Joe Scarbourough: another partisan hack

Of all the Republican talking heads in our mainstream media, specifically TV, I've largely felt that Joe Scarborough is one of the more reasonable ones - not a ridiculous, babbling buffoon like Bill O'Lielly.

But, the Republican infighting has begun, as well as conservative pundits' criticizing and castigating Obama's every move as he sets up his administration. After all, the GOP just got pwned a few days ago, and the party and its supporters are fightin' mad. This is to be expected - I remember not-so-fondly in 1992 when then President-elect Clinton's transition team weathered similar criticism, but right-wing hate radio wasn't anywhere near the size it is today, and there were fewer Sean Hannitys back then.

A few mornings ago, Joe Scarborough wasted no time criticizing Obama's choice for White House Chief of Staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL-5). On his show, Morning Joe, Scarborough laughably compared Emanuel to former disgraced House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Seriously, Scarborough said it -- with a straight face.

So, Scarborough is comparing DeLay, a former member of Congress who is under federal indictment (and who is also tied to the Jack Abramoff scandal), to Rahm Emanuel, who has a reputation of being a tough political fighter and effective fundraiser? The last time I checked, Emanuel has not been involved in, accused of, or indicted of any crimes.

It would be a compliment to accuse Scarborough of using political hyperbole to disagree with an appointment, but calling it mindless, stupid partisanship would be more accurate.

Here's hoping that Obama has learned the lessons of the Clinton presidency, and that's to aggressively fight back against partisan smears, slanders and innuendo. As president, I realize Obama can't get distracted every little criticism, but Clinton allowed some blatant lies and distortions put forth by the right-wing media to fester, which in some cases proved an old maxim true: If you repeat a lie long enough, often enough and forcefully enough, people eventually start to believe it.

And by the way, what's with every Republican pundit having a fetish about President Jimmy Carter? (Sort of like their fetish with Ronald Reagan.) Carter's the president they point to when they are trying to make a political point. I'll go to my grave believing that Carter wasn't nearly as bad of a president as people make him out to be. Sure, he made plenty of mistakes (the Iranian hostages), but he also did a great deal of good, too. That's okay though - because Democrats will now have a president (George W. Bush) it can point to for decades when they want to make political points on the other side.