New at Reason

January 15, 2007

Cathy Young tries to unravel the tangle of aggrieved feelings, conspiracy theories, and enemy lists that makes up The O'Reilly Factor.

Comments

edna|1.15.07 @ 9:41AM|#

when o'reilly says, "i'll let you have the last word," you can bet that you will not have the last word. the jerry springer of the so-called news business.

Ashish George|1.15.07 @ 9:49AM|#

"A confession: I used to be a bit of an O'Reilly fan. I was always put off by his authoritarian leanings, his black-and-white approach to the world, and his habit of invoking 'the children' as a catchall justification for social policies; but his common-sense populism could be a refreshing response to intellectual pretensions and political correctness."

I really have to wonder what "intellectual pretensions" drove Young into O'Reilly's decidedly anti-intellectual embrace.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.15.07 @ 9:55AM|#

O'Reilly is as close a match, tactics-wise, to Joseph McCarthy as you can find.

And he was a freaking Inside Edition host.

*sigh*

|1.15.07 @ 10:13AM|#

O'Really? just plays to an audience. He's a reactionary showman. The fact that he's on a "news" channel is an unfortunate coincidence that affords him undeserved credibility.

The bottom line is, there are alot of "folks" out there who are insecure. Their belief structure, their moral background, the foundation that they built their lives upon, all those things (unfortunately) depend on a "strength in numbers" wherein they are not challenged or questioned, but simply accepted because that's the norm. It's essentially always 1955. Problem is, "freedom" means "freedom". And with this freedom comes the responsibility---the responsibility to not depend on the government forcing others to comply with your worldview in order to prop up your beliefs. But "folks" are weak, and they, unfortunately, cannot deal with their worldview being challenged...and I don't even mean directly challenged. I mean indirectly. For someone like O'Really? and his audience, if someone else doesn't accept your traditionalist beliefs as their own, it's considered an affront, a "challenge" to your own...since your own beliefs are based on strength in numbers. All of this leads to widespread insecurity.

And Bill O'Really? simply plays right into this insecurity. He takes advantage of it by preaching a populist gospel, by telling these insecure 1950's folk that he's "looking out for them". He tells them exactly what they wanna hear, and thus, validates their worldview. As I said, he's a showman.

|1.15.07 @ 10:15AM|#

I remember walking through Target a couple years ago and seeing that "O'Reilly Factor - For Kids" book for the first time. I actually did an honest-to-God, Jackie-Gleason-style, double-take. I still can't quite believe that such a thing actually exists.

|1.15.07 @ 10:25AM|#

Evan!

So? That is what talk show hosts do for the most part. You don't think people like Randi Rhoads and Al Franken don't do the same thing for their listeners? Or are the only weak people in the world the ones you disagree with? I don't watch O'Reily or any talk shows for that matter, but they left or right fullfill a purpose. They give people an outlet where they feel like their views expressed and respected. Whether it be O'Reily or Air America or LGF and Daily KOS on the web, they all do the same thing. It is a very positive thing. If you don't let people feel they can express their views and anger publicly, those views just get more and more virulent. I look at political talk shows as kind of safety valve allowing people to let off steam.

The only thing about them that bothers me is people's reactions to the ones they don't like. Once people start talking about how "dangerous" this or that talk show host is, it is a short step towards bringing back things like the fairness doctrine and throwing the first amendment out the window. If you don't like what someone has to say, use the off button on your TV. People like O'Reilly and Air America and Daily KOS serve a purpose. The best thing for everyone not in their audience to do is just ignore them.

|1.15.07 @ 10:34AM|#

Did I miss Evan's call to have O'Reilly censored off the airwaves?

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.15.07 @ 10:51AM|#

Did I miss Evan's call to have O'Reilly censored off the airwaves?

No, you just caught John's immediate and predictable rush to defend the crazy right.

It's cool, we're good.

|1.15.07 @ 10:56AM|#

"You don't think people like Randi Rhoads and Al Franken don't do the same thing for their listeners? Or are the only weak people in the world the ones you disagree with?"

Considering that this thread was about, um, Bill Fucking O'Really?, I felt it pertinent to discuss, um, BILL FUCKING O'REALLY. John, your shtick is getting tiresome, dude. Honestly. "But liberals are just as bad" should be tattooed to your forehead, ferchrissakes. Get over it, man. Offer something useful to the convo, for once, instead of just steering the conversation to the fact that there are liberals who do "X" too. No, O'Really? is not particularly unique in his tactics, but he is the master...and he is especially abrasive and assholish about it, which makes it worse IMHO.

"It is a very positive thing."

I don't know what alternate reality you're in, but there's nothing positive about Bill O'Really? or Al Franken, save "for entertainment purposes only". Claiming that they are they only thing separating us from riots in the streets is to afford them way too much credit.

"The only thing about them that bothers me is people's reactions to the ones they don't like. Once people start talking about how "dangerous" this or that talk show host is, it is a short step towards bringing back things like the fairness doctrine and throwing the first amendment out the window."

Who are you talking about here, John? I don't like O'Really? or Franken, but I'd also be the last person to tell them that they can't do what they want. If they want to yell curse-filled epithets for 30 minutes at a time and be broadcast over the airwaves, fuckin' more power to them. You're trotting out a useless bullshit strawman, John, and it's way too obvious. Nobody here is calling for O'Really? to be censored. Nobody is calling anything "dangerous". Nobody is talking about the fairness doctrine. If you want to rage against bogeymen that are floating around in the ether, fine, but I'm not going to sit here and defend said bogeymen, or defend myself against your attacks on said bogeymen. It's ridiculous.

"If you don't like what someone has to say, use the off button on your TV."

I do use my off button. I also use the "submit comment" button. Both are within my rights. If you don't like it, feel free to use the "Quit" menu option on your internet browser.

"People like O'Reilly and Air America and Daily KOS serve a purpose. The best thing for everyone not in their audience to do is just ignore them."

Don't tell me what's best, John. I'll ignore them as I see fit, and I'll criticize them as I see fit. When I feel that they warrant criticism, then I'll levy said criticism. If you don't like it...well...you know where the off button is.

VM|1.15.07 @ 10:59AM|#

Well Spake, Evan!, you nailed it. (You can see, tooo, how others, with different views from BO'R(e), can appeal to that same trigger)

In that vein.

This Bad Religion Song describes it nicely.

It's "Come Join Us" off of "The Gray Race" (1995).

"I can tell you are lookin' for a way to live
where truth is determined by consensus
full of codified arbitrary directives
come and join us"

and

"we've got spite and dedication as a vehement brew
the world hates us, well we hate them too
but you're exempted of course if you
come and join us"

enjoy!

Guy Montag|1.15.07 @ 11:14AM|#

The most annoying thing to me about the whole O'Reilly business is when the self-annointed 'intellectuals' and 'free thinkers' I sometimes encounter already have a canned O'Reilly bashin speech and apply it to anybody who is not a flaiming Leftist. It does not matter how many times I tell them that I don't watch the guy and I am not a fan, they insist on continuing their speech and that any view I have somehow came from O'Reilly.

Oddly enough, many of the views they have sound like they came straight form "The Affluent Society" or even from Karl Marx, but somehow they came to those views independantly.

|1.15.07 @ 11:29AM|#

Although I thought "Outfoxed" was a little hysterical, the scene in which O'Rilley is haranguing that anti-war kid whose father died on Sept 11 was what completely convinced me he's a grade-A asshole. Talk about shameless self-righteousness.

|1.15.07 @ 11:30AM|#

As an aside, this is a particuarly good article by Miss Young.

And to add to the criticisms of John's position, Al Franken and Randi Rhoades don't have anywhere near the viewership/listnership/readership that Bill O'Reilly has...nor apparently, do they have the influence.

When the subject of tactics of "The Right" are in discussion, it's a lame argument to say "the left does it, too." The only comparison worth pointing out is that the left is nowhere near as effective as the right.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.15.07 @ 11:40AM|#

Oddly enough, many of the views they have sound like they came straight form "The Affluent Society" or even from Karl Marx, but somehow they came to those views independantly.

I once heard a professor say "The only free thinkers are leftist thinkers."

And he was dead serious.

|1.15.07 @ 11:42AM|#

I think there are those who see, or pander to an audience by pretending to see all matters in simple black and white, good or bad. Bill O'reilly and Rush Limbaugh leap to mind here. Hannity seems to be a dufus who is riding Limbaugh's coat tails and has even less to say of any interest. It is embarassing to watch (or listen) to these guys, so I mostly don't.

Others see things as nearly always shades of gray. I think I fall into this category. I used to enjoy Rush Limbaugh because he was funny and he was good at skewering the politically correct leftists. He lost his appeal when George Bush got elected because he became an absolute ass-kissing Republican hack.

Let me introduce one of my shades of gray here: those on the left who reflexively demonize Bush and the administration and who always, no matter what topic is under scrutiny, know better than Bush or the administration are just as tiresome, at least to me.

The polar ends of both political extremes are equally noxious, and equally damaging in my estimation. I guess they are valuable and exist so that we can see, in a concrete way, the kooky destinations the two competing philosophies (liberal and conservative) will lead to if left unchecked.

|1.15.07 @ 11:47AM|#

Somebody has to defend America's oppressed majority.

|1.15.07 @ 12:02PM|#

Wayne, your post is a better articulated and well-reasoned version of what John said.

That said, I pretty much agree with you.

Somebody has to defend America's oppressed majority.

O'Reilly represents a majority? Based on what...the last election?

|1.15.07 @ 12:16PM|#

One data point: At a family gathering a few months ago, I ended up in a conversation with a relative who, as it turned out, is an O'Reilly and Coulter fan. This guy is retired, living very comfortably, and not dumb or uneducated. He's always been pleasant to socialize with. Anyway, the impression I got from him is that he doesn't go to O'Reilly and Coulter for information. He seems to like them because they express his point of view in an entertaining way. (As far as I could determine, his point of view is your basic bitter-about-America-being-too-soft kind of thing.)

Warren|1.15.07 @ 12:23PM|#

Cathy has him pegged. Bill is nothing but a hate-mongering blowhard. As usual, the problem isn't what he says, it's the people listening. But waddayagonnado?

|1.15.07 @ 12:23PM|#

I've read on more than one site (though not recently) that O'Reilly has been steadily dropping in the ratings while Olberman has been steadily climbing. I know his radio presence has always been pretty anemic. I've also heard that his book sales are fishy.

Anyone got any fresh data on his actual vs perceived popularity?

|1.15.07 @ 12:41PM|#

O'Reilly represents a majority? Based on what...the last election?

I think that was the joke.

Anyone got any fresh data on his actual vs perceived popularity?

A day or two ago I read an article about Olberman that said that Olberman gets about 750,000 viewers a night, while O'Reilly gets about 2 million. O'Reilly's numbers, however, are pretty much topped out while Olberman's are growing very quickly, and Olberman regularly outdoes O'Reilly in the 25-54 demographic, which is apparently what they're all competing over. Bill's audience is old, old, old, and advertisers don't tend to like that. Well, unless they're selling Ensure.

|1.15.07 @ 12:58PM|#

And I'll just add that no matter what you think of Al Franken, he doesn't treat the guests he disagrees with like O'Reilly does. Randi Rhodes on the other hand, is a leftist, lady O'Reilly.

Larry A|1.15.07 @ 1:17PM|#

O'Reilly represents a majority? Based on what...the last election?

Based on Bill O'Reilly. The same way Sarah Brady represents the large majority of Americans who are for gun control and Wayne LaPierre represents the large majority of Americans who are against gun control.

For instance: In the book, he (O'Reilly) suggests the secular-progressives are a small minority, using such dubious measures as the fact that 84 percent of Americans call themselves Christians.

The "84% Christian" fact is a dubious measure of traditional majority because there are a lot of left-leaning Christians.

|1.15.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Olberman is entertaining if for no other reason than that he seems to understand the concept of irony.

A very minor part of what has alienated me from the right is how everything is taken at face value.

|1.15.07 @ 1:30PM|#

Worth pointing out: Colbert will be on The Factor, O'reilly on The Report, Thursday!

I really don't know what to expect in either case.

|1.15.07 @ 1:55PM|#

...there are a lot of left-leaning Christians.

But everyone knows...those aren't real Christians.

|1.15.07 @ 3:00PM|#

Re: The reciprocal appearances of Colbert and O'Reilly on each other's show . . . Like a billious and arrogant lamb to the slaughter! Colbert will eat O'Reilly's lunch, and O'Reilly will not be able to keep pace. O'Reilly will try to be funny but since Colbert is already doing the comic O'Reilly bit, the real O'Reilly will just seem pathetic. Can't wait!

|1.15.07 @ 3:21PM|#

Ho, hum...another poor man's Joe Pyne.

Pyne was da man.

dhex|1.15.07 @ 4:04PM|#

"It does not matter how many times I tell them that I don't watch the guy and I am not a fan, they insist on continuing their speech and that any view I have somehow came from O'Reilly."

why not just walk away? that seems rather...obvious.

or is this some sort of lifestyle sub thing you've got going on? hence the perpetual victim motif?

|1.15.07 @ 5:23PM|#

I love it how in one post a person wrongly accuses me of thinking Evan is calling for the censorship of O'Reilly then right on cue Even rants and raves for three paragraphs at how "dangerous' he is. Free speech is like that sometimes. It allows huckster and demogogs to get their say. Again, so what? You don't like O'Reilly, use your off button or the channel clicker. That is what I do with him and Oberman. There is nothing dangerous about either of them. The fact that Evan thinks that their is something dangerous about them just shows what a pompus intellectually stunted totalitarian little asshole he is. Evan you wouldn't know a real dangerous political figure if one came up and bit you on the ass. Get out and look at the rest of the world where there really are dangerous hate mongers perhaps it will give you some perspective on O'Reilly.

|1.15.07 @ 6:18PM|#

I know it's rather off topic, but I think it needs to be said. He's wrong about the trains: http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.htm

|1.15.07 @ 7:35PM|#

O'Reilly is a turd. But I'd rather kick Bill Maher in the nuts. God that guy is suck a fuck-stick.

edna|1.15.07 @ 7:38PM|#

hey walsh, go gargle with razor blades!

|1.15.07 @ 8:11PM|#

edna, don't touch me unless you love me

Guy Montag|1.15.07 @ 8:44PM|#

GM, you people who take these TV folk seriously are the funniest people on earth, besides carnies.

Mona|1.15.07 @ 8:47PM|#

I have long despised Bill O'Reilly. I have come to love Keith Olbermann.

Guy Montag|1.15.07 @ 8:59PM|#

Adam Carolla and Roh Kahn are the best political babblers out there. Well, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingrham too.

|1.15.07 @ 9:37PM|#

Wow, John really go his feelings hurt.

If you don't like it, feel free to use the "Quit" menu option on your internet browser.

|1.15.07 @ 10:43PM|#

Adam Carolla and Roh Kahn are the best political babblers out there. Well, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingrham too.

Carolla has the charisma of a snail. Coulter and Ingraham have ethical and mental problems. Don't know Roh Kahn but I think he was killed by Captain Kirk.

|1.15.07 @ 11:42PM|#

Is "Roh Kahn" the man I know as Roe Conn?
Is he nationally syndicated now? Nice guy, but politically speaking, he's kind of a conservative nebbish. His show peaked when Garry Meier was his co-host. So did Steve Dahl's show.

|1.15.07 @ 11:52PM|#

I've stopped watching cable news altogether. It has become dominated by "talk shows" that consist of constant yellling and egotistical hosts who interrupt their guests. Why on Earth anyone would want to be a guest on one of these shows is beyond my understanding.

Worst thing is, I'm not so sure O'Reilly is really the worst of the bunch. Nancy Grace may have driven one of her female guests to suicide. Chris Matthews yells a question at a guest, then answers it for them. O'Reilly may be a total jackass, but at least he lets his guests gets a word in edgewise, "the last word" or not.

There may be a positive side to this, however; the more he shouts, the sillier he makes himself look. From what I've heard, the average age of his viewers is getting older and older...

|1.15.07 @ 11:53PM|#

Let me amend that last statement- I still go to CNN's Web site for news. But I just read AP stories. Cable news has destroyed itself with "debate" shows that go nowhere.

|1.16.07 @ 12:04AM|#

Oh, yeah? If amending one's statements is the name of the game, watch this!
I love Buzz Kilman and I think it's great that he's on Dahl's show now, but he should be back with Brandmeier, and Dahl and Meier should both bite their respective bullets and get back together. Then Chicago radio can get back to greatness. (Roe, I guess, is stuck going back to producing Don Vogel. It's a shame he's dead, but the show was good enough to bring back.)
There - I said it.

|1.16.07 @ 12:05AM|#

it's awe-inspiring sometimes, what an unself-aware ass, o'reilly is.

edna|1.16.07 @ 8:57AM|#

madpad, showin' your age!

|1.16.07 @ 9:33AM|#

Mona, what's up with inactivist? I've been getting "can't find server" for days.

While it is true that you find obnoxiousk, self-righteous behavior from hosts on all sides of the spectrum, I have to disagree with John's statement, "You don't think people like Randi Rhoads and Al Franken don't do the same thing for their listeners? Or are the only weak people in the world the ones you disagree with? I don't watch O'Reily or any talk shows for that matter, but they left or right fullfill a purpose. They give people an outlet where they feel like their views expressed and respected. Whether it be O'Reily or Air America or LGF and Daily KOS on the web, they all do the same thing. It is a very positive thing. If you don't let people feel they can express their views and anger publicly, those views just get more and more virulent."

I hear Keith Olberman, for example, saying nasty things about George Bush and the Republicans in Congress all the time. But I hear Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter running down "liberals," or "people on the coasts," all the time. They don't just attack individuals with whom they disagree, but entire communities of their fellow Americans, calling them traitors during wartime, terrorist sypathizers, America-haters, and all kinds of other slurs that walk right up to the "fighting words" line.

I don't believe it is healthy to provide a space where hatred of entire classes of people is given positive reinforcement.

|1.16.07 @ 12:57PM|#

madpad, showin' your age!

Not really...I just looked him up on wikipedia and it had a list of phrases he was known for. That one seemed cool so I thought I'd dust it off for the appreciators.

|1.16.07 @ 1:07PM|#

To echo joe's very astute point, while many conservatives I know are quick to talk negatively about "liberals" and even going so far as to use phrases like "spilling liberal blood" and some such...the worst I usually hear liberals saying about conservatives as a group is how they don't seem to realize how they're being played and manipulated.

|1.16.07 @ 1:30PM|#

Madpad, I've never known a conservative who would suggest "spilling liberal blood". On the other hand, I've known liberals who think the country would be better off if there weren't any conservatives in it.

dhex|1.16.07 @ 2:48PM|#

i've known both!

|1.16.07 @ 2:56PM|#

I've known liberals who think the country would be better off if there weren't any conservatives in it.

Heck...I lean conservative and I think that, occassionally.

Eric, I'm one of those unfortunate libertarian-leaning free-thinkers who gets labeled a conservative by my liberal friends and a liberal by my conservative friends. I've given up even talking issues outside of this blog.

In my experience, while both liberals and conservatives have their pain-in-the-ass moments, conservatives are much more likely to suggest violence as a solution to their liberal problem. Liberals just seem to want conservatives to go away or at least shut up.

Socially - I've never seen a liberal get red-faced and ready to hit me over a political disagreement. I'm not saying I haven't had problems with liberals. I have. I'm sure some folks have a bunch of "liberals" anecdotes. I'm just relating personal experience. And in that experience, after too-many times being shouted down by obnoxious Fox News zealots who seem to think that Bill O'Reilly is a model for "politely discussing the issues", I'm over it.

Even people who don't yell still constantly interrupt, step on what others are saying and generally forget all sense of manners.

I've got a few good, close friends - guys who stood up with me at my wedding - with whom the relationship is now very strained primarily because they have become extremely conservative over the past few years. While I lean conservative, I'm also much more open-minded. I don't live my life with this ferocious anger and fear that liberals are destroying America.

Needless to say, I avoid politics and religion like the plague. This is my rare outlet.

|1.16.07 @ 3:10PM|#

Madpad,

Shut-up, you stupid lefty loser. You and your kind would let pigs marry tulips if you could. Osama would be dining at the White House with President Gore and abortions would be mandatory for white people. Gays would be allowed to marry 11 year old altar boys, and I would have to pay for it.
You make me sick.

|1.16.07 @ 3:15PM|#

madpad,

WTF? You want little old ladies to DIE because the drug companies need to make an almighty PROFIT? You want to colonize and imperialize the entire Middle East so the dirty rotten oil companies can have their stinking WINDFALL profits? Did you see the poor people who were victims of Katrina? They were black. Why are you such a racist?
Go start a war somewhere else, you stupid conservative piece of s**t.

|1.16.07 @ 3:36PM|#

highnumber, you're a piece of work.

|1.16.07 @ 3:48PM|#

I just wanted you to feel like you are amongst friends. ;-)

|1.16.07 @ 3:57PM|#

'Madpad, I've never known a conservative who would suggest "spilling liberal blood". On the other hand, I've known liberals who think the country would be better off if there weren't any conservatives in it.'

First of all, that's not a parallel. Tell me, have you known any conservatives who think the country would be better without any liberals in it?

But more importantly, this isn't about the ordinary people you know, but about media figures. Ann Coulter stated that we need to execute people so that "liberals will feel physically intimidated," and "know that they themselves could be executed." There is no liberal-media equivalent to this, calling for violence against conservatives.

|1.16.07 @ 4:11PM|#

Trust me, highnumber...with James Ard, Randian and John posting here, I get my fix...but thanks for the thought just the same.

Thanks for the back up joe...don't know what I could add to that.

|1.16.07 @ 4:44PM|#

IMHO, I'd be terrified of an American society w/o either "liberal" or "conservative" elements. ANYBODY who toes the liberal/conservative line is just wait to be sheared. BAAAAAA. To many fanatics, too few thinkers.

In the same vein, Odin bless gridlock.

|1.16.07 @ 4:45PM|#

Make that waiting vice wait.

|1.16.07 @ 7:48PM|#

Madpad, I'm sorry about the people you've encountered, but I don't know what to say. Even when I was a liberal, I never had a political discussion where the other person - liberal, conservative, whatever - looked like he wanted to hit me. I live in Texas, so I've dealt with a hell of a lot of conservatives.

|1.16.07 @ 7:49PM|#

First of all, that's not a parallel.

Nor is hurriedly referring to Olberman in response to someone naming rather more comparable liberal counterparts to O'Reilly, but who's counting? But yeah, liberals wanting conservatives out of the country are about the closest thing I've encountered to someone talking about shedding "liberal blood". The closest parallel to that I've heard from conservatives I known is "well, why don't they just move to Canada like they keep threatening?"

But more importantly, this isn't about the ordinary people you know, but about media figures.

Not sure where Madpad mentioned knowing many media figures, Joe, so yeah, what he and I were talking about do appear to have been what ordinary people do.

That said, I agree with your point that inciting hatred and contempt among liberals and conservatives for the other camp isn't healthy. However, despite anyone's concerned clucking, it's a schtick that's almost as old as this country - as is the grave assertion that one's own fellow-partisans just don't engage in the evil, simple-mindedness, cowardice, group-think, etc. of the opposite side.

|1.17.07 @ 8:21AM|#

That said, I agree with your point that inciting hatred and contempt among liberals and conservatives for the other camp isn't healthy.

I think the point to be grasped here is that joe makes an astute observation that in the media, it's the conservatives - and NOT the so-called liberal media - that frequently debases the argument with derision, insults, accusations of treason and occassional calls for violence against liberals.

Where my experience comes in is that it confirms some of the corrosive effects of seeds these folks have sown.

I am in no way absolving the misteps of the liberal side of the equation. But mediawise, if the closest the liberals come is Air America and Cindy Sheehan, they aren't even a blip on the radar compared to the effectiveness of the conservative media.

Conservative apologists can't have it both ways. One can't appreciate the stunning rise of conservative media outlets - Fox, Talk Radio, National Review, Right Wing blogs and Regnery - by doing just the sorts of things liberals haven't or won't do...and then claim that "liberals do the same thing" when the conservative media's own success is prove that they don't.

In an apples to apples comparison of scale and tactics, there is simply no liberal equivalent to Bill O'Reilly & Company and their emotionally-driven, ignorant hyping of fringe issues and their relentless drumbeat of excoriation of anyone who doesn't agree with them.

And that has trickled down to the masses by promoting anti-social methods that frustrate rather than assist rational discussion of issues by citizens.

|1.17.07 @ 11:16AM|#

I think of O'Reilly and his ilk as populists, not really conservatives. They have socially conservative values and are currently aligned with the Repubs, but, to my mind, George Will is an example of a conservative. I find it tough to see where O'Reilly's, Hannity's, Coulter's, et al points of view overlap with Will's.
Interestingly, Will is not currently aligned with the Repubs.

|1.17.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Can't disagree on its substance with you there, highnumber. But while O'Reilly labels himself a "traditionalist," Hannity, Coulter and the rest plainly self-identify as conservatives.

So whether or not they are populists, conservatives or moonbats, they confuse they have successfully remade authoritarian ideas in a conservative image.

The end result is millions of ordinary citizens walking around believing they are conservatives because they want bigger, more intrusive government and fewer civil liberties.

|1.18.07 @ 2:53AM|#

One can't appreciate the stunning rise of conservative media outlets - Fox, Talk Radio, National Review, Right Wing blogs and Regnery - by doing just the sorts of things liberals haven't or won't do...and then claim that "liberals do the same thing" when the conservative media's own success is prove that they don't.

No, liberals just aren't as good at it.