it used to be just a he said / she said and the battle lines were drawn. conservatives could support o'reilly and the issue would just eventually die. then, the revelation comes to light that the woman has some audio tapes. and now, o'reilly said this on his show yesterday:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>"I had to protect my family. This is my fault. I was stupid, and I'm not a victim. But I can't allow certain things to happen. And I appreciate your support; we get thousands of letters. But I'm not--I am stupid. I am a stupid guy, and every guy listening knows how that is. That we are very stupid at times. But, there comes a time in life where you got to stand and fight. And I knew these people were going to do this, I knew they were going to do everything they could to try to destroy me and the channel. And I just made a decision that I'm just going to ride it out, and I'm going to fight them. Because what's right is right."<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/bill.mp3">mp3 file here</a><br><br>do you think he'll resign soon? i think the game plan is to acknowledge that he was wrong in a way that makes his "wrong" something that just happens to every man. in the same breath, he'll try and paint the woman as being even more wrong as though she deserved what happened to her. even though his wrong would bring a mortal man down, o'reilly will be able to turn the tables and become the victim (even though he clearly said he's not a victim). if he emerges intact, i will be amazed that his followers are that gullible, but i don't put it past them . . . i mean, limbaugh rode through the storm. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

What is it with you guys demonizing those you perceive as a threat? I see O'Reilly hammering on conservatives as much as he hammers on liberals. Yet, Al Franken is egregiously partisan on the left (as much as Limbaugh is on the right) and extremely more so than O'Reilly, and yet that's ok with you. <br><br>Sean, while you're denouncing O'Reilly or Limbaugh or FOXNEWS, how about giving a shout out to Michael Moore, Al Franken or Dan Rather?<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> I see O'Reilly hammering on conservatives as much as he hammers on liberals. <p><hr></blockquote><p>of course you do; that's what you want to beleive. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Yet, Al Franken is egregiously partisan on the left (as much as Limbaugh is on the right) and extremely more so than O'Reilly, and yet that's ok with you. <p><hr></blockquote><p>i thought this went without saying, but apparently not . . . al franken says he's liberal and never tries to pretend he's fair and balanced or that he's not providing "spin." o'reilly is a masterful spinner and has even convinced you that he's even-handed. that's amazing to me. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Sean, while you're denouncing O'Reilly or Limbaugh or FOXNEWS, how about giving a shout out to Michael Moore, Al Franken or Dan Rather?<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>i think michael moore should stick to making movies and not make appearances in public. he does a disservice to the cause when he speaks and i've said that on this forum before matt . . . like i said, you believe what you want to believe; facts be damned. i think al franken is the equivalent of rush limbaugh, except i give franken a pass since he's funny. and, Rather is on a different plane than these other guys despite your beliefs (plus, Rather is boring). but, if it will make you happy, i hereby denounce dan rather. i promise not to watch him any more . . . fortunately, this requires no effort on my part. <br><br>i still wonder whether you think o'reilly should go down over this.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

I've listened to O'Reilly quite a bit and think he has taken a somewhat balanced approach to many issues. For example, he completely dismisses the SBVT and also has been critical of Bush's war policy and truthfulness of why we went to war, as well as not jumping on the Dan Rather slamfest. Although, O'Reilly can become the world's biggest prick when he interviews a guest who is opposed to his views. Recent highlights would be an outstanding interview with Bono regarding the AIDS epidemic (O'Reilly disagreed with almost all of it) and an interesting (but lighter weight) interview with the President. O'Reilly is not as far down on the Liberal sh*t-list as Hannity, Limbaugh or Savage, but he is also on the Freeper sh*t-list because of his opinion on SBVT and CBS. Laura Ingraham has been claiming that O'Reilly is an elitist and a Dan Rather wannabe, so he's not even a poster boy for the Right any longer. <br><br>What sets O'Reilly apart is this embarrassing public display of his twisted sex life. Just as Limbaugh's drug (ab)use made him 'less than pure', their fans will ignore this and remain true.<br><br>There's not a percieved threat, there's just overwhelming hipocrisy.<br><br>Besides Al Franken's very bad impressions (yet, he does a great Cheney) and shameless promotion of his book (it's in paperback and makes a wonderful gift!), there's nothing that comes close to this other nonsense.<br><br><br><br>

O'Reilly: "I am a stupid guy, and every guy listening knows how that is. That we are very stupid at times." <br><br>Not that stupid. Raise your hands out there. Guys who are bosses. Has it ever crossed your mind to call up a female subordinate and talk about rubbing stuff on her in the shower? No one? Ever think about it? Hmm, no hands. I think O'Reilly passing this off as common boorish behavior is despicable and hilarious at the same time. One does not have to do anything to demonize O'Reilly. He is doing it all by his lonesome. If he keeps his job at Fox my opinion of that network cannot get any lower. Their baseball announcers aren't so hot either.<br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

It all depends on a combination of things. First of all, there is no way Fox News Channel will entertain the idea of dumping O'Reilly over this alone. He just worth too much to their bottom line. Now, if his ratings go down because of this, I can see his position at Fox News changing, but whatever moves he makes are going to be based on solely on ratings.<br><br>What is playing for Bill here is the same thing that works for Rush: they both have never based their show on any kind of personal integrity. However you see it aligned (and it is slightly different between the two men), both have shows and personalities based upon a rigid ideology. So unless that ideology starts having phone sex or doing drugs, they can stay out of trouble.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>

Thom Brenamen used to be a great play-by-play announcer for the Cubs before he went to Fox Sports. When I first heard him do a bad job nationally, I thought, "well, I just don't like national commentators." Then I heard him get stuff wrong about the Cubs that occurred when he was in our booth. It's like they all go through some serious dumb-ification when they go national.<br><br>One day maybe NBC or someone else will go after the baseball rights again.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>but whatever moves he makes are going to be based on solely on ratings<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Not necessarily. If sponsors drop out in protest to his behavior, even though ratings remain at normal levels, the show will not be profitable for fox.<br><br>--------<br>Ryan<br><br>11-02-04 end of an error

"I had to protect my family. This is my fault. I was stupid, and I'm not a victim. But I can't allow certain things to happen. And I appreciate your support; we get thousands of letters. But I'm not--I am stupid. I am a stupid guy, and every guy listening knows how that is. That we are very stupid at times. But, there comes a time in life where you got to stand and fight. And I knew these people were going to do this, I knew they were going to do everything they could to try to destroy me and the channel. And I just made a decision that I'm just going to ride it out, and I'm going to fight them. Because what's right is right."<br><br>Clinton could have said the same thing, almost word for word. No point to make, just an observation.<br><br>

I don't think so since that would take a much larger groundswell than there will be. As long as his ratings stay high, the ad-buyers will still want a piece of that audience. I didn't think abou tthe advertisers though.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>