Rachel, seems afraid to have a real discussion. After all Rush put liberal callers to the front of the line.

Yes you are wrong. For one, despite the fact that you actually put the quote up you still manage to take her words out of context.

The point she was making was that those people have no function in the Republican party and she runs a political show, therefor she is not inviting them. Just like Sportscenter doesn't interview Jack Nicholson for his views on the NBA finals she does not invite people who have no party affiliation, unlike other cable shows who will put anyone on.

She does have Republican party members on the show (Pawlenty for one has appeared a few times), and she seems more than eager to start a discussion with them, but in most cases the Republicans refuse to come on the show because they are afraid of her.

Hi, Thanks for the comment, but I am taking nothing out of context. It is obvious from what I included that she is talking about people who areen't elected. But is that a good rule of theumb -- only elected politicians? What about conservative academics, party officials and think tank personnel? Plenty of liberals from those categories appear of MSNBC's airwaves. Thanks. Z

I wouldn't put it in the same category as O'Reilly. Nobody expects either of these shows to be fair and balanced. Both are watched by their constituents. They are news commentary, not the actual news, and are entitled to their slant. I personally find her commentary to be thoughtful and intelligent.

I also don't think she's dissing the unemployed when she says "they don't have jobs", if that's what's being implied here. I think she means that at this point they don't have titles or official roles within the party that they shape, so it's odd that they keep getting trotted out as mouthpieces.

Hi, Yes, I agree with your assessment of what she means by they don't have jobs. But I think that is just as lame an excuse. And also the mindset that equates being elected with having a "job" -- I wonder about that as well. Thanks. Z

I am tired of these people on the right who do not have any skin in the game appearing as guests. I have no problem with what Rachel is doing and I wish others at MSNBC followed suit. This is the main reason I stopped watching CNN.

Skin in the game? Is that your bottom line? You want only elected politicians on TV talk show? I think that would make for a very self-serving discussion. Thanks. Z

Not sure I find what Maddow said comparable to what O'Reilly does.

She's distinguishing between Republican opinion makers and Republican decision makers which, given the rhetoric on the Sotomayor nomination (which was the topic of her segment with Ana Marie Cox), is actually a pretty fair thing to do. I mean, imagine if networks took her advice and put Sens. Sessions, Hatch or Graham on the air to discuss Sotomayor instead of Tom Tancredo, Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh (via clips)? The rhetoric wouldn't be nearly as inflammatory and the outlook of the GOP with Latino voters wouldn't be nearly as dismal.

Also, it's worth noting that last night, among Maddow's guests was Mark McKinnon, a former advisor to President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain.

Why she doesn't? The same reason her cohort Herr Olbermann doesn't. They want to remain irrelevant at the bottom of the ratings every week. The facts don't lie. No one watches either. Same with Chrissy (I get a tingle down my leg) Matthews' Softball show. Just check the ratings out every week for the proof. The only show on PMSNBC that's worthwhile is Morning Joe.

Hi Julie, As much as I detest what Olbermann does on the air, facts are facts, and his is the only show NOT ON FOX in prime-time that finished in the Top 10 rated prime-time cable shows. However, his ratings since January have been in decline. The graph of them looks like a ski slope. Thanks. Z

Maddow's explanation is a complete lie and in keeping with her typical m.o. When Bush was the president, she routinely had lefty guests on her show who "had no jobs" in much greater numbers than Republicans who actually could affect what they were talking about.

Can't believe you didn't catch that one, Davy.

I am a former Republican (now independent because of people like Rush), who is glad that someone is not giving these unelected Republicans air time. Maddow says it herself, the elected Republicans arent saying much. Actually, they are just not saying anything inflamatory. If you want to hear someone call Sotomoyor a "racist" you have to find an unelected Republican. The elected Republicans may be opposing Obama, but they are at least keeping their rhetoric civil. But you find someone like Newt or Rush using inflamatory language, then that grabs headlines and drives ratings. So I'm glad someone is not giving these guys another platform. People like Rush just make Republicans sound bad.

Is it at all relevant???

Look, isn't this is exact flip side of the frenzied attack conservative talk show hosts launched a few years ago when liberal congresspeople started mentioning equal/fair time on the airwaves? That how dare these nutso-liberals tell our affiliates, tell ME, that the radio slate has to be balanced out?!

I dunno, let's call these networks what they are - mouthpieces for the the ideologues, the "Two Minutes' Hate" television propaganda of either end of the American political spectrum, each serving their own niche. Why does it matter that they bring on the opposing view? Can't it be argued that this is part of the appeal of Maddow's show (and others like it)? That they only need to have the chorus sing back the song of praise for their own viewpoints?

Anyone hoping for an intellectual discussion isn't watching these shows anyway. As you pointed out quite well, the ratings reflect this. Wasn't part of the draw to Countdown and Maddow over the last 24 months that they were providing an unvarnished opposing view? Now that the folks they were cheerleading for are now in office, they no longer have an unvarnished opposing view to offer.

I used to like O'Reilly, he got lost somewhere along the way and now he only seems to know how to talk over all of his guests, it is not fair and balanced. I don't think any fair and balanced exists. They are all on a ski slope and a very slippery one I am just going to sit back and watch and see who slides down to the bottom first and declare myself independent.

I just like how someone who's never held "a job" excludes people from discussion for not having "a job" and people find that defensible. Using her own criteria, Maddow is no more qualified to speak about politics than the people she chooses to not have on her show.

Of course, this retards the advancing the cause of a more informed viewership and citizenry far more than anything it does to help it, but people don't want to hear viewpoints the oppose their own. They just don't. And if they do, they want to see that viewpoint pounded into dust. What can you do? Unfortunately, the yakkers are really giving people what they want to the detriment of what they need.

Hello, and once again thanks for the keen insight. Z

I agree with BR post. I need to hear both sides so that I can make an informed decision. Where are all of those people at? I can't find a news show that offers that. In my family growing up there were two different points of view. We need less one-sided talking and more two-way conversations. I want to hear solutions for the 10% pay cut our family took because of the current economy. The real issues get lost in all of the back and forth.

Z, I've pretty much given up on these "political" shows in favor of the Sunday morning programming (when I can catch them), which I find to be more civil and informative in nature. I just do not find the content of either MSNBC or Fox programming to be relevant or informative. The programming is argumentative and staged. So, in that vein, I really could not care less who appears on Rachel Maddow's program.

The word "Jobs" is pernicious, as you say, because it sounds as though she's excluding basically anyone who isn't an elected republican. However, watching the video a couple of times, I'm not sure exactly what she meant by the word "jobs," and might be more nuanced in that definition if she was asked to explain that part in detail.

I do know, however, that she often says she tries to get republicans on her show. Whether this is true or not, there's no way for me to independently confirm, but she regularly says something like the following:

"Governor Pawlenty represents Minnesota and I will just say—we ask a lot of Republicans to be on the show and they almost always say no. So, I am particularly grateful whenever anybody says yes. And to any Republicans out there who we ask—see—I‘m not so bad."

Finally, she actually had a "jobless" republican on the show last night, GOP Strategist Mark McKinnon.

I agree there should be more high quality debate, but I feel this is a gotcha quote you're pulling here. You didn't provide any of her numerous quotes about trying to get republicans on the show, nor did you mention that she actually had a "jobless" republican on LAST NIGHT. Yes, the terminology was unclearly/poorly used by Rachel, but come on... this is a mirror image of one of those minor, unimportant quotes Media Matters likes to pick apart.

Hi Brian, Thanks. Who can argue with the fact of a "jobless" Republican on the show last night. But maybe she was reacting to the early criticism of her Friday night remark -- or trying to head it off. Z

Maddow and Olbermann are scared to debate any conservative. Olbermann, in particular, has had no opposing guests, fearing they may show him up. He's a pantywaist.

O'Reilly's Guests include: Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Gov Richardson, Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, David Axelrod, Mark Lemont Hill, Steven Colbert, Phil Donahue, ETC.

O'Reilly, at Fox, who brings on the weakest liberal opposition he can find and then verbally pounds that person into sawdust. You said it, I didn't

"But maybe she was reacting to the early criticism of her Friday night remark -- or trying to head it off."

While I do enjoy baseless guesses, a basic search of transcripts from the show reveals McKinnon was on about two weeks ago.

'The Rachel Maddow Show'for Wednesday, May 27

Transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31003588/

Video clip:

"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30971477"

As I said, this really is much ado about nothing.

The Gallop poll that came out today bears out that the Republican party is seemingly leaderless. Maddow isn't saying that one needs to hold elected office to get on her show. She's just not letting them play out their power battles on her show.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120806/Limbaugh-Gingrich-Cheney-Seen-Speaking-GOP.aspx

No-one who really pays attention to Maddow can say that she's afraid to have a debate with Republicans on her show. She's been pestering the Cheneys to include her in their press tour for weeks now, but they won't go anywhere near her. She wouldn't cut them any slack, and they know it.

Besides, none of the people she mentioned in that quote are engaging in intellectual discussion at the moment. They're either trying to rewrite history or making emotional appeals to their base to raise money. I'd be delighted to see Maddow have a thoughtful, rigorous debate with a Republican leader, but that leader simply hasn't appeared yet.

Dear Mr. Zuwarik,
Are you an actual media critic or just an MSNBC critic. To the average american that heard Rachel Maddow utter those words, it is obvious that she meant to say "these people are not elected republicans" and not that they don't have jobs

I try to watch all political shows but there are three that I cannot tollerate because they are so pathetically one sided. #1 Olberman - Not only one sided but downright mean. #2 Hannity - I have never heard anything good about any Democrat, what is the point of wasting my time, I know what I am going to get. #3 Maddow - I have to give her this, she will start an interview with a rumor and spend the next ten minutes speaking to another hater as though it is fact. Very clever, when talking to other haters.

I would like to mension that O'Reilly is far more balanced than most people would like to admit and those who say he is not are just too one sided to see it or are trying to convince those who don't watch the show.

What do you expect? That's typical for MSNBC, the most biast network on TV news reporting.

Just like many at Fox are selective with their guests, she has all the right in the world to invite whoever she wants. She has invited moderate republicans. The public gains nothing from these right wing radicals so we don't need them on TV spewing their hatred and intolerance

Those who prefer to indulge in conversation-stopping ad hominem attacks would, naturally, miss the point of a serious public policy expert like Ms. Maddow. For heaven's sake, the woman has a PhD from Oxford in the subject. She's not gonna interview out-of-work, marginalized GOP stalwarts who have no impact on policy or the party save lobbing a few key messages crafted by the party faithful. She's looking for some genuinely informed, influential Republicans who can articulate ideas and proposals that would solve the many problems our country faces.
The problem has become that the intellectual segment of the GOP has abandoned the party to those who rarely offer cogent ideas, but often us only inflammatory rhetoric designed to further political divisiveness. Maddow's polite, probing interview style does not accommodate bombastic rhetoric. She rarely allows those who practice such oratory -- on either side of the political spectrum -- as guests on her show. I appreciate her show for its depth and its tolerance for a wide range of ideas and views. She is civil to her guests and more than willing to apologize if they are offended by either her show's editing or format. Her rise to prominence is a signal that the American public is more than willing to support intelligent, civil television news instead of trying to attract only viewers whose idea of a dilemma is whether Jon and Kate should split up or why politicians are inclined to infidelity so often.
Maddow's choice of guests is a reflection of her intellectual curiosity and her desire to engage serious people in serious discussion on serious matters. Perhaps the GOP should examine its ranks to find some folks of that sort and ensure that our country has an opposition party it needs, not the one it's inherited -- a party of few ideas and some really unpleasant, insentitive characters whose idea of a discussion is name calling and fear mongering.

Rachel has said repeatedly that she invites Republicans and conservatives as guests...but they don't return her calls.

The point she made had nothing to do with not having Republicans on her show.

The point she made was that she wasn't going to have unelected proxies on her show instead of elected officials who are accountable for their opinions.

She did interview Colin Powell, though, and he was one of the main forces behind the implementation of Don't Ask Don't Tell. She has invited Dick Cheney several times on-air.

"Opposition voices" who refuse to present rational arguments, as Newt Gingrich and Liz Cheney so frequently do, aren't credible opposition. That's the point she made and it's valid.

We have lost our way on both sides of the isle. Honest and CIVIL debate does not exist in the current climate of adults acting like infants at town hall meetings and talking heads refusing to have those that oppose their views on in a format that allows for true mature debate and disagreement. It is a very sad time for our country.

I think Maddow is the most even-handed broadcaster on a network today.

Why? She openly debates right wingers: Gov. Pawlenty, Tom Ridge, David Frum, Tim Phillips, Pat Buchanan, Dick Armey, Joe Scarborough, and McCain campaign reps, documenting her requests for right wingers to appear and their refusals on air. She airs corrections when she is wrong and provides the most comprehensive background on issues before debating them that I've seen.

This is not the same - Hannity and Limbaugh air liberals, but purposely weed out articulate, informed liberals. I have been screened many times calling in to these shows, hung up on and had my volume squelched.

Maddow relishes the chance to openly debate right wingers. Aside from perhaps the McGlaughlin Group, I can think of none. When was the last time a right wing talker took on a qualified challenge? This post is an example of "false equivalency" that ignores Maddow's many on-air confrontations while Limbaugh and Hannity cower in their safe bubbles.