Sat May 06, 2006 7:53 pm
Again, LTB, I'm no O'Reilly fan, and you're right: he does seem to have a problem with facts. I caught some of that McDonalds discussion last night and I did find myself wondering where exactly these folks might even work...
I think he has beaten that drum against sexual predators mostly for the better in most cases and has had some eye-opening stuff. No one should confuse him for a serious commentator, however. There's clearly a buffoonish, "entertainment" quality to these shows and I don't hold them to that high of a standard. One really has to be looking elsewhere for their "meat." This show is just bonus "night-cap" to reading real newspapers and magazines and serious televison - if you can find it.
I disagree on immigration. Bush's comment was totally a red herring. I think it was one of his most disengenous comments ever.
Only a minority of anti-illegal immigration activists actually seriously want actual mass deportation of 12 million illegal aliens. For him to get on his soapbox with that comment was to argue against something no one is seriously proposing, although a great Wall Street Journal column the other day actually did line up the fiscal cost of hiring buses to drive all of them to the Mexican border. Quite a surprising read.
No, the real argument is for enforcement first at the borders and also with corporations that are getting away with hiring them. A lot of these problems would take care of themselves (forcing people to be confronted with re-migrating back home) if we can get the backbone to not allow them to jump ahead of other immigrants who actually follow the process.
The '86 amnesty didn't work at all. On the same streets where there were government amnesty centers created were fly-by-night false document shops that cropped up. And the message got out (and will continue) that if you wait long enough, it will be okay.
On the Katrina thing, who looks to the right for economic solutions? Not I. I totally tune out O'Reilly's economic stands as he forever disguises himself as an independent but he's clearly to the right of Milton Friedman.
Imus' show has its moments and it takes awhile for any affection for him in particular to ever build-up. It's more his high-profile "mover and shaker" political guests (media commentators, as well as politicians) usually between 6am and 8 am) that can make for some fascinating radio, and can act as a primer on at least the prevailing political winds. Some good humor occasionally pops up out of it as well. But I reach for the knob quite often and check out other things, too. He's also another "you love him/ you hate him" type of guy as is O'Reilly for me. With a few exceptions, he seems way off in the last year, as if he's truly ready to retire. I know someone who has hinted that O'Reilly's over-the-top plugs and self-importance (especially at the sign-off) have"I don't care anymore because I'm going to retire in due time" air of late. He, like Imus, jumped the shark a long time ago - in some senses anyway.
Neither one is ultimately more than an entertainer (or in Imus' case, a platform for it, as he has little to add except an occasional on-target rant) and in that they often succeed for me and others. Like a lot of TV and radio, I take from it what I can and then throw back the carcass....