Rangel called President Bush "Bull Connor", who was apparently a racist politician down south several years ago, because of the rate of poverty in the country. O'Reilly had Rangel on to challenge him on this fact, and O'Reilly then presented data stating that the Bush adm. has spent far more on poverty/entitlement programs that did the Clinton adm., and that the current poverty rate under Bush is actually one percentage point less than it was mid-term in Clinton's term.
O'Reilly wanted to know on what basis Rangel was basing his rhetoric, and of course Rangel could not respond coherently. O'Reilly wanted to know what on earth Bush was supposed to do - go to the homes of the poor and tutor their kids, make sure the families use birth control, etc. Rangel was steadfast in his portrayal of Bush as someone who would not help the poor; O'Reilly was steadfast in citing statistics that stated otherwise.
I know most people here hate O'Reilly, but 95% of the time he does a very good job of defending the administration. He does go after them in certain areas, such as illegal immigration, but he always has data to back up his arguments.
Nah. Just the ones that like to hear themselves talk.