Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bill O’Reilly Channeling His Inner Donald Trump
Mr. O’Reilly loses it in this interview, asking questions, then refusing to allow George Will to speak, and finally repeatedly shouting insults at Will to keep him from speaking. “You are a hack!”
Here’s the George Will column that drew mighty Bill’s ire. Poor Mr. O’Reilly. I think Megyn Kelly has deeply unnerved him…
Published in Entertainment, Literature, Politics
Imagine how terrified O’Reilly’s crew of trained seals were after that interview.
Poor little peons…
While I don’t always agree with George Will, George is a different league than O’Reilly. Thankfully.
I cannot tolerate O’Reilly and frankly, don’t understand why guests (non-Fox regulars) even bother to come on his show. Bill is a blowhard who loves to hear himself talk and rarely lets his guests utter a word. Yeah, I get it, it’s his show but to have an interview you occasionally need to let the interviewee respond.
What a meltdown.
It was necessary to do this contingency planning for the same Reagan who bested Gorbachev at Reykjavik a mere five months earlier? Really? That’s just implausible.
This comment deserves to win the thread. :)
George Will previously stated that he writes his columns in longhand. Using a fountain pen, most likely.
O’Reilly won’t just cut his mike. Some of O’Reilly’s other guests have written about the experience of being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly. If you say something that O’Reilly doesn’t like he will cause that exchange to be edited out.
Doesn’t it occur to any of you how much this division of the conservative base is like the Trump takeover and the divisions that were revealed by that? This is very similar and it shows how un-representative Ricochet is. This is important to know.
What a bunch of reflexive George Will supporters here.
For me, it’s apparent that O’Reilly despises the same people on the right that I do and especially their methods which are so reflective of how the MSM is to conservatives, interestingly. And when Will puts on his high dudgeon act (in his column) it seems to have really angered O’Reilly. I think this was calculated more than you guys do.
I will watch with great interest how this runs its course.
Well just the title of the post got the Trump dig in.
I watched it and cringed. I much as I may disagree or dislike someone, I can’t imagine treating someone that disrespectfully, especially someone as esteemed as Will is. Larry, I, like you, tend to sympathize more with the “proles” given my own background, and I think Will has definitely lost something on the fastball these last few years, but what a disgusting display that was. Cannot believe what a poor job of research O’ Reilly did. What is interesting to me is that I would have expected someone like O’Reilly to blast someone who had written a book like this taking cheap shots at a conservative icon. . Then he says this is a laudatory book? I am on Will’s side in this one.
Amen.
On another note, I wonder if his and Dennis Miller’s (love him) relationship might wane…?
Color me guilty… I don’t revile Trump, and he’s said many sensible things, but he is known for ad hominem and personal attacks….
Also, maybe O’Reilly is hoping for the same kind of magic that happens when Trump insults his rivals and gets a boost of popularity.
The exchange was so weird that for a moment, I actually wondered if they were both in on it, if they’d been told to do it. But I can’t really picture Roger Ailes or George Will doing something like that.
George Will was attacking his credibility. There’s a pretty big difference in getting a heated debate about various policies and having somebody say your lying.
Will was also making the important point that O’Reilly, in this book, is doing the Left’s work for them. That had to sting.
I read one of O’Reilly’s (Dugard’s) books, “Killing Kennedy.”
It sucked. I rank it with Ed Klein’s stuff – puffed-up rumors masquerading as fact and written in sixth-grade prose. I won’t read another. No one else should.
If you’re interested in a good book, try “Sapiens” by Yuval Noah Harari.
Bill O’Reilly can be the proto-typical bombastic New Yawker. George Will is the proto-typical conservative elitist that believes nothing worth mentioning happens outside the Eastern Seaboard.
Sneer met jeer and I found it highly amusing. As long as both of them stay away from the West I’ll be happy. Now if only the national weather broadcasters would quit blocking the map of the Western United States when they deliver the national forecast.
Bill O’Reilly smeared one of our best presidents in a sloppy, hateful and dishonest way. Dan Rather is probably envious.
Regardless of what you think of George Will, why would anyone defend O’Reilly?
I have a personal liking to O’Reilly but his understanding of a number of issues is repeatedly wrong. I catch it all the time. I’ve never read any of his books, but I can see how wrong they could be. George Will I’ve grown to dislike. When he hates someone I do think he slanders them. On this issue Will is probably right.
For the same reason, it would seem. Good people letting anger get to them start thinking, the guy has the right enemies, we should be defending him! It no longer matters that political alliances are supposed to have some principle guiding them–principle is abandoned to keep the alliance going. Not a rare event. Probably has to do with the fact that principle is simply not enough for human beings-
This.
You have to love George Will for this. among many other works:
Anybody catch George Will yesterday?
Pretty funny.
Mr. Will starts with this business about the relation of breathing to wisdom & ends with The Great Gatsby. I believe this may suffice to prove him a vulgar man. This is not entirely a bad thing. Some degree of vulgarity is required in politics, & certainly to deal with Mr. O’Reilly.
It would certainly be fitting to end the career of Mr. O’Reilly for his shameless profiteering when it comes to Reagan. Lying to people about the only man of whom they may have experience & who was a politician of any importance is probably a very bad thing.
I believe liberals have always been right to contemn Mr. O’Reilly, but their motives are so easily impeachable. Something of our weakness is obvious in our not having destroyed his career or corrected him for his shamelessness. It is something in who we are that he saw & exploited with this shamelessness–his books about killings. What a perfect mockery of something sacred…
I suppose America contains multitudes, much like Whitman, & Mr. Clinton, who has apparently learned to conceal the evidence of the statement. There is a place for Mr. O’Reilly. I am sure many on our side can say, they have their shameless hack, let us embrace ours! Such is politics. It is nevertheless a test of American conservatism & politics whether Americans can tell the difference between Will & Bill & the meaning of that difference-
The glee with which Will eviscerates O’Reilly is a little too primal, maybe, but why does Gatsby reference make Will vulgar?
I’m remembering that moment in the video when Will calls Bill “Reilly.” Twice. That really rankled O’Reilly.
CB, I loved that. Considered doing it myself. Meh.
It’s apolitical, it has nothing to do with the story or the concern–& it shows a kind of carelessness of the intellectual. This is about a guy playing grave-robber, for goodness’ sake! Some have called him a bully or what have you, because he’s such a vulgarian–but that’s really missing the point, though it might fit better with the American reluctance to call certain things by their names. So it’s what Americans might call a cop out–shows he’s not worthy of defending what he’s supposed to defend, or not entirely.
Otherwise, I’m glad to see him get a little dirty, so to speak. Justice & honor are not academic concerns & they do not entirely belong in church or polite company…
The thing about the lungs, too–the quiet assertion of the superiority of the quiet to the loud is supposed to announce the distinction between gentleman & rabble-rouser. That’s fine, but it does not nearly go far enough.