Bill O’Reilly isn’t crazy
The most successful TV political commentator in America, Bill O’Reilly, appeared on David Letterman’s show last Tuesday. The two men spoke about President George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party, Glenn Beck, Dick Cheney, and so on. Unlike what many would have expected, the show was actually very interesting. Letterman, the liberal Democrat, and O’Reilly, the conservative Republican, agreed more often with each other than one would have thought, were open to each other’s views and arguments, and accepted disagreement in a reasonable manner, without disrespecting each other.
And, I was surprised by this myself, O’Reilly sounded very reasonable and knowledgeable. Perhaps I should watch his show a bit more. He and Rush Limbaugh are obviously not the same people.
Watch it:
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Bill O’Reilly has been on Letterman before, and they argued a lot, so this time I was surprised it was so civil. But you are absolutely right that O’Reilly is not Rush Limbaugh. Unlike Limbaugh, O’Reilly is not a Republican (he’s an independent), he’s pro-gay rights, he’s pro-gun control, and he’s against the death penalty. In fact, he’s not nearly as conservative as the media portrays him. The reason why left-wing media hate him so much, is because he harshly criticizes them on his show, and because he’s very popular.
He also constantly interrupts guests on his show, but unlike other media hosts (Keith Olbermann, or even Oprah), he invites guests that sharply disagree with him.
I agree that he did well. He held his own against an obviously biased interviewer, and managed to make it somewhat entertaining as well.
As far as Limbaugh vs. Bill is concerned, I think they are really in two different leagues, although they are often lumped together. I agree with Letterman that Limbaugh doesn’t believe everything he says. He tries to be controversial in order to get ratings. He often says things that can be interpreted to be way over the top, but then leaves it vague enough so he can backtrack later (such as the “I hope Obama fails” comment). So he deserves all the criticism he gets.
Beck, while I think he believes what he says, is a little crazy in my opinion. I’ll give him credit though, that he was talking about the financial mess while everyone else was still saying things were peachy. He is still saying it’s going to get much worse, so I think he’s made his business being the doom-predictor. It’s a little too gloomy for me (and hopefully wrong, but who knows).
O’Reily, on the other hand, is usually smart and reasonable. He admits we were wrong to go into Iraq, for example. The difference between Rush and Bill is that Rush says things to make a controversy and get attacked, while Bill gets attacked for things that he says that are taken out of context. And yes, he does say stupid things sometimes, and he is arrogant, but I think that’s a job requirement for a talk show host.
Neither O’Reilly nor Limbaugh are crazy, except crazy like foxes (no pun intended vis a vis O’Reilly.)
Limbaugh is actually the more intelligent of the two though. O’Reilly blusters when he gets backed into corners, while Limbaugh is much more skilled at real debate.
Both of them lean more toward folsky wisdom/common sense than high intellect, and neither is willing to frame his/her speech in the manner that intellectuals demand- thus they get branded as idiots by intellectuals, particularly lefty ones.
O’reilly is far from crazy. His views may not always be the best but he does have some good points here and there.
DEAR JOHN ROHAN:
Bill O’Reilly is “pro-gay rights?” In what sense, exactly? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with marriage equality for Gay couples. Every time that issue comes up, O’Reilly throws out the tiresome old canard about polygamy, saying that if we allow Gay couples to marry, then by logical extention we HAVE to allow people to have more than one spouse.
Does O’Reilly support ENDA? Does he think Gay Americans should be allowed to serve in the military? I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here, if you can provide some quotes to this effect.
O’Reilly is not a conservative Republican, you pinhead!
You’ve been listening to liberals on this, haven’t you?
Seriously, though, do watch it sometimes. He definitely isn’t as conservative as a lot of his foes make out. Where I do disagree with him is on his style of field interviewing (the get in the fact tactics), and that he is quite stubborn (and often wrong) on legal matters, especially when it comes to the first amendment. He and Megan Kelly always get into it when the subject comes up. I also disagree with his stance on torture/enhanced interrogations/whatever. At least, whatever he had a couple years ago, anyway.
lol which *everyone* ? for eight years we constantly heard the Left cry wolf over the absolute horrible economy the world’s ever seen. – that is up to when it did actually go down.
********
wasn’t it O’Reilly who was on Letterman before when Letterman didn’t have the knowledge to par with O’Reilly and said he didn’t know but thought he was full of crap anyway? Last time I ever watched Letterman.
@Interested
Very few people predicted that the recession would happen, at least as quickly/severely as it did, even on the left. They might have complained about distribution of income, tax cuts for the rich, etc. But I think it’s pretty clear that the recession took almost everyone by surprise. There were people talking about a possible housing bubble, but very few people understood the dynamics of the credit market (derivatives, etc.) that would cause the dominoes to fall.
To be fair though, Beck didn’t understand all of that either, which is why I don’t give him a lot of credit. But he did say that things would get bad.
@Chuck Anziulewicz
Um, Mike, so why SHOULDN’T polygamy be legal? Sounds like Bill O’Reilly is a bit too liberal for you. Polygamy was legal, and the sky did not fall .. and it is legal under the U.S. Constitution (it just is not REQUIRED under the US Constitution). Utah simply made a ‘deal’ with the U.S. to voluntarily bar it in exchange for admittance into the Union. But it was purely voluntary (admittedly of course in the sense that ’seatbelt laws’ are voluntary – the feds will find someway to punish if a state strays, mainly by withholding funding), there is no basis in the Constitution for the Federal government to intervene in State definitions of Marriage. That is O’Reilly’s point .. advocates who want to federal protection and recognition of gay marriage will be giving the federal government that power for the first time! The side-effect may be that of moving the country in what seems to a ‘Progressive’ direction for today, but may be freezing in place policies that will seem anything but that in 50 years. In other words, federalizing marriage will give the overall mass population of America veto power over the policies in California or Vermont. Anything power the Feds have to REQUIRE an activity comes with a commensurate ability to BAN it – that is the basis of the Religion clause in the First Amendment – and Marriage was considered at the time to be a purview of Religion and thus not a matter for the federal government.
Actually my comment is in response to Chuck, not Mike.