Here, for what worth, is my comment:
So why in the world would Bill O'Reilly be "okay with liberals?" Perhaps for the same reason the military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media complex (MICMIC) is "okay" with drone strikes that multiply the "enemy."
Deprived of the chance to excoriate people who (in the words John Kennedy used to define liberals) "welcome new ideas and care about the welfare of people," O'Reilly would be unable to cater to people who resist new ideas and think only of themselves. Similarly, deprived of the exponential growth in the number of "enemies" from drone strikes, the MICMIC, too, would fall on hard times.
Ray explained what he meant by conservative progressive:
Fifty-one years ago when I was commissioned a 2/Lt in the U.S. Army, I swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I took that oath freely, without reservation, and with the clear understanding that it carried NO expiration date.
I still take this very seriously. To "protect and defend the Constitution:" That is conservative to the core.
I have talked to other officers who take their oath just as seriously. Many of them, like me, are trying to be faithful conservatives: faithful to our oath; faithful to the Constitution. We are not shying away from tough discernment as to what this "worst of times" for the Constitution requires from us, if we are to be faithful.
This has nothing to do with "patriotic" rhetoric and flag waving. It has to do with deciding who are the present-day enemies of the Constitution -- and putting our bodies where our oaths dictate they must go.
Many of us, including me, consider ourselves progressive, as well, inasmuch as we are not hide-bound to the past and are open to new ideas EXCEPT FOR our sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Hide-bound to the Constitution, yes; hide-bound to the past, no.
The US has the most massive and effective propaganda system the world has ever seen. It includes the huge public relations industry (which in more honest days, described itself as dedicated to "propaganda"), the corporate media, and in fact a lot more. The US is the only industrial country where one cannot (on pain of exclusion from polite society) describe oneself as a socialist (and Communist parties function freely elsewhere). After "socialist" was demonized, attention turned next to "liberal" -- now almost a term of abuse. So the people who in other societies would be called social democrats, socialist, etc. ("liberal" is a special US term) now call themselves "progressives," which seems to have less dangerous connotations, though people who are dedicated slaves of private power are working hard to demonize that term too.
It's a little weird, because historically the progressive movement was defined by muckrakers who fought for transparency and holding government accountable, whereas liberals are identified with the social safety net, the New Deal and "big government." O'Reilly claims to champion the former and despise the latter.
I imagine he means he hates young people, who are more likely to call themselves "progressives," as opposed to their grandparents who still use the word "liberal." He's probably just pandering to his geriatric audience and doesn't really know what he's talking about.