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.

Morning Joe, with lies stirred in

When I read what Joe Scarborough recently said about McSame's ties to religion, as well as Obama's, I didn't believe it until I actually heard it. I thought to myself that surely Scarborough can't be this myopic, inaccurate and flat-out wrong.

He is.

Scarborough:

John McCain has never attached himself to these people on the far right, that say 'If you're gay, you're going to hell, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.' [By the way, someone needs to tell Scarborough how to pronounce "et cetera."]

Maybe some of the drugs we've all recently heard about that are in our public water supply have found their way to Scarborough's tap. I've got a pictorial response to Scarborough's assertion...

This one says it all. McCain the Maverick is long dead, circa 2000, who called the likes of Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance," now embraces them to get elected. (The above picture is of Falwell and McCain at Liberty University's commencement in 2006, long after his rants against gays, lesbians and people who perform and have abortions two days after 9-11.) [For the record - I know a few days ago I wrote that the above picture is from '07 - my mistake.]

But, let's not get facts in the way, right? God, I love the Internet - it's awfully hard to get away from video clips.

Kudos to Rachel Maddow for bringing up even more examples of the right's intolerance, specifically following Hurricane Katrina. Scarborough's response was beyond absurd - that "that sort of argument is good for Air America Radio versus Rush Limbaugh." But, I guess that's the best that lukewarm Joe could come up with in light of facts, not opinions.

MSNBC's Race For the White House debut: ho-hum

Here is a little bit of footage from the debut of MSNBC's Race for the White House. To me, there wasn't anything too special about it - seems to me it's just another political talk show where people shout at each other. But, sometimes I like that - we need some disagreements and heated discussion about many things that ail America today.

I have to say this about Joe Scarborough - I run hot and cold with him. Sometimes he's sensible and offers up commentary I agree with, and at other times you'd think he put on a Bill O'Reilly mask.

The discussion above highlights one of the stark contrasts between the world view of Democrats and Republicans.

According to Scarborough's world, regulations are the enemy - the housing crisis is the result of people who "gambled and lost." That's a dramatic and oversimplified explanation of what really happened. I read Scarborough's comments as this: that people who couldn't afford a mortgage got one anyway when they shouldn't have. But, that begs the question - who made that credit available?

I grow so tired of businesses taking advantage of people with predatory practices, and when the cards come crashing down, the consumer gets blamed.

Rachel Maddow brought up a good point - there is going to be a tremendously expensive bailout for the lending industry, and it has already begun with the government's $30 billion bailout of Bear Sterns, which makes me want to start a bank. Hey, if it is successful and it fails, no worries, matey - the government will come to my rescue.

Unreal.

On another note, I'm not so sure about Race for the White House, but I'll give it a fair shot. I do like David Gregory, so I think if he keeps having on guests with a variety of views, it has a good shot to last.

Has Mike Wallace gone soft?

Earlier tonight on 60 Minutes, journalism legend Mike Wallace interviewed Fox Noise Channel's Bill O'Reilly. I was underwhelmed.

I didn't expect a shouting match, but I did expect, and hoped for, tough questions. Not because Mike was interviewing blowhard Bill (okay, maybe a little), but because Wallace, unlike his son, Chris Wallace, who is picture-postcard proof of a hack if there ever was one, has a well-deserved reputation for going after guests and asking tough questions.

Fizzle.

Wallace did take Bill to task for several things, including Bill's pointing at him and guests on his show (wife's advice be damned); pointing out Bill's incorrect assertion on Maria Shriver; and for arguing with guests he doesn't agree with (which seems to be just about everyone).

But, there were some whoppers that Wallace didn't approach. How about a Keith Olbermann question? Bill-O has a notoriously short fuse, and that would have undoubtedly lit it. The Wallace of 20 years ago would have wasted no time going there. But tonight, no mention of Keith.

How about O'Reilly falsely boasting about having won two Peabody Awards when he hosted Inside Edition? (He later cleared it up after Al Franken bitch slapped him by saying, "I misspoke, I called a Polk Award a Peabody Award." The show did win a single Polk Award, but after Billy left. He just utters these lies thinking no one will check on their accuracy.)

And what about a host of other lies, including O'Reilly's repeated assertion that he never tells guests to "shut up." He even repeated this whopper during Wallace's interview, stating that his staff went back and looked up how many times he's said it since being on the air, and they found "six times" when he told guests to shut up. The irony isn't lost on me that Bill lies about his lying.

That's my issue with him more than anything - he lies. Lies, lies, lies. And no one calls him on it. Political differences I can deal with - I listen to Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough and even Michael Smerconish from time to time. But, the far right idiotas who just lie, degrade, defame and name call, like Billy, aren't worthy of my time. I laugh with glee at people who equate O'Reilly with Al Franken, and I've heard this from a number of conservatives I know. Really? When's the last time Franken told someone to shut up, or threatened a guest on his show with violence, or was sued for sexual harassment? Just a thought.

Is there anyone who believes O'Reilly anymore? One can hear Billy say "shut up!" six times in a few shows, or in a week at the most. The thing is, there are people who believe whatever he says and take it at face value. Very few people take him to task for his lies and distortions.

Not even Mike Wallace.

I just dug up Billy and Franken fighting at the Book Expo on C-Span. This is how Billy reacts when called on a lie. When he's busted for lying, O'Reilly calls it a vicious attack. Really, it's just someone calling bullshit on his lies.

Anyway, enjoy - this is good stuff.



One final thought - Bill O'Reilly accusing someone, anyone, of being blinded by ideology is the height of idiocy, and hypocrisy.

Can Stewart & Colbert swing an election?

This is a pretty good overview by Joe Scarborough of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report and their potential impact on this year's election. At first, I thought Scarborough was going to slam both shows super hard, but he really didn't, and I was pleasantly surprised. Scarborough, much like Michael Smerconish, is a conservative I can at least listen to in order to hear different political points of view. I don't agree with either one politically - not even close, but these two don't seem to verbally regurgitate outright lies, slander and vicious attacks against people who differ with them politically.

I rarely miss The Daily Show, and I occasionally catch Colbert, but it's undeniable that they have broad appeal, especially among Democrats, but among moderates, too. I can't speak to Colbert's show too much, other than to say he was simply brilliant when he was on The Daily Show. Stewart, however, I'm pretty well versed in, and if I had to make a guess as to why it has such a loyal following, I'd say 1. Stewart isn't above criticizing Democrats, and has critically done so when they've deserved it, 2. He has on guests from both sides of the political spectrum; Rick Santorum and Bill O'Reilly among them, 3. Stew gets people with video tape - I don't think I've ever seen anyone more effective at zinging people with their own words, and 4. I defy anyone to find an instance where Stewart has lied or distorted to serve some thinly veiled political agenda. You know, like Bill O'Reilly. Good luck, because I believe you're going to have a pretty hard time.

The great thing about The Daily Show is that it has no Republican equivalent; as I've said before, I seriously doubt that people, especially young voters, are crowded around radios listening to Rush Limbaugh.

I believe Stewart will have an even bigger impact in '08. We'll see.

Joe Scarborough drops the f-bomb?

Did Joe Scarborough drop an f-bomb while talking to Tucker Carlson? You be the judge, but it sounds like it to me. I wonder if MSNBC will face fines, or if there will be a big uproar? Well, he's a Republican, so you decide.

Heckofa job, Rummy!

So, Bush took the step he should've taken at least a year ago, and he does it the day after the election - Donald Rumsfeld is fired. Of course, the Bush administration isn't spinning it that way - he decided to step down, or the two mutually agreed that a change needed to be made. Right. Rummy would have stayed until the end of Bush's presidency if it had been up to him.

The million dollar question has been all week: If Bush had done this two days before the election, would it have made a difference? My first thought is that I don't think so - it would have been resented by just as many as it would have pleased. Allow me to explain.

Bush and Rove DID try a big news event right before the election that didn't seem to work - the Saddam Hussein verdict. I think many saw it as a PR ploy to fire up the conservative base, but it wasn't enough. All the proof you need that the Saddam verdict was a stunt for votes: the entire verdict wasn't ready - Hussein didn't know why he was guilty - it wasn't supposed to be ready until Thursday - two days after the election.

No, firing Rummy a few days or even weeks before the election would not have helped, because it would have given liberals just as much ammo as it would have given conservatives. The liberals would have said, "See? Things are going horribly in Iraq, just as we've been saying, and now Bush is waking up to that." Firing Rummy a year ago might have helped Bush, but not a few days or weeks before the election.

The big controversy about the firing was that Bush, just last week, claimed that "Cheney and Rumsfeld are doing a great job" and would be retained. Maybe Bush should have said, "They are doing well as long as Republicans retain control of Congress." It's so obvious that Bush lied to the press for a number of reasons, but here's two - he admitted as much during the press conference above, and you don't announce a replacement for Secretary of Defense in just minutes. That much is clear.

What I found entertaining is Bush's explanation - that he didn't want to influence an election. Are you kidding me? I'm still, a few days after this press conference, unsure how to take his statement. Was he arrogantly implying that sacking Rumsfeld on Friday, Nov. 3 would have allowed Congress to remain in control of Republicans? As I've already stated, sacking Rumsfeld last week would have done as much harm than good, and maybe more.

I don't know much about Robert Gates, but I do know this much: 1. He will have to be confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate, and 2. Just changing defense secretaries isn't nearly enough; we need a change in policy. However, a change tone and management style at the Pentagon can't be anything other than good at this point.



MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman from Florida, had this to say about Rumsfeld - pretty poignant and poisonous, but thought provoking, too.

He really is hated, and not just by liberals and Democrats.

Gore Smear, Part I, by STOSSEL?!?

This one's pretty good - it's John Stossel trying to sound like a global warming authority on MSNBC's Scarborough Country.

Listen to Scarborough's words and hyperbole. It's a kick. He claims Gore has said, "If we don't turn things around, in 10 years the ice caps are going to melt, we are going to boil, Manhattan will be underwater," blah blah fucking blah. Gore never said that in the movie, or anywhere else, genius. It's exaggeration to try to discredit Gore, and it's hilarious. Another Al Gore "quote" along the lines of I invented the Internet.

In Scarborough's Country, this kind of shit may be acceptable when you are out to discredit someone, but in the rest of the country, bullshit detectors go off everywhere, unless you are a card carrying member of the radical religious right.

The best part about this clip is how Scarborough gets bitch slapped on his own show by Tyson Slocum. At least someone has something intelligent to say in Scarborough Country.

Stossel should go back to 20/20 and expose more defective child seats. He doesn't have a coherent, intelligent thing to say in this piece, not one shred of scientific proof, and notice we don't get one actual name of the scientists "who he spoke to."

Stossel goes on to call us "the cleanest country in the world." Hilarious. As we belch out more greenhouse gases than any other country on Earth? Where in the hell does he believe the smog comes from in LA, fog machines on movie sets? Bravo, John. And, as usual, the obligatory comment about people sounding the alarm bell on global warming "hating capitalism." Whatever. Why am I wasting my time on this?

And Scarborough? Keep miring in obscurity, douche bag. You're about as popular as cancer, and your stellar ratings prove it. I wonder how MSNBC, an up-and-coming network, could have a no-talent like Scarborough when it has coherent, likable guys like Tucker Carlson and Keith Olberman? Yes, you read that right - I like Carlson. I don't always agree with him, but I like the guy and respect his opinions. I've enjoyed Carlson since his Crossfire days on CNN.