Late Night Lip Service

Anytime Bill O’Reilly is a guest on David Letterman’s show, viewers are guaranteed to witness an entertaining exchange. Thursday night was no exception. As usual, Letterman’s tone was irritable and adversarial as he quickly shot through a cue carded list of political topics with O’Reilly. They revisited previous disputes with Letterman once again assigning blame for the poor state of our country back to the Bush administration. In fact, so much time was spent on it that I don’t believe Obama’s name came up once during the entire interview which lasted two segments.

For me, the most notable exchange of the night centered around the issue of health care and providing for the poor. Letterman repeatedly pressed the standard liberal talking point that not raising taxes to support the needy was selfish and immoral. He chided the attitude of the rich, preaching, “We don’t want to help people who need help because we don’t want it coming from our paycheck.”

O’Reilly challenged Letterman on the difference between those who genuinely “need” assistance and those who choose to live a lifestyle that isn’t worthy of government assistance. O’Reilly cited a recent Department of Health and Human Services statistic that 9% of Americans have a substance abuse problem, and asked Letterman if he thought taxpayer money should be used to support those people. When Letterman doubted the statistic, O’Reilly asked Letterman to place a wager on its accuracy with the loser donating one week’s paycheck to charity.

The audience applauded the idea.

This was Letterman’s moment of truth. A minute earlier, he had self-righteously berated those who did not want money from their paycheck redistributed to the less fortunate. One might think that the comedian would have jumped at the chance to put his money where his mouth is on national television. You know, lead by example. Regardless of who was right, a generous donation would have gone to the needy. Instead, he turned uncharacteristically squeamish and was unsure of how to respond.

Now I’m no body language expert, but it was clear to me that Letterman couldn’t have cared less who was right regarding the statistic. It appeared to me that it was the premise of directing a week’s paycheck to charity that knocked him off his game. After composing himself, Letterman made a quick joke and changed the subject.

How interesting.

Now I’m sure that David Letterman probably donates a good amount of money to specific charities each year. Yet, when put on the spot to direct additional money to “the needy”, he soundly rejected the notion. A week’s paycheck for David Letterman would have been far less money than the 5% annual tax hike that he supports and speaks of as if it’s chump change. But the answer was no.

This often seems to be the case with many wealthy people on the left… They loudly beat President Obama’s drum of higher taxes and income redistribution, but when given the opportunity to practice what they preach, they crawl under a rock.

We’ve seen it with Warren Buffett who received a lot of attention a few months ago when he called for higher taxes on the wealthy as part of their patriotic duty to the country. Yet, as many news outlets have since reported, his Berkshire Hathaway firm still owes the federal government $1 billion in back taxes dating back nearly a decade.

We’ve seen it with current and considered Obama administration cabinet members like Tim Geithner, Jeffrey Immelt, Kathleen Sebelius, and Tom Daschle who have a history of escaping the payment of federal taxes.

We see it from prominent politicians like Senator John Kerry who avoided paying over $500 thousand in Massachusetts taxes by stationing his $7 million luxury yacht in the neighboring state of Rhode Island, and Congressman Charlie Rangel who failed to report taxes on his rental property in the Dominican Republic.

All of these people call for more of the rich’s income to be taken and redistributed, yet they reject the plan when it comes to themselves.

Many critics of the “tax the rich” movement have pointed out that people like Letterman and Buffett can choose to pay more in taxes if they like. What amazes me is that, to my knowledge, none of these people have actually answered that challenge. You’d think that if they felt so strongly about the issue, they’d rise to the opportunity to lead by example. They could even call a press conference to draw attention to the moment and inspire others to follow their lead, much like Warren Buffett did when he pledged a significant amount of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

But no one has done it.

Is it because they’re stingy? Some are, but Warren Buffett certainly isn’t. More likely, people like Buffett and Letterman don’t want to give up control of how their hard-earned money is spent. Letterman wasn’t prepared to spontaneously pledge his money to charity. Buffett hasn’t handed over additional money to the government to spend it as they wish. Yet, both of them demand that others be forced to do what they won’t do voluntarily.

To me, THAT seems selfish.

Author Bio:

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Realizing the importance of the media in a free, democratic society, John has long felt compelled to identify media injustices when he sees them. With a B.S. in Business Administration (Computer Information Systems), and a 16 year background in software and web development, John has found that his real passion is for writing. He is the author of the Sean Coleman Thriller series. His first novel, "From a Dead Sleep," is available at all major retailers. His second novel, "Blood Trade" is available for pre-order and will be released in Sept. 2015. John lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children. Like John on Facebook. Follow John on Twitter.
Author website:
  • ulyssesmsu

    You say “I’m sure that David Letterman probably donates a good amount of money to specific charities each year.” I’m not. I’ll bet that Letterman, true to form as a committed left-winger, gives very little, as a percentage, to needy causes. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. But you saw Letterman’s reaction. He’s a selfish egotist. And, IMO, he’s not one damn bit funny.

  • Frank Figliola

    Why isn’t the Berkshire Hathaway/IRS $1,000,000,000 tax dispute being mentioned while we are beleagered by “tax me more” whining?

  • Nancye

    O’Reilly must really want to sell his book to condescend to be on Letterman’s show or any other show like that. I’m amazed how many people will go on shows like that just to hawk their book. Where is their pride? Oh right – where money is concerned pride goes out the window.

  • Ralph Hahn

    Good piece, John. I watched the Letterman broadcast last week when Bill O was on to promote “Killing Lincoln.” While Dave weaseled-out of Bill’s weekly paycheck challenge, the conversation at the desk seemed to be a lot more civil than Bill’s previous Late Show visits. However, from the beginning of the the show until Bill stepped out on stage, Letterman was relentless on making smarmy remarks about the GOP candidates, particularly directed to those currently leading the polls: Romney, and to a lesser extent, Cain, got the lion’s share of Dave’s nightly GOP-abuse. Despite Chris Christie’s final ‘no’ on running for President. Dave had plenty of Christie fat jokes on hand, and maybe, time permitting, a couple of Sarah Palin swipes may have found room on the show’s rundown. As soon as O’Reilly was off the stage, I changed the channel. I used to think that I was the biggest Letterman fan since his late-night show debuted on NBC in 1982. Jay Leno, like Johnny Carson, is an equal opportunity offender. But, Dave’s disdain and downright hatred for the Republican Party makes him NOT the King of Late Night, but the spokesman of the Democratic Party.

  • Richard

    I also want to comment on the author’s example of Warren Buffet’s firm still owing the government $1B. He offers this as an example of hypocrisy coming from Buffet because of his call to tax him and other very wealthy people more.

    I don’t know the specifics of the $1B owed to the government, but John does correctly point out that it is Warren Buffet’s “firm” that owes this money. Again, while I don’t know specifics, it seems to me that Warren Buffet’s “firm” is a different entity than Warren Buffet himself.

    Perhaps Warren Buffet is contesting this $1B not for himself, but for his shareholders who would probaby be affected by the settlement of these back taxes.

    If this is the case, I see no hypocrisy in what Warren Buffet is doing.

    But, I’ll leave it for others to ask Mr. Buffet.

  • RecknHavic

    I can remember when Letterman used to be funny.
    Ahh, the 80s…

  • Marilyn

    I was writing on my laptop while the show was on, so I must have gotten distracted because I don’t remember anything that objectionable.

    I always take Letterman as a comedian and a very intelligent talk show host. I’ve seen him do interviews–like the one with Paris Hilton–where his subtlety was pure genius (one had to be really paying attention to get it), and many times he’s played “devil’s advocate.” Of course he is going to be adversarial with O’Reilly, a straight interview would have been boring. He hasn’t gotten to where he is by being boring. I will always appreciate what he did with Tom Snyder, which to me, proved him a gentleman, regardless of his politics–which at times have confused me as he has been more on the conservative side than the liberal. I guess this was not such an occasion.

    Bernie, I love your new email updates! Glad to be getting them.

    • John Daly

      Not objectionable. Just fascinating.

  • Steve_Robbins


    You say that “people like Buffett and Letterman don’t want to give up control of how their hard-earned money is spent. Letterman wasn’t prepared to spontaneously pledge his money to charity. Buffett hasn’t handed over additional money to the government to spend it as they wish. Yet, both of them demand that others be forced to do what they won’t do voluntarily.

    To me, THAT seems selfish.”

    Well, I guess it is “selfish” in the narrow sense that finding a way to exert ultimate control over how your charitable gifts are distributed, while at the same time publicly demanding that ALL others give up that right (presumably premised on the ridiculous notion that the government will do a perfectly fine job of redistributing someone else’s income, but not your own) is indeed inherently disrespectful, and quite self-centered.

    Buffett shields his income from taxation through 501(c)3 charities that he and his family control. He takes a modest personal income.

    Letterman balked at the wager because he feared he’d lose control of that chunk of his income.

    So, selfish may not really be the best word.

    Inconsistent? There is no question about that.

    Hypocritical? To be sure!

    These guys want to keep control, while loudly demanding that everyone else similarly situated should have to give it up.

    • Steve_Robbins

      Oooops . . . John, my regrets for addressing my comment to Bernie instead of you. I’m new to the site, and didn’t put two and two together.

  • robin in fl

    I watched the show and saw the exchange and IMO it was a defining moment as to who was a stand up kind of guy and who wasn’t. The moment Bill O said ok with betting the paycheck and giving it to charity Letterman immediately backed down with that idea.And we all know one paycheck would NOT have made Letterman go broke…when Letterman did that it showed his true colors I think..a stingy mean grumpy guy who is all talk and only cares about himself..sorry but that is what I saw and think others probably saw him in the same light at that moment.In other words,he (Letterman) got ‘served’ on his own show and CHOKED! :(

  • Jeannette

    I made an error in my comment at 11:43 a.m. I had written that I longed for the day when our esteemed chief would write a check in the amount of his salary payable to the Treasury or divided “between” the “57 states.” Of course I meant divided among, not divided between. And that’s among all the 57 states that one said he had visited.

    However, maybe there are more now. That one’s salary will simply have to be stretched a little more.

    • Vince Ricardo

      Perhaps if you had stated it in Austrian, you wouldn’t have mixed up “among” and “between.”


      • Jeannette

        Well put. Even in English.

        (I had forgotten about THAT one.)

  • Maureen

    I have always believed that charity begins at home.I have an innate skepticim of government knowing who it is best to “give” my money to,like they are some kind of saints or oracles. The government and certainly Letterman are neither. Thank you,Mr. Letterman, but I am perfectly able to give away my own money….and often do.

  • therealguyfaux

    The original American Revolution was about taxation without representation. What we have nowadays is the anomaly of representation without taxation, for a significant part of the population: Those who earn very little relatively speaking, in which case the government absolves them of income taxes, and those who, due to their connections and wealth, manage to elude income taxes because of favorable legislation. The ordinary Joe Average Fellow can see what’s going on here and know he’s the one that’s going to pay one way or the other. ‘Twas ever thus. Till the so-called Progressives in this country quit being hypocrites about their wealth, and pay more, and shut up about anyone else having to do so, the Bill O’Reillys of this world are right to chide the David Lettermans; as Leona Helmsley famously said, only the little people pay taxes.

  • Jeannette

    It IS selfish of these condescending wimps not to want their wealth redistributed according to somebody else’s direction. I go with you, Bernie, in saying that these guys (and gals) need to put their money where their mouth is. I’ve longed for the day when our esteemed chief will write a check for his salary payable to the Treasury, or divided between all “57 states.”

    It’s like saying, “Let’s you and him fight.”

    • John Daly

      Just so everyone’s clear, I wrote this column. Not Mr. Goldberg. :)

      • Vince Ricardo

        Bernie Daly? John Goldberg?

  • Richard

    Let me try to explain to the author why his logic is false.

    Let’s say that it was voluntary to contribute taxes to help pay for public schools. Let’s say it was voluntary to contribute taxes to help pay for roads and bridges.

    I have no kids. Many of the people in my neighborhood have no kids. Yet we all live within a few blocks of a grade school our taxes would go to. So, because we have no kids, let’s just say that out of the kindness of our hearts, we’ll give 50 cents, assuming that those who have kids would give much more and therefore would pay for that education. Do you think enough money would be raised to pay for this school we live by?

    I work out of my home. I don’t drive very often. But, I do drive, so, let me decide to give $1.00 every year to help maintain roads. I’ll assume everyone else will give at least $1.00. This, certainly, would be more than enough to pay to build, fix, and maintain our roads, wouldn’t it be, Bernie?

    • John Daly

      The issue isn’t about whether or not taxes should be voluntary. Everyone should pay taxes. The debate is over when enough is enough. When we don’t draw a line on how much money the government can take from us, it’s all over for us as a society.

      The rich in our country already pay a disproportionately high percentage of the total tax revenue in our country. They’re also our job creators. Liberals want to keep raising their taxes merely because they have more money… not because they’re not paying enough. I doesn’t seem to matter that taking more of their wealth leads to less hiring and investment, and won’t put a dent in our debt. At this point, any tax increase on them is nothing more than punitive.

      If the government wants more money, reform tax laws and support pro-growth policies.

      • Drew Page

        Well said, John Daly. Liberals demand that the ‘rich’ pay their ‘fair share’, but they never define their terms. What income level, with what number of dependents and in what geographic location defines the term “rich”? Further, who gets to define what a “fair share” of income taxes is? Those in the upper 1% of all income earners pay 38% of all federal income taxes; those in the upper 10% of all earners pay 70% of all taxes, and those in the lower 50% of all wage earners pay 2.47% of all federal income taxes.

        I believe the reason that liberals never want to quantify “fair share” in terms of a percentage of income is because that would represent a cap, or limit; and liberals want no limit on the amount of taxes they can take.

      • Richard

        Bill O’Reilly said himself he would be willing to pay a few more points in taxes. I heard him say a couple of years ago basically the same thing….he would not mind paying a few extra points in taxes in order to fund universal health care.

        Seems as if he has changed his mind, or at least qualifies his statements by saying he wouldn’t mind paying a few more points if the government cleans up wasteful spending.

        I’m kind of tire of the phrase “job creators.” Many of these large corporations, headed by their wealthy CEOs, are not “job creators.” Many are downsizing in order to be more profitable. Seems to me that with trillions in cash on hand, these companies may not be hiring because A)there is lack of demand and B)heck, they’re very profitable as is…..why hire more people?

        Any tax increase on the wealthy is not punitive. I have read studies in Bloomberg that say if you change taxes on the most wealthy, that will not change their spending habits. If they are taxed more, they will save less. If they are taxed less, they will save more. They will not buy more.

        I’ve said it elsewhere…when I was in the highest of tax brackets, paying 39% of in federal income tax, if that rate was lowered to 36%, I would not have spent any more. I was not in a position to be a “job creator.” I simply would have saved more.

        I’m all for reforming tax law…..get rid of the loopholes, and I’d probably be willing to lower corporate tax rates.

    • Vince Ricardo

      It’s difficult to take you seriously when you cannot even bother to pay attention to who wrote the article you’re trying to break down. Hint: It wasn’t Bernie.

      • Richard

        I assume Vince Ricardo you are talking to me.

        I will say one thing, however, to “break down” this article. The author writes that “As usual, Letterman’s tone was irritable and adversarial.” I don’t think so. Yes, in previous visits, the O’Reilly/Letterman exchange has been somewhat irritable and adversarial. But I think there was a marked improvement in their conversation this time.

        I personally think both men respect each other, even though they disagree on the other’s opinions. As for me, I generally respect O’Reilly and watch his show often, even though I disagree with him on many things and, in fact, he makes me angry some times.

        Well, VR, you caught me. No, I did not notice who wrote the article, but it was linked to from Bernie Goldberg’s web page. So I assume Bernie supports this article.

        Further, if you were referring to me, please note that in this post, I did not mention Bernie Goldberg’s name.

        • John Daly

          First of all, in Richard’s defense, many people have confused my columns for Bernie’s. I’m not sure why since my name is right at the top, but it happens fairly often.


          While I agree that Letterman’s tone was more subdued than usual, it was definitely still adversarial and irritable.

          I don’t think Letterman respects O’Reilly, but I do believe that Dave has realized that O’Reilly has come out on top in their sparring matches every time since O’Reilly’s first appearance when Letterman cold-cocked him… and even that one is debatable.

          Also, you shouldn’t assume that Bernie supports the opinions of the other writers in this site. He lets us write about the topics we wish to.

  • Joy F Friedberg

    Give a man a fish, he’s eats for a day. Teach a man to fish he is fed. For life. The liberal mindset is so condescending that it keeps people from developing a healty work ethicand the desire and ability to be self reliant. Able bodied healthy adults are on government subsistence rather then at a job. Jobs are disappearing due to a government placing ridiculous burdens on small business. It is actually these buisnesses that provide the majority tax money. Libra’s keep pounding a lie about the selfish rich. Big business employs large numbers of citizens who pay taxes. Letterman is ignorant of basic economics and the value of healthy capitalism. Thank-you for allowing my comments. JFF

    • Richard


      There will always be a segment of the population who won’t work/can’t work for some reason. I don’t think unemployment has ever been below 4% in this country (and the Ryan plan predicts something less than what has ever happened before…..what arrogance, what delusional thinking, that he can predict something something that’s never happened before).

      Jobs started disappearing in Bush’s last term in office. The job losses per month became as great as 700,000 to 800,000 his last 3 months in office.

      Shortly after Obama passed his stimulus bill, these job loss trends reversed. Job growth actually overall has been positive these past 14 months or so (August’s job’s rate was revised upwards from 0).

      Most of the jobs being lost the past few months are government/public sector jobs; most of the new jobs are private sector, although they are small in number. Isn’t this what conservatives want, to destroy public sector jobs?

      And, please tell me what “ridiculous burdens” are being placed on small businesses? Name one. I believe that most of the “burdens” on small businesses existed before Obama came into office.

      Actual data shows that indeed, 25% of the very wealthy pay less than the average the poor and middle class pay in terms of taxes. That is not a lie.

      Just as simple arithmatic will show: One stops paying social security tax once you make over 106,000 a year. That’s a 6% savings for the rich on anything over this amount. Typically, it is the wealthy who have enough to buy stocks, mutual funds, etc……and pay only 15% on long term capital gains on money they earned not by working, but by just letting their money sit.

      And, the theme of protesters is not about the “selfish rich.” It is about how the system is rigged so that some like GE do not pay any federal taxes.

      Our taxes are at the lowest rates for many decades. During, before, and after WWII, the highest income tax rates even hit over 90% for the most wealthy. And, yet, we prospered very well in the decades after WWII.

      For several years in my own career, I was in the highest of tax brackets. I could care less if I paid 36% or 39% in federal income tax. I didn’t even make it to the millionaire’s club, but if you are this rich, you either A)don’t mind paying a few points in taxes (which is what O’Reilly said, if waste were to be cleaned up) and B)or yes, you just might be selfish.

  • Richard

    The point is not that individuals can choose to donate more money to the government; the point is that taxes need to be raised on all wealthy individual so that the cumulative effect of this action makes a lot bigger difference than individuals choosing whether or not they pay. Why people don’t understand this is beyond me.

    And to the write who calls Dave a “pompous ass,” she A)doesn’t watch his show much and B)is one herself. Anyone who has seen Letterman for any length of time would know what a kind heart he has. He gets very angry, and you can tell it, when he talks about subjects such as global warming…..he worries about the future for his son. He gets quite emotional when people like Warren Zevon pass away.

    Dave did not take the bet with O’Reilly because he probably realized O’Reilly might have been right (I think he was off by a point from what I’ve read). Maybe Dave isn’t a gambling man; maybe he doesn’t like to lose. I’d bet money, though, that he does give much money to charity.

    And, you talk about Dave making fun of O’Reilly? He traded innocent barbs with O’Reilly on that show. It was a quite friendly exchange, unlike some of the previous O’Reilly visits.

    If you think Dave will continue to make fun of O’Reilly about this show, think about how O’Reilly treated Dave on his own program the following night. He told Gutfield that the reason he went on Dave’s show was to sell his book, and he said he didn’t care if Dave can’t stand him.

    If this is true, then it is O’Reilly who is the pompous ass; it is O’Reilly who is only in it for himself.

    • John Daly


      The problem is that even the cumulative effect won’t put a dent in our debt. All it will do is give more money to the government to spend as they choose.

      I people are serious about increasing tax revenues in a way that doesn’t hurt successful companies, they should put in place policies that help grow the economy, not stifle it.

      I would very much challenge the notion that David Letterman his a kind heart. The guy has cheated on his wife numerous times, so I must admit that I chuckled when you I read your bit about him wanting the best for his child.

      He’s also made numerous despicable and personal attacks (not jokes) on Sarah Palin that went WAY over the line.

      And regarding the wager, it was Letterman who actually brought it up… when he wanted O’Reilly’s paycheck. Only when the stakes changed to charity, did he back off.

      • Richard

        Yes, it was wrong for Dave to cheat on his wife. I don’t approve of everything he has ever done. But it appears as if he has made up with her.

        I said nothing about Letterman wanting the best for his child….although I am sure he does.

        Letterman brought up O’Reilly’s paycheck as a joke. He has done this with others. As far as I recall, I do not think Letterman brought up a wager….maybe he did, but, again, I’m sure it was joke. He is a comedian, after all.

        I don’t think he jokes about Sarah Palin went WAY over the line. Perhaps his joke about Bristol at the ballgame did, but as much as you and others may argue against this, the joke was about Bristol, not the younger daughter.

        Letterman is a comedian. People like limbaugh are not comedians, yet they make some of the most despicable comments/”jokes” I’ve heard. Limbaugh said that poor people should send their kids to garbage cannisters to find food. He suggested that poor people should not be allowed to vote.

        beck has used the nazi/hitler reference about Obama literally hundreds of times. Nazis kiled 6 million people and were responsible for the deaths of 50 to 70 million people in WWII.

        Yet when asked on the Today show about whether or not he was sorry about saying some of the things he said, he basically said that he wasn’t sorry for anything that was a “joke.”

        Conservatives do not know what “over the line” means when it comes to joking.

        • Richard

          I guess I was wrong, John, about Letterman saying he only wanted the best for his son….I said he “worries about the future for his son.” Didn’t see this when I quickly scanned it again.

          But that doesn’t negate anything I said.

      • Richard


        I know the cumulative effect will not come close to solving our debt problem. I’ve seen it might solve perhaps 10% of it.

        When John Boehner was asked early this year about why he would cut funding to NPR, which was only a couple of hundred million (very, very, very small dent), his response was, “it’s a start.” The same is true for increasing taxes on the most wealthy.

        The way I look at it is the following. George Bush started 2 unfunded wars. He is the only President in our history who has not raised taxes in a time of war. Instead, he did lower taxes, which I believe benefited mostly the wealthiest in this country.

        Now we are being asked to pay down the debts with cuts to or elimination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

        This seems like a situation where those who need these programs the most will be paying for those 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan whereas the wealthiest will not be paying for them. This just does not seem fair.

        Sure, Obama has raised the debt even further. But I believe his stimulus has saved many jobs. It did not create many, but it saved many. Yes, there are economists who do not like the stimulus, but there are economists, monetary figures, and others who believe otherwise. Former treasury and budget officials from the Reagan and Bush administrations have made claims that lowering taxes will not pay for themselves; they will not create jobs.

        The founder and current managing director of the world’s largest bond fund, Bill Gross of PIMCO, has said that fiscal conservatism at this point could hurt the economy even more. He has hinted at more stimulus.

        After the debt ceiling fiasco, Bill Gross said the agreement did not go far enough. He said that yes, we do need to cut spending, but he also said that we need to raise trillions by raising taxes.

    • Vince Ricardo

      I used to watch the show. For years. Letterman is a pompous ass. What on Earth does crying over global warming (and it’s climate change, Richard, you know that) and Warren Zevon’s death have to do with NOT being a pompous ass? Who says those things are mutually exclusive?

      • Richard

        No, Vince. He is not a pompous ass.

        A pompous ass is someone like limbaugh or beck who think they are always right and who sometimes defend what they say by claiming it was a “joke” or satire. A pompous ass is someone like Ann Coulter who has made disgusting comments about 9-11 widows and, again, defends much of this stuff by saying it was a “joke.”

        Warren Zevon’s death was but an example. People here claim Letterman is a pompous ass. They claim he is selfish, a person without feelings other than for himself. I have seen Letterman on numerous occasions make very heartfelt comments about people who have died….Zevon, members of his staff, and others who were close to Dave and/or made an impression in his life. To me, this shows that he does have a heart and does care for people.

        As far global warming (ok, climate change), Dave strongly believes in it and is very worried about it. He is worried about it in particular for his son. He does not want his son to grow up in a world with horrible climactic situations, as he seems to believe. Whether he is right or wrong in his believe, his statements tell me that he believes it is a threat to his child. It tells me he is not the pompous ass, the selfish fiend those here have made him out to be.

        I think I am a good judge of character, and after watching Letterman for so many years, I truly believe he has a very big heart and cares very much for his fellow man.

        • Vince Ricardo

          He’s a saint. You win, señor “judge” Richard. Letterman isn’t arrogant at all. He has never been an ass. He has never put someone down, mean spiritedly, and later said it was “just a joke.” I concede. LOL.

  • Kenneth Taylor

    The more I learn about Bill O’Reilly, the more I think he would make one hell of a (US)President

  • Lily

    Letterman is a pompous ass and always has been. I ONLY watch his show when he has someone I want to see, otherwise, I could careless about his show.

    I saw part of the segment with O’Reilly, it is clear that Letterman doesn’t want to truly help people. The writers strike a few years ago is a good example of that. He thinks he’s all that because he settled with the writers of his show (since he owns it he could negotiate separately from the other union groups), but the fact is he turned his writers into scabs when he reached a settlement with them, because they walked off the striking line. I’m not a union supporter, but the fact is Letterman got his show back on the air, for his sake, not for his writers. He didn’t care for anyone else, if they weren’t part of his show, too bad for them.

    Again, Letterman cares only for himself. He won’t see that bet through. He’ll make fun of O’Reilly, and everyone who doesn’t tow the liberal line. Or who doesn’t kowtow to him. Letterman is a pompous ass.