O'Reilly vs. The Times
I saw Michelle Malkin on The O'Reilly Factor last night talking about the MSM's hatred for Bush. (Video at The Political Teen) Of course, the New York Times made the top of every-bodies list for BIG BUSH HATERS.
But the most interesting part of the evening was Bill O'Reilly. I swear I heard him threaten the reporters and editors of The New York Times. I swear I heard him say that if these guys over at The Times kept up the personal attacks that he was going to have to look into what goes on in their lives.
He said he was the only one on television that was going to hold these guys accountable.
Does anyone, besides me, think that Bill O'Reilly is the wrong guy to be looking into anyone's personal life?
Hmmmm?
Loofah anyone?
Chris
I don't know chris. my question is why care? he is just another talking head with an opinion.
Posted by: jestplainol'bill | Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 02:53 AM
Hold onto yer hats people, but I am considered to be somewhat conservative and I cannot stand that guy. When someone does not agree with him, he gets rude and stupid, cuts them off, he is just a self righteous prick as far as I am concerned. He does bring up useful stuff from time to time, such as the border problems. (That is something I am way less than thrilled with Bush's attitude about as well.) but on the whole he is just pompous to me.
Posted by: USMC Steve | Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 11:05 AM
I am "way less than thrilled" with Bush's attitude on the border too, USMC Steve!! ---- In fact, it's the thing I am MOST "way less than thrilled" about with this really Good Man (in many other ways).
And, though O'Reilly is "way less than thrilling" to me, (Charles Krauthammer, Walter Williams and Col. Hunt are my thrills) if he can bring the border CRISIS and "Jessica's Law" to light, I will pay attention. (*Speaking of the border, "Tancredo's Wall" sounds good to me!)
Posted by: Chris Sears | Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 02:24 PM
NOW, an aside:
just for the "gals gossip" --
Chris, what do you mean "the wrong guy to be looking into someones personal life" What do not I know about him?
Posted by: Chris Sears | Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 03:22 PM
Well I certainly don't know anything you don't know, but I seem to recall a certain intern filing suit and indecent phone calls being made--(if you are really curious you can read the transcript of the phone calls at smoking gun...I think--they are the ones who had it) just seems like anyone who has been accused of such things shouldn't be rooting around in other people's private affairs..no?
Posted by: Chris | Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 03:59 PM
OH!` That recent thing. -- I will check that out. That was the only thing I ever heard and never looked too far into it at the time. That's it? Seems he has a lot of other really good stuff to counter that, though I definitely would never dismiss such a bad thing, IF PROVEN. ("Has been accused" doesn't mean that much to me since I know those who "have been accused" falsely.)
Posted by: Chris Sears | Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 04:14 PM
Did anything ever come of those accusations? I thought a settlement was reached, but that no wrongdoing was admitted.
That could either mean he was guilty of being a big time putz and didn't want the embarrassment of a trial, or that the gal was full of it, and they paid her to make it go away. I love the entertainment industry.
Posted by: USMC Steve | Wednesday, January 04, 2006 at 09:58 AM
I want to think he'd be way too smart (cause I really believe he IS that) to jeopardize his career BUT, someone (in an even higher position!!) had an "intern problem" and wasn't smart enough to exercise self-control. So, some men (& women) DO put some things above morality and their reputation.
That's why you gotta pick your guys to be awed by. Charles, Walter and David are my chosen and I think I will not be disappointed.
Posted by: Chris Sears | Friday, January 06, 2006 at 01:22 AM