Bill O’Reilly vs. Rush Limbaugh

[DonViejo]

by Peter Beinart Apr 1, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

As the gay marriage fight has made clear, the two men are very different kinds of conservatives. Peter Beinart on what distinguishes them—and why O’Reilly’s approach is the one that could help the GOP win again.

There are various ways to describe the civil war rising inside the Republican Party: insiders versus outsiders, pragmatists versus true-believers, establishment versus Tea Party. Here’s another: Bill O’Reilly conservatives versus Rush Limbaugh conservatives

Last week, the two media titans clashed after O’Reilly accused opponents of gay marriage of lacking “compelling argument[s]” and merely “thump[ing] the Bible.” Limbaugh responded by saying that conservative Christians “were sort of marginalized” on O’Reilly’s show. On the surface, the scuffle merely reflected differing opinions about the arguments deployed last week at the Supreme Court. But in reality, it reflected a different view of conservatism itself.

O’Reilly is a conservative populist, which is to say, he only champions those conservative viewpoints that he believes enjoy mass appeal. His evolution on gay marriage—as helpfully chronicled by New York magazine’s Dan Amira—illustrates the point. While O’Reilly’s own views have shifted, what has remained constant is his tendency to justify those views by reference to the popular will. In 2006, O’Reilly said he opposed gay marriage because “it is clear that most Americans want heterosexual marriage to maintain its special place … Traditional marriage is widely seen as a social stabilizer.” In 2009, he again phrased his opposition in terms of public opinion: “you don’t do it [pass gay marriage] particularly if people in California … don’t want it, they think that the heterosexuality is a societal stabilizer.” But by linking his own notions of social stability to those of the public at large, O’Reilly gave himself room to shift. By May of last year he was declaring that “individual states should decide the question.” And last week he said he supported civil unions while on gay marriage, “I don’t feel that strongly about it one way or another. I think the states should do it.”

Intellectually, this doesn’t make much sense. There’s a comprehensible argument in support of both civil unions and gay marriage. Or against both. Or even in support of one but not the other. But intellectually, it makes little sense to support civil unions while remaining agnostic on the more symbolically and culturally important question of gay marriage itself. Yet for O’Reilly it makes perfect sense. He opposed gay marriage when he believed the vast majority of Americans did and now backs civil unions because he thinks the vast majority of Americans do. He’s currently undecided on gay marriage because public opinion is split.

more:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/01/bill-o-reilly-vs-rush-limbaugh.html

[Scuba]

1. "O’Reilly’s approach is the one that could help the GOP win again." Yes, Repubs, that's the ticket!

Follow that man! He'll lead you out of the wilderness.

[randr]

2. Oreally only does what his masters call for

The leaders of Faux give him his marching orders and they, as controllers of the Republican Party, know they must move away from the fringe if they ever expect to win a National election.
Rush, on the other hand, has always been a loose cannon and without the fringe he would be speaking to an empty microphone.

[Bigmack]

3. Disappointed in this OP....

From the title, I had hopes of reading about the bloody "cage match" between those two assholes.... complete with photos of the injuries.

Oh, well... even on April Fools day, I can dream.