I get it now. You don't have a problem with her saying things that aren't factually true, you have a problem with her giving her opinion when it is not favorable to your preferred candidate. Okay. Well, good luck finding someone who agrees with you 100% of the time.

I usually find Glenn Greenwald one of the most prescient columnists I read on the web. I access him regularly through the libertarian website of Lew Rockwell. So I was surprised to read this column criticizing a writer at the New Republic who seems to prefer Tucker Carlson to Rachel Maddow.

I prefer to watch MSNBC, and usually nod my head in agreement with Keith Olbermann, as I do with Glenn Greenwald, not because I am a liberal, but because I am a "true" conservative of the stripe of MSNBC personalities Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson. How can you lump Carlson and CNN's Glenn Beck in with the neocon crazies and defenders of the Bush Administration when both of them are supporting Ron Paul, with Carlson even speaking at Paul's counter-convention in Minneapolis after Labor Day?

On the issues of war and foreign policy you should have long realized that the old "red-blue", "liberal-conservative" divisions of the Cold War years no longer apply. Tucker Carlson may be more moderate in tone, but in substance he is as critical of the Bush Administration foreign and military policy as David Gregory and Rachel Maddow. If there is anyone at the New Republic who appreciates any of these commentators, it should be refreshing news.

thought that initially about maturity...but it gave me pause. The post lack the innocent impishness of sarcasm.

There is someithing very strange going on behind those words. And as always, I mean this in the nicest way possible.

Loss of "nuance or intellectual rigor" is Establishment pundit slang for "we're losing the kids".

The MSM concensus that has coddled the right-wing "wrecking crew" is terrified of losing free-spending, 25-54 viewers to an alternate model that, while partisan, is also more rational and fact-based, at its best combining the enthusiasm and individuality of Yellow journalists with the objectivity, depth and smarts of the stolid Greys.

The media-kleptocracy lovefest has been riding an anomalous youth wave ever since right-wing college activism erupted in its full glory in the 80's. Now, after 6 years of Republican national dominance and 2 of GOP lite, a generation raised on Stewart and Colbert, not Reagan(who?), is feeling their progressive oats.

Living as they do in a truly bipartisan/amoral world of media-for-profit, this can only terrify the mouthpieces and space-fillers still making payments on their cottages in the Hamptons.

Also, after one of the debates, Maddow said that an answer Hillary gave about her Iraq AUMF vote "insults me personally." Given the consistent bashing that Hillary got from Olbermann, Matthews, Russert, and company, and the sampling of comments I've encountered, I'd be quite surprised if these are close to the only ones.

Yeah, I've disagreed with things Rachel has said before. I think the criticisms about Hillary's RFK comments were wildly off-base.

Therefore, Rachel shouldn't have her own show, because only people with whom I agree on everything and never utter a misguided comment should be on TV.

Who are your candidates? Lanny Davis? Mark Penn? Taylor Marhs? Who should get the slot instead?

Glenn simply does not get it. The right wing paid off liars and fascist quisslings are supposed to have taken over completely by now. Hell, there wasn't even supposed to be an election. They planned to arrange a terrorist event and then declare martial law. We were not supposed to recognize the deliberate deceptions, intellectual dishonesty, betrayal of the principles of a democratic republic, and manipulative propaganda that has erroded the important mutual respect that exists between free informed citizens and the government that "serves" (leads?) them.

It is our duty to abolish a government that does not exist to serve the people. Not that "the people" are all they are cracked up to be, but our public servants forgot that they are part of "the people". They are not members of a club of aristocrats who understand the world better than the people do; they only understand it in the way they understand it, and that understanding, in recent years, hasn't changed things for the better. A good argument could be made that their understanding has failed Americans and the world.

The people are supposed to realize that the insiders they have chosen are pragmatists and realists who know what is really going on. People are supposed to trust them. How are the people supposed to "trust them" when this trust brought us the WTC, Iraq, the mortgage crisis, and Georgia? None of which were predicted, or corrected satisfactorily.

The people are supposed to watch out for news people like Maddow, because she may commit the ultimate sin of dissembling the criminal conduct of those who have been intrusted with our

lives and welfare.

"...her mere presence is likely to infect and degrade our political discourse with shrill, overheated, fringe, sickly partisan rhetoric -- "refusing to acknowledge anything but spite, paranoia, and conspiracy theory when it comes to the other side.'" - GG

Why don't they just come out and say it? They don't want to give up the self-serving little space each of them has carved out and think of as his or her career. A career of misleading the public is not a career; it is a betrayal that stems from a "them and us" perception rather than that of a community with common goals and interests that are universal in nature and humane in intent. It is very important to the maintenance of their careers that we fight over particulars that divide us.

How can you lump Carlson and CNN's Glenn Beck in with the neocon crazies and defenders of the Bush Administration when both of them are supporting Ron Paul, with Carlson even speaking at Paul's counter-convention in Minneapolis after Labor Day?

Right. What's Glenn Beck's position on the Iraq War, the war on Terror, what we should do about all the scary Muslims, and Iran?

Tucker Carlson was one of those who cheered for the Iraq War until it became unpopular, but if he ever mouthed any serious criticisms of the neocon agenda, I don't know what it is.