It’s been confirmed that Senator Al Franken (D-MN) was, in fact, instructed to enforce a rule that limits speeches to ten minutes. That didn’t stop Bill O’Reilly from spreading misinformation about Franken’s denial of Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) request to continue speaking past the 10 minute mark.

O’REILLY: Franken, who was in a rotation presiding over the Senate, objected to Lieberman continuing his remarks in a stunning display of disrespect.

[...]

O’REILLY: But many others did take it personally, including John McCain.

McCAIN [clip]: I’ve been around here 20-some years. First time I’ve ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks.

It was claimed that Franken’s enforcement of the rule was “disrespectful” and “unprecedented.” He also allowed Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) to claim that Franken was “[a]bsolutely not” telling the truth in regards to the instructions that Franken was following.

O’REILLY: Is Franken telling the truth?

DeMINT: Absolutely not. I can’t believe he’s throwing Harry Reid under the bus.

However, both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Lieberman himself have confirmed that Franken was following instructions.

Additionally, Senator John McCain, who claimed that it was “unprecedented” actually imposed a similar limit in the past.

Original Story

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
468 ad

7 Responses to “Bill O’Reilly Misinforms in Attack Against Al Franken”

  1. Crowdaddy13 says:

    Its okay for McCain and Delay to be complete jerks in the senate but when Franken does it, its a complete shock and outrage……whatever

  2. Does anyone take Al Franken seriously as a politician? I think Bono was more respectable. Now, I’m not saying that Franken has no right to be a politician, but every time I see him I think “Stuart Smalley.” Then there was his failed stint on Air America. If you’re not voicing the sentiments of the people, you’re not going to get the ratings. It’s that simple, at least in a free market. Of course, the Fairness Doctrine would take that competition away and greatly boost the publicity of folks like Franken whether anyone is listening or not. It wouldn’t matter.

    This time, I think Franken acted very politic when he denied Lieberman the extra time. But I stand with O’Reilly – Franken is a punk, he uses bully tactics, and he does not garner respect through his actions. Instead, he garners attention through antics. I do not expect Franken to remain when his seat is up for election.

  3. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Marbran, What antics would those be? Reading the bill? Asking questions? Following instructions? Showing that another Senator doesn’t tell the whole truth? It says something when you continue bashing Franken for his past career, but don’t address the point, which is that DeMint and McCain were wrong and/or hypocritical and O’Reilly used/allowed them to spread a falsehood.

  4. Crowdaddy13 says:

    @ Marbran, I guess I can school you in this subject like I did Sidewinded, but the problem you have with Franken is your inability to think outside the box. Just like people want to bash Jon Stewart because he’s a “comedian” but has reputable governmental experience. It’s real sad when somebody cannot see past a typecast. Seeing that Al graduated cum laude from Harvard I guess doesn’t mean jack to you?

    However, if you are a true conservative, you would call that elitist, or say “an ivy league education is no big deal” or whatever. And how would the Fairness Doctrine take away competition? The doctrine is there to keep outlets like Fox from monopolizing the market and giving only one side of the story. If every political outlet showed one side and was rebutted by the other, it would let people have the ability to make a decision for themselves. Instead, you have people being brainwashed by their side.

    Oh and by the way, Franken was a pretty good college wrestler……..I’m sure he would kick O’Reilly’s ass. Look past the glasses and “Stuart Smiley” and their is muscle definition. Al would slap the liver spots right off of Billo’s face.

  5. Wow, more reference to violence.

    You really display your arrogance by your insistence that you can “school” me, while at the same time assume to know what I think about Harvard. Liberals are truly a fascinating breed.

    It is also quite amazing how fearful of Fox News many liberals are. Tell me, why do you think Fox is so highly rated? Can all those viewers be wrong? Or maybe its the simple fact that the message that Fox News delivers resonates with the people more so than the messages delivered by other news outlets. The Fairness Doctrine served to protect citizens from biased or misleading reporting in limited markets. We do not have limited markets in the U.S. today. Anyone who seeks out information can find it quite easily. Incidentally, the original Fairness Doctrine applied only to broadcasters, those that used the very limited EM spectrum; the latest efforts at “fairness” attempt to control what ALL media outlets are peddling. That is government control of the media, which is very dangerous for everyone.

    I really wish you’d take a moment to read what you posted, to really understand how you sound. You are certain that you can “school” me; you imply that only you are able to think “outside the box” while I am limited to a myopic viewpoint; you quite possibly believe that Fox News is a monopoly when it occupies just one cable channel out of hundreds.

    One last thing: what was Jon Stewart’s “reputable governmental experience?”

  6. Crowdaddy13 says:

    I’ve already listed Jon Stewarts governmental experience…….sorry, that I have to regurgitate it for you (you should be used to it by now since you get regurgitated news on a daily basis).

    Jon Stewart worked as a contingency planner for New Jersey Dept of Health and Human Services……basically a person that plans and responds to outbreaks and pandemics, takes care of medicines, etc……..pretty important and responsible job in the govt. i would say?

    And if you worry about govt control of the media……what the hell do you think the FCC is? Why is it you republicans want the government out of everything? I guess next time you get robbed you should just defend yourself and not call the fire dept or police, ya know there a part of the big SCARY govt!!!!

    Privatizing everything doesnt work, just take blackwater for example………no need to explain

  7. @Crowdaddy

    I saw what you wrote about Jon Stewart but surely thought you meant some other work. Working as a “contingency planner” is usually an ancillary duty in most Federal agencies. I’d expect it to be even less of a duty at the State level. I myself create IT contingency plans (among many other things) as part of larger disaster recovery plans implemented at several Federal Departments in DC. CP is almost always an ancillary duty, although that is not to say that it is unimportant. I still don’t understand how that becomes, as you say, “reputable governmental experience.” Noble yes, but hardly the foundation of a strong curriculum vitae for public office.

    The FCC is a standards organization that originally oversaw a very limited commodity: the electromagnetic spectrum. Without regulation and oversight, competitors would be free to “step on” each others’ broadcasts, effectively shutting them down. However, that should not give the FCC the power to limit speech (any speech) unless it poses a personal risk to others through threats of violence or incentive to riot. The FCC should not be concerning itself with matters of content, but with anti-monopoly issues. If a broadcaster offends me (and a GREAT MANY DO!) I simply change the channel.

    And you have “us Republicans” all wrong. We don’t want the government out of everything; we simply don’t want the government IN everything. The powers of the Federal government are limited (or once were) for a very good reason: to avoid the establishment of tyranny.

    Lat me ask you this, and try to answer next time. At what point would you yourself draw the line? Would you be willing to have a breathalyzer ignition lock installed in your vehicle and all others if it stopped 99% of drunk drivers? Would you support a 50% tax rate for all income earners, so that we can provide for the non-income earners? Would you give up your house if the government decided that some larger family would benefit more from its use? At what point does the government become too big for you, sir?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. NPR Responds to Bill O’Reilly’s Attack - Fox News Watchdog - [...] Bill O’Reilly Misinforms in Attack Against Al Franken It’s been confirmed that Senator Al Franken (D-MN) was, in… [...]
  2. Remember This Bill O’Reilly Attack Piece? - Fox News Watchdog - [...] Bill O’Reilly Misinforms in Attack Against Al Franken It’s been confirmed that Senator Al Franken (D-MN) was, in… [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.