A Glimpse at the Liberal Playbook

Letterman Blew the Play

As a conservative and political advocate I have been called just about everything imaginable by left-wing political activists and college professors (a distinction without a difference). It used to take a toll on my self esteem, but recently I became aware that the name calling is not really sincere, it is actually nothing more than a well designed play from the liberal playbook. It goes something like this… make an argument and hope that it is not intellectually challenged. If the argument is intellectually challenged do not attempt to reason (you might strain your brain); instead, call the person who offers an alternative view a liar (mean-spirited, jerk, bigot, moron, *&^%$ - you get the idea). If that does not silence your “adversary” then dismiss everything they say as a lie and discredit them as a person of bad character.

If you stay up late at night you may have seen this play attempted by the gap-toothed Indianan, David Letterman. For some reason, and one that I can’t figure out, Letterman invited Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly to appear as his guest. It was clear from the start of the conversation that Letterman wanted to pick an argument with O’Reilly and he succeeded in his goal. Upon questioning O’Reilly about the Christmas controversy, Letterman first denied the controversy exists and then (when presented with examples) said that he did not believe Mr. O’Reilly. (Playbook review: call the person a liar.)

Letterman then engaged O’Reilly on the war in Iraq, and when unable to carry on a civil conversation admitted, “I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. But I don’t know that for a fact.”

Letterman then blew the play by disclosing too much. The conversation continued:

O’Reilly: “Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.”
Letterman: “Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you’re-”
O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”
Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”
O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.” (OAF: generalizations always require an example, without one they are not valid).
Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”
O’Reilly: “Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?”
Letterman: “Because of things that I’ve read, things that I know.”

Let’s dissect the conversation. Letterman admits he is incapable of debating issues with Bill O’Reilly (this is where he blew the play – he’s not supposed to admit to being intellectually outmatched – someone needs to get him to re-education camp), and then goes on to dismiss O’Reilly arguments as lies. Not satisfied with saying O’Reilly lied on any one subject, Letterman just calls him a liar in general (playbbok review: if you can’t dispute the argument intellectually, attack the character of your “adversary”). Letterman also disclosed too much by actually admitting that his opinion about O’Reilly is uninformed (again, re-education camp is needed here).

Final analysis: Don't be too hard on David Letterman – he is an entertainer not a political commentator, and he was out of his league trying to “cross over.” In fact, for me Mr. Letterman’s actions were liberating – he made me plainly see that I am not really a liar (moron, etc.) as I have been accused so many times by the leftists I’ve encountered. To that end, I want to thank David Letterman for allowing the restoration of my self esteem.