I will have to watch "Scarborough Country," now, and make up my own mind, but admittedly I would never have considered tuning in before reading this article.

I join the kudos to Scarborough/Salon for coherently addressing the difference between conservatism and blind loyalism. I'm disinterested in any ulterior motives; let's just get the point across to as many people as possible, please. I am a progressive liberal, but does it even matter these days? I'm sick of running up against the tired old blockade in debates with Republican loyalists -- "the president and people in charge know what they're doing." They will come up with any rationalization to hold onto this fantasy, and whether you are liberal, moderate, or conservative, if you have the nerve to question authority, you are attacked for being treasonous, for hating America.

Absurd -- the point is to *always* hold elected officials accountable, Democrat or Republican; to have absolutely no tolerance for corruption; to ensure every American's voice is heard in fair elections. Then, and only then, can we address the very long list of ideological differences between liberals and conservatives. Until then, every other controversy is a (very effective) mass distraction. This simplistic good guy/bad guy politics-as-sporting-event mindset must fall by the wayside if we hope to ever get out of this mess.

I have not been much of a fan of Joe's politics, but I realy appreciated this article and will watch him more in the future because of it.

Let's not get too carried away with political philosophies... Joe is a media personality employed by the third-ranked cable news network. Perhaps this network, in an attempt to boost viewership and ratings, has decided to test the waters with an agenda that actually coincides with the national polling on this joke of a president. Hell, Olbermann does OK. There is no point, and no money in trying to outfox Faux News anymore...

The neocons will fall only when the corporations that prop them up move on to more promising shills. Suck it up, Chris Matthews: if it works, you'll be next.

You mean, like in the Harriet Miers case? Get a grip, stop fantasizing. The people that don't question their politicians, are the ones that elect Ray Nagin, Marion Barry, Bill Clinton, and Algore. Now would those be conservatives or liberals, hmmmmmmmm?

Poco

I concur with jimmm.

I see a right-wing political operative in the media trying to reposition himself for a changing national political dynamic.

Down the line, a pundit who has established crossover credibility will be a far bigger threat to the accountability movement (impeachment, censure and other real consequences that will deter lawbreaking radicals) than the idealogues over at Fox who will let their credibility go down with the Bush-Cheney ship of state.

It's testimony to how starved for moderation we are that so many letter writers are falling over this guy with praise, even though he served in congress with the group (Newt Gingrich Republlicans) that established the new partisan stridency at the center of our political culture. Where's Scarborough's acknowledgement of responsibility for trafficking in bombthrower tactics?

But if I'm going to take conservatives at their word that among the highest values expressed in their politics is that they want Americans to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, then conservatives need to do some soul-searching about their supporting role in the neocon ascendancy (it didn't just sneak up on you guys).

I don't think it's fair to call Joe a person who is just trying to widen his appeal and get higher ratings.

He has always been the most contemplative and intellectually honest conservative talk show hosts. He's much more honest than Chris Matthews. He is a conservative, so he does have some blind spots in his reasoning, but his are smaller than most. In addition, the way he runs his show demonstrates someone who is more comfortable with divergent thought. He often devotes an entire show to a single subject, which allows for shades of gray and subtlety to be discussed, which is a rarity in Cable News. Also, he's generally pretty good at bringing on a varied group of guests, and, most importantly, he actually lets his guests finish their thoughts and doesn't shout over anybody.

Yeah, the comment about Democratic hypocrisy on Clinton is completely ridiculous, but in general his is the best show in cable television. It's the only one that doesn't make me turn the channel within 5 minutes out of pure disgust.

Scarborough's political and television careers have been based on bashing Democrats and liberals. He hasn't had a change in heart - he just wants more influence and higher ratings. What suckers some liberals are.

Harriet Miers is what tipped them all off? Even AFTER her nomination, he was so quick to scream "HURTING THE TROOPS!" to any critical thinker on his stupid show. Well, I guess now the tide is turning and he needs to widen his appeal. Well, the body count is way too high as far as I'm concerned.

Nice to see a article noticing the difference between conservatives and bush loyalists. The republican party is ruled by christian fundamentalists and bush loyalists. Neither group is conservative. Many of us conservatives are more disgusted by the republicans than by the democrats.

Something most folks forget was hinted at in the article with regard to domestic spying and general erosion to civil liberties. Clinton had a worse civil liberties record than Reagan. Flame on.

I see I’m not the only one for whom this quote landed with a bit of a thud:

“It goes back to hypocrisy. We Republicans, during impeachment, were so outraged that Democrats would bitch and moan behind the scenes and talk about what a disgrace Bill Clinton was, but then when they went on the House floor and the Senate floor, would fiercely defend him ... We would all scratch our heads and say, 'How could they do that? How could they go out and circle the wagons and say something they didn't believe?'”

Okay, so Scarborough was there, and we weren’t. So, maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt. And yet, I can’t help but wonder: when those Democrats were behind the scenes, “bitching and moaning,” were they in fact saying “That Bill Clinton! He’s broken the law and violated the Constitution and he should be impeached!”? Or were they saying “Damn, imagine that son of a bitch cheating on his wife that way! That’s just not right”? And when they went on the House floor and the Senate floor, and “would fiercely defend him,” were they defending him by saying “Bill Clinton has not committed a crime and should therefore not be impeached,” or were they saying “Hey, there’s nothing wrong with adultery! And even if there was, it would be okay, because Bill’s totally innocent of it.” Because you see, there’s really only one possible combination of answers to those questions that actually constitutes hypocrisy, and to imply one (which I think Scarborough does), IF in fact the other was the reality (and I'm just wondering aloud), strikes me as a tad dishonest.

To say that someone is an adulterous sleazebag on the one hand, and on the other that being a sleazebag is neither illegal nor unconstitutional, and consequently should not result in impeachment, is not hypocrisy. It’s simply saying two different things. And contrary to what a lot of people in the media would have you believe, the two are not synonymous. To say, on the one hand, “this desk is made of wood,” and on the other that “this chair is made of foam and plastic,” is not hypocritical. It’s simply saying two different things. Both are equally true, and there is no inherent contradiction, let alone hypocrisy. Clinton may have been an adulterer and a sleazebag. Neither of those things is an impeachable offense. And I’m sorry, but the whole “yeah, but he LIED about it!” argument doesn’t fly, because the underlying offense for which the impeachment was so bloodthirstily sought was the adultery, period. The “impeach the slick bastard” crowd would have settled for anything they could get, but let’s face it, it was all about the adultery, always, and anyone who claims otherwise actually is being, if not hypocritical, then at least willfully disingenuous.