Bill O'Reilly considers running for President
 

<hr>
Who's Looking Out for Him?
Lots of people, which is why Bill O'Reilly is a political factor

For one brief and blessed moment, the only sound inside Bill O'Reilly's radio studio at Fox News headquarters is the insistent scratching of pen on paper. The big guy is writing a note to a fan on the inside cover of his recent book, "Who's Looking Out for You?" and as his hand hovers over the page, he mumbles bleakly, "I just sign my butt off."

The grand plan, he explains, is to surpass "Hillary." No last name given. That would be the senator from New York, whose autobiography has sold 1.6 million copies. His book, published in September, has sold 908,064 copies, so - you do the math - that's a lot of ballpoints he still has to go through.

O'Reilly is tall (but you knew that) and slightly stooped. His eyes are bleary. Tired from 12-hour days. From endless promotion. From perpetual battle. The "high plains drifter" (his self-description, page 194) looks like he needs a place to bunk down for the night.

Then he begins a discourse on one of the more intriguing subjects in these United States - that would be Bill - and the illusion of tranquillity and fatigue is shot to hell. First, there's the matter of his critics, who are "trying to destroy my credibility," and of The New York Times, which refuses to review his book, and of CBS' dumped miniseries, "The Reagans," which "The O'Reilly Factor" played a central role in helping to dump. (A campaign "not driven by ideology, but because it was cruel.")

There's also the matter of his own personal Moriarty, one Al Franken, whose "Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)" is No. 3 on The Times' nonfiction bestseller list ("Who's Looking Out for You?" is in fourth place.) "I can't allow some of the stuff to go unchallenged . It's not in me to do that. In Levittown, when I was a kid and you were walking down the street and someone said, 'Hey, O'Reilly, you -- liar,' you punched him. It was like, WHAM!" - he smashes his fist into his hand - "I can't imagine someone calling my father a liar to his face. He would have killed him."

And, yes, also the matter of Fox News' much-ridiculed (and quashed) August lawsuit against Franken for trademark infringement. There were published reports that O'Reilly forced the lawsuit, but those are "absolutely false.... I had nothing to do with that lawsuit." Instead, "I had my guys look into defamation [and] they said you can win, but you won't get any money." (Nevertheless, multiple sources say O'Reilly did, in fact, force the lawsuit, which became a public relations debacle for the network.)

But the most interesting thing about O'Reilly isn't "The Reagans," or Al, or even the train wreck of a lawsuit. It's this little question: Bill O'Reilly for president?

Speculation about O'Reilly's political future has been around for years, but it's still tempting to think that all of this - the show, the books, the radio, the tchotchkes on billoreilly.com, the entire money-printing Bill O'Reilly industry, for crying out loud - is part of some manifest design on his part to run for higher office. The new book feeds into this. "Who's Looking Out for You?" - about the failure of American institutions to protect the average Joe - is both thoughtful and blustering, where a flame is thrown on every other page, a past slight avenged in every other chapter. Entertaining, yes, but also (at times) a political reformist's manifesto.

So, White House or bust?

"I may take a look" at running and "certainly the option is open if I want it. But what I want to do over the next few years here is clean up the process. We have the bad guys on the run - no question about that."

While he says there have been "lots of offers" to run against Clinton someday for her Senate seat (there are four years left on his Fox contract), he also quickly adds, "I'd lose.... It'd be a fun race [and] I'd drive her crazy, but she would ultimately win." Besides, he has no interest in the Senate: "I'm not a quid pro guy" who'd have to play at pork-barrel politics to bring "goodies" back to the state.

The prize would be the White House, but "the country's not interested in an independent candidacy. Maybe in 10 years they will be, but right now, you have 50 percent of Americans who don't know anything - they're totally disengaged from the process, the 'Mall People.' They don't know anything, don't watch the news or listen to radio or read the newspapers. The other 50 percent - and there was a recent poll on this - are a third crazy left and third crazy right and third in the middle. So the pie you're going for is a very narrow pie."

Yeah, maybe he "could mobilize a certain number of independent thinkers who think, 'This guy could be a ... Teddy Roosevelt kind of guy, who could come in and clean up the garbage...'" but "I'm not a vanity player, I'm not gonna go out like Al Sharpton, to get on 'Saturday Night Live' to run for president, so unless I'm convinced I could pull it off, I wouldn't do it."

Meanwhile, there's the book (and yes, fans, he's written a new one for kids, ages 9 to 16, due out this time next year).

Don't forget to mention, he says, that he'll be signing copies of "Who's Looking Out for You?" at the Book Revue in Huntington Sunday from 12:30 to 3. "I'd hate to be the only one there."
<hr>
He's got my vote.

Lol. He doens't have mine! He is writing a kids book? Brainwash material? I would like to see something about that. I think I will do some research when I get home.

Thanks for the post.

I think Bill is a solid, at least more of a straight shooter then most politicians. He'd get my vote.

I agree up to a point with mojo - I think he is a straight shooter but, I wouldn't vote for him and would imagine he is unelectable. No one wants a politician to attempt to tell it like it is.

God forbid!!!!

Need I even voice my "Hell no!"? But I suppose he would pry be better than Bush...

Not to knock you Muad, but I'm assuming your position on O' Reilly has something to do with him being "conservative". However he is no where near as radical as either Kucinich of Wellstone.

I think most Republicans would vote for him. Most people think he's a Republican anyways.

I'd vote for him, he's a smart guy with an aggressive personality, a winners personality!

Unless he learns to curb his short temper he has no chance at all. Even if he does begin to "mainstream" his opinions and finds a way curb his volatility he has a huge uphill battle ahead of him. He has been "creative" with stories about his personal background and would have a hard time when put under the bright spotlight that comes with running for President. He may generate a spark like Pat Buchanan did, but I don't see how he could win, he is such a divisive individual. I can't imagine ever voting for him, but it would be an enjoyable race to watch.

hes great at yelling about his own opinion, unfortunately not much else.

Hey, that sounds like <a href="http://www.deanforamerica.com/">someone else</a> we know...

Grrrrrrrrrreat, let's put the most egotistical close-minded idiot in office that we can possibly find!!! Who will run as his VP? Geraldo?

What? How is Dean aggressive, he wanted to hide under a rock and not attack Saddam. The only aggression in that guy is the ability to loudly bitch about the Republicans.

*Trolling edited out*

I couldn't care less if he's a Republican or a Neo-Conservative or a New Independent. I think he's an asshole.

While I agree with Bill O'Reilly on somethings his pervasive "asshole" quality prevents me from coming on board the "Willie O' Train."

I understand he's against the death penalty; he's for campaign finance reform; these are two of several talking points that I agree with Mr. O'Reilly on. But he's a loud mouth bullying asshole and this I believe is where I we diverge.

It has less to do with his conservativism than to do with his the lack of intellect I have seen from his show and his books. I can respect a good conservative as much as I can respect a good liberal (McCain and Hagel to name two). My cheif problem with O'Reilly is that he is nothing but an instigator who complains and provides sound byte answers to problems that he knows are beyond the scope of his "common man" solutions.
Also lets be sure to not confuse "radical" with "liberal". I know that both are dirty words in America today but there is a difference. Most importantly that a radical idea is something that is a departure from the status quo, like Universal Healthcare or Preemptive Warfare, however liberal is something more along the lines of progressive, like Universal Healthcare or a withdrawl from NAFTA.

"Four score and seven years ago...SHUT UP, SHUT UP!!!"

BWAAAHAAAAHAAAA!

I hope he runs. The debates will be hilarious.

Q: "Mr. O'Reilly how would you answer to accusations that you have never been a good listener."

A: "Nah, shut up. Your crazy! That's stupid..."

I like him. And if you don't you should "shut up" because "your crazy" or "stupid". :D

I wouldn't vote for him, but it would be a refreshing twist to have a candidate who doesn't sling BS at us and try to manipulate every sentence to try to appeal to everyone. Honestly, candidates can't believe that their party knows that they're lying and the other side will think they're great. How stupid do they think we are?

Rhetorical question, right?

... Jesus, help me.

i will read replies if i have any.... ugh this hurts. i'm trying hard to not be rude. very hard.

he'd not get my vote.........

BoR is a communist. his way or the highway. if you disagree with him he will demonize you and tell you to shut up.

he kissess ass all the time. if you like/love someoe, great, but don't kiss ass!

he is a hypocrite.

his ideal american dream is to watch key people move up in his vision and the rest stay below the poverty line.

he is pro censorship.

if Hitler came back to life and promised to not kill people I would vote for him before BoR.

jesse venture did to great effect :D