The McLaughlin Group

I enjoy watching this show very much and have for years. McLaughlin and the four panelists are very well-read on current events (they would have to be, all being journalists) and they do show all sides of an issue (when you can make out what they are saying).

I tend to be liberal in my views but it's important to hear other peoples' opinions and I am gratified that such a forum exists. Who knew there could be five sides to a story?

I suspect, however, that unless the people who run for office watch the show too, that all of the energy, opinions and knowledge displayed really won't change anything. It's Monday-morning quarterbacking at its finest.

I used to like watching The McLaughlin Group and have seen a progression of panelists evolve throughout the years; however, I must say that I have watched it less and less since Monica Crowley joined the show. Her disdain for Eleanor Clift is palpable and her need to dominate the discussion is enabled by John McLaughlin, who is clearly besotted with her. There is a mean-spiritedness about Ms. Crowley that transcends simple participation and anyone who has heard her radio show knows that her radio persona is harshly ideological and vitriolic.

While I agree that this show is loud, opinionated and sometimes raucous, it is also clear that most of the "old guard" is fond of one another; Ms. Crowley is another matter. I do believe that she sees herself as a contender for John McLaughlin's seat if and when he retires and is tireless in her efforts to position herself at the forefront of discussion. Again, her constant interruptions of Eleanor Clift, as well as her general demeanor toward Ms. Clift are shameful, as is Mr. McLaughlin's indulgence of this.

As for Mort Zuckerman: I'm not quite sure of the reasoning behind putting him on the same side of the "table" as Eleanor Clift. While clearly very bright and obviously very successful, he tends to lean more toward the views of Pat Buchanan and John McLaughlin. He's certainly not the reason, however, that I have taken this show off my DVR. To Ms. Crowley goes that honor.

I use to like the show but I agree with the guy who says there is too much screaming and cutting off. Some emotion is what made me use to like the show, but the emotion gets across as silly. One knows the answers of the show's guests on each issues before they talk, according to their political belief. Their beliefs scare me personally for sometimes there is an apparent hole in their argument or an issue that needs to be addressed. I wonder if the media actually addresses the truth or just gives opinions. Pat is the only one that seems to give a personal opinion outside of the partyline. I disagree with Pat on some issues, but I agree with him on the workers getting cheated by special interest groups, and people who exploit the fruit growers and construction industry which was so radical at the time. Pat was a voice in the wilderness, and now the arguments have become so mainstream. (ie Lou Dobbs) Democrats or Republicans can do no wrong even if they do the same things, is what turned myself off politics. I remember how Savings and Loans where a evil rich Republican ploy, but when other Democrats where involved the issue became a non topic, and the working man's investments got hurt. Shame on both sides. One side wants no one to have a bigger piece of the pie no matter how hard one works out of resentment, while the other wants a bigger piece of the pie out of your share out of greed.

One of the best shows on television, IMHO.

There IS a lot of shouting and a certain 'impoliteness', as another commenter mentions, but under all the shouting, I think most people will find in the panelists' content that:

1. They respond directly to each other's arguments (a welcome change from pundits who ignore their debating partners and reply to challenges with nothing more than a glib restatement of their basic position).

2. Time and again, panelists prove their integrity, command of the issues and (albeit combative) mutual respect by firmly agreeing with statements or positions from their supposed 'opponents' - in a beautiful display of precisely the type of intelligent discourse that is sorely lacking from most public debates, wherein well-meaning Americans so blinded by their mood to fight are unable to see the common ground that binds them and which, in the end, is critical for America's survival.

"The McLaughlin Group" was the first of the political "round table" shows. I like the fact that they address important issues of the day, and that the group members seem to be very well-informed.

However, the show quickly gets on my nerves when the panelists constantly shout and interrupt each other. It seems like none of them ever listen to the other participants. Each of the panelists, especially Mr. McLaughlin, comes across as extremely biased and unwilling to consider any other point of view. I also don't like the episodes when all the panelists hold essentially the same views and gang up on a person in the news. They also condemn individuals who disagree with them in any way. What about the issues? Aren't people entitled to hold an opinion differing from that of the panelists? Why not focus on the issues rather than personalities? Aren't there two sides to every story?

This show sets a bad example by pushing simple answers to complex problems and by drowning out any other opinion than the week's "party line."

I would find civil discussion much more challenging to the viewers. Commentators should encourage people to think for themselves.

How about polite forums on the issues, where all sides are represented and the panelists respect other peoples' right to hold differing opinions. We have freedom of speech in America. But obviously not on this show.