...veterans who were homeless when John Edwards said there were 200,000 and even though it was a figure substantiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Alliance to End Homelessness. He eventually backed down and said that if there were homeless vets, there weren't many of them and that their homelessness was due to their own addictions and mental illnesses.
And of course, O'Reilly never learns. Just last week, he denied that there are any children going hungry in America.
Well, actually I do have a lot of respect for George Will. Though he's come up with a few doozies, most of his stuff is well researched, but perhaps misinterpreted. Bill O' Reilly, on the other hand, in spite of his many defenders here, is not, in my book a true journalist, but rather a carnival act.
I suspect the truth lies somewhere between their two views of Reagan. I can't see many of those serving Reagan breaking of the official party line about him. But then, if O'Reilly can't document any reliable sources, let alone even attempt to, as George points out, he shouldn't be trying to sell a book based on hearsay and speculation, IMHO.
...Billo reminded me of the episode of Star Trek where a BSC crazy woman switched bodies with Kirk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AelzaRs0EI
O'Reilly is an egomaniac who doesn't like to be challenged. He rarely calls himself a journalist - he considers himself to be a "pundint" (that's how he pronounces it).
O'Reilly writes the "Killing" books himself (supposedly), but relies on his co-author, Martin Dugard for all the research. A book is only as good as the material it's based on. Will's criticism is that the book wasn't properly sourced. O'Reilly takes all criticism personally so he went crazy.
It's true that the book tried to "humanize" Reagan. This pissed off The Reagan Legacy Project that wants to put Reagan's name on everything in America and add his blockhead to Mt. Rushmore. Critics claimed O'Reilly didn't talk to people who knew Reagan intimately. O'Reilly said he didn't do that because he wanted to be "impartial." But he apparently used information from Kitty Kelley's gossipy book on Reagan ( see link below).
BTW, O'Reilly has read three of my letters on the air at the end of his show. Not bad for a lefty!
-- Modified on 11/7/2015 4:30:34 PM
Painful to watch, and NO I am not an admirer of Mr. Will.
He is an opinion based TV personality. He is a ratings whore, in both the good and bad sense of the word.
This is pure ratings gold for him.
And btw, virtually every book on the market has at least some speculation or hearsay.
In this stand off, I do think Will got the better of it. When one goes the ad hominem route, it is usually a sure sign the other side won. Lol
O'Reilly fits the axiom "You can always tell a Harvard man, you just can't tell him very much" to a tee. He's not always right, but will never back down. Totally lost respect for him on an oil issue a few years back where clearly he had no idea about which he was bloviating.
...He went to Marist, then got a master's from Boston U. When he was 45, he went to the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. The admission requirements of the Kennedy School are nowhere near as strict as trying to get in as an undergrad.
A Harvard man is someone who spends four years at Harvard, entering as an 18 year-old freshman. Some examples of Harvard men are Al Gore and his Harvard roommate Tommy Lee Jones. Even Al Franken is a Harvard man. Bill O'Reilly is an anti-intellectual bully and a bloviating blowhard - the antithesis of a Harvard man.
...veterans who were homeless when John Edwards said there were 200,000 and even though it was a figure substantiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Alliance to End Homelessness. He eventually backed down and said that if there were homeless vets, there weren't many of them and that their homelessness was due to their own addictions and mental illnesses.
And of course, O'Reilly never learns. Just last week, he denied that there are any children going hungry in America.