Skip to main content

Brent Bozell: ‘Bill O’Reilly Is Wrong’

Brent Bozell's picture

Last night, Bill O’Reilly had some very nice things to say about the Media Research Center and for that I’m grateful.  But he made a major criticism of this organization, and rather than have me on to respond to it, he brought on two other guests to discuss it. So I’ll respond here.

Bill O’Reilly is wrong.

He said last night that, “[T]here is no question that the huge partisan divide in this country is leading to hate speech, slander, defamation.... And now some Americans are calling for firings, boycotts and in one absurd case, criminal prosecution. All for speech that they don’t like.”

After stating that the “marketplace should dictate these controversies” (I think he meant “resolve”), he said, “The entire boycott movement is garbage. The far-left threatening sponsors who advertise on programs they don’t like is flat-out un-American. So I believe that the Media Research Center is making a mistake sinking to that level.”

I’m not quite sure why he had nice things to say about us if he also thinks we’re un-American. Regardless, here’s my answer.

If the suggestion here is that I’m promising — not threatening, promising — to take a complaint to the advertisers of MSNBC because I don’t like liberal speech, Mr. O’Reilly would be entirely correct. And silly. I’ve been at this for 25 years. I’ve never objected to the right of political free speech, liberal or otherwise, including far-left liberal political free speech. But this does not mean I don’t have a right to communicate with advertisers. I have every right to do so. That’s my free speech. And when someone goes over the line, I exercise it.

When CBS announced it was coming out with The Reagans, a made-for-TV movie that deliberately distorted Ronald Reagan’s record, while painting a viciously dishonest picture of him, I objected to the advertising community. I make no apologies.

When, in the wake of 9-11, Bill Maher made insulting comments about our military as they went to war in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaeda, I objected to his advertisers on ABC. I make no apologies.

In both cases, the advertisers had every right to tell me to pound sand. But in both cases they agreed, and left these shows in droves. CBS was forced to move The Reagans over to its pay-cable network Showtime,  which does not rely on advertiser support. ABC canceled Maher. They made the correct decision, and I was pleased by the outcome.


When MSNBC goes over the line, with one host after another making racist, hate-filled, misogynistic, and utterly-dishonest, character-assassinating accusations against conservatives, I have every right to react. And I have every right to go to the underwriters of this programming and ask why they want to be associated with such bile. They have every right to disregard my complaint. Or listen to it.

That, Mr. O’Reilly, is the marketplace.

A final point: O’Reilly states that he “aggressively reported GE’s irresponsible position involving hate speech. But we never threatened anyone. In fact the only time I mentioned the boycott was when France was actively aiding Saddam Hussein.” Um, no. He did more than mention. He actively supported a boycott of France. Here’s his site: http://www.billoreilly.com/site/product?pid=18704.

Why? Because he felt France had crossed the line. He was exercising his free speech. And I’m happy he did.

Comments

#1 The boycott movement is not garbage.

It's people deciding whom they want to do business with, based on whatever criteria they decide.

#2 Way to go Brent

Sometimes Bill is a little off and thinks he knows it all. It's nice to see the record corrected.

#3 2 options

1. It generates interesting topic (the product he sells)
2. It is good to have a bad competitor. MRC wants someone, who may be a better competitor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time to update someone's saying: Apparently my talent is no longer on loan from God, it is given to me by the government...the rel

#4 Even though I think that

Even though I think that MSNBC will scoff, more power to you, Brent. We are Breitbart.

#5 Quit Watching Bill'O

He's a real life Ted Baxter.

#6 o'reilly

i watch fox news, but i turn off oreilly

revgay

#7 O'Reilly doesn't make the cut at my home, either.

He can't escape the "Inside Edition" sensationalist tactics, the blathering, the arguments, and the inaccuracies--oh, and let's not forget the fawning over Obama.  Consequently, it's not surprising that he would avoid inviting Mr. Bozell on his program to answer the specious charges in person.

Unless I happen to see Dennis Miller on his show while flipping channels, I never tune to the so-called "Factor."  Note to FOX News: Get Miller to host that hour, and relegate O'Reilly to the occasional appearance.  You'd have a much better hour of programming there.

--Mike

#8 I do my own "censoring."

I try very hard NOT to buy products, or use services of the advertisers on shows that, in my humble opinion, suck.

Conversely, I use and buy from advertisers of shows that I agree (mostly) with.

I realize that is hard to do sometimes because companies like GE are so widespread and into so many services and products, but I just pray for the CEO to drop dead, in cases like that!

No, really!  I do.

Comrade Bubba

#9 Same here

I do not buy GE products, for example.

I don't consider it a boycott. It's my personal choice not to subsidize a corporation that (a) owns media outlets I find offensive, and (b) doesn't pay any Federal income tax (even though it's probably legal).

#10 Some time ago, when Olbermann

Some time ago, when Olbermann was still at MSNBC,  I wrote to GE and told them their appliances were in a house I had bought, but I wouldn't buy them again.

We recently bought a new house that comes with GE appliances. I had them removed and replaced with Whirlpool.

Am I censoring anyone? Absolutely not.

Am I exercising my right to buy from whom I want to? For whatever reason I decide?

You betcha!

#11 Story here about dinner w/ GE CEO and wife

I forget his title, ran the whole Cincinnati jet engine plant and more it seems in mid-1980's. This was at a charitable event and I was seated with big wigs & their spouses. This GE guy was intimidating to say the very least. Very powerful persona. He talked like you would imagine an organized crime leader would. Talking about buying satellite (operations) like they were nothing. He did offer me a job; "just call my office" type of statement. Er, that never panned out once I graduated from College. Went to work for CAT. The CAT interview was my first flight in a plane and staying in a fancy hotel. Ah the memories...

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

#12 Worried about himself

Bill is so pre-occupied with being labeled a conservative he sometimes goes out his way to be "fair and balanced" He wanted to do a piece on the left boycotting Limbaugh advertisers, but wanted to come off as not choosing sides. That might be the "balanced" part of his mantra, but it is far from being fair. The left are the hypocrites and phonies in this narrative, and O'Reilly should have had the balls to call them out. Instead, he was concerned about his own image and not what was right. Being fair and balanced, does not always mean not taking a stand.

#13 Good point, dan

He goes through these mood swings between trying to appear 'fair and balanced' and spouting off on liberal guests.

His show is a shadow of what it once was 10-15 years ago.

#14 Agree. Thanks for your observations!

He really is full of himself too. That makes the show unappealing.

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

#15 O'Reilly has never been a conservative

BO has been a centrist all the time I have been watching him, and that goes back to his network news days. He might be right of center but he believes in big gov solutions to social problems. That is the dangerous type of thinking that puts this country into compromise positions with the left. That is the way of the centrist. Think John McCain here. The progressive movement wants the whole mile but they are willing to take it incrementally, inch by inch knowing the moderate will always give a little.. Over time, the right loses to the left because of the centrist and their moderate belief in gov solutions. They give in while pretending to side with the conservative view.

Oh and Bill isn't concerned about anything but his own show regarding this boycott issue. He wants to nip it in the bud before they start calling the factor advertisers.over something he said.

#16 I remember how O'Reilly gave

I remember how O'Reilly gave Baraka "the benefit of the doubt" on most issues and said things like well he's trying but it's just not working out. That was leading up to his Superbowl interview with the One, but now he's not holding back on his opinions of him. He's also incredibly naive at times as to what the left will do to silence opposition. Just remember, this is the same guy who hosted the tabloid show Inside Edition back in the 80's.

#17 That's basically how I took it as well.

Bill's not part of the "know-nothing" middle as much as he is part of the "nothing-too" middle. A recent radio message said that "Right-wing radio would bash Obama 24 hours a day". Nobody needs to bash Obama, just analyzing his policies and his record are bad enough.

#18 Off-Base O'Reilly

Another case of O'Reilly spouting off erroneously: His demonization of oil companies for the gasoline price hikes. He's wrong, flat out. He ought to direct his fire to the White House specifically and govt bureaucracies generally. They have been doing all they can to cut oil production domestically. It's as plain as the nose on Obama's face. Face it, Bill. Oil companies are the heroes in this strife. They just get your goat, so you spout off. But that's not unusual, although you do say some things that usually I agree with and applaud.

Ben Blankenship

#19 Well, BOR is certainly

Well, BOR is certainly on-target when he says "bloviating" is "his" job.

#20 Bill~

I think this is more of a personal matter for O'Reilly. Boycott on France, fine. But get into news folks/organizations, and I think it strikes too close to home.

Or I could be wrong. Just a guess.

I do agree with others on here that sometimes he bends like Gumby to show he is so"fair and balanced" to the point where logic is tossed out the window...he gets a little odd at times.

"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan

#21 O'Reiily is notorious for this..

Hey Brent, thanks for the clarification (not that I ever went along with the MOUTH). O'Reilly has always had an agenda and I know you would never go there for obvious reasons but I will. He loves to play the middle and play two opposites against each other for a very big reason. TO MAKE HIMSELF THE ORACLE. He really has followers who believe that left and right are equally extreme and wrong and he (who is looking out for ya) is the guy with all the integrity and righteousness. In other words he's a clown. He does this constantly on his show and people buy that portion of snake oil he sells. He's not all bad- but on this count he's an egotistical carnaval barker.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."--Winston Churchill

#22 Bill is off on a number of things.

He has a very poor understanding of free enterprise and especially commodities markets. He continues to call oil speculators "greedy and corrupt". Speculators are a valuable and necessary part of free and healthy markets and economies. He never seems to understand that and wants to pander to those who think all problems stem from greedy people.

Economies are built on dreams and ambitions, from Joe The Plumber to Donald Trump. It all starts between the ears of every human being and that is something politicians and bureaucrats can never understand or control.

#23 "pander to those who think

"pander to those who think all problems stem from greedy people."

Sounds like Obama.

#24 O'Reilly is one of the most

O'Reilly is one of the most sanctemonious and self-elevating people I've ever seen on TV, and I figured that out quite a while ago, so I don't watch him much, if at all............and I base my opinion on the fact that I used to watch him a lot. I probably agreed with him on many topics, but his personality and his smarmy arrogance negated any interest I had in continuing to watch him. Plus, he's pals with the hideous and repulsive Gerry Rivers, and he's given two knee-pad 'interviews' with Boy BlahBlah, who is actually MORE sanctemonious and self-absorbed than O'Reilly.

#25 Spot On....

Your words could very well have come from my brain and my keyboard, killa. I have the precise take on this as you do, my friend....

#26 BOR -

First, your post is accurate but lacking (IMO).

Every time BOR says "we're looking out for you" he's lying. BOR ONLY looks out for BOR.

He is the single most selfish, self-serving, self-centered and arrogant person on TV. He argues with Megan Kelly about the law and when she burns him legally, he shouts "I don't care about the _______ (insert "law" or "Constitution"), then goes on to say how he would administer. Thank the Lord he isn't "in charge".

He is one of the few individuals that actually makes me scream at my radio (I listen on Sirius) when he makes one of his many ignorant observations, e.g. "If someone's going to do drugs, why don't they get a baby sitter for their kids?" That's what defines "addicts", Bill. They do drugs rather than act responsibly. DUH!

Two thumbs up on "Gerry Rivers". :-)

#27 killa37

Yup. Gave up on viewing O'Reilly's ego long ago precisely for the reasons you've cited. Agree with you on Gerry Rivers, too.

#28 I am a little disappointed

I am a little disappointed that Bill didn't ask you on, Brent. Especially because he (and rightfully so) lamblasts those who don't come on to defend a position. But now, he's doing it, which is in my mind...hypocritical.

#29 O-reilly the boycotter

How soon do we forget that O'Reilly was a BIG ADVOCATE for boycotting as he did with the French years ago. O'Reilly is a hypocrite.

 "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

#30 He is fair and balanced and indeed RIGHT and WRONG as well

I agree with some of the heat directed at O'Reilly here and I also don't watch his show as much, more situational but I NEVER MISS Miller or a few other segments.

I watch the culture quiz but the sound is off, you can probably figure WHY I WATCH IT, but don't care to hear it......................

That all being said, unlike many other mouthpieces and mostly liberal lying shills, O'reilly does GREAT work for the Wounded Warriors and donates the proceeds of his other ventures to charity.

Don't discount that JUST BECAUSE you happen to not agree with him all the time, that means a lot to me and it allows for a little arrogance to be tolerated.

If you make poverty easy, you will have more of it. Benjamin Franklin

#31 Brent Be Proud

Bill O’Reilly is a worthless political pundit who shams his viewers to believing he's just looking out for "The Folks." He only cares about himself and making big bucks so he can hang around with his leftist pals like Sally Quinn, the Washington Post journalist who's the founder and co-moderator of On Faith with Jon Meacham.

This section of The Post defines the war on Christianity that Billy champions. So why does he have her on his show often while commending her intelligence? His circle of elitist friends includes folks like Bill Maher, David Letterman, Barbra Walters, etc. - who's spinning who?

#32 C'Mon Brent...

The 8pm-er is simply "looking out for YOU!"

Not asking you on to debate with him tells me one thing. He had an agenda to push and didn't want you to get in the way of his manufactured controversy.

It gives credence to his "moderate" stance on everything.

If Ted Baxter's viewers didn't support him, he couldn't support the WW! Be careful there, Ted.

#33 I find myself watching less

I find myself watching less and less of BOR. He is often wrong but never in doubt..!

#34 Nets change up their line-ups, why won't Fox do the same

I dont like any of their prime time shows.

I'd like to thank Hollywood for renewing my interest in reading.

#35 Perhaps, but they do dominate totally...

I do wish they cut out the second Shemp show at 07:00 and put Greta there and put someone with Hannity, like maybe the lovely Kirsten Powers?

At 10:00 give an up and comer a try.

One could only hope.......................

If you make poverty easy, you will have more of it. Benjamin Franklin

#36 I say move Gufield to the 10:00 slot.

Or get John Stossel in there. I don't know. It has been the same prime time line up essentially for years.

I'd like to thank Hollywood for renewing my interest in reading.

#37 That would work

"The 5" is abysmal too.

Bob Beckel is a big fat blowhard with a bad die job. He just grosses me out.

#38 NO!!!! Leave "The 5" where it

NO!!!!

Leave "The 5" where it is. I sometimes walk by the studio and gaze at Kimberly or Dana as I head home. :-)

I say move Greta to an earlier time and have Red Eye on at 10. Hannity could use a little shaking up. Get a lib on there with him (not Colmes) to spar with.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." President Ronald Reagan

#39 NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Please don't drop The Five! That show has the best legs on TV.

Can Beckel, if you want, but keep the ladies.

Comrade Bubba

#40 Blonde~

What the heck is wrong with me? I actually like "The Five." Well, four of them most of the time.

"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan

#41 I found it more and more

I found it more and more difficult to watch him. Love Laura Ingraham.

What a refreshing change it was, to switch over from BO to 'The Judge'.

Too bad it took me so long to discover him.

CNN, the Clinton News Network---Bill decides; Hill reports

#42 That France helped Saddam Hussein is their business

" The only time I mentioned the boycott was when France was actively aiding Saddam Hussein.”

Why should America have to straighten out the mess made by middle eastern dictators and the deals they make with European nations like France?

Isn't that their right to do so. Of course you don't. But the Constitution was designed by Washington, Madison and the other great Founding Fathers to put a great big halt on men and their desings for war. The Founders made an honorable agreement amongst themselves and with the States to keep war mongers hogtied. The congress had the last word on war and the first word on war and they only gave the POTUS the title of C.in C. as long as he behaved himself!

Ah, but when you play "policeman of the world" and you foolishly believe yourselves to be "exceptionalistic;" that you look upon your military and tell yourself: "Well we have all these weapons and all these nukes and aircraft carriers packed with planes, let's go ahead and use our 'exceptionalism' and kill 200,000 kids."

We need to follow the advice of the Founders to avoid international agreements and military ALLIANCES that sap our strength as a SOVEREIGN nation. Remember George washington and Jefferson advice not to pursue "entangling alliances" with other nations?

#43 That France helped Saddam Hussein is their business

" The only time I mentioned the boycott was when France was actively aiding Saddam Hussein.”

Why should America have to straighten out the mess made by middle eastern dictators and the deals they make with European nations like France?

Isn't that their right to do so. Of course you don't. But the Constitution was designed by Washington, Madison and the other great Founding Fathers to put a great big halt on men and their desings for war. The Founders made an honorable agreement amongst themselves and with the States to keep war mongers hogtied. The congress had the last word on war and the first word on war and they only gave the POTUS the title of C.in C. as long as he behaved himself!

Ah, but when you play "policeman of the world" and you foolishly believe yourselves to be "exceptionalistic;" that you look upon your military and tell yourself: "Well we have all these weapons and all these nukes and aircraft carriers packed with planes, let's go ahead and use our 'exceptionalism' and kill 200,000 kids."

We need to follow the advice of the Founders to avoid international agreements and military ALLIANCES that sap our strength as a SOVEREIGN nation. Remember George Washington and Jefferson's advice not to pursue "entangling alliances" with other nations?

#44 Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............

#45 Nice Rant

But they were flying kites and playing with unicorns before the evil GW Bush showed up! 200,000 kids? You libs just pull numbers out of your arse, but I do like this quote----

"Isn't that their right to do so. Of course you don't. "

WTF does that mean and why are you even talking about this?

#46 Own problems

Bill has his own problems with women...he's just guarding his rice bowl...

Nosmo

#47 I was hoping I could find a link to this story;

fortunately Rush just tweeted it.

Anti-Rush Campaign Was in the Works

What this basically reveals is that MMfA had a plan in waiting for Rush and put it into action just recently. This exposes the pre-meditation and the motives behind the left and their attacks on conservative pundits. It makes clear the fact that it was never about what Rush said specifically, but about what Rush says generally. Their attack is on Rush (and conservative's right to free speech), not on his specific comments about Sandra Fluke. Which also indicates their disinterest in Ms. Fluke and her "victimhood".

BOR is consistently 24-48 hours behind the curve in his reporting. He's entertaining at times, and if you can get past his constant patting of his own back, he does go after some of his guests with more fervor than most. But for a guy who's on television every night, he sure seems to be missing a lot of what's going on outside his doors. I think giving up his radio show has reduced his exposure to these things, and has hurt his tv program. His feedback is limited and probably carefully chosen.

#48 As someone who watches him almost every night...

He likes to change his opinion according to the guest. Hes been extremely soft on O'Bozo, and has expressed his anti-war views-now declaring nightly that we should be out of Afghanistan and promoting "stories" backing up his claim-and hes only conservative when it can benefit him. Otherwise, hes between libertarian and RINO. He also seems to record his shows like 2 days ahead of time, cause his stories already seem old to us.

And, what really disturbed me, was when Breitbart died, every other show did a full piece or multiple shows on him, and about him. BOR does a brief end of episode "Pinheads and Patriots" 10 second "segment" about him-wow, dont take too much of your crappy banter parts away so you can hilight Andrew! F him!

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. BEN FRANKLIN

#49 I noticed that too NJ,

I noticed that too NJ, Hannity did a wonderful segment on Breitbart and Red Eye too. BOR is to full of himself to acknowledge that there was someone who really was looking out for us.

Breitbart is here.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." President Ronald Reagan

#50 Brent

Thank you for holding O'Reilly accountable for his speech.

#51 O"Reilly is Light Entertainment Only

I have seen Bill O'Reilly be embarrassingly dead wrong and inaccurate on a number of occasions, so this doesn't surprise me. I watch him for entertainment only, but I don't believe a word he says without checking the facts for myself first.

#52 Stick to your guns Brent

O'Reilly seems to be missing several points:

First, he left doesn't just ask advertisers to cease patronizing outlets such as Rush - they flat out threaten the advertisers. Their boycott isn't against those they don't like such as Rush, it's against anyone that supports those they don't like. Your letter and promise is to bring these heinous statements to the advertisers and essentially let them make their own decision.

Second, the left makes this type of action part of their normal knee-jerk operations. It's usually the first thing out of their mouths when a conservative does or says something they don't like. You, and most conservatives try alternative methods first, and use direct contact with advertisers as a last resort.

Finally, neither you nor I are 8 years old, with our mothers telling us not to "stoop to their level". IMO, it's poetic justice when we use their own tactics against them. I love nothing more than watching these lying idiots eat crow. I love watching them squirm trying to condemn tactics they've been regularly using for years. And the only thing they understand is getting hit in their wallets. You CANNOT reason with a liberal. Several sayings come to mind as regards their "logic".

"Bigot: A conservative winning an argument with a liberal"
"I can remember way back when a liberal was someone who was generous with THEIR money"
"Democratic National Convention - Institutionalized Treason"
"Liberalism - The haunting fear that somewhere, someone is able to help themselves"
"Liberals - Hard on fetuses, soft on criminals"
"I sleep like a Democrat - I lie on one side, then I lie on the other"

#53 ... also this week

We got a perfect example of Bill's thinking. Bill believes that the Tea Party is racist and has labeled them as such on his show many times.

This week Bill managed to blame the messenger, Jason Matera, for daring to ask Chris Rock why he has labeled the entire Tea Party as racist.

Look for Bill to start calling Tea Party candidates RACIST in this falls election.

#54 Part of the MSM

I hold Bill partially responsible for helping get Obama elected...

Nosmo

#55 Counter Boycott is necessary

I have been holding back on calling for a boycott b/c its so sensitive to people but the arguments of the past not to initiate them dont hold anymore. First of all people who say "well I just wont use XYZ anymore" people like O'Reilly Hannity and Beck ARE BOYCOTTING. The only difference to their choice not to use XYZ and an official boycott is them getting on the airwaves calling for one. We ALL boycott everyday when we choose brand A over brand B.

With what is going on today politically is a result of those on the right to sit silent idly by while the left bulldozes over everyone and thing. While the right argues against boycotts the left is fully engaged in them. So those on the right against boycotts want to be able to hold their head up high is fine and great, but its to really hold their head up high and back from the bloody nose they still get from the left. Folks you need to fight back and boycotts are simple, effective and have immediate results. The boycotts being called for are really to those siding with the left and the obama regime. ADVERTISERS LISTEN UP! We the people KNOW the views and opinions expressed on those you advertise with do not represent your views and opinions. We arent stupid, we know you are just doing business, but when you choose to take sides then you must be prepared for the consequences! America Counter Boycott  any business, corporation and high profile public figure. They must be shown they cannot take sides with policies that HURT this nation.

56 men, our Founding Fathers, had the courage to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for freedom, prosperity and the pursuit of happiness. What are you prepared to do? http://www.savingtherepublic.com

#56 Wishy-washy

First let me say, I enjoy watching Bill's show "The O'Reilly Factor", I really do.

Bill is a typical independent, a lot of times he see's things from a common sense rationale perspective. but because he is an independent he also tries extra hard to rationalize "borderline" irrationale behavior. Dont get me wrong he will call irrationale behavior ...irrationale, its just that sometimes, I get the impression that he knowingly accepts and quickly rationalizes some measure of irrationale behaviors. From his mannerisms and body language, I believe he does this on purpose. As everytime I see him do it, he seems to rush through his rationale for why the irrationale behavior in question is ok to him. And, I dont know why, but frankly I never usually buy that he buys what he is saying...his speed of speech increases suddenly and he quickly changes topics...that seems to be the MO whenever he does it. Now maybe Im wrong about that, wont be the first or the last time I have been wrong, but there is certainly a distinctive change in his OWN behavioral pattern whenever I detect him doing such a thing.

Brent, your case is exactly in this same pattern...he throws you a bone, but then minimalizes the bone he threw by adding a criticism...any old criticism he might be able to rationalize woulkd have done...I think he does this so as not to align himself with you on the right...It's my belief that Bill has a vested intrest in the appearance of having the "look" of being centrist in his thinking, but honestly on some topics , like healthcare and BIG Government...that dog just dont hunt.

I know Bill is a big Catholic guy, so to him I say he reminds me of what Jesus said about guys who would follow him , but NOT commit to him. He said they were lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, and he would SPIT them out of his mouth. Jesus' message was a lesson to us all, that we MUST choose a side on every issue (not republican vs. democrat...but right vs. wrong), we are NOT to dwell on both sides of any issue...choose a side, and commit to it on the moral principles YOU KNOW ARE RIGHT...so this lesson to me epitomizes Bill O'Reilly. Wishy Washy, when he doesnt need to be. Still love your program Bill...

#57 maxvolt...What is an independent? Is an independent someone

who can't decide whether the Left or the Right has the best political and social philosophy?

What part(s) of the Left's beliefs could an independent find appealing or acceptable? Class warfare? Forcefully taking from those who have, and giving to those who don't? Marginalizing religious beliefs? Cronyism shown to partners in unions, trial attorneys, special interest groups, etc.? Having government decide where resources should be distributed? Having government decide what is beneficial and what should be eliminated?

It seems to me that the distinction between the Left and Right is as distinct as bad and good. Therefore, the question is: what type of person cannot decide whether to choose good or bad, best or worse?

#58 ⇒ Independent

Independent is a euphemism for "Pays no attention"

#59 You Don't Know?

What is this? An attack on Bill O'Reily? Haven't you heard that Bill is the only life form on the planet whose feces emits no discernable odor? No, really - it's true. O'Reily has assured his fans of this fact, and on numerous occasions. He's not really the blowhard he appears to be...nobody could be that arrogant, could they?

Oh, wait - I forgot about Obama...

#60 Here is the VIDEO of Ted Baxter's

Talking Points Commentary.

Memo to Ted Baxter: You indicated in your commentary that Rush Limbaugh has lost scores of sponsors. Rush Limbaugh did NOT lose scores of sponsors! Moreover, the reason you stood up for Ellen DeGeneres and stand up for other Lefties is to continue to have their approval, so you can promote yourself, your books and other paraphernalia on The View, Letterman, etc. Especially yourself! O'Reilly also insists Obama should always be called President Obama.

Oh, by the way, I agree with Brent Bozell.

#61 Bill has done it himself

Back in 2002 Bill O'reilly blasted Pepsi for using the rapper Ludacris in their Ads and encouraged people to call pepsi and threaten to boycott. This cost this man a lucrative contract that probably paid more then he was getting from his record label.

They later met at an event and have since made peace so that might be why he has changed his tune now?

I honestly don't believe in boycotts unless they are about something really important like civil rights or national security.

#62 O'Reilly Comment

You are right.
He is wrong.
It would be nice if you able to express that on his show....that would be "Fair and Balanced"
In the opinion of this humble subscriber and donor (to you and MRC) and not to him...I don't think it will happen.

Sorry

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.