Can Bush bounce back?

[sandman]

i'm saying that bill does not refer to himself as a "conservative". you can continue to make the ASSUMPTION that he INDIRECTLY "calls himself a conservative commentator", but i've never seen or heard him call himself conservative.

I've provided you quotes where he has done, essentially, exactly that.

you say you've provided "PROOF". but all you've done is throw out some quotes with no links. that is NOT proof.? ?

It IS proof, links or not. ?Unless you doubt the quotes came from him. ?There is a Mike Wallace interview online somewhere and a transcript of his "exchange" with Al Franken as well. ?The quotes I provided came directly from them, if I remember correctly. ?Again, given my schedule, I won't have time to go hunting for them, and the others I found, until sometime Tuesday. ?Should you desire an answer more quickly...use google. ?That's how I found them in the first place.

in fact, read this, which quotes bill's own book.

"O'Reilly disagrees vehemently with the common belief that he is a conservative, preferring to call himself a traditionalist and a populist. In his book The O'Reilly Factor, he describes his political affiliation this way: "You might be wondering if whether I'm conservative, liberal, libertarian, or exactly what... See, I don't want to fit any of those labels, because I believe that the truth doesn't have labels. When I see corruption, I try to expose it. When I see exploitation, I try to fight it. That's my political position."

Such statements have drawn the ire of media watchdog groups, such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Media Matters for America, that feel that his opinion is overwhelmingly conservative or, more specifically, Republican. In 2003, FAIR published a book compiling their record of his factual inaccuracies up to that point, titled The "Oh Really?" Factor. O'Reilly refers to people who frequent these outlets as 'kool-aid drinkers', trying to discredit anybody who has a viewpoint with which he disagrees.

"I've always been an independent," he says. "I always split my ticket. I vote for the person I think is best."

As I've said, he likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth about the issue. And Franken has already proved he lies about the subject. ?For what reason, I'm not sure. ?But he HAS been quoted, when pinned down to describe his ideology mostly in terms of conservatism.

Whether he regularly says "Hey, I'm a conservative commentator" really isn't the point. ?He has called himself a qualified conservative in the past.

I?ve looked for the quote and have come up empty. In fact, all I can find are quotes that state he is a traditionalist and does not truly fit any label.

That?s why I?m asking for a link.

In fact, I found the transcript from the Mike Wallace interview on 60 minutes. Interesting stuff, including:

- O?Reilly says he?s pro gun control, against the death penalty, and supports civil unions, not just for homosexuals, but "for everybody."

- He says he's for gay adoptions as a last resort: "I'd rather have nice, responsible gay home than the system for kids. What else?"

- And about the environment? "Government?s gotta be proactive on environment," says O'Reilly. "Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous."

- What does he think about the men from the swift boats who have been bad-mouthing Kerry? "Awful. It's terrible," says O'Reilly. "It makes me sad that this happens."

- And one more surprise. He doesn't consider himself part of what he calls "right-wing radio."

[pilferk]

I?ve looked for the quote and have come up empty. In fact, all I can find are quotes that state he is a traditionalist and does not truly fit any label.

That?s why I?m asking for a link.

I could've sworn the "not an accross the board conservative" comment came from that interview or from the Al Franken "exchange" (Russert, maybe)?.? As I've said, I'll go hunting again tomorrow. It could have been from the Hunt article, or the Bill Press interview, but I didn't think so.

In fact, I found the transcript from the Mike Wallace interview on 60 minutes. Interesting stuff, including:

- O?Reilly says he?s pro gun control, against the death penalty, and supports civil unions, not just for homosexuals, but "for everybody."

- He says he's for gay adoptions as a last resort: "I'd rather have nice, responsible gay home than the system for kids. What else?"

- And about the environment? "Government?s gotta be proactive on environment," says O'Reilly. "Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous."

- What does he think about the men from the swift boats who have been bad-mouthing Kerry? "Awful. It's terrible," says O'Reilly. "It makes me sad that this happens."

Hence, I'm assuming, why he's said he's "not an accross the board conservative".? But, for my way of thinking, someone who refers to themselves as "not an accross the board conservative" uses that reference because they have more in common with the conservatives than not.

Edit: While not having the exact quote I'm looking for, it does paint the picture:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6417561?rnd=1107979914421&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1040

With input from O'Reilly himself.

There's lots of stuff there that paints the (admittedly clearer) picture of him being "mostly conservative" but not an "accross the board conservative".

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6417561?rnd=1107979914421&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1040

I'll keep hunting for the original quotes as I find time over the next couple of days.? Rather than post new posts, I'm just going to edit his one with them.

Edit2: A quote from the Rolling Stone article:

"A reporter at the New York Daily News revealed that O'Reilly, despite claims of being an Independent, was a registered Republican. O'Reilly insisted this was a "clerical error" -- until the actual registration form surfaced, showing O'Reilly's signature and his check-mark in the box beside republican."

Personally, I think that qualifies as proof O'Reilly has, at least at some point, referred to himself as Conservative (or, at least, Republican).? I'll keep looking, though, since I have a suspicion you'll disagree.

Edit3:
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-o-reilly
However, O'Reilly has acknowledged that from 1994 until December 2000, he was registered to vote as a Republican. He changed his voter registration from Republican to independent when the Washington Post was about to expose his party affiliation. Now a registered independent, O'Reilly has said his previous affiliation was the result of a clerical mistake, and that no box for 'independent' was available on the registration form. [8] (http://alfrankenweb.com/talknation.html) [9] (http://www.onthemedia.org/oreillydiaries_020601_part1.html) [10] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62722-2000Dec12?language=printer) The actual form (http://www.awptimus.com/docs/franken_lies/OreillyBig2.jpg) has since been widely published, showing an option for those who 'do not wish to enroll in party' did indeed exist, and that the Republican option was checked.

and I'm well aware that, a bit further down, the author attributes him to communitarianism.

Edit 4:http://mediamatters.org/items/200407210007

If he's saying fox news tilts right...and he's a commentator on fox news, I think that, too, is saying he's a conservative commentator. Again, I'm sure you'll disagree.

Edit5:http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/archive/090704.html

Well..he basically says it right there, right? You should be a Republican because you're like me.

Still searching for the original quotes I was remembering, though.

[sandman]

there's a big difference between "conservative commentator", and having more in common with conservatives than not.

i also don't think you can take much from the "not across the board conservative" comment that you claim he said. that can be interpreted a number of ways. especially considering his views that i have posted on gun control, death penalty, environment, civil unions, swift boats, and kerry.

here's the cbs link to the interview. ?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml

[SLCPUNK]

i'm saying that bill does not refer to himself as a "conservative".

A lot of KKK members don't refer to themselves as "racist dip shits" either.

[pilferk]

there's a big difference between "conservative commentator", and having more in common with conservatives than not.

i also don't think you can take much from the "not across the board conservative" comment that you claim he said. that can be interpreted a number of ways. especially considering his views that i have posted on gun control, death penalty, environment, civil unions, swift boats, and kerry.

here's the cbs link to the interview. ?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml

Actually, there isn't. ?By definition a conservative commentator would be a commentator who has more in common with conservatives that not.

 I don't think anyone can realistically deny he IS a conservative commentator. ?There's is more proof of that than not. ?His audience alone is proof enough. ?He's a conservative commentator in that he tends to report conservative issues, with conservative opinions to conservatives. ?Is there some deviation? Sure...but not much.

As for "not an across the board conservative" interpretation, I disagree.  He used a reference point to define his own ideology, but indicated some deviation from the cannon definition of the term.  To me, that indicates a conservative with a few differences.  Ditto if someone defined themselves as "not an accross the board liberal".

The issue is whether he's CALLED himself a conservative of some sort. ?And that, I will agree, is up for debate. ?I'm working on finding those quotes, but it's slow going with the stuff going on here over the next day or so.

Also, see edits to above message.

[pilferk]

i'm saying that bill does not refer to himself as a "conservative".

A lot of KKK members don't refer to themselves as "racist dip shits" either.

Actually, in this case, sandman is correct.? My claim was that Bill referred to himself as a conservative commentator.? I'm working on proving that (though my claim that Bill has never refferred to himself as a 'liberal" still stands).? If I can't hunt those quotes down, or find other proof, I'll admit I was incorrect and move on.

I don't think many reasonable people would NOT consider him a conservative commentator, in any event.

[RichardNixon]

ALL: Please check this site out:

http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/

[RichardNixon]

Bill O'Reilly: Decorated War Vet Jack Murtha "Afraid" to Come on the Factor
On 12-2-05 during the O'Reilly Factor, while speaking to Time Correspondent Brian Bennett, Bill O'Reilly said: "But I am worried about Jack Murtha and I don't think he did the country a service and I'd like to speak to him. He IS afraid to come here. He's gonna be on, you know, a sympathetic program on Sunday morning and I don't think the guy should be doin' this kind of stuff. ... I think the US military is doing a great job. It is under stress, as any military would be in a war. It's not right and I think everybody should question Congressman Murtha on that."

Here is a brief excerpt from a biograhy of John Murtha: "He left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to join the Marines during the Korean War. There he earned the American Spirit Honor Medal. He rose through the ranks to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. He then was assigned to the Second Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 1959, then Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in Vietnam in 1966-67, receiving the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He remained in the Reserves until his retirement as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal."

According to the Associated Press, Decmeber 1, 2005, here's what Rep. Murtha had to say about the situation in Iraq:

Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.
Two weeks ago, Murtha created a storm of comment when he called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. The Democratic congressman spoke to a group of community and business leaders in Latrobe on Wednesday, the same day President Bush said troops would be withdrawn when they've achieved victory, not under an artificial deadline set by politicians.

Murtha predicted most troops will be out of Iraq within a year.

I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said, referring to Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."

Murtha, 73, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, expressed pessimism about Iraq's stability and said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are, but don't always share that information with U.S. troops. He said a civil war is likely because of ongoing factionalism among Sunni Arabs, and Kurds and Shiites.

He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war.

"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war," Murtha said. "I'm looking at the future of the United States military."


COMMENT

I've got news for Mr. Bill. Even at age 73, Jack Murtha could demolish him in a debate and, probably, in hand-to-hand combat as well! To imply that such a man is, in essence, a coward simply because he won't do an interview with O'Reilly goes way beyond the limits of decency. O'Reilly should apologize on air to the Congressman.

O'Reilly has never served in any branch of the armed forces, although he claims to have been "in combat." But, the Bloviating Billster is no stranger to misleading his audience on the subject of his own military experience.

First, there was the infamous January 18, 2005 Radio Factor broadcast where he stated:

"I've seen it. I've been close to it. And if I'm... my unit is in danger, and I've got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is, and I'm looking him in the eye, the guy better tell me. That's all I'm gonna tell you. He better tell me. If it's life or death, he's going first."
Later, O'Reilly was challenged by a caller from Portland named Roger:

O'REILLY: We've got a caller. Roger. Roger from Portland, Oregon. What say you Roger?
ROGER: Yeah, hey, Bill. First things first. You just said you've been in combat, but you've never been in the military, have you?

O'REILLY: No I have not.

ROGER: Then why do you say you've been in combat?

O'REILLY: Why do I say that, Roger? Because I was in the middle of a couple of firefights in South and Central America.

ROGER: But you were a media guy.

O'REILLY: Yeah. A media guy with a pen, not a gun. And people were shooting at me, Roger.

ROGER: People might think that you actually were in the military.

O'REILLY: Oh... We don't want to mislead anybody. But I made it quite clear... quite clear in many, many circumstances --

ROGER: [mumbles something about being, or not being, "fair and balanced"]

O'REILLY: [quietly disconnects Roger] Yeah. Hey listen, Roger. You can take your little "fair and balanced" uh... snip remark and shove it, okay? You're not getting on this air. Um... You, mister macho man, have never come close to anything I've done, down where I've been. So take a walk and... uh... 'nuff said.


Five months later on May 5, 2005 he once again implied he had combat experience when he made the following comment in an interview with Col. P. J. Crowley (USAF-Ret) and Col. Neal Puckett (USMC-Ret):

O'REILLY: Have you been in combat Colonel?
CROWLEY: Yes.

PUCKETT: Me? No, sir, I have not.

O'REILLY: How 'bout you, Colonel?

CROWLEY: Yes.

O'REILLY: So you know what we're talkin' about. "Cause I was in combat and when you are there your adrenalin is flying through your ears. And you know you've got the gun and I just couldn't understand ...


If you would like to write to Mr. O'Reilly and give him a piece of your mind and/or ask him to apologize to John Murtha, click here: oreilly@foxnews.com.

[pilferk]

O?Reilly says he?s pro gun control, against the death penalty, and supports civil unions, not just for homosexuals, but "for everybody."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160005

He may say he's against the death penalty..but....well.....not entirely.

[Axl_owns_dexter]

O'reilly has always come off as an independent who leans to the right.

[sandman]

there's a big difference between "conservative commentator", and having more in common with conservatives than not.

i also don't think you can take much from the "not across the board conservative" comment that you claim he said. that can be interpreted a number of ways. especially considering his views that i have posted on gun control, death penalty, environment, civil unions, swift boats, and kerry.

here's the cbs link to the interview. ?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml

Actually, there isn't. ?By definition a conservative commentator would be a commentator who has more in common with conservatives that not.

 I don't think anyone can realistically deny he IS a conservative commentator. ?There's is more proof of that than not. ?His audience alone is proof enough. ?He's a conservative commentator in that he tends to report conservative issues, with conservative opinions to conservatives. ?Is there some deviation? Sure...but not much.

As for "not an across the board conservative" interpretation, I disagree.? He used a reference point to define his own ideology, but indicated some deviation from the cannon definition of the term.? To me, that indicates a conservative with a few differences.? Ditto if someone defined themselves as "not an accross the board liberal".

The issue is whether he's CALLED himself a conservative of some sort. ?And that, I will agree, is up for debate. ?I'm working on finding those quotes, but it's slow going with the stuff going on here over the next day or so.

Also, see edits to above message.

QUESTION: do you believe it is possible for someone to be an "Independent commentator"?

[pilferk]

QUESTION: do you believe it is possible for someone to be an "Independent commentator"?

Depends on what you mean by independant, I guess....

Independant in the sense that they didn't ascribe to any one ideology any more than another? Maybe.? It would be pretty tough, though.? And even then, there are so many flavors of "independants".....and who ends up being your audience is going to have an influence on what you cover and how you cover it.? Because, if it doesn't, and you lose your audience (or don't garner one to begin with)...poof...no more job.? O'Reilly is actually pretty good at this (and no, I'm not saying he's an indepedant commentator): If you notice the content of his shows he widely stays away from the topics on which he disagrees with most of his conservative viewership.? They do come up, sometimes...but much more rarely than the "meat and potatoes" conservative issues.? That makes sense, since his audience is mostly moderate conservatives.

Independant in the sense they don't bring any of their personal bias or ideology to the table? No.? But then again, who'd want one if such an animal existed.? A commentator, by definition, is someone who gives opinions.? Much different, to my way of thinking, than just a reporter or correspondant.?

I think O'Reilly is a moderate conservative commentator.? I certainly wouldn't put him in the the same category of Rush or Hannity.? But the meat and potatoe issues of his show (and the "spin" he injects, regardless of what he calls the show) is decidely slanted toward the right.? Look no further than the examples Press provided when he was a guest on the show.

Edit: I do actually watch O'Reilly, occasionally, now.  Not often, but probably once a week or so.  He'll be having Stern on coming up and I can't WAIT to hear that one.   And I can't really concieve of anyone thinking he's anything BUT a conservative based on the content of his show....I agree with him on the things that I usually agree with conservs on, and disagree with him on the things I usually disagree with the conservs on.

What's really amusing, to me, is that some of the liberal "leanings" he has, are the very ones I disagree with the libs on.  I'm for the death penalty and against very strict gun control....

[pilferk]

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg402659#msg402659

And just because I happened to head back there for a different purpose, and stumbled accross this...isn't arguing semantics pretty much what we're doing now??

Just wondering....

[sandman]

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg402659#msg402659

And just because I happened to head back there for a different purpose, and stumbled accross this...isn't arguing semantics pretty much what we're doing now??

Just wondering....

no, not at all.

you made what i believe is a FALSE statement, and i called you on it. nothing at all about semantics.

i've said all along i am not arguing what Bill's beliefs ACTUALLY are, who is audience is, how he should be classified, etc.

we all look forward to your google search tomorrow. and you can either provide the link, or admit you're wrong.

[pilferk]

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg402659#msg402659

And just because I happened to head back there for a different purpose, and stumbled accross this...isn't arguing semantics pretty much what we're doing now??

Just wondering....

no, not at all.

you made what i believe is a FALSE statement, and i called you on it. nothing at all about semantics.

i've said all along i am not arguing what Bill's beliefs ACTUALLY are, who is audience is, how he should be classified, etc.

we all look forward to your google search tomorrow. and you can either provide the link, or admit you're wrong.

At this point, it IS semantics.? My original statement was O'Reilly refers to himself as a conservative commentator".? I've provided AMPLE examples of the fact he has referred to himself, in the past, as conservative/Republican.? You, I'm sure, don't agree with it, which means we're now debating semantics, rather than the point itself.

 I think I've provided quite enough evidence in the above posts showing he HAS referred to himself as conservative/republican (How much more authoritative do you need than his voter registration card?), even without the original quotes.? You might have to connect the dots, a bit, but I think it's enough.

In any event, I will continue to look for those quotes.? That'll teach me to bookmark the stuff I use when I find it.

[shades]

So he is conservative, whats the point, give it a rest already.
How about the rest of the "main stream" media, the ones that reach 10 times as many households each night.
the liberals dressed in a fair and balanced forum?
Thats who you should be worried about.
They are so obvious with their agenda that it reachs comical stage.
And there is no one, NO ONE, except maybe Oreilly and Sean Hannity and afew others on FOX to call them on it.

The good thing is conservatives arent listening to the main stream media because we know what they are up to.
They are preaching to a choir that already believes everything they say anyway.
with the hopes of swaying a few to their side.
Aint gonna happen bubba. Please please please run Hillary in 2008, or Kerry, it will be like
shootin fish in a barrel.
When the liberals realize the err of their ways then maybe, but I cant see that happening
All I see is more of the same old shit. Wont work ladies.

[sandman]

His voting registration card is hardly proof of what he refers himself as. He filled that out years ago and maybe his views have changed. i was registered democrat for years because we had a Dem Representative living down the street and she would "do favors" for people she thought were voting for her.

What other ?proof? have you provided? You stated there were quotes like these?.

1. O'Reilly, when asked, has said he is not an "across the board conservative"
2. but his "audience is made up mostly of moderate conservatives". (Interview with Mike Wallace).
3. He has said he's "mostly conservative". (a quote)

But I have not seen these quotes anywhere. ?(a quote)? does not count as a source. And I looked at the Mike Wallace interview and didn?t see any of those quotes.

Just because you say he said these things, does not make them true. Links are required on these threads. So i wouldn't call that "AMPLE examples".

And on top of all that, I have provided quotes from Bill that contradict what you are saying.   

[Booker Floyd]

So he is conservative, whats the point, give it a rest already.
How about the rest of the "main stream" media, the ones that reach 10 times as many households each night.
the liberals dressed in a fair and balanced forum?
Thats who you should be worried about.
They are so obvious with their agenda that it reachs comical stage.

Please name some. ?Name the liberals in the mainstream media and cite a few examples of their liberal agenda while youre at it...

And can you please address this post? ?Or this one? ?Youve been dodging them for days... .

Please please please run Hillary in 2008, or Kerry, it will be like
shootin fish in a barrel.
When the liberals realize the err of their ways then maybe, but I cant see that happening
All I see is more of the same old shit. Wont work ladies.

Maybe...or maybe not:

Americans Want Different Type of President Next Time, Poll Says

[shades]

You really should lay off the polls, you'd think you would have learned your lesson in 2004 when the polls had kerry winning right up until the time he LOST.

  Dan Rather, Brian Williams, Morley Saffer, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, David Brinkley, Elizabeth Varga, Bob Wodruff, just pick anyone that turns up on ABC, NBC,   CBS
not to mention the New york Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, La Times. etc, etc

Im hoping that was a rhetorical question, your lightheaded but not to that extent 

[RichardNixon]

Most polls had Bush ahead, until the first debate, when Bush had his ass handed to him. After that they were running neck and neck 'til the end.