I've listened to him a few times and I find him to be like a broken clock. Back in the late 90's, a co-worker of mine thrust Bill O'Reilly on me. It seemed that he watched him regulary (in the know what the enemy is doing way) then would assume that I did too because he knew of my conservative politics. Funny thing was, FOX News wasn't offered by my cable company in the Bronx. When I finally got FOX News a few years later, I tried watching O'Reilly. I came to the same conclusion, he isn't a conservative at all.

I also agree with you about O'Reilly, Fersboo. One a few points, he's "conservative", but mostly he tries to tell us he's "looking out" for us.

How paternalistic.

I think the term "populist" might be closer.

You make some excellent points, Troy.

I would add that many people think O'Reilly is a conservative by "association".

For one, he appears as a commentator on Fox News, which many claim makes one a conservative. (Not all Fox people are conservatives -- some of their reporters seem to lean left from what I've seen.)

Another is that he's deeply hated, apparently, by Al Franken. So the reasoning is: "Is Al is on the left, and opposes O'Reilly, doesn't that put Bill on the right?"

We're living in a strange era, Troy. Glenn Reynolds, a libertarian who has supported Democrats in the past, supports gay marriage, (etc.) is regularly referred to in the media as a "conservative". He simply gave up on trying to correct them.

Bush, for another example, is as centrist as Bill Clinton, though in different areas. He's conservative on tax cuts, but deeply liberal on spending. He has said, at points, he wants make everyone to realize how helpful government can be. That's closer to George Stephanapolous's philosophy. He was for the Iraq war (obviously), but, again here Clinton has come out on the same side -- he disagrees with some decisions, but not the overall decision. He pushes a new government program each time I hear him speak. And though he doesn't favor gay marriage, he also hasn't been pushing any kind of Amendment very hard.

Yet, if you listen to his critics, you'd be convinced he's deeply far-right. He's not. He's quite a bit to the left of me on many important issues, particularly those relating to the role of government.

We're living in an era where anyone who doesn't tow the party line of the left is called a "conservative", even O'Reilly and Reynolds.

I don't mention O'Reilly as a "fake" conservative because he DOESN'T strongly represent himself as one. But Savage certainly does.

Ooops, forgot to answer your direct question:

As for "looking out for you", how is that any different from the consumer watchdog organizations, or even better, the news shows like 20/20 and 60 minutes who many times proclaim to be doing the same thing. I don't understand how you can have a problem with that.

This is an emotional response on my part, obviously. I'm not saying Bill O'Reilly claiming to be "looking out for you" causes cancer or kills children, or makes very cute puppy dogs suffer. I'm just saying it annoys me, and I find it condescending.

In principle, I don't find consumer advocacy annoying per se. It's not the ACT of looking out for me which I find annoying, it's the tone and posture, which says: "Hey, look at me! I'm looking out for you! See me do it? See? See how I'm looking out for you? You're so weak. I'm so strong! Aren't you glad you have me?"

John Stoessel, for example, used to do all kinds of exposes on the evils of business. Now he also exposes the evils of government. (Which means he won't be winning any more Emmys.) But he does it by asking questions: "Why do we think X is a big problem when we have Y right here, which kills more people, which we ignore?" I find that approach respectfut, not annoying.

He doesn't sitting around TELLING me how wonderful he is because he's "looking out for me". He just does his job of reporting interesting stuff. We get to decide if he's doing a valuable service or not. We don't hear him telling us, constantly, how valuable his service is.

Also, in terms of power, as I noted, Stoessel doesn't speak as though he has all this power, and his audience needs him so badly. His job is to bring us the info and ask thought-provoking quetsions. His actions imply he understands our job is, as a society, to react, to decide what to do about it. Our role is clearly greater.

Again, in contrast, O'Reilly's tone always strikes me as: "Look at me! I have power! I will use it for GOOD. To help you, who have no power. You 'little guys'. I'm a 'big guy'." Some may like this and find this appealing (many people clearly loved FDR) -- that's fine. But it doesn't stop it from being paternalistic.

I don't see why you have such a problem with my feeling that way.

Anyone who claims that Savage is conservative is just plain stupid. One show Savage is saying that Condoleeza Rice should be president and within days he's calling her the school marm and mocking her. He'll take both sides of the positions every week. It's gotten so bad that I can turn the show on for 30 seconds hoping that they've cancelled him, only to hear him contradict himself within just those 30 seconds! He reminds me of a left wing version of Perot. He's whatever his audience wants to believe that he is. The WORST part is that he fools people into believing he's an expert about what's going on with the Republican party as if there are no republicans in the grassroots fighting to move the party to the right, not to mention the fight they have in the primaries against the liberal crossovers who throw a monkey wrench into the system by voting for the left most Republican in the race. I've worked in the grassroots and fought fakes in the party that were pretending to be conservative. If you're too damn lazy to move a semi-conservative party to the right (and Savage is lazy, just listen to his interviews) then you're certainly too damn lazy to start a conservative party from scratch. Yeah, I know the types. They don't even know how a precinct caucus works. Those of us who have fought in the trenches against RINOs are aware that it is those criticizing from the outside who are the problem. They refuse to join and turn the party to the right. The real problem is the non-voting conservatives and sports idolaters who care more about the names of their idols than fixing the country. They're the problem and yet they blame the Republicn party which they refuse to fix. Liberal Savage riles these idiots up because their brain is only half on and they don't have enough sense to vote. Next time I'll tell you what I really think.

Tonight, May 26, 2011, I tried to call into the Savage Nation. In less than one minute I realized that Mr. Savage is nothing but a liar and a phony.
He's out to take your money. He has no passion for interest in the state of affairs concerning the men and women who serve or have served in the United States military.
Ignore him, boycott him or laugh at him. He is a worthless piece of crap.
God bless America. Keep it free of the Michael Savages of the world.

40 years ago I served in the US Army..The USO did wonders in those pre-internet days.Bob Hope, Sammy Davis Jr, et al. They would deliver messages for troops overseas. Surprise them with photos of new born children. When Michael Savage cut down the USO entertainers, by saying "big deal", it was a big expose on him. He inputs a lot of false information. Playing the big shot behind a desk..