Posted on 01/07/2005 5:44:48 PM PST by traderrob6
I chalked it up partly to his insincere PC obsession with looking "fair and balanced," so as to not offend liberals and the Kerry camp should they get into office. That part was a shameless and unprofessional CYA abomination--he knew BETTER.
There was just SO much water-tight information available on the Swifties' side, that unless you were mentally-lacking, Clueless Chrissy Matthews, MOST respectable and honorable journalists HAD to have had Rice Butt fingered for the lying, conniving, self-inflating, Machiavellian Moron that he had been exposed to be, and who expended any and all GOOD AND HONORABLE MEN, without blinking, FOR HIS OWN SICK ENDS.
THAT part made me the most disgusted with O'Reilly, and made clear any disillusionment I had of the intellectually dishonest panderer. I was then confident in exactly who/WHAT Bill was.
Heres the thing, one candidate appears on OReilly other one chickens out, chicken loses. 4 years later one candidate appears on OReilly other one chickens out chicken loses.....coincidence?
Most Liberals avoid FOX due to natural prejudice. Fox in '00 is not comparable to the success of FOX in '04. It was only this year that FOX became a viable competitor on level with ABC, CBS and NBC. It is not unusual Gore (a Liberal) would have avoided O'Reilly in '00.
In '04, Kerry took aversion of the press (MSM outlets included) to an extreme. His attempts to silence the Swiftees were only a small indicator of what he would have attempted in the W.H. While FOX was far more influential this election year, Kerry's aversion of a free press (liberal or conservative) dissuaded him from making an appearance on FOX once he won the primaries.
If your suggestion is that Bush won because neither Gore or Kerry appeared on O'Reilly's program, I think you elevate O'Reilly beyond his influence. Coincidences can be deciphered from any number of instances. It is no different than falling victim to the thought if the Redskins lost, Bush would lose. A myth broken this election cycle.
Until someone wishes to conduct a credible study that can cite O'Reilly as the turning point, I chalk this up to arrogance on Bill's part.
He will fail. With me at least.
I watch Bill if he has a particular guest on that I want to hear. Otherwise, you have "nailed him with precision." I do not have a problem with Orielly or any host when they go after a liberal or conservative so long as it is done with logic and analysis. When I saw the way Orielly dismissed the Swift Boat Vets out of hand and did not dispute their story but simply indicated that it was not true, during the election was the moment that I realized it is not about, "Who is looking out for you" but it is all about Bill Orielly.
If Orielly lurks here I would like to remind him it is best to go home from the dance with the one that brought you to the dance!
Yep-and he's still doing it----I just like him.
Actally I was pretty much saying that tongue in cheek
I was very surprised to see O'Reilly have him on when he infuriated me and many others by dismissing the SVFT's claims without a second thought. So what has made him change his mind? He hasn't said he's changed it, but why is Gardner any more important to him than all the others that he dismissed without regard? I'm very curious.
Not only have him on, but actually treat him with a fair amount of respect. It is curious
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.