Certainly, we can all agree to a rudderlessness in the Party. The most recent presidential nominee is most often, by default, the presumptive leader. McCain has not led or has not been allowed to lead. There is no clear front-runner or front-runners. In many ways, the Congressional leaders of the Republicans, McConnell and Boehner are the least qualified leaders in their respective houses. (While the same might be said of Reid, Pelosi proved to her doubting party members that she is an able leader in shepherding HCR.) But, even more importantly, the Republicans and conservatives seem to be without a soul. Conservatism has always depended upon a rigid doctrinal orthodoxy. It is the nature of the beast. But, there is no longer one voice, nor one clear voice, nor one voice rising above the others. There is no Raygun, there is no Buckley. There is a cacophony. I’m not sure conservatism can thrive in such an environment. But, that is exactly the environment in which liberalism thrives and has always thrived. There is more of a systemic problem for Republicans and conservatives at present than I have ever seen in my lifetime.

The Fair Tax.
Cut government spending.
Repeal Obamacare.
Defend the borders.
Enforce the law.
Drill for oil.
Win the war in Afghanistan.
Keep Gitmo open.
Kill terrorists.
Lower taxes.

Do you want anymore serious ideas?

Poor ignorant RRK, you are too dumb to be believed. Liberals are thriving? Are you kidding me? 20% indentify as liberals, that is thriving? They are about to be thrown out of office because after having lied to the voters about who they were, they exposed themselves with Obamacare.

Blower, your reasoning is so quaint. You are going to defend the borders, win the war in Afghanistan, keep Guantanamo open and clean up the oil spills from unregulated drilling without funding. It sounds very much Raygun’s spent on credit policies which ushered in modern American deficit spending and the core of W’s economic policy that sent us right off the cliff. Thank you for such a well-reasoned ramble.

Facts are often anathema to Democrats.

Here’s 2:

1) We don’t need an immigration reform bill to Close the Borders.

2) Tax cuts have ALWAYS resulted in additional revenue to the treasury; profligate spending is what drove the deficits.

All the NEW G.O.P. has to do is expound upon Principles, and the race card Democrats attempt to use will backfire on them!

Bloyer-

You’re helping to prove the author right.

“the base itself seems to have developed a notion that bromides are equivalent to policy-thinking, and that therapy is a substitute for thinking.”

Bromides are (besides the salt…) “a commonplace or hackneyed statement or notion”, and “a trite and unoriginal remark, typically intended to soothe or placate.”

That list of things that need to get done? Bromides. The legislation being put forth by the democrats to help solve these (who doesn’t want to win in Afghanistan, defend the border, lower taxes, and control government spending?) and other problems, but actually putting these ideas into action takes more thought, something that the right typically rejects.

Pardon my grammar. I’m missing a verb or two at the end there.

How cute. Minister Royal, the most bigoted, racist, extreme left winger on the board, is concerned about the fate of conservatism. A super patriot who spells America with a ‘k’ and a ‘white Texan’ who never fails to stereotype white southerners. If this is an example of today’s liberals, we’d better hope conservatism survives.

Of course, I am concerned with the fate of conservatism. Conservatism has played an important role in the founding and the sustenance of our Republic. The fact is, I don’t see much conservatism around these days. What some people call conservatism is nothing but mindless, knee-jerk reactionary garbage, mean-spiritedness and avarice. To call that conservatism is to disparage the ideology and true conservatives. I am not of a mind to do that. Surely, I am allowed to bemoan the miserable state into which this admirable ideology has fallen at the hands of the Republican Party and the Tea Party. I dare say, no true conservative is affiliated with either.

Conclusion: Rachel Maddow is nothing more than a partisan flame thrower for her “tribe”, a mirror of the limbaughs and becks, only different in what direction she attacks and which set of starry eyed know little extremists she feeds mindless and thoughtless bromides about how evil the “other” side is. She invents slurrish nicknames (teabaggers) for the “other” just like limbaugh does (feminazis) and says conservatives and republicans are “liars” and “dangerous” in a way no different than Ann Coulter speaks about liberals and republicans.

There has never been anything but low IQ garbage on MSNBC since day one – with maybe the exception of Phil Donahue and they cancelled him quick if you remember.

But isn’t your automatic bigotry toward entire sections of the population also a knee jerk reaction?

oops!

obviously, i meant -

“in a way no different than Ann Coulter speaks about liberals and democrats.”

I’m sure there are some ideas left on the right, but the problem is that those on the right with plausible ideas, the Eisenhower Republicans are being forced out and overshadowed by the fringe and the wing nuts.

RRK is a laugh a minute. When did I propose “NO funding”? When a loony lib speaks you always have to look for the straw man.
The Fair Tax will bring in more revenue and will return business to America. You have to think to understand the Fair Tax and libs don’t think, they react.
When someone can’t spell Reagan you understand just how dumb they are.
There is NO long term damage from any oil spill in history. I know that is hard for a libtard to understand because they think “long term” means more than a month. Oil has been pouring from the ocean floor for thousands of years, it dissipates. Duh. I know that is hard for a left-wing nutcase to understand. 27 ships were sunk in Peal Harbor, all were oil powered. Do you see any damage there today? Did you see any after the war was over? Thousands of ships were sunk in our oceans during the war, where is the damage from those spills? Hundreds of ships were sunk off the coasts of England, Austrailia and the Phillipines, where is the damage? You might try thinking about something before you follow the enviromental whackos spin.

What a joke. Rachel Maddow spends every evening smearing people who disagree with her. (“Bart Stupak lives in a brothel,” etc. etc.) And then she has the audacity to accuse the right of not having ideas? Every night on Fox I hear people discussing policy ideas, while MSNBC is caught up in playing gotcha. Maddow, for her part, would rather devote her show to some sign at a tea party than even acknowledge the existence of the 15 million Americans who are out of work. Until she stops playing rope-a-dope and avoiding substantive policy discussion, she should spare us these pathetic remarks.

bloyer- your misconception of science is staggering and rage inducing. are you seriously arguing that there is as much oil in a few boats as there is in the well that pumps the oil into those boats plus millions and millions of gallons more? or just that the damage of a few boats sinking is the same (none) as tons of gallons of oil spewing into the ocean? scale doesn’t matter? ever? there is no point at which oil in the ocean is bad for us?

gordonbloyershow says:
April 27, 2010 at 9:33 am
The Fair Tax.
Cut government spending.
Repeal Obamacare.
Defend the borders.
Enforce the law.
Drill for oil.
Win the war in Afghanistan.
Keep Gitmo open.
Kill terrorists.
Lower taxes.

Do you want anymore serious ideas?
___________________________________________

Those are great ideas. Let me add a few:

Stop ALL bail-outs
Cut foreign aid till we lower our deficit
Make English the official language
Hold Obama accountable for his reckless spending by redistributing all of his personal wealth. Leave him, his wife Ru Paul and his ugly little piglets nothing.
Press charges on Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for destroying the housing market and the banking industry collapse.

Felix wrote: “What a joke. Rachel Maddow spends every evening smearing people who disagree with her.”

I would be interested in discovering how you define the difference between a “smear” versus factual data which you prefer not be known?

I never heard Maddow state that Stupak lived in a brothel. She has, however, repeatedly asked WHOM is subsidizing the rent of the people who live in the C Street facility.

And when Stupak announced he was not running for re-election, Maddow went out of her way to praise him and wish him well in his future endeavors—even though she was critical of him for his role in the health care debate by tying it to abortion. Hardly sounds like the behavior of someone who “smears” people.

This type of “smearing” charge is constantly used in our current political environment. Obviously, there are profound philosophical differences between someone with Maddow’s viewpoints and those who disagree with her.

Perhaps her critics on this website could give us some idea about how THEY would present the views which Maddow represents — BUT — in a form which THEY would characterize as entirely decent, honorable, and fair — so that NOBODY could claim that someone with Maddow’s views was “smearing” anyone???

OR, perhaps, the REAL problem is that her critics here do not believe that ANY liberal position is decent, honorable, and fair???

hatehave, just how dumb are you? A FEW boats? Do you know what those submarines were sinking? Try OIL TANKERS.
I guess you missed the part where I said that there is oil pouring out of the Earth continuously for thousands of years. I suggest you watch the Discovery channel once in a while, they have video of oil pouring out of the ocean floor.
You then avoided pointing out any long term damage from any oil spill, LOL. They define YOUR meaning of long term.
I don’t care about a few years of inconvience for some people living on the coast, we are all HURT by $3.00 a gallon gas. I owned a house on the beach in Monterey Ca.. I would rather take the chance I might have an oil spill on my beach than take food off my table by high priced gas.

Ex-political-media-hack [EPMH] claims that Rachel Maddow circulates “mindless and thoughtless bromides about how evil the ‘other’ side is”

Notice, however, that EPMH does not provide ANY examples to substantiate this very serious assertion!

When I have watched Maddow’s program, she has sometimes used sarcasm and mocking witticisms to characterize the contradictory and often hypocritical statements or positions taken by many of our professional politicians — but I do not recall her EVER characterizing someone as “evil”.

In fact, Maddow frequently begins her analysis by saying something like this:

(1) “It is perfectly ok for “X” [enter name here] to believe that…” [enter idea here]

OR

(2) “X” [enter name here] has every right to work for…” [enter proposed idea here]

Maddow then explains her criticism in the context of TRANSPARENCY — for example, not PRETENDING to be a “grass roots” enterprise when, in reality, the funding comes from specific corporate interests. For example, Maddow has done several segments concerning funding of various “conservative” organizations which claim to be representing ordinary “grass roots” American BUT but whom, in reality, were created and funded by very wealthy individuals such as the Koch family — and those “grass roots” organizations were DESIGNED to thwart public policies which would adversely impact the oil and gas interests of Koch-related businesses.

Surely, that is MUCH different from claiming that someone is “evil” — isn’t it??

And, again, Maddow routinely declares that the Koch family or any other individuals have a perfect right to do what they are doing — but Maddow argues that people have a right to know where the FUNDING and IMPETUS for these supposedly “grass roots” groups originates.

That is NOT, as EPMH falsely claims, an argument about how “evil” those people are!

“I would rather take the chance I might have an oil spill on my beach than take food off my table by high priced gas.”

So in your infinite knowledge of the many factors that go into food and oil production and distribution, you’ve concluded that our options are either let oil spills happen, don’t worry about it and have cheap food OR try to prevent oil spills and have overpriced food? Are you insane?

And when did I say that there were catastrophic long term damage from oil spills? I don’t think there are many, you’re right. At the time and place it happens it’s toxic and costly (monetarily and environmentally). Why did you bring up oil spills to begin with? I don’t think you’re wrong on most of your points, they’re just… irrelevant to this post. Why are you arguing pro-oil-spills? What’s the benefit here? Oil spills cause cheap food, right?

And in regards to your boats: I didn’t quite know why I needed to counter your point because… well.. you’re making a point. OIl tankers sank. Yeah. And? But I found some numbers just to enlighten everyone, because you’re right here in some ways, and, well, I just didn’t know this and thought maybe you’d find it interesting:

~706 million gallons of waste oil enter the ocean every year- over half from land drainage and waste disposal, 8% from offshore drilling and spills/leaks, 20% from routine ship maintenance, 13% from onshore hydrocarbon particle production, and 8% natural seepage. There ya go. Now let’s drop the oil thing.

I would rather take the chance I might have an oil spill on my beach than take food off my table by high priced gas.

—

I assume you mean “gasoline,” Blower, although in the context of food and eating, I’m not so sure.

You folks are sure dense. I am talking about taking money out of the pockets of the poor that they could spend on food, duh? Everyone is helped by low cost fuel and OIL. No one is helped by hyping the danger of oil spills and the blocking of drilling. You cost people jobs and you increase the money everyone pays to drive and to heat there homes. This is the COMPASIONATE thing to do, DRILL.
Is there something wrong with CHEAP food or CHEAP oil?

ernie1242 …ernie baby its not my job to keep you informed, this isnt the daily kos – Im not here to “debate” you – but as a public service for someone who obviously doesnt know how to do his own research – I suggest you vist the Howler.

If you want a list of all the times that maddow has played her audience for suckers – i suggest you go visit Bob Somerby’s site http://www.dailyhowler.com and put her name into the archive search and you’ll find an endless list.

Bob (who is brilliant, was Gore’s roomate in college and has done all the work on how MSNBC basically elected Bush) is a democrat, as am I, and he explains why having Maddow impersonate Limbaugh and Beck may be fun to all the small minded tribal obama cheerleaders – but is not good for “progressive” interests in the long term. If maddow spent 1/4 of the time on Health Care reform and why HC costs so much in this nation as compared to other western countries and the admin’s sell out to big insurance and big pharm as she did on telling dick jokes about how the Tea Party people should be called “teabaggers” we might have had a better chance of getting actual HCR instead of the hideous bill that just passed that ended up being nothing but a political lifeline for the Obama administration and no real kind of health care reform at all.

2) Tax cuts have ALWAYS resulted in additional revenue to the treasury

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=507

Ernie, if you want to know what a smear is, read up on ad hominem arguments. Here is a place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

These fallacious arguments are the heart and soul of Rachel Maddow’s show every night of the week. Displayed in syllogistic form, they look like this:

(a) Rush Limbaugh wants the government to lower taxes;
(b) Rush Limbaugh is fat and uses pain pills; hence
(c) The government should raise taxes.

Think it over, Ernie, and see if you can detect the logical flaw in that argument. Then count how many times Maddow uses a similar type of logic during the course of any given hour. You will have a long, long list.

40 years ago I would have said “I’d sure like to cop some of that stuff ol’ Rachael Madcow is smokin’.” The woman is orbiting somewhere around Uranus..or maybe it’s “Ouranus.”

Ex-political media hack:

I did as you suggested and looked at about half a dozen references on Howler but didn’t see any references to her suggesting or stating that someone was “evil” — which was your original claim. Perhaps it is you that needs to do some more research??

Felix: I am thoroughly familiar with an ad hominem argument — which, incidentally, is not typically in the form which your example expresses.

An ad hominem argument argues against whatever IDEA is being proposed based, EXCLUSIVELY, upon the alleged negative aspects or qualities of the person(s) proposing the idea.

So, to correct your defective example, it should proceed as follows:

(a) Rush Limbaugh wants the government to lower taxes
(b) Rush Limbaugh is fat and uses pain pills
(c) Therefore, Rush’s proposal is defective or dangerous

Rachel Maddow does not employ ad hominem arguments.

Perhaps you meant to write that you think her positions on various issues are factually mistaken or that you disagree with her analysis and conclusions — but that is entirely different from an ad hominem attack.

In any event, you STILL have not provided specific examples from Maddow;s program to illustrate what YOU consider to be “a smear” — as opposed to mistaken analysis or judgments.

Logically, it is possible that you are using the term “smear” incorrectly — just as you proposed an incorrect example of how an “ad hominem” argument is constructed.

Incidentally, just for clarity: One can present a specific rebuttal of an argument ALONG WITH derogatory personal comments about the author(s) of the argument and it would NOT be an “ad hominem” argument.

An ad hominem argument is the EXCLUSIVE use of derogatory statements or insinuations about the author — INSTEAD OF addressing their statements and assertions.

So, for example, you could write an accurate critique of some proposal made by a KKK member or sympathizer and, in the process, also describe him as a “racist” or “bigot” — and that still is NOT using an “ad hominem” argument so long as you accurately described his proposal — which originated from his racist and bigoted premises and objectives.

In addition, some ad hominem arguments are, nevertheless, based upon fact.

For example: Someone could describe President Clinton as a serial adulterer and perjurer — both statements being factually accurate.

Then someone could propose that Clinton’s ideas should not be given serious consideration because of his unreliability and/or his character flaws.

This example is the most difficult type of argument to consider because it relies upon a subjective judgment by each individual regarding what importance and weight should be given to the two factual predicates of the argument i.e. do we want to make decisions about public policy proposals when they are made by otherwise knowledgeable individuals who many people think have discredited themselves by their own behavior and character flaws?

So, in conclusion, “ad hominem” or “smear” is a slur often used by people who want to discredit what their opponents are saying without addressing the specific content of whatever arguments are being presented by their opponents.

In my experience, many individuals have neither the desire or the intellectual capacity to carefully research and analyze whatever data is under scrutiny — so it is much easier to use the “ad hominem” label as a means of demonizing critics and opponents in an effort to undermine their position. This is particularly true when highly ideological people [i.e. people who rarely (if ever) acknowledge error and always express themselves in certitudes] are in the marketplace of ideas and want to shut down the conversation or limit discussion to whatever parameters they think best serve their purposes.

No Ideas huh? I say send in the Dark-lighters…

ernie1242…youre a twit….

and by the way ernie you twit – Clinton never committed perjury – if he had he never would have survived the GOP/Media/ Obot-Naderite nuts like you wilding on him during his Presidency.

Seems I recall Mr. Cliton wagging his finger in my face from inside my TV and saying he never had sex with that woman–Monica Lewinsky. It also seems I read that Mr. Cliton was convicted of lying to a Grand Jury…maybe I’m wrong there…but for some reason, he was forced to surrender his license to practice law. Bottom line is that Cliton lied about banging the intern…and a few more chicks, I guess. I believe it was his being caught “flagrante dilecti” that caused he and Hillary to split the blanket…so to speak…but on his infidelity, I guess if I were married to Hillary, I’d be out chasing something too.