Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.
The whole truth about gay marriage, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Acording to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken in May, just 25 percent of the American people believe gays should have the right to marry. A CBS poll has the number at 28 percent.
As far as the constitutional amendment is concerned, most polls say more than half the nation wants man-woman marriage to have constitutional protection, but it will not happen because the Senate will not approve it and that's that.
"Talking Points" has said over and over that if Lenny and Larry want to get married, we don't care, but we do care that the will of the people is being overrun by activists, judges and an unbelievably biased press.
Today "The New York Times" proves once again that it uses its news pages to promote its editorial point of view. "The Times" ran two articles about the gay marriage amendment. In article number one on the front page, it referred to supporters of the amendment as conservatives four times. In article number two on page 19, it's referred to supporters of the amendment as conservatives five times. That's nine mentions of conservatives being for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Now if you read the articles, it's obvious what "The Times" is doing. Anyone who opposes gay marriage is labeled a conservative, which is the worst thing you can possibly be at "The New York Times."
Of course, the polls show that the majority of Democrats in America oppose gay marriage. And even the bomb-throwing Democrat from West Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd (search ), voted for the constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage, but don't tell "The New York Times" that. They want their readers to think that everyone who opposes gay marriage is some kind of right wing nut.
Also today, "The Times" reported a rumor on page one. Of course, that rumor is harmful to the Bush campaign. So that's why the paper ran a story about Dick Cheney (search ) possibly dropping off the ticket.
"Talking Points" can tell you that there's absolutely no evidence that will happen, but perhaps "The New York Times" is smarter than "Points."
Finally, in its lead editorial, "The New York Times" bemoans the fact that security in Afghanistan is bad— and it is. Of course, "The Times" blames President Bush for this and calls for more NATO troops to protect the Karzai government.
Somehow I seem to remember President Bush calling for that as well. And I believe the guy preventing more NATO involvement is our old pal Jacques Chirac (search), the president of France, but somehow "The New York Times" neglects to mention that. Agenda, anyone?
And that's "The Memo."
The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day
Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day"...
This coming Sunday, your humble correspondent — that's me, I always feel the need to clarify that — has the cover story in Parade magazine (search). The report is about my trip to the bottom of the Grand Canyon (search), and my confrontation with a vicious mule who did not understand that a "No Spin" guy was riding atop it.
Anyway, I think you'll like this piece, and you might want to even go to the canyon yourself. But that's not an easy thing to do. You have to book way in advance and get down to the bottom, which is a nine-mile journey. Now, I rarely give personal plugs on this program, but if you want to see the Grand Canyon, the go-to guy is John Skolnick, who knows everything about the canyon.
You can reach John on his Web site, GrandCanyonHikes.com — that's GrandCanyonHikes.com. Skolnick, will take care of you, and that's not ridiculous at all.