Yeah... I hear ya...

The more I see of O'Reilly the less I want to see.

kind of like the way Rush doesn't talk about drugs

I think it's time to kick around the idea of a real conservative network. Fox News does center-right OK, but...

(Half-kidding.)

That's a fair point, I suppose. And William Bennet didn't talk about gambling, and Bill Clinton didn't talk about the human humidor trick.

But O'Reilly is doing more than simply avoiding discussing a potentially embarassing foible. He's branding anyone who discusses credible charges a slanderer or worse.

O'Reilly is defending the indefensible. It doesn't do his credibility any good. And frankly he's biting the hands that feed him. Dude should take his lumps. But he obviously has an ego as big as Rather's.

I can see him in fourteen years spewing populist venom on a radio talk show no one listens to. It's a shame, too.

I'm unconvinced it's generated solely by his own situation. IMO it's more likely he wants to preserve a more moderate viability and ties to the big three. With his ego, he could have illusions over Jenning's spot, or some othr gig. Plus, it serves him at contract negotiation time to appear to have options.

I'm pretty sure O'Reilly started up with the "smear merchants" bit well over a year ago. There was someone going around offering people that knew him $50,000 if they would sign a statement stating that he had done something "bad" or illegal. In that respect, I'm in agreement with him.

I think he's usually fairly good, but like all of the ego-centered show hosts, he goes off the reservation every now and then. This would be one of those times- he can't see the difference between smearing, and exposing. Hitting a little close to home for him at the moment, I would guess.

And yeah, he doesn't get Coulter.

'Without a fair hearing'? Rather had the biggest, fattest podium in America. He did present his case. The problem is, the case was crap.

It wasn't merely fake documents. He vouched for his source as 'impeccable', when he knew the source to be a raving crank with a vendetta against George Bush and a history of mental illness. His main on-camera interview was with a Democratic Party political hack and fund-raiser whose potential corroborators were all conveniently deceased. He studiously chose not to interview any witness who could validate the documents or verify the allegations. He stonewalled and blustered when he got caught. He cut every ethical corner there was to cut.

One reason explains it all: he knew from the start that the allegations were false, and he thought he could get away with them.

The Big-O at Fox is a pompous, self-righteous windbag.

Pride goeth before the fall, Bill.

Be careful how you treat those you see on the way up. You'll be seeing them again on the way down.

I am so glad to see that other people have noticed what I have been noticing. Ever since Bill said he LOVED Theresa Heinz-Kerry and said Laura Bush was nice I have been very suspicious about where he is coming from. Plus I think Fox often tries too hard to be fair and balanced. I personally feel that if you stand too squarely in the center you do no side any good.

O' Reilly gets more insufferable by the minute. He can take his loofahs to the Dan Rather Ranch for Aging Blowhards.

Even if he is starting after the allegations - so what? Does that mean taking on supposed smear merchants is a bad thing? It just means that he had to have a personal incident to open his eyes to the damage they can cause. And he's been no stranger to such - how long has Al Franken been smearing him?