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.