "one million dollars." It's not a large sum these days.

A million and a half jobs over 11 months is pretty poor.

In fact, Clinton never had an 11 month stretch that bad and if he had, the Republicans would have been screaming about what a lousy economy it was."

[Catfight]

10. O'Leily is on par with Jerry Springer, Dems really shouldstop stooping so

low as to appear on FOX at all. Just let FOX be entirely filled with Right Wing rehetoric, when there's no conflict, people will tune out. Sort of like, stop feeding the fire. It's like having a domestic cat fight with alley cats, the alley cats (repugs) learned to fight dirty to survive.