comment #1

bildeaux says ...

Be sure to bring O'Reilly a Falafel as a greeting gift. He loves those things.

comment #2

Edward says ...

You're a brave man, Jeffrey Wells. I hope O'Reilly will let you get in a word or two. I hate how he gets people on his show and then barely let's them speak before he lays into them for the rest of their allotted time. If he tries to interrupt you call him on it.

comment #3

Edward says ...

I could think of a good place to put said falafel.

comment #4

Matthew Lucas says ...

The O'Reilly Factor huh? I may actually have to tune into the FOX News Channel. Hope you dance circles around him Jeff.

comment #5

DarthCorleone says ...

O'Reilly? Cool! I will most definitely watch!

comment #6

Geoff says ...

I hope there's eventually a CNN link to the interview. I would love to see it.

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

" [but] it's a strange thing when people in this country can't express their opinions without being attacked."

So what about all those anti-war "Marxists" you're trying to disparage?

"And it's not over yet as I've agreed to come on CNN this afternoon and The O'Reilly Factor tomorrow sometime. O'Reilly will try and kick the stuffing out of me, but I'll get a readership bump out of it so why not?"

Man, they must be desperate for ratings, if some random blog reviewer gets invited to those shows. It's ironic, because the FOX News people were disparaging people online commentators as marginal and ineffective, but it seems some comment of yours really got them shaking. I guess they know their time is up, and they'll be forced to obey the Neo-Fairness Doctrine, when the Dems sweep the November races.

Of course, with that kind of exposure, I gotta be even more careful what I post on here...*sigh*

comment #8

Mgmax says ...

I just read somebody's advice for doing a talk show like that. Basically it was, figure out what you want to say (in short soundbite form) and make sure you say it at some point, regardless of what the setup is...

Not that I have any idea what you're going to say to defend your position as bloggy cheerleader for the new blacklist. But I'd say, don't do the "I wasn't really saying it, I was just feeling kind of jackbooty that day" excuse thing. I'd go on the defensive, proudly stand up for the claim that righties owe lefties another 100 years of suffering in Hollywood. I think that's crazy, but at least it has a certain brio.

comment #9

scooterzz says ...

i love the way o'reilly always says, "i'll let you have the last word" and then continues to blast after your camera goes black....
good luck with him.....

comment #10

Mark says ...

Way to go after the FOX crowd. These threads will be a lot more unbearable in two days.

Just remember that Voight started this thing. It's one thing to blackball a republican. It's a little more understandable, however, to consider blackballing one who publishes an article on how foolish you are for buying the Obama propaganda to allow Farrahkan etc. destroy our country. Voight didn't use your name, but you're one of the millions that he's looking in the eye as he wags his finger.

comment #11

dinther says ...

This "controversy" is absurd, and has nothing to do with freedom of speech, or as that idiot-windbag Beck states, the First Amendment.

No "freedom of speech" or First Amendment issues are implicated here because, even coloring Wells' original comments with their most negative reading, no government entity is suppressing anyone's speech. Indeed, were "Hollywood" to "blacklist" dumbshit actors like Voight for expressing his views, this would be nothing more than a private entity exercising its freedom of association (and in some respects, freedom of speech) by refusing to associate with a dumbshit - a perfectly legitimate, and constitutionally protected, activity. Any such "blacklisting" would be one volley in an exchange within the marketplace of ideas. And Wells, by discussing it, is doing the same.

If Beck and O'Reilly would stop masturbating to the sound of their own voices, and pick up a book (without pictures) or go to school, they might appreciate this distinction.

comment #12

CMed1 says ...

Don't take any crap from these right wing tools, Jeff. Good luck tonight.

comment #13

swhitty says ...

Good luck, Jeff. He's more of a bully than an interviewer -- even shutting off people's mics when he feels like it -- so I hope it goes well for you. From the little I've seen of his show, some people end up ambushed.

To me, the issue -- however intemperate things naturally get in blog postings, and responses -- is double: Does anyone have the right to say what they want? Does everyone have the right to hire whom they want?

The first answer is, pretty obviously, yeah. And the second is -- exceptions for obvious sexism and prejudice -- again, pretty obviously, yeah.

Can Voight endorse a brontosaurus if he wants? Sure. And can a director -- looking at a long list of eager-to-work 70-ish character actors -- think, "Ya know, I'd rather spend all that time on the set with Ben Kingsley" -- give Jon a pass? Sure.

Everybody -- every business -- makes employment hires based on how congenial that person is. The real point here, actually, isn't Voight's politics -- Adam Sandler, Kelsey Grammer and just about every action-hero ever is a conservative too. The point is that the vehemence of this op-ed piece -- not to mention his very public dustups with his daughter -- tend to make him look, well, "complicated."

And who needs complicated?

But that's not the rise of the leftist thought police -- that's people wanting to work with people they get along with (You don't think Vanessa Redgrave lost jobs because people didn't want to hear her up-with-Arafat, long-live-the-Trotskyist-revolution chats around the crafts services table?)

This isn't a defense, necessarily, of the ideals of the blacklisted. Some were good progressives, some were idealists, some were dopes just wanting to get laid (man, those Communist girls are CUTE!) and some were diehard Stalinists. I have no doubt that, had Lillian Hellman's side prevailed, she'd have set up her own version of HUAC as soon as she could -- the House Counter-Revolutionary Activitiies Committee, perhaps.

But that doesn't justify what was done against those people then, or make a parallel to what is happening now.

The day that Voight gets turned down for a job because someone has a Xerox of a check he wrote to John McCain -- the day that Clint Eastwood can't get a distribution deal because someone (who we can't name) says he once overheard someone (we won't say who) saying Clint was, you know, kind of a right-winger -- then we can start talking about the blacklist again.

But until then...

comment #14

Mjs says ...

Good luck, Jeff. O'Reilly is just a failed actor with serious anger issues. You may wanna mention the way the guys on the right tried to shut down any actor/celebrity (Dixie Chicks, Tim Robbins, Bill Maher) that dared speak their mind in the early days of the war. A fact many righties now try to pretend never happened, or they spin it using some absurd logic.

comment #15

corey3rd says ...

Jon Voight is the poor man's Burt Reynolds. It's been downhill for him since Fearless Frank.

All you need to say on the Factor is that if Jon Voight can predict the future, why hasn't he won the lottery?

comment #16

George Prager says ...

To prepare I would watch the Phil Donahue/O'Reilly interview and then ask Bill if his nephew actually went to Iraq. O'Reilly grew up in a town similar to the one you grew up in, Wells. Don't put up with his bullshit.

comment #17

Pinko Punko says ...

Jeff should just get up there and say:

"I write a blog. A BLOG. Did you hear that? A FREAKING BLOG. I will now turn my time over to Milkman who will regale you with likely fictional stories with just enough touch of realism that you will be astounded at the extemporaneous talent on display. Also, feet are ugly and Mgmax is an intelligent-about-films-and-crocs-in-the-kitchen-douche. This is the extent of my prepared remarks."

comment #18

Jean says ...

Everybody's pretty much on the same page in feeling that people are taking this way too seriously - it's Wells vs. Voight, neither are presidential candidates! Just to expand on Pinko's thoughts, I'm reminded of Jon Stewart's comeback when Tucker Carlson called the Daily Show partisan- Jon: "You're calling ME partisan? YOU guys are CNN. My lead-in show is puppets making crank calls..."

comment #19

twilightgal says ...

Jon Voight's op ed was not a well-reasoned critique of the left . . . it was a shrill, mischaracterizating smear job. Period. But coming from the right makes it no worse than if it came from the left. And I for one would not like to associate with anyone of any political persuasion who harbors such hateful, divisive idealogy. For example, it is possible to say that the anti-war crowd was wrong about Viet Nam without defaming them. From a perspective of objective historical fact, there is a more coherent argument against the United States' policy in Viet Nam. But that doesn't mean that those who still consider that the US should have fought there until the communists were completely wiped out are bad, evil people. It just means they are wrong. Voight said leftists (Democrats) "need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America." That's just a ridiculous mean-spirited and clueless statement. Here's another one: "The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds." Because he is so divisive and hate-filled toward those with political opinions which differ from his own,Voight does not deserve, nor should he recieve any respect for his specious views. Does he have the right to spew? Yes. But any reasonable person would want to dissociate themselves from a hate spewer of any political stripe.

comment #20

Jeremy Smith says ...

Good luck. Even the smoothest media operators have a tendency to get shellacked on O'Reilly. Just keep counter-punching (even when your mic's been shut off). And don't be surprised if/when he goes way off-topic to smear you.

comment #21

T. S. Idiot says ...

Remember to sit on the bottom of your jacket so your shoulders don't look as puffy as Pitt's face. Though wearing a puffy shirt would be a good touch.

comment #22

Rod32303 says ...

Fuck 'em up, Jeff. And, you know, I know some boys...just in case you need a little "help." Seriously. Some cousins I know are itchin to, uh, "protect and defend" and whomp up on some cracker ass.

I'm just sayin'...

comment #23

MilkMan says ...

My bowels would be all a quiver if I knew I was going to have to go one-on-one with O'Reilly. He's the type of know-it-all that gets me all frustrated to the point where I feel like I have to hold back the tears. Maybe it's the smirk he has plastered on his mug 'round the clock. I think your best plan of attack is to wear your bi-focals. Other than that, KICK HIS ASS, WELLS!

comment #24

Common Sense says ...

So, you actually want to blacklist Voight for having a different political view then you do? That sounds fascist to me, you know, get rid of everyone that does not think, act like you? Should we all goose step around you Wells? Hmmm. Maybe you can start camps to put people that support the right wing in? I bet you would love that. Now to get to the point before you ban my account. Anyone and I mean anyone that would vote for someone because of a celebrity is a moron, plain and simple. People need to look at each person policies and where they stand on issues, so some research and become an informed voter, not a lemming. Yes, this goes for both parties. I do not agree with discriminating against someone because of their political views, it is plain wrong. If John Voight is right for the part then his political view should have nothing to do with the decision, unless you support discrimination, and by your calling to blacklisting him looks like you do support discrimination based on political views. You can now shut down my account because I don’t think like you.

comment #25

SaveFarris says ...

"So not only do I have a secret plan to fight inflation, but now you don't support it?!?"

Have the courage of your convictions, Jeff. If you think a blacklist is ok, then say so. But pussyfooting around ("I was for the concept of a prototype of a passing fancy of a blacklist ... before I was against it") is never a good argument.

comment #26

frankbooth says ...

This is the best thing that ever happened to Wells, and the worst thing that ever happened to this blog. Every other post is going to be like that letter he printed a day or two ago.

D.Z. -- be more careful? Do mean you'll actually have to read people's comments before you respond to them?

comment #27

frankbooth says ...

Oops. Spoke too soon. It's already happened.

comment #28

supertaster says ...

O'Reilly? Well then certainly Olbermann will followup to give you a "fair shake".

"O'Reilly will try and kick the stuffing out of me, but I'll get a readership bump out of it so why not?"

Beware what you wish for. A readership bump from people who won't stick around and won't click your ads, but will make your life a living hell. If this is purely to prove to yourself and your friends what a man you are, swallow your pride and cancel. There is NOTHING to be gained here.

The better part of valour is discretion. First, you legitimize the whole issue, second you give O'Reilly the satisfaction of making you look like a fool. I/We give you shit here all the time, but it's intimate, inconsequential, sincere criticism. Going national, well, you're entering a world of hurt, gaining nothing.

If you're intent on going on and you believe what you say here, don't lay it off on everyone else as being misinterpreted, simply say you didn't express yourself clearly, you can see how people could misconstrue what you said, and that's that.

comment #29

redmond says ...

I second Super Taster: Back the fuck out. The only person who wins is O'Reilly because he's an idiot who's blabbering at idiots. You will not attract the type of readership and this thread will be filled with people like Common Sense. Except less literate and filled with fire and brimstone shenanigans.

As for Glenn Beck, maybe go on just to ask him why he's afraid of black people. Then punch him in the anus. (He's got horrible hemorrhoids. True story.)

comment #30

Richardson says ...

If he comes at you with something unfair, then go, "How do you feel about Sean Hannity paying for his girlfriend's abortion?" That'll throw him off, and it's 100% true.

comment #31

D.Z. says ...

George: Forget his nephew. Jeff should ask O'Reilly *himself* when he's going to serve.

Common: "If John Voight is right for the part then his political view should have nothing to do with the decision, unless you support discrimination,"

That's noble, but the same crowd against Voight being "discriminated" against didn't exactly bat an eye when Farenheit 9/11, The Last Temptation of Christ, and Brokeback Mountain were banned from certain theaters.
Or when Pearl Jam got censored by AT&T for criticizing Bush. Or even when the centrists in the Bush administration got marginalized, fired, and outed because they didn't toe the line. It's just funny that when Jeff makes one random comment, it's more dangerous than everything conservatives have actually done to liberals for the last 30-50 years.

rank: Nope, I just plan to be more careful in how I respond.

comment #32

Richardson says ...

Shut the fuck up, DZ, you're out of your element.

comment #33

nemo says ...

Politico's Ressner sez: ".. it's a strange thing when people in this country can't express their opinions without being attacked."

Where the hell was that fucker back when anyone who questioned the necessity of invading Iraq was being attacked?

comment #34

Josh Massey says ...

Seriously, this O'Reilly thing is going to suck - for the conservatives here.

Some of you obviously won't agree, but I love this site in part because the conservatives are generally intelligent and don't embrace the worst parts of the Republican party (ie. the religious right, homophobia, etc.).

I am continually thankful for the contributions of Mgmax, Sobchak, and the rest, and am fearful that this will bring the other side of so-called conservatism that has caused me to flee the Republicans in recent years.

All I ask is that you realize there's a difference between what you see now and what you may encounter in the next few days.

comment #35

nemo says ...

'I just read somebody's advice for doing a talk show like that. Basically it was, figure out what you want to say (in short soundbite form) and make sure you say it at some point, regardless of what the setup is..."

You better say what you have to say in the first 60 seconds, then repeat it over and over, because O'Reilly is so insecure he's sure to cut your mic in the first 2 minutes.

comment #36

slothroplt says ...

Guess who's coming to dinner...

comment #37

D.Z. says ...

Josh: I think I'm on better terms with you and Mgmax than even some of the fellow liberals-probably because you don't
attack me, just because of my taste in entertainment. I just can't stand the jerks who like to go for cheap shots, but who don't add any substance to their conversation.

As for Jeff's site getting flooded by fundies, I doubt it, since they usually only write sporadically, and they have their own net hang-outs.

comment #38

warnertoddhuston says ...

It seems that ol' Jeffie has learned well from his hero McCarthy the way he is trying to blacklist anyone whose politics he doesn't like. Nice going, Jeff.

comment #39

Jerome says ...

Jeff, please just call O'Reilly a "c*nt" and earn your place in modern history. It's going out live right? He won't let you get a word in edge ways anyway. I would pay good money to see that. Besides, Liberals do swear more than Conservatives. It's a well known fact.

comment #40

Jerome says ...

Jeff, please just call O'Reilly an "ass" or something even stronger I probably can't put on this comment because the moderator will ban me! It would be great and would rightfully earn your place in modern history. It's going out live right? He won't let you get a word in edge ways anyway. I would pay good money to see that. Besides, Liberals do swear more than Conservatives. It's a well known fact.

comment #41

fumero says ...

I agree that actor's politcal and religious views should in no way hinder their career or keep them from getting hired, tempting as it may be, and yes, I'm talking about those kooky scientologists. HOWEVER -- if I was a director, I wouldn't hire anyone affiliated with PETA because I view them as hypocritical criminals who have no respect for other people's beliefs and they are just plain ignorant. And I'm all for animal rights, and I'm sure gullible Hollywood joiners like Charlize Theron and Alicia Silverstone have the best intentions, but that doesn't eliminate the fact the fact that PETA employs arsonists and encourages terrorism, and firebombing research labs is not going to help anything, not too mention the fact that they spend more time targeting The Olsen Twins and other celebs than actually helping animals, because ...and of course, there's the ones they "rescue" that eventually end up in the meatlocker anyway. Animal testing makes up about 90% of medical research, and PETA has stated openly that if they found a cure for AIDS, they would be AGAINST IT...and how many celeb members of PETA do AIDS charity work? Charlize Theron for one, who said that her affiliation with PETA has nothing to do with her AIDS charity work, which is the most ignorant, hypocritical, just plain annoying thing ever said. So basically, if you support PETA, then you are AGAINST AiDS RESEARCH. Anyone who would try to justify that (as many celebs do), is a moron, as are those who say that they don't approve of their methods, but something needs to be done. There's not enough time in the world for me to explain the ignorance in that justification. And forget the fact that they're arsonists and terrorists -- they're hypocrites, which, to me, is just as bad (where does Pam Anderson think her Hep C medicine comes from? That and whatever else she takes for the various other STD's she probably has). So would I hire Charlize Theron? Absolutely not, and if I hired someone else who was more low-key about it and flew under my radar, I could get over it, just as long as they didn't get up in my face and try to convert me and say fur is wrong, blah blah blah...and like I said, animal rights is not the issue...the problem is PETA. Also, I would avoid Environmental zealots like Leo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire, just to name a few. Sad because they're both great actors, but I don't like to be preached to, and this "green" shit has gone way past obnoxious. Once I saw a commercial of Real World cast members talking about ways to go green and Sheryl Crow telling me how much toilet paper I should use, I knew I couldn't take it anymore. And like PETA, it's not the issue I have problem with, but the way it's been forced on everyone, and anyone who doesn't agree or doesn't like to be lectured is automatically accused of being a corporate secret spy-puppy and kitten killer. If I ever get to be a director, I sure as hell ain't going anywhere near LA unless I have to, because this shit has reached cult status, and not in a Donnie Darko sorta way. And it's not just disagreeing with these people or being annoyed by them. I imagine some annoying Hollywood clown trying to educate me about smoking, drinking pop, and me not being green enough, me telling said deuschbag to get outta my face or DIE, and then being attacked by invasion of green snatchers. In their mind, if you don't like them or agree with them, then you're a nazi, and they'd just as well firebomb your house as look at you...so why would I hire them? Now let's see if my comment is actually approved since this is my first one, or will Jeff reject it because of my personal view on PETA and environmentalism.

comment #42

EDouglas says ...

Wow, it's pretty amazing how much mileage you've gotten out of that post, which just seemed like a regular Jeff Wells nugget like we get here all the time. Definitely need to see the CNN and O'Reilly Report.. any idea when they'll be on?

comment #43

Mgmax says ...

Why D.Z. Is Okay By Me

1) He tries to argue on points and document what he's saying with sources, unlike people whose idea of an argument is "Obviously the war in Iraq is a total failure" or "Obviously Bush is the worst president in history." (That's not an argument, that's a conclusion missing an argument.) I think he's often wrong, especially on economics, or I think his counterarguments are often irrelevant to the issue at hand (Prescott Bush is NOT the answer to most questions), but he's going about it more of the right way than many.

2) He doesn't get all wound up indignant and call names stupidly and emptily. The most pointless exchanges are the ones that go like this:

GUY: Obviously, the war in Iraq is a total failure.
MGMAX: Actually, the recent advances against al-Sadr are quite promising.
GUY: Well! Unfuckingbelievable! Mgmax, if you'd ever pull your head out of your ass where the only thing you can read is Ann Coulter, maybe you'd understand how stupid you really are! That's it, I'm done with this site!

3) He uses paragraph breaks.

Granted, the robo-response makes the eyes glaze over sometimes, brevity is a virtue he has not learned, but hey, my island of misfit toys has a big tent, big enough for anyone who can find their own way to get along and stick with it.

comment #44

Discman says ...

It's amusing that, for all the FOX/O'Reilly hatred in this thread, Jeff's mention that he'll also be on CNN has drawn nary a comment.

Have fun, Jeffrey, and provide a YouTube link to the events, if they're posted. Seems to me you've already agreed with O'Reilly et al. that your comments could be construed in such a way as to endorse blacklisting, and that you've since clarified that.

comment #45

Mjs says ...

MGMAX

If somebody made a strong argument about Bush being the worst president in history, or how the Iraq war is a complete disaster (assuming you've missed all these arguments over the last six or so years) would it sway you?

It wouldn't. Not at this point. THere is no logical point to spending your time making either argument as everybody made up their mind years ago which side they were on. Many people switched over from pro-bush to anti-bush a few years back, but if that change hasn't been made now, it's not likely to.

People make their comments, and it turns into a flame war. I agree. But I've yet to see anybody, on any blog or message board, change another persons mind on a political issue. So what's the point? Proving how much you know? Beating your chest? I just dont' get it.

Part of it is venting, I'm sure. But I'm not going to write ten paragraphs, provide links, and quote stats to show why to me, Bush is the worst President in history because it's going to be a waste of time. You'd quote your stats, back up your logic, and provide a different point of view. Will either of us change our mind?

My wife's best friend just lost her husband, her baby's father, in Iraq. Her son wants him to be buried with a picture of him so he won't be scared. This kid will never really know his father. How many thousands of us have a friend or a family member going through this? It's a tragedy, one of the worst we've ever experienced as a country. So it comes down to, is the tragedy worth it? Is the cost to our nation worth it? I say no. Too many corrupt individuals started this war, profited from this war, and were unwilling to end this war.

To you, it was for the greater good and nothing will ever convince you differently. Fair enough.

Man, I ramble when I'm tired.

comment #46

Richardson says ...

I'm hoping fumero is the new MilkMan

comment #47

Richardson says ...

DZ: "probably because you don't attack me, just because of my taste in entertainment."

Just to be clear, deez, your taste in entertainment doesn't even crack the top five things that people make fun of about you for or attack you because of. It might sneak onto a top 10 list.

comment #48

Terry McCarty says ...

Here's a puff piece on David Zucker's AN AMERICAN CAROL from the News Corp. owned THE WEEKLY STANDARD:
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/385rlkfy.asp

The article quoted Jon Voight:
Jon Voight, who says he was "duped" as a young man into rallying
against the Vietnam war, is also troubled both by Obama's associations
and his willingness to end them so abruptly. "When I look at the other
side, when I look at Barack Obama, I see expediency," he says,
pointing to Obama's relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright,
and assuming Obama's voice. "He's like family. I could never disown
him. I didn't know him. I didn't hear those words in that church."

And, paragraphs later:
"I think it would be pompous to say that," says Voight [referring to Kelsey Grammer saying that if AMERICAN CAROL is a hit, it will "change everything."] "It's a movie.
It's a satire. And it's a funny satire. I don't want to point to this
thing, just because there are so few films from conservative sources,
and make it a target. It's a movie. Let's not burden this little horse
with additional weights."