Posted on 09/26/2004 1:49:33 PM PDT by ArmyBratCutie
8. Brown-nosed leprechaun
- Savage-
And, I will be the first to admit it, the only time that I seem to enjoy him anymnore is when he's bashing Kerry. But, that is just the visceral enjoyment of knowing that Kerry is getting what he deserves. However, O'Reilly's pursuit of fairness and his mantra of "looking out for you" has taken an elitist turn and this paternalism to the American people is about gagging everyone.
For about 4 months, his focus on the WMDs and the insistence that "Bush apologize" is what threw him off his game. And, that has less to do with my political preference than where O'Reilly has gone since that time. He, like so many in the media, have completely ignored the small but notable WMDs that were found in Iraq (cyclosarin, the Moassud missiles (sp?), etc.). He seems to be stuck on the "stockpiles" threshold. O'Reilly typically sees clear the impact of things, but on this particular issue, he has gravely missed the mark. In ignoring this evidence and the evidence that there were WMDs but they were moved to Syria (he's paid scant attention to this), he ignores that if 1 of those canisters of cyclosarin made it onto 1 of the planes involved with 9/11, there would have been 200,000 killed, not 3,000.
I will be fair to O'Reilly and tell you that the guy has an obsession for calling the NY Times to task, something very few journalists or commentators would ever consider. And, most anyone on this forum can spot the bias at the NY Times even better than O'Reilly, but he has the "mike" and at least he's doing something with it.
I myself will watch the interview and judge for myself. Funny thing, Bush has nothing to hide and he doesn't play games, whether it is O'Reilly or another journalist.
Bush is a genious at staying on message. This can be seen as avoiding a question.
That said, tell me this- how can the Kerry camp fault Bush for evading several questions when their candidate is evading the entire interview?
I realize they do not bind themselves to logical coherence, but this stretches even their weak standards.
thank you .. I thought just picking this below was right.. Im sorry :)
Your Opinion/Questions
vanity All non-sourced non-news threads are posted here.
here's the CBS link
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml
read the last 3 paragraphs, does that look like a Bush vote?
Oh, I almost forgot, . . Hi, Bill, we all know you will be reading this.
I don't watch O'Reilly, but I do read the posts about him on FR. It seems to me very likely that he is trying to show himself as more centrist in the hopes of landing a job on one of the major networks.
Now, I see that he is being interviewed by Mike Wallace on 60 Mintues tonight. Could it be that he has had some feelers from CBS over the past year or so, to the effect that they are looking to replace some of their dinosaurs on 60 Minutes and that Bill might just fit in if only he can show some of the doubters that he isn't an arch-conservative?
If so, the recent "memogate" scandal must have given him pause. On the other hand, some of the flaming liberals going down in flames might play right into Bill's hands if he really wants to land a job there.
In fact, I have been doing some research on collaborative intelligence and FR is really one of the prime examples of this phenomenon. I'm a big believer in the power of teamwork, given a common focus and goal. In a recent book called "The Support Economy: Why Corporations are Faililng Indivduals and the Next Epidsode of Capitalism" (by Zuboff and Maxmin). Now, much of the book is spent talking about business, but the core idea of the book captures a change that is indeed underway.
One of the underlying themes of the book is a principle called "deep support". This principle, as described by the authors, can be described a few ways. Deep support is where...
Guys like Rather and O'Reilly (to a different extent) are old-media mentality. They are part of the old mentality of the exchanging of information. In the future, we won't accept the patronizing, we will (and do) reject the "false solicitude". The thing about FR is something fairly simple (but genius): it's what everyone is thinking, but has never had a voice to express.
Guys like Rather can't change. A guy like O'Reilly could change, but probably won't. It will take some time for the "bigs" to "get it". Some will (like Fox), some won't (like See-BS). Fox is the first to try not to patronize its audience, the others are already lost causes.
Guess there is not point in watching since O says the Prez gave him the slip. This from O who gave M. Moore a free ride.
well, whats your verdict on OReilly??
I think he is too far from the regular crowd nowadays to understand that we all agree with Laura Ingraham; his ego has moved up to 'first class'.
As I watch him night after night make suprisingly obvious mistakes, he doesn't seem to be up on the stories like he used to be - e.g., his take on the Swifties. If he had been following them as well as WE have since last May (or was it March?) when they had their first press conference, then he would have remember ed all their stories, their independence, their sincerity. He doesn't seem to be able to recall the facts about this OR the Dan Rather story. Now how come all of us, who have other JOBS seem better able to grasp and retain this info better than HE, who is supposed to "be looking out for us" and doing the investigating and reporting?
Big ego, sellout, trying to catch someliberal fish before the election, or what?
>"So long Brown Nose Bill, we are forced to leave you behind."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.