To be fair to O'Reilly though, he's never pretended to be a comedian or really tried to be funny

Karol

Why do you think that O'Reilly is not on the right?

Having read his first two books, I felt he came off as more of a wannabee-populist than anything else. He just seems to take the most popular position at any given time.

I'd still identify him as a right-of-center populist though - similar to what Dobbs is (annoyingly) trying to do from left-of-center now...

I can agree with that, Alceste.

I'm with Karol though I would remind her that O'Reily impeaching Clinton which was not popular at the time. He goes left on gun control for example and goes right on securing the border, both fairly popular positions.

Dobbs is a lefty ? Hmm, wants to close the border, toss out illegal aliens, opposes losing soveringty to international bodies, thinks Bush's economic policies undermine traditional marriage (yeah I have no clue what he is talking about either unless he means the massive spending in the federal government), hostile to China......

Uh, that's not a lefty.

I think Dobbs is a bit of a nationalist in terms of his politics and his economics; not quite a Buchananite but in the ballpark, and if memory serves Dobbs has reservations on our policies in the Mideast. I think that's populist on the right as opposed to the left and I'd probably place him to the right of O'Reily.

Well VB, that strikes me more as a description of one of those isolationist, anti-free trade democrats of the past than any identifiable conservative figure or group of the present.

And Karol, no post about the end of the 100 hours and the House leadership's complete inability to grasp fundamental principles of economics?

He is a populist and a traditionalist, which often overlaps with today's Republican party.

Your company cuts off access to my site for less than two weeks, and already you're a Republican?? I am soo telling. For shame, Alceste, for shame.

No need to worry NDS - I haven't switched sides (and even like some of that they did - e.g., minimum wage hike) - that said, I have full faith that Senate Democrats will reject the inane proposal with the only effect of increasing the gas price for consumers. Exactly who do they think will pay when you target a single industry in which consumer demand is constantly increasing?

Alceste, I may be taking your words too literally here but "isolationist, anti-free trade democrats of the past" strikes me as a bit odd. The Dems were the party of free trade, from Jefferson to Calhoun and McDuffie to Grover the Good to Bryan to Wilson to FDR (and especially his Sec of State Cordell Hull). The GOP was the home of isolationism; opposing Wilson's war and opposing FDR in the late 30s. With the exception of McKinley's actions in the Phillipines and the Caribbean, which TR inherited, it was the Dems (Jackson, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Andy Johnson, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ) who seemed willing to intervene abroad. Have I taken things too far in the way back machine? Who are you refering to ?

Well, I was more thinking of the New Deal Democrats - who took an awful long time to intervene abroad when it was actually necessary -- and the McGovernites of the 70's - very focused on domestic socio-economic "equality" at the expense of other issues (but, admittedly, it's a rough comparison).

The McGovernites I concede. But the New Dealers generally supported free trade. And while they moved slow on the international situation, they were ahead of the Republicans (Wilkie was a Dem until 1938, Taft and Vandenberg were the leaders of the isolationists). One thing to keep in mind about the 1930s. The American political class is not willing to get too far ahead of the American people, especially in foreign affairs. With the bitter aftertaste of WW1 still in their mouths and facing the greatest economic crisis in their history, the American people simply did not care about the rise of the totalitarian powers. Sad but true. Were the Dems bad in the 30s on the issue ? Yes. Were the GOP and the American people bad on it too ? Yeah they were. A government can not move too far on the international front if the people do not like what Washington is doing. As I suspect George W. Bush will continue to learn in 2007 as the American people continue to tune out what he has to say.

Dobbs is a fricking millionaire news-reader who's trying to gain in ratings. His party (and O'Reilly's for that matter) is irrelevant.

Karol, I actually thought O'Reilly on Colbert was funnier. He held his own pretty well. Where as Colbert on O'Reilly, Colbert just talked to much

I think there's as much of a difference between the free vs. regressive right or the (vanishing) free vs. (increasingly) regressive left as there is between the generalized right vs. left. So while it might not fit a binary view of the spectrum, I would have to agree that O'Reilly isn't any kind of right I would relate to. It's still fun to watch how crazy he makes the left, though.

I think O'Reilly is an idiot, but he was right about shunning the OJ book.