Bill O'Reilly defends the bailout, and blames Bush

Bill O'Reilly today launched into what sure sounded like a genuine tirade on his radio show today. It's worth checking out, whether you like O'Reilly or not. He throws a good tantrum. Best I can tell, he was making these points:

1) The bailout is necessary and you should support it.
2) It's President Bush's fault that we're in this mess. Blame Bush.
3) Don't listen to ideologues on talk radio who oppose the bailout. They're lying to you.
4) Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are idiots.

If I had to guess, I'd say O'Reilly's tirade against talk radio hosts was directed at Rush Limbaugh. (Among other things, O'Reilly said, "They're rich, these guys -- big cigars, all of that!") 

I'm not certain what Rush has been saying about the bailout. I did catch a little of his show today, and he made a convoluted argument against the bailout that went something like this: There is a chance the bailout will be wildly profitable for the federal government, and Obama can't be trusted with all that money; and you could restore market confidence faster by reducing capital gains taxes anyway.

I happen to enjoy talk radio. I think these two and a few others are very influential, but it's hard to keep up with how they're using their influence. These guys do very different shows. O'Reilly is trying to position himself as an independent arbiter of What's Best For the Folks. He's been very critical of Bush lately, and he's threatening to be tough on Sarah Palin if she won't come on his show.

Rush, on the other hand, is relentlessly, cheerfully, partisan, a Happy Warrior for the Right.

If any of you are regular listeners to talk radio shows, and have interesting bailout stories to tell (Who's for it? Who's against?), I'd be interested in hearing them in the comment section.

--Peter Viles

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to Peter Viles, or follow L.A. Land on Twitter.

Photo Credit: Westwood One

Comments

[sfvrealestate]

IMHO, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and cronies are largely responsible for creating and furthering the electorate's polarization during the last decade. I don't think their drivel and "passion" and fake anger are worthy of your time or blog, Peter.

[why listen]

and this is worth mentioning because.....?

[sheila]

please, please, please, can we put Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Bush, Paulson, Gramm and Greenspan in a Mad Max style cage with primitive weapons and finally have some "political theater" the masses can enjoy?

you know what needs a $700 Billion Bailout? THE ENVIRONMENT! GHGs INCREASED OVER 2% IN THE US IN 2007. This is the real crisis! This kind of money could get solar panels on roughly 50 million American homes. With zero electric bills, zero Big Energy "infrastructure" bills, and the enormous savings from reduced destruction of our planet, THIS is a bailout we can all believe in.

Big Fossil Fuels have been the subject of a 75 year bailout by taxpayers, ratepayers and our poor planet. The "depression" of the planet going into meltdown is a little more serious than requiring the Wall Street Robber Barons to pay for their own mistakes and refusing to allow them to make it our problem (again).

They need to disgorge all their ill-gotten gains and recapitalize the banks using that money. it's in the hundreds of billions, just in bonuses alone, so i don't see why this is not a simple matter that we can all stay out of. After all, if WE make lousy investmens, we have to use our own money to cover for it, so this is just life. Deal with it, guys, and get out your checkbooks. you took a chance and lost. pay up or we will put you in the cage and Rush will sit on you.

Come to think of it, Big Oil can also disgorge its ill-gotten gains and pay for another $700 Billion in solar panels for another 50 million american houses.

problem solved. American people win. Big Oil and Wall Street break even. liquidity restored. planet saved. blowhards, enablers and liars silenced. what's not to love?

[mrpopo]

Dear Peter Viles,

The day I listen to O'Reilly to achieve anything but a dull pain in my forehead will be a day I'll know I've lost it. Exactly how is anything that this… person says of any value whatsoever?

Why are you promoting O'Reilly Mr. Viles?

Why are you engaging in a deconstruction of O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's positions and demographic with regard to anything?

Lastly, what does this one post say about you're judgment and why I'd be justified in deciding to never take your blogging seriously again Mr. Viles?

[peteviles]

mrpopo writes, "Why are you promoting O'Reilly Mr. Viles"

thanks, mister. I'm not promoting him. As I tried to explain, I believe he and Limbaugh are influential, and I find it interesting -- and surprising -- that he is supporting the bailout.

My experience is that talk radio hosts generally speak to, and for, a slice of the country that isn't always included in news coverage. Yes, it's a right-leaning bunch, I understand. But you would be hard-pressed to understand, for example, the failure of recent attempts at immigration reform if you didn't take into consideration the "talk radio factor." You may think it's a terrible factor and a waste of your time, but I think it's both interesting and important, and those are the only two things that matter in news.

[mrpopo]

Dear Peter Viles,

I thank you for your response to my comment.

On consideration, I appreciate your goal of trying to access an often overlooked group of voices.

On further consideration I guess I'd have to take issue with your assertion that talk radio audiences are left out of news coverage. On the contrary, the last 8 years have been a time of ascendancy for talk radio and it's audience.

O'Reilly, Limbaugh and their ilk have never been so popular yet your hypothesis is that their audience is somehow overlooked in news coverage. If anything, during the last 8 years of the Bush administration, I think you could argue that their audience has been over valued and over represented.

Bottom line, contemplating the vagaries of O'Reilly's or Limbaugh's particular position on one of the most critical and divisive issues in our time may lead you to enlightenment regarding their particular pathologies. However, it will get you nowhere beyond that in terms of any actual understanding of the issues.

Both pundits are way too narcissistic yet caught up in their Republican party water carrying calculations to get any clear metric out of them.

And lastly, by the simple act of raising O'Reilly as an issue and putting his picture on your blog, you are giving him a form of promotion. I guess I'd suggest that If you are trying to represent the a particular group's point of view, there are more constructive ways of doing it.

Thanks for your time Mr. Viles.