I really enjoy her show, especially since it isn't an angry show like so many others.
When Left is Right
-
Posted By: sieg6529 @ 11/25/2008 4:18:24 PM
-
Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 11/25/2008 3:21:18 PM
Then too,it occurs to one immediately that you do not find ''yelling matches''on Olbermann[except by Olbermann himself in his usually erratic ''Special Comments''],due to the fact that he surrounds himself with ideological peers who see things his way. The grist for an O'Reillys mill is that he deliberately brings up ideological opposites for a fireworks effect. You do not see MINUTEMEN or NRA flacks on Olbermann. But you will see Nation of Islam,CODE PINK and New Black Panther Party members on the FACTOR. You will not see conservative lawmakers on Olbermann. But you will see leftwinged lawmakers on the FACTOR ,including at differing times,Robert Kennedy Jr. Jesse Jackson III,Dennis Kucinich, Art Torres, Barney Frank and liberals including Barack Obama,Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Kent Conrad, and others. No conservative big city mayors on Olbermann. Several liberal ones on the FACTOR including both of viruantly leftwinged San Franciscos most recent mayors,Willie Brown and Gavin Newsom.
NPR has no conservative representation. FOX NEWS has two members of NPR,Mara Liason and Juan Williams as regular contributors. The spectrum is well covered. Conservatives Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer. Liberals Bob Beckel and Geraldine Ferarro. Centrists Mort Kondrake of The HILL,and Dana Priest of the Washington Post. It is in these areas,combining bombast and opposing viewpoint,that give FOX programs their high pole positions on top of the NIELSEN ratings on a rather consistant basis. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,thus it is useful to observe that both CNN and MSNBC were forced to copy the conservative giant by inserting their own opposite viewpoint shows,turning Lou Dobbs into ''Mr. Indpendant''and bringing up Glenn Beck,with MSNBC inserting Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson. More on these sorts of formats are included in the websites listed in the previous post.
-
Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 11/25/2008 2:56:11 PM
HARLEY is being dishonest. Not once have either Hannity nor O'Reilly claimed to be anything other than what they are.
Commentators.
I find it curious that people must lie in order to try and prove that FOX NEWS.....lies, while ignoring the lies being spread by other media that neccesarily include such outlets as CNN and MSNBC.[speaking only of cable ''news''here and not print media,which is suffering from its own self-inflicted problems].
www.factcheck.org FACTCHECK.
www.people-press.org The PEW Center for People and the Press.
www.journalism.org The Project For Excellence In Journalism: The State Of Cable Media,2008[Comparisons of FOX,MSNBC,CNN].
-
Posted By: hardybear @ 11/25/2008 1:32:32 PM
For me Rachael Maddow is a new kind of personification of that elusive American dream ... doing what you dig and making a living from it. The media isn't for sissies these days, with bloggers opining and dissecting 24/7, so I give her a great deal of credit for launching a high-profile show. Good to have a relatable and coincidentally female to watch on cable. Her passion and commitment draw me in and provoke terrific discussions with my husband and friends. Thanks, Rachael!
-
Posted By: Doc HowI @ 11/23/2008 11:24:40 AM
I listen to Rachel and she's such a pseudointellectual she makes me puke. In her ask Dr. Maddow segment she regularly "googles" for the answer. If her hatred of everything normal about America rocketed her to stardom among the left, it will doom her as Obama moves to the Right in Clinton fashion.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/23/2008 1:26:44 PM
HAR HAR! Looks like I pissed off the right so much someone has made a troll account.
Poor little troll. It's going to be a rough 4-8 years.-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/25/2008 12:16:08 PM
Your troll is posting on other threads as well. You're famous, Doc!
I bet it's Jimbo, posting under 2 names will give more time to talk trash. -
Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/23/2008 4:49:10 PM
And here I thought you finally had a sensible thought in your head....I guess I was wrong. BTW, the "troll", as you call him, sounds far more intelligent than you do. If you were smart, you would just let him go...
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/23/2008 8:48:44 PM
This way is more fun.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: sjbrock80 @ 11/24/2008 7:07:32 PM
Who the hell is Rachel Maddow?
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/25/2008 12:09:28 PM
She's easy to like.
-
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/25/2008 12:07:59 PM
I love Rachel! Rachel is intelligent, witty, warm and beautiful.
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 11/23/2008 8:15:27 PM
I like Rachel Maddow, not least because she DOES do things like talk to Pat Buchanon. Sure they argue..is there ANYONE who doesn't argue with Pat Buchanon? Is there any liberal who doesn't end up arguing with conservatives.
My favorite thing is listening to "outraged" conservatives who live in some state of denial wherein liberals have to be tolerant of conservatives, but conservatives can always be as outraged and angry as they want with "liberals".
Simply not true. Certainly not true now.-
Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/23/2008 10:31:45 PM
Your 2nd paragraph is comical. Have you read the hate-spewing comments posted by your so-called 'tolerant' liberal collegues? They are all over this particular posting board, since Newsweak draws in lefties like moths to a flame.
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 11/24/2008 3:07:50 PM
Actually Jimbo, you're absolutely correct. And now (drumroll please...) you're going to get to hear a progressive liberal feed you just a little of your own bloody self-righteous medicine.
Of course the "left", the progressives, and well, frankly anyone who can think is angry. The right wing conservatives (notice I did not say ALL conservatives) screwed up this whole country.
Yes..it really is ALL their fault. Their mindless adherence and blind idiocy in regards to Republican economic (deficit spending and useless tax cuts)
and foreign (Hey, lets start yet ANOTHER war we can't sfford or have troops for)
AND domestic policy (what domestic policy?)
has sent this country into a complete tailspin.
You had the congress, you had the white house. You got your stupid make the rich richer tax cuts. You got your shot at foreign policy. You had your chance to make America safe and prosperous with your ideology. YOU FAILED.
And look at the mess you've made you complete retards.
If tax-cuts were going to create jobs...then where are all the jobs you dingleberries??
If these wars were going to make us all safe..then why aren't we safe? Why isn't the entire middle east a big old democracy party where we're the guests of honor?
Meanwhile, we're running a record busting deficits, while every piece of infrastructure in this country crashes around ears. People are losing their jobs and houses and life savings at unprecedented rates. If you own stocks..wipe your butt with them..toilet paper is still expensive.
Please go hide in shame in a corner you wretched right wing idiots. And, for God's sake, at least take a book on economics with you, preferably one written by an intellectual progressive so that when and/or if you ever come back into power you don't ruin America AGAIN..-
Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/24/2008 7:30:59 PM
Once again, those of your disgusting ilk tell outright lies and twist whatever truth is lefover.
The wrecked economy has Democrat fingerprints all over it; you can start with your buddy Barney Frank and his lack of oversight of Freddie and Fannie and trace it all the way back to 1977's Community Investment Act, wherein liberal social engineers decided it would be good to force banks to loan money to people who had no chance of paying it back. All in support of the social engineers heralded concept of "fairness". The result; an October suprise that showed up in September. As usual, the Democrats didn't give a good goddam about what was best for their country, their greed for power trumped all and wrecked the economy in order to win an election. Nice work, dimwits.
Let's see, by my count, and the count of a lot of others, the Republican domination of the Presidency and the assention of Republicans in Congress since the dark days of the late 70's has produced, well, let's see now, the greatest economic expansion and prosperity in the history of the world. Until you idiots wrecked it in order to win an election.
And in case you weren't paying attention, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made us immeasurably safer. Al Queda is a shadow of its former self and their has not been another successful attack on the US since 9/11 - an amazing achievement actually. But liberals (oops, Progressives) like yourself will of course dismiss this; as you are probably one of those left-wing nuts that was hoping for another attack on America, after all, America is inherently evil in your eyes, isn't it?-
Posted By: Thevail @ 11/25/2008 12:29:47 AM
Ahh..truly a right wing troglodyte, I see.
Isn't it amazing how..if anything good happens it is always to the immediate credit of any Republican who happened to be anywhere inthe government at the time..even GW Bush.
But if anything bad happens it is always the fault of some democrat who is no longer in charge..funny that.
Bush senior had a war, let the economy go to crud (and if you're still blaming backwards..look at Ronny Ray-gun for a share of that) and ended with a deficit..and Democrat Clinton (for all his other faults) fixed it..yep..fixed it.
Now Bush Jr. has had TWO wars, acted like a corporate socialist with his teats out to suckle the financial sector for eight years, ruined the economy completely and taken the deficit to entirely new highs...
And another democrat will have to fix it..AGAIN.
Conservatism sounds great until you actually hold it up to the light of day and the unyielding yardstick of the global economy. Then it just appears dim and small. -
Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/24/2008 8:02:04 PM
"jimbo": You're so obviously in love with your own fantasies, you can't see how rediculous you prove yourself to be.
So, someone, anyone, can "force banks to loan money to people who have no chance of paying it back'?
You're just parroting that incessant anonymous email. I represented banks for decades. No one, no law ever forced a bank to make a loan.
And here's another nonsensical repetition: The 1977 Community Investment Act is what wrecked our economy. This is just an appendage to the first point above. This law forced no one to make a loan to an unqualified borrower. But what's more absurd is the suggestion that it took 30 years for that law to have the effect you claim.
You completely obviate any possibility of your other statements having even verisimilitude.
But go ahead, keep posting that same tired old preposterous stuff.
A 40 year republican-
Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/24/2008 9:03:19 PM
40 yr douchebag -
"You completely obviate any possibility of your other statements having even verisimilitude."
Wait - excuse me while I run and get my dictionary and my thesaurus! LOL - you are such a goofball that it is beyond all belief.
I have spoken personally with several high-ranking people in the banking system...every single one of them mentions the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 as forcing them to make loans...said another way, this government intervention prevented them from denying loans to some individuals, even though the banks knew the loans were highly risky. You are just playing with words, and you know it. This started the domino effect of toxic mortgages that has exploded into today's financial mess.
And I'm not buying this " I used to be a Republican but now I am so ashamed" nonsense that you spew. I have seen a disturbingly similar pattern among paid bloggers from Moveon.org, the Daily Kos, and other left-wing propoganda organizations. Are you one of them...? It is sure beginning to seem so.
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/24/2008 5:10:42 PM
Good post, Thevail. Well said.-
Posted By: cinesimon @ 11/24/2008 6:29:32 PM
I second thatTheveil.
This insistence by the right that our anger is nothing but hatred, is shameful. We need to continue being angry. Their intertwining of church and state has put America back a decade compared to the rest of the world.
America in the past eight years has denounced science, human rights, international law, respect for human life, the environment - the list is huge.What's wonderful about Maddowm is that despite her personal anger she can still talk to some of the criminals with calm respect, and get words out of them. To me, she displays what Obama wants with regards to international policy - to be able to respectfully exchange ideas with people regardless of wether they're an enemy or not, and without having to do it at gunpoint.-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 6:36:08 PM
Man, cinesimon. So you think that we can go tiptoe through the tulips with the enemy? The world doesn't work that way. In this world there are those in power and those that strive to be in power and guess what, the enemy wants that power and Obama will give them a chance to taste it, then we will be in trouble. If it weren't for our forefathers, you wouldn't have the freedoms you have in this country. It's just that lefties try to bogard and take more to where it pushes conservatives to the brink of hate! So it's not the fault of conservatives that they feel that way about lefties. It's the immoral issues and the dumb a'ss thinking that sleeping and talking with the enemy will be better for the world!
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/24/2008 6:43:26 PM
"bdhotwheel"; I was going to quote a few examples to show, but then I realized that this entire post is representative of the kind of sh!t that every day makes me more and more ashamed of my party affiliation.
A 40 year republican-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 7:00:29 PM
I'm an independent and I can see where both parties have their faults and are disrespectful to each other and their views. Unfortunately the left will get what they want and America will change more into a European type nation with government control and the poverty vs. rich line becoming more divided and futher separated.
-
Posted By: cinesimon @ 11/24/2008 7:21:43 PM
bdhotwheel: you appear to be the same kind of 'independent' as Bill O'Reilly pretends to be.
To suggest that Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity give you same level of distaste, suggests that you actually believe they're similar in behavior. That suggests not only that you cannot have watched her show much, if at all, but that your center is everyone else's right. Same as Billo.-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 7:37:16 PM
So you think you know me based on my comments? I am trying to say that everyone want's to be fed a certain way. Some people don't mind to be called out at church that they are sinners. Other's want to be babied and tickled in the ear that everything will be okay as long as you repent. Same situation here. you like Rachel some don't like her. You don't like Bill O, and some actually see he has valid points! Sugar and salt, that's all it is!
-
-
-
-
Posted By: cinesimon @ 11/24/2008 7:05:10 PM
bdhotwheel: your reasoning in your post regarding talking with the enemy is nothing short of adolescent. Talking with the enemy to try to calm the rhetoric and reach a peaceful settlement before all out war, is VERY important. That was understood in WW2 very well.
They talked many, many times to Japan before using the A-bomb - just because we wish to try other angles before all out killing ensues, suggests only that we kill very reluctantly, and if we can find another way other than violence, then it should be explored. It DOES NOT mean they we will believe everything they say.This rhetoric about tiptoeing through the roses, and sleeping with the enemy is nothing but ignorant propaganda used on hate radio stations and the likes of Fox to trivialse the long tradition in free and democratic countries of using diplomacy before war as a tool to reconcile differences between nations.
Whats more our forefathers would be ashamed at the use of their sacrifice by the right, and the likes of bdhotwheel, as emotional blackmail. They would much prefer we started respectful, honest discussions instead trivialising important issues by distorting and making fun of serious policy, and by using their names in an attempt to prove the political point of one side or the other - shame on you. They would hate to be used as an example of why we should shoot first and ask questions later. After all, that's the story of the Iraq debacle.
-
-
-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 6:29:39 PM
The vail is trying to make sense when all he is doing is making himself look like the kettle calling the teapot black! look in the mirror buddy before you try and make lefties look like saints!
-
-
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/24/2008 10:45:56 AM
Boo hoo hoo, Jimbo. You WANTED the divide, you GET the divide.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/24/2008 1:53:13 AM
jimbo, Hate? From this chair, the proportion of hate I sees lies out der in that there, also, to, right wing.
Jus' sayin'
A 40 year republican
-
-
-
Posted By: weathered @ 11/23/2008 2:26:44 PM
She may lean hard left...but it's a hell of a lot better than being lied to by the right.
-
Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/23/2008 2:44:22 PM
And when were you lied to? If you're speaking of Iraq, it didn't happen.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/23/2008 8:47:24 PM
Iraq never happened?
-
Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/23/2008 10:56:01 PM
Where did Bush lie? You mean the wmd's that Saddam threatened to use up until the invasion? The ones that couldn't be assembled until just before use? The ones he always deemed necessary for his survival? The ones other countries intelligence said he had.... and finally the ones that he didin't leave out on his doorstep for your satisfaction? Surely not those.....
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/24/2008 1:44:11 AM
Vypurr, Yes. The ones that couldn't be found no matter the bounty.
Everything I heard, including that bin Laden had operated elswhere, said to me that the real reasons we went were to get boots on the ground in a volatile region and protect oil supplies. I was good with that. I expected it would be done well. I believe Bush listened to the neocons only, and disregarded his experienced military and diplomats. Done right with actual aid in restoring what Saddam or we blew up, public services, etc., it could have worked. They blew it.
We really went to Iraq because of imminent threat of holocostic events? Couldn't swallow that from the beginning.-
Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/24/2008 8:29:12 PM
40Year, as I mentioned above, the boy could have averted all this mess 12 years and 17 resolutions before it happened.
I'll bet when he was walking up the gallows he wishes he had.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/24/2008 9:01:57 PM
Vypurr, HA! Bet he was doin' a whole lot of wishin' that day!!!! Did my ass happy that day. I'm just wishing the invasion had been done right.
PS, just saw you're post to go to the Hillary. Will do.-
Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/24/2008 9:15:34 PM
Agree with you there. Rummy focked it up but good.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/24/2008 10:47:47 AM
"Where did Bush lie?"
Yellow cake.
Drones.
Mobile chemical weapons labs (apparently, hydrogen is a chemical weapon).
"Millions of liters of anthrax".
Shall I continue?-
Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/24/2008 8:27:02 PM
Continue all you want. See my above post.
And we did find one of the mobile labs.
-
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/24/2008 10:49:29 AM
" You mean the wmd's that Saddam threatened to use up until the invasion? The ones that couldn't be assembled until just before use? The ones he always deemed necessary for his survival? The ones other countries intelligence said he had.... and finally the ones that he didin't leave out on his doorstep for your satisfaction? Surely not those....."
Yep. Those. Where are they?-
Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/24/2008 8:25:24 PM
Howl... the guy was firing shots over the inspector's heads just before the invasion. He played footsie with the corrupt UN for 12 years. Not 6 months or a year... 12 years! He was holding televised newscasts of his men in full chemical dress gear up until the invasion. Why would anyone go through all that if he really didn't have WMD"s? He could have eliminated all the nonsense and been done with it within a few months of the UN's original resolution. But no, 17 resolutions and 12 years later he was still acting like a dick wad. The fact is most chemical weapons must be assembled right before their used. Those chemicals were either shipped to Iran, Syria or Russia before the invasion, or they may be buried in the sand around Bagdad. There's a lot of that there, you know.
In the end, Saddam could have stopped this years before it happened. But he gambled, and then he paid. -
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 7:18:31 PM
They moved them to Iran just before the Iraqi war! Guess who's next?
-
Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/24/2008 8:00:47 PM
Good, let's get them in Iran. I just hope Isreal has the stones to attack Iran before Obama takes office.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Braes @ 11/24/2008 4:02:27 AM
Maddow is smart, funny and a good presenter. Well to my left but not at all in my face with it. Intellectually my superior.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/24/2008 6:10:57 PM
I'll stand second behind that one.-
Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/24/2008 9:14:46 PM
Yep, Maddow is intellectually your superior. Finally, something we agree on.
-
-
-
Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/23/2008 12:27:54 PM
Rachel Maddow only got her job because of the support of Keith Olbermann. Both are left-wing bomb throwers, with very little intellectually to back up their frothing-at-the-mouth syle. Rachel and Keith are the left-wing equivalent of Micheal Savage, where (often false) outrage trumps any sign of common sense.
In a TV market that often celebrates the bizarre, (the surreal life, Paris Hilton's new BFF, etc, etc.) I suppose this is no surprise. But how sad that people's opinions on important issues of the day are influenced by the carnival sideshow that is MSNBC.-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/23/2008 1:27:53 PM
" But how sad that people's opinions on important issues of the day are influenced by the carnival sideshow that is MSNBC. "
But jabbering idiots like O'Rielly and Hannity are just fine, right? LOL.-
Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/23/2008 4:52:59 PM
The difference is that Hannity and ORielly at least attempt to present both sides of a given story before weighing in with their opinions (don't forget Allen Colmes, and OReilly is good about giving his opponents the last word), whereas your heros at MSNBC are all radical left, all the time. There is not even a pretense of balance.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/23/2008 8:48:15 PM
"The difference is that Hannity and ORielly at least attempt to present both sides of a given story "
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!-
Posted By: broman @ 11/24/2008 8:29:56 PM
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoo, is that a JOKE or what?
-
-
Posted By: Braes @ 11/24/2008 4:00:41 AM
Colmes is the Washington Generals of talk. A straw man in the flesh, to be knocked down.
Fox is hardly a media outlet, it is Pravda for Fascists.-
Posted By: kaj_pagan @ 11/24/2008 4:35:28 PM
Who's Alan Colmes? At least Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow play it straight with the audience. You know what you are getting when you watch it. Fox, on the other hand...not so honest.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 7:15:52 PM
Sorry folks but the Michael Jackson "We are the World" days are over!
-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 7:14:06 PM
Posted By: sjbrock80 @ 11/24/2008 7:07:32 PM
Comment: Who the hell is Rachel Maddow?
LMAO.
-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 6:19:21 PM
Posted By: cinesimon @ 11/24/2008 6:15:03 PM
Comment: Fox's total ratings are hugely bolstered by people over the age of 55 years: O'Reilly's loyal audience of bitter old white people.. Rachel and Keith consistently beat him in the all-important 25-54 age demographic, leading to O'Reilly's accusation that Neilson Ratings are leading a conspiracy against him - classic Billo!
While MSNBC ratings continue to climb, despite being higher overall(again, bolstered by the golden oldies)Fox's continues to free fall.
And despite the angry rhetoric from Fox and their supporters, MSNBC are seen as a far more balanced and a 'different idea-friendly' channel - they're not constantly looking for an attack angle, and distorting news to manipulate their viewers' political beliefs, heighten their fears of other cultures, of different political opinions, of one politician over another.
---------------------------------------Wrong, there are plenty of conservatives that are way younger than that who watch Fox also. I happen to watch CNN, Fox, and MSNBC and can see the clear bias that all of those channels have towards liberals and conservatives. No wonder there is such a division in this country.-
Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/24/2008 7:13:52 PM
Your post is ridiculous...Fox's rating totally dominate MSNBC's, it's not even close, and it spans all demographics. Your post is just the same old left wing wishful thinking. And I just love your characterization of "bitter old white people" LOL, stop, you are killing me with your laughable nonsense.
-
-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 7:12:45 PM
Posted By: cinesimon @ 11/24/2008 7:05:10 PM
----------------In a perfect world maybe that would work, but that's not reality. Tell that to Hugo Chavez and Akmdemijad (however you spell or pronounce Irans leader's name). You don't think Bush and the US has tried to negotiate deals with these guys? You actually think the US wants to go to war with countries? WHenever there is a natural catastophe, who is first in line with AID? Iran, Venezuela, N. Korea? Wrong! Take a trip to Iraq and you will see how better off the Iraqi people are without Saddam as their leader. Now they have better opportunites for women to go to school, be entrepenuers, and actually have a life without living in fear and persecution for their religious beliefs. But then, the media only wants to show American soldiers shooting innocent Iraqis and show the tolls of war negatively. Sorry but I don't buy that Kool Aid.
-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 6:21:46 PM
Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/24/2008 6:19:33 PM
Comment: I like Rachel, but in limited doses. same for Keith. they are biased and make no pretense to be other than that
----It's crazy how opinionated and one sided these "journalists" can be. Instead of reporting the news, they like to stir the pot and create the news.-
Posted By: cinesimon @ 11/24/2008 6:41:11 PM
Yeah but as Keith has said before - the news is reported many times over by the time his show starts, & there's no point just repeating what has been said over and over during the 4 hours before he comes on. If he did that, he'd not even have a show. He's a news commentator, just as Rachel is. And yes they say it as they see it - they don't pretend to be 'fair and balanced' - although, Rachel is fast gaining a reputation among right wing people for holding very respectful and informative discussions with republicans - which is great. Regardless of our political beliefs, we all need to respectfully and intelligently exchange our viewpoints without yelling and bullying. In this regard, Rachel is lighting the way in my opinion. Done this way, we get to understand the other viewpoint much better. Done the O'Reilly & Hannity way, all we see is yelling, bullying, name calling etc - we are no further along in understanding ourselves & each other than we were before. And that's a waste in my opinion, even if it is entertaining to watch Sean Hannity make a fool out of himself day in day out!
-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 6:44:33 PM
Like I said, some like salt and some like sugar. It depends on whos' in the mood for what at the time, I guess!
-
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/24/2008 6:35:12 PM
They're commentary. There's not enough real news to fill all the time. And as far away from my own perspective as they may stray, they don't make me feel like sticking my finger down my throat like 'Billo' and Sean do.
A 40 year republican-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 6:38:25 PM
Some people like salt and some like sugar. Just like some would see no wrong in Reverand Wright and actually agree with him and his views and others that like Billy Graham and find more in common with his points of view. The same goes for these journalists. They bring a different flair and perspective to their commentaries, but it is as simple as changing the channel if we don't agree with them or their "news".
-
-
-
Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/24/2008 6:19:33 PM
I like Rachel, but in limited doses. same for Keith. they are biased and make no pretense to be other than that
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/24/2008 6:32:30 PM
Their cleverness and wit has grown on me.-
Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 11/24/2008 6:42:17 PM
I'll stick with water than drink into any of their (Keith or Rachel or Oprah) Kool Aid! Same goes for Hannity and Oreilly! They all leave a taste of bad breath when taken in high doses!
-
-
-
Posted By: AZAFVET @ 11/23/2008 5:35:00 PM
I love Rachell Maddow. I like the fact that she doesn't have two or three people on at the same time that yell at each other while the moderator talks over them. When she interviews someone she actually has a conversation with them and is not angered if they disagree with her. Her stories are well researched and if she make a mistake she will be the first to correct it. I would guess that her research skills were fine tuned when she was a Rhodes scholar and writting her PhD dissertation in political science. Now what kind of backgrounds do Sean Insanity and Bill O'Really? or Rush Lintball have? I have been a fan of Ms. maddow since her first day on Air America Radio. By the way I'm a 62 year old, while, straight, male who has been married 40 years. If we would have had a daughter I would want her to be just like Rachel.
-
Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/23/2008 7:15:11 PM
Well, I guess its good that you didn't have a daughter then. BTW, when you say she listens to her guests and doesn't argue with them I laughed out loud. Evidently, you must be watching a different show than I am.
I also find it interesing that you feel the need to tell us that you are a white male, married, straight, etc. Why is that? Are you trying to convey some "normalness"? It's as if you are saying, hey, I'm just a regular white guy, but I get my jollies watching a raving nutball on a network that is a journalistic joke.-
Posted By: AZAFVET @ 11/24/2008 1:37:51 PM
That would be any Fox show right? I admire intelligence and that would be Dr. Maddow.
-
-
-
Posted By: Grandma S @ 11/23/2008 8:31:21 AM
I am in my 60s, so not a "young" viewer. I LOVE Rachel Maddow! I particularly enjoyed her when she faced grumpy old David Frum. Go, Rachel!
-
Posted By: Braes @ 11/24/2008 4:06:08 AM
Yeah and Frum lied about the whole gig the next day. Amazing. They are so used to spinning that they have really begun to believe their own drivel.
-
-
Posted By: jeffrey1234 @ 11/24/2008 2:37:31 AM
Rachel is an amazing person and her show is great. She is an excellent role model for young girls to look up to. I wish her all the luck in the world.
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Dead on arrival to the Senate Sen. Lindsey Graham on House bill CBS
- We did what we promised Rep. Steny Hoyer on passing health-reform NYT
- That was easy Nancy Pelosi after passing health care bill PLTCO
- Germany unity is not yet complete Angela Merkel on Berlin Wall anniversary CNN
- This one is for The Boss Joe Girardi on the Yankees’ 27th World Series titleNYDN
Discuss