[Inkie]

Limbaugh's "Bush bashing" is simply him voicing an opinion, which we can agree or disagree with -- nobody can be proven right or wrong on these. OReilly comes out with some blatant factual misstatements that come of shallow research. They can be shown empirically to be untrue. By way of example, I would cite his insufficient familiarity with Middle East history, which does not prevent him from pontificating as if he knew what he was talking about.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Limbaugh's "Bush bashing" is simply him voicing an opinion, which we can agree or disagree with -- nobody can be proven right or wrong on these. OReilly comes out with some blatant factual misstatements that come of shallow research. They can be shown empirically to be untrue.

By way of example, I would cite his insufficient familiarity with Middle East history, which does not prevent him from pontificating as if he knew what he was talking about.

Rush's daily three hours of repetitive Bush-bashing have weakened him. Many of his once-faithful audience have moved on. BTY, O'Reilly has academic credentials, while Rush has none.