Had to wait to respond until I read Bill's article.

BTW Reg and Smorely, what do you find so reprehensible in O'Reilly's column?

Well, on my part nothing really. I've given up on letting media people bother me. I just don't find him interesting or insightful. I think he starts things off fine in that article you posted but by the end I think he is asking questions that really are designed to play to a certain angle. He hits the Republican party line very hard, taxes, abortion, the defense of marriage act (come on, like that's a hard hitting question!), sending more troops (this ball has been batted around so much I'm surprised there's anything left of it and it's a question Bush should have addressed long ago), then he just may as well put on the Bushie cheerleader outfit when he starts trying to tie how Kerry voted on Kuwait to Saddam's guys raping women...a terrible thing but we've never gone to war over rape so what's his point other than to sell the right wing agenda on all this? That's fine, he gets paid to do that but I find him about as interesting as I find Paul Begala.

 And who do you think is worse; O'Reilly or Michael Moore?

I think they both editorialize about the state of things. I wouldn't count on either to give me an idea of what's going on in the world because they give it to you with their slant. I wouldn't say one is worse than the other...they both stir up the opposing side and cause hysterical reactions. I think the thing is it's up to the individual to wade through what they present. It's also a matter of who you find more entertaining...because bottom line that's what they are both about. I don't find O'Reilly entertaining, at least Moore is funny. Come on admit that Triumph the dog did a better job asking questions in the spin room than O'Reilly ever did on his show...and made you laugh!