|tv guide tv show fl cable tv listing food nbc ca nj tx court tv dish internet tv cbs dvd digital tv home fox schedule station tv reality show web tv music movie abc online tv global live tv local ny nj|
Former Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) hosts Scarborough Country, providing on-air commentary and analysis, and his nightly ‘Real Deal.’ Scarborough’s experience has included guest-hosting spots on all of the major cable news networks and many other guest appearances on both network and cable news programs. Most recently, he was a guest hosting on “Nachman” as well as other live news specials for MSNBC. Joe Scarborough served as a member of Congress from 1994-2001. After leaving office, he was named by President Bush as a member of the President’s Council on the 21st Century Workforce, where he serves with Labor Secretary Chao, national labor officials and business leaders. While in the United States House of Representatives, Joe Scarborough served on the Judiciary Committee and the Armed Services Committee. Currently, Scarborough is also a partner with Levin, Papantonio, where he concentrates his practice in environmental law.
Right-Wing Hack Joe Scarborough Admits He Was Entirely Wrong In Supporting Bush
MSNBC Host Contradicts Everything He Has Previously Said And Admits President Bush’s Economic Record And Policies And Plan For Social Security Are A Disaster For The Nation
It’s all starting to unravel, folks. The massive right fraud and disaster perpetrated on America is coming apart, and the right-wing rats are beginning to run for cover.
The entire re-election campaign of George W. Bush was based on a simple lie: just give us one more chance, everything is just about to get better.
Well, whether or not people bought the lie, it remains a lie. And so now the disasters, economic, foreign policy, are starting to manifest so massively that the right-wing shills can no longer just say everything is fine. And today, President Bush’s fake fiscal conservatism became such an obvious fraud that MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough came out and admitted supporting President Bush and the Republican economic policies was a huge mistake.
From his MSNBC column (see: Congressional memo to future generations: You're screwed) today:
“Your government has already borrowed almost $8 trillion that it can't pay back. Guess who will have to write the check? That's right. You.
“Expect massive tax hikes in your future, and wicked cuts in national defense, education, environmental enforcement, police protection and medical care for the poor and elderly.
“Oh, you say the poor should pay for their health care just like you? Fine.
“Wait till you have to crawl over 3-year-old kids dying on the front steps of the emergency room where you are taking your kids and then you will be asking yourself if it was really wise for this generation of politicians to spend money as responsibly as pot heads in an open-all-night grocery store.
“And guess what these politicians who have already straddled you with an $8 trillion debt plan to do as soon as Congress gets back in session?
No, guess. Really. You'll love this.
“They plan to plunge America into debt by $2 trillion more dollars!”
Yes, exactly what we and people who supported Kerry have been saying all along.
But notice one thing about his comments: he never once uses the words “Republicans” or “President Bush.”
Yes, you know what is coming next. The lying scum of the Bush/Limbaugh right is about to try and somehow blame the Democrats for the economic disasters they have created. We know they are absolutely unwilling to ever accept responsibility for anything and that they only exist as an arm of the Republican National Committee to lie and spin to get GOPers elected.
And so while Scarborough even admits he is with Paul Krugman now, and clearly is echoing exactly what Kerry warned about all election long, he doesn’t have the balls to admit he was wrong all along, that supporting Bush was an asinine idea, even if his comments are a direct admission of all this.
Look at some more from his column:
“You see, they've got this really cool plan to privatize parts of Social Security that usually make free market conservatives like myself giddy. We start talking about the invisible hand and the power of market forces.
“Only problem is that this plan to get government off our backs costs a cool $2 trillion in transition fees.
“And— let me see if you are following me here— who pays for that?
That's right. YOU!”
Yep, suddenly he hates Bush and his stupid privatization plan. He even admits the whole idea would be a disaster even if we didn’t have to borrow $2 trillion to do it:
“…capitalism also always produces losers, and we all know that there will be millions of Americans who will make stupid investments in the coming years. (See Enron, etoys, Pets.com, Worldcom)
“So what will happen when they retire and start complaining to their local congressman and TV camera crews about how they're about to be thrown out in the streets because of the dumb investments they made with their Social Security payments years ago?
“Congress will pass the "Save Our Stupid Seniors Investment Relief Act of 2025," thereby guaranteeing that all Americans will have all Social Security payments restored in full.”
Exactly. Just as Kerry supporters said all along.
Nice to see you now realize Bush and his economic policies are horrible for America, Joe. But still pathetic to see you are not going to stop being a lying right-wing pussy and admit that, no, it is not “politicians” who did all this, it is “George Bush and Republican politicians” – and not the Democrats, who were sensible and protested these stupid policies all along.
Be ready, Bush’s disasters one by one are going to begin coming home to roost, and the lie they used, that you had to vote for them because everything was just about to fix itself, can’t be used anymore. They said the Iraqi insurgents were just waiting for the election. They said they would cut the debt in half. They said their plan for Social Security wasn’t a disaster that was guaranteed to cost people benefits. Just stick with them and you’ll see.
Well, you won’t see. And so now they need a new plan, and Joe is helping to lead that. And it will be to blame not Bush, not Republicans, but, if you can imagine, the Democrats. Yes, your read right. The Democrats are responsible for the debts Bush’s tax cuts created, they are about to argue, the Democrats are responsible for the Social Security disaster Bush is proposing.
The flat out evil of the amoral, lying Bush/Limbaugh right is astounding beyond belief. But what you now know – as if there was doubt – is that they are aware that the policies they are pushing are disastrous for America.
Regardless of what spin they put on it, we at The Moderate Independent will nail them every time they admit they have destroyed the nation. And you can help. Send Joe an e-mail at Joe@msnbc.com and tell him, “Thank you for admitting you were wrong to support Bush and the GOP and their asinine economic policies, and that Kerry and the Democrats were right all along.” Let him know how glad you are he didn’t turn out to be a ballless, lying prick who would care so little for his nation and have such a complete lack of morals that he might not admit it is the GOP and President Bush’s fault for the debt disaster we are experiencing. Tell him how glad you are he would never show himself to be that brand of lying pussy.
The truth is coming home to roost. And heads are about to roll. Scarborough is trying to save his. Let’s give him a swift kick in the ass to let him know he has only two choices: openly and fully repent for his sins, or suffer a horrible demise.
''Fighting the real enemy'' by Joe Scarborough
And yet, in a time when moral clarity is so desperately needed from reporters on the front lines of that war, Americans are fed editorials attacking the liberators and language glamorizing terrorist thugs. But more on language and labels in a minute.
First, it's time we face up to the ugly truth about the mainstream media outlets covering this war. The fact is that newsrooms across America and Europe are filled with reporters and editors who loathe George Bush that they would rather see him lose in Iraq than see America win.
This animosity runs so deep news outlets affix the label of "occupier" to US liberators while using the term "insurgent" to describe Islamic fascists who would rather kill every man, woman, and child in Iraq than see them free. The Michael Moore faction in the Democratic Party claims US troops are not liberators, but rather empire builders. Then again, Moore also compared the terrorists who carved off American hostages' heads to our founding fathers.
While most Democrats and leftist reporters would never make such a public admission, many do believe that spreading freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan is an imperialist scheme to spread American hegemony across the globe.
Since when did promoting Jeffersonian democracy equate to the spread of American hegemony? Since George Bush launched this war instead of, say, Bill Clinton. Isn't it remarkable that we never heard terms like "American imperialism" or "US hegemony" or "unilateral war" when former President Bill Clinton launched military strikes against Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, or Iraq?
Can you remember 'The New York Times' or CBS News or any other mainstream media outlet taking President Clinton to task for his wars in the Balkans? Of course not.
In fact, most wrote editorials praising America's entrance into a 500 year civil war and printed screaming headlines exaggerating incidents of mass graves and ethnic cleansing.
Never mind the fact that the Serbs' conduct in Kosovo never came close to reaching the level of barbarism and butchery that Islamic fascists have exhibited in Iraq and across the world.
In Kosovo, an act of aggression by the Serbs was always seized upon by press to justify America's involvement there. In Iraq, the more horrendous the terror attack, the sharper the rebuke against Bush for launching his liberation efforts.
What makes the media's moral blindness so damning is the fact that the leader of the terror network responsible for most of the Iraqi killings wrote out his war plans months ago for all the world to see. This is not morally ambiguous stuff. Jordanian terror king al-Zarqawi warned his followers in a memo produced earlier this year that the Americans were not going to be driven out of Iraq by terror tactics.
Therefore, the only way to stop free elections and a democratically elected government was to kill as many Shiites as possible. After slaughtering enough innocent Shia, civil war would break out and cause the streets of Iraq to flood with the blood of the unbelievers. Then, and only then, Iraq would be a safe haven for Islamic terrorists. Zarqawi concluded by warning his terror network that if America had its way, a representative government would be elected and then their cause would be lost.
So now, scores of innocent Shia were incinerated in two of Iraq's holyist cities for simply worshipping their G-d as they chose. Imagine the outrage if Christian Serb leaders had written a memo defining their chief political goal as the killing of Muslims.
'The Times' would have gone apolectic. Dan Rather would have grimly spoken of a Balkan holocaust. And Hollywood types would have been standing in line at the White House asking Bill Clinton how they could support his efforts overseas. But with the stakes so much higher in this war, the mainstream media is churning out the bad news daily, always implying that these murderous rampages in Iraq are really the fault of their one true enemy, George W. Bush.
And what about the Shia?
Screw 'em. The cocktail party circuit in Manhattan and Hollywood have concluded the bastards are too stupid to live under a democratic system anyway. But for a group of idiots, Iraq's Shiite leaders sure seem smart to me. This summer they turned the screws on one of their own-al Sadr-and told him his attacks against the US forces would not be tolerated.
Last month, the Shia's most powerful leader delivered a religious edict ordering his people to vote in next month's elections. And most impressively, the general population is not biting at Zarqawi's bait. They know that their family members are being slaughtered in the streets of Iraq not because of US imperialism, but because Zarqawi desperately needs to draw them into a civil war. But unlike America's mainstream press, the Shia are smart enough to read the enemy's war memos and plan accordingly.
Imagine for a moment that we lived in a world without George Bush, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Fox News, James Carville, Vietnam, the New York Times, and the all the forces that have created faultlines throughout contemporary American political life. In such a world, does anyone seriously doubt that all of America would be united behind this war? Imagine a world where editorial page writers were less concerned about proving George Bush wrong than bringing freedom and hope to the epicenter of Islamic terrorism.
Imagine a country where political leaders were less concerned about what party took credit for winning a war than both parties working together toward the common goal of actually winning that war. Imagine a world where CBS News and the New York Times editorial page dared to call those slaughtering innocents in Iraq "terrorists" instead of labeling them insurgents, as if they were throwing off the yoke of a colonial power set on ruling their land for hundreds of years.
Imagine a world where journalism schools produced reporters and editors who were not afraid to call evil by its name. Now imagine living in a world where we are fighting for the very future of our civilization-and most of the world's press remains neutral (or worse) because they don't like the man leading that epic battle. This war on terror has seen its epicenter move from New York to Kabul to Baghdad in the past few years. It is as clearly a war of good against evil as any America has fought since World War II.
But American and European reporters are so blinded by their cynicism-and their hatred of George W. Bush-that like Hitler's Albert Speer, they do not recognize evil when its hand is on their shoulder. Or on the front page of their newspapers. They refuse to tie together the 9/11 murders with the Bali bombing, or the Madrid murders, or the school house slaughter in Russia, or the assassination of election workers in Iraq. They refuse to connect the dots because George W. Bush and Tony Blair drew a line between them first, while the rest of the world was sleeping.
Maybe that's why I am staring at a picture of a man being gunned down like a dog on the front page of the New York Times. The terrorists executing the man and his two fellow election workers conducted the murders in broad daylight for all the world to see. And what did the New York Times call these beasts?
Insurgents. Insurgents? Insurgents against what?!? These "insurgents" were not gunning down US soldiers. They were not murdering police officers who were trying to put down an oppressed people. These "insurgents" had one goal in mind: destroying those who would dare to believe that Iraq could live in freedom and peace. Should you and I be shocked that the media is expressing little to no outrage at this unspeakable act?
Should we contemplate why so many media outlets, who would have spoken out against this atrocity had it happened in Kosovo, Israel, or scores of other countries, are sitting quietly by while Islamic terrorists continue killing election workers, doctors, and all others who are trying to bring aid to a desperate people?
Of course not. The media hates this war because it hates this president. It doesn't matter how noble the goal. It doesn't matter how high the stakes. In this perverse new media reality, George Bush is evil, US troops are occupiers, and terrorists who gun down defenders of democracy are "insurgents."
Joe Scarborough, Whining Baby, Complete Fraud
As He Cried And Hinted At a Lawsuit In Day Two Of His Debate With M/I, We Took Him Up On His Suggestion That We Read His Book, And What We Found Was A Study In Lying Propaganda.
But, unfortunately for Joe, he has run into the wrong match. We at The Moderate Independent are true moderates and independents who care only about the actual truth and what is best for America. Joe – and many of his right-wing liar buddies – is playing a game of pretending to be an independent while spinning the same dishonest, one-side promoting propaganda these right-wing liars have been pushing all along.
The next morning as I opened my e-mail, there was not one but two more e-mails from Joe. And at this point, Joe had gone over the edge into threatening desperation.
You keep obsessing over the fact that I didn’t use the words Bush or Republican in my column (no, it was that your column was a fraud that tried to pin the Bush/GOP-created mess on the Democrats as equal partners.) If that’s all you have to respond to after all the factual errors in your column (Note: no factual errors in our column) and the childish name calling (which Joe uses constantly,) so be it. It seems that you are the one engaged in a whitewash.
I have very educated readers looking at my blog daily. They watch the news, they read the papers, they know Bush proposed the plan. They also know where I come from. A Republican who attacks Republicans when it is in the best interest of America (a claim he uses to excuse his partisan lying, as I explain in a minute.)
My readers and viewers also know that Democrats will whine and complain and then probably support the bill (more lying, detailed in a moment.) That’s what they do (another lie.) And if all you can hide behind is the fact that they will make some lame counterproposal that will fail before voting for the final bill, I pity the fact that is all you have to look forward to.
It is obvious from the column that you all don’t watch the show, don’t know my history as a commentator, and don’t know my history in Congress. So I wouldn’t expect you to understand that background when reading my columns. Instead, I am subject to middle school insults by your website.
Looking over your site and your emails makes it obvious that you all are very partisan Democrats. Nothing wrong with that. There are very partisan Republican websites. But I call BS on them also when they claim to be down the middle.
Unlike myself, you all seem to refuse to make your party better by criticizing them when they deserve it. The stories on voter fraud and other fringe issues leads me to conclude that your website is neither moderate nor independent.
Try to see both sides and for the sake of everybody, don’t give in to hate. It only hurts public discourse and your cause. And I would also suggest that your writers try to avoid using middle school profanities when making their case against someone. Don’t think resorting to personal attacks helps your cause. Just an unsolicited bit of advice.
Good luck on your site.
Sounds good, huh? I left that last part without correcting the lies and misinformation. I wanted you all to see clearly the real danger of what these lying right-wing propagandists are up to. What Joe says sounds really wonderful, and it would be, if all of it weren’t just one string of lie after lie after lie.
A second e-mail sat waiting even before I read that first one. This one was more whiny and included the threat, “The tone and the lies open you up to a libel lawsuit. Several of his statements are clearly false and his diatribe calling me a liar, rat, pussy, etc., clearly shows malice.”
Ok, Joe, you asked for it. You want us to prove what we said was true? Ok, here are the facts.
Joe asked us to read his book. I suppose he thought either we would be too lazy to do it or too stupid to see through the propagandist game he plays. Scarborough’s book is a study in one-side supporting propaganda, lying, and grade school-level name calling – yes, exactly what he tries to accuse us of. It is nice for him to claim something, but it is useful to back it up with facts. That is what us true Moderate Independents do.
Scarborough, on the other hand, makes clear from the beginning of his book that he is not big on providing facts to back up anything he writes. In fact, there is not a single footnoted reference in the entire book, and only a handful of attributions of any kind throughout the 192 pages. The vast majority is Joe simply saying things without providing any concrete evidence or references to back up his dishonest claims.
And dishonest they are. Remember this claim Joe made to us in one of his e-mails: “Democrats vote for the President's tax cuts without finding offsetting cuts, and old bulls in both parties work together to spend more money and pass the debt on to our children," or from the first e-mail above, "My readers and viewers also know that Democrats will whine and complain and then probably support the bill. That’s what they do." He also claimed, "I detail this at length in my book and one cannot read it without coming away with the feeling that I am tougher on my own than Democrats.”
Well sorry, Joe. Here is reality:
2001 tax bill – The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Yay – 211 Republicans, 28 Dems, 1 Independent
Nay – 0 Republicans, 153 Dems, 1 Independent
Yay – 46 Republicans, 12 Dems
Nay - 2 Republicans, 31 Dems
Wait, it gets even better with the next round of tax cuts, which were the truly insane ones passed after the surplus was already gone and the nation was at war.
2003 tax bill – Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
Yay – 281 Republicans, 4 Dems
Nay – 3 Republicans, 199 Dems, 1 Indy
Yay – 48 Republicans, 2 Dems (including Zell Miller as a Dem)
Nay – 3 Republicans, 46 Democrats, 1 Independent
Now let’s take a look at Joe’s claim again: ““Democrats vote for the President's tax cuts… That's what they do.”
Maybe in the dishonest, propagandist lala land known as Scaroborough Country, but, sorry Joe, not in reality. Yeah, Zell Miller, who has left the party, and couple of other Democrats voted for these bills. But the truth is that the irresponsible, excessive tax cuts, even in the middle of growing debt and war, were passed almost entirely by the Republicans and opposed by the Democrats.
Pretending the opposite is the case is called a lie. And it is a central part of the game Scarborough and other right-wing propagandists are now using to try and blame Democrats for the mess President Bush and his new breed of borrow-and-spend Republicans have saddled the nation with.
Let’s look at the other claim Joe makes in the e-mail above: “…one cannot read (my book) without coming away with the feeling that I am tougher on my own than Democrats.” This is the other central tenet to the game Scarborough and other faux independents, such as O’Reilly, are playing. They allow themselves to actually criticize President Bush and the GOP some and then claim that that shows that they are fair and balanced; in fact, as Joe claims, tougher on his own party than on the Democratic Party.
The reality is, one cannot read Scarborough’s book without realizing that this claim is just another flat-out lie and fraud. The two most striking things about Joe’s book are: 1) the massive lack of references and footnotes to support his claims; 2) the complete lack of a single positive comment about a single Democrat, never mind Democrats in general.
In fact, Scarborough’s central premise is that all Democrats and every policy they espouse are entirely, inherently wrong, and that they have always been wrong and never have any chance of improving. As he states on page 97 of his book Rome Wasn’t Burnt In A Day, after spending some time criticizing the GOP, “If it makes GOP party leaders or the White House sycophants feel any better, no one is suggesting that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or any other elected Democrat short of Georgia Senator Zell Miller would spend your tax dollars more wisely.” He adds, “This is because such a suggestion is laughable.”
Sound like he is being easier on the Democrats? Of course not. Again and again throughout the book Scarborough hammers away at this theme, that all Democrats by nature are entirely wrong on every issue. And, in fact, he frequently, throughout the book, blames Democrats for how the Republicans are acting today.
On page two of his book he lays out how he will actually blame the Democrats for how the GOP and Bush have been acting, saying it is, “Democrats and their new ideological allies on Capitol Hill,” who are responsible for the massive deficits. This is his argument again and again throughout the book, that all Democrats are horrible, and that the only thing the GOP is currently doing wrong is acting too much like Democrats.
Yes, he spends more time talking about Republicans than Democrats, but that is because he gives them a fair shake, his premise being Republicans are good and right by nature but only, as he says again and again, acting like those horrible Democrats at the moment. Democrats get much less coverage because they are entirely dismissed from the get go, and because Scarborough again and again refuses to acknowledge their 1990’s shift to the middle and the more fiscally responsible platforms they have run on in the last three elections.
And what evidence does Scarborough use to support his claim that Democrats are just as much to blame for the fiscal mess we are in as the GOP and White House that promoted the bankrupting policies? Does he use their voting records? Specific policies they pushed?
Of course not - because their policies and voting records, as shown above, would make clear that they fought against many of the policies that have led to our fiscal disaster. Instead, what Scarborough relies on to make his case against all Democrats is one out-of-context quote from one Hillary Clinton speech in which he claims she told voters in California that, “she wanted to raise taxes 'for the common good.'”
Notice the quotes within the quotes. He is not even quoting a single sentence of the one speech from the one Democrat he uses to represent the entire Democratic Party. He is only showing us that, in July 2004, Hillary Clinton said, “for the common good.” He claims she was saying that she wanted to raise taxes “for the common good,” but he provides no reference so we don’t know if he is making it up or not. All we do know is that we have one contextless quote from one speech by one Democratic Senator from New York used as justification for trashing and dismissing the entire Democratic Party and blaming them just as fully as the GOP and Bush for the fiscal mess the nation is now in.
In fact, Scarborough is so excited about this one out of context excerpt that he mentions it not just on page 1 but again on page 97. He has to, as it is all he apparently has to make his entire case that the Democrats are just as much to blame for the nation’s fiscal woes as Bush and the GOP.
What about all the speeches by Kerry and the Democrats saying we shouldn’t run an absurd privatization scheme for Social Security that would cause us to borrow $2 trillion while the GOP argued for it? What about all the speeches by Democrats and votes against the absurd tax cuts that have caused the deficits we now face while the GOP and President Bush, even needing to bring Cheney in as a tie-breaker, rammed them full-steam ahead upon the nation?
Not mentioned in Joe’s distorted, dishonest world. No, Joe simply claims in his e-mails to us, “Democrats vote for the President's tax cuts.” That’s his lie and he’s sticking to it. The New York Times review of Joe’s book says, “He is honest enough to recognize the problem, but can't quite bring himself to the solution: since Republican-controlled government can't produce the spending cuts he wants, and he hates deficits, shouldn't he favor raising taxes?”
And right they are. Striking throughout the book is Scarborough’s absolute refusal to acknowledge that it was the massive, bankrupting Bush/GOP tax cuts that directly have led to the deficits the nation now faces. At no point does he address this, at no point does he give the Democrats credit for being on the right side of this one.
Instead, Joe spends a lot of time criticizing spending in a pretty general way. He throws around some numbers meant to shock, some subsidies that may or may not be excessive – it is hard to tell, as he gives little to no detail about how the funds he calls out, such as "$631,000 to figure out new and imaginative ways to use salmon by developing “alternative salmon products,” or money for beef and dairy research, will be used. And of course he provides no references. The spending may be wasteful, may not be. But Scarborough doesn’t bother with things like details.
He bares his small-mindedness boldly, saying, as a means of attacking cattle subsidies that go to Nebraska, “Alaskan workers shouldn’t be forced to pay for bovine research that will only help Nebraska corporations.” Yes, he ignores the fact that we are actually a nation, each part of which provides something for the other. Otherwise he might realize that people in Alaska eat the beef that is raised in Nebraska, and so if the subsidies help keep this beef affordable, free of Mad Cow disease, and plentiful, might not that person in Alaska also be benefiting?
But Scarborough’s goal is not to have an intelligent, useful discussion. It is to attempt to blame everything on excessive spending while denying that the voodoo economic scheme of the far right, of which Joe is a part, simply does not work. If you keep cutting and cutting taxes, you cause a debt. As our Ben Terton laid out in great detail in this article, you can not do as Joe is pretending and simply tighten America’s belt a bit, get rid of entirely unnecessary waste and solve the problem that way.
That is the lie Schwarzenegger ran on, that he could balance the more than $10 billion debt California was saddled with without raising taxes by simply eliminating unnecessary pork barrel-type spending. Since taking office, he has been shown to be, as this article article details, a complete fraud, and had to keep borrowing more and more, with $16 billion being the amount he ran up the state’s debt in the last round of bond selling. And the reality is the same with the national picture: you cannot address the situation without realizing the excessive tax cuts were a major part of the problem.
But to acknowledge that would be to acknowledge that the radical, Reagan-bred model that Joe raves about over and over in his book is a flawed one and actually central to the problem our nation faces. Reagan’s massive tax cut when he took office led to massive deficits which he blamed Democrats for. That is how the game works.
So why is Joe, while blaming Democratic spending for the mess right-wing tax cuts made, also blaming President Bush and the GOP as well, straying from the usual right-wing blame-and-lie game of pinning it all on the Democrats? Scarborough lets us in on the real purpose of his little charade. From page 94, “Should thoughtful conservatives duct-tape their mouths and wrap their bodies in cellophane until Democrats once again take control of Congress?”
In other words, a right-wing talk show hack has to make a living somehow, and as there are no Democrats around to blame, he has no choice but to sort of lay into his own a bit – even if really just smearing all Democrats in the process and blaming them despite all reality.
I challenged Scarborough again and again in our e-mail exchange to not pull an Arnold-like snowjob and, if he really claims that it is just excessive spending responsible for the debt, provide the numbers and programs of what he would cut, as well as details about how he would cut these amounts from each program.
He replied, “Want more answers, they’re in my book.”
Well, sorry Joe, but they’re not.
Joe Scarborough speaks out about diversity and tolerance
A nasty streak of religious intolerance is rearing its ugly head in America. And it's coming from America's cultural elites.
The election of George W. Bush has exposed an ugly anti-Christian streak in many of those who work in America's most powerful newsrooms. A flood of vicious opinion pieces over the past few days have generalized Christians who helped elect the President as a group of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals whose aims are nothing less than anti-American.
Not surprisingly, some of the most offensive and bigoted rhetoric came from the opinion pages of The New York Times, a paper that at one time embraced diversity of thought and belief. But apparently, those positions of convenience are closeted away when it comes time to opine on conservative Christians.
The day after George Bush's victory, the Times ran an Op Ed by famed historian Gary Wills, who questioned whether a people who believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus can be called an enlightened nation. Wills suggested that because of those Christians who helped elect George Bush, America now shares more in common with al Qaeda and Saddam's Sunni loyalists than modern Europe. Wills wrote, "Americans wonder why the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous... They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed."
So according to the Times Op Ed page, if you believe in the Bible's account of Jesus' birth, you are at par with those terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11th. Strip it down any way you want, but that is what lies at the base of Wills' jihad argument.
Joe Scorborough talks about abortion
MSNBC host and former U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL) asserted that Americans are evenly divided on the issue of abortion, but polling shows that the country is not evenly split on whether abortion should be banned entirely. On the November 8 edition of Scarborough Country, Scarborough suggested that the ratio of those who oppose abortion to those who do not is "about 50-50"; in fact, only 16 percent of voters think abortion should be illegal in all cases, according to exit polls conducted during the November 2 presidential election.
From an interview with author and former Washington Post investigative reporter Carl Bernstein on the November 8 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
SCARBOROUGH: What about abortion?
BERNSTEIN: What about abortion?
SCARBOROUGH: Is that a small minority opposed to abortion?
BERNSTEIN: I believe, again --
SCARBOROUGH: It's about 50-50, isn't it?
BERNSTEIN: No, I don't think the figures are 50-50.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, they're pretty close to 50-50.
Exit polls from the November 2 presidential election found that 55 percent of voters believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Only 16 percent believe it should be illegal in all cases; 26 percent believe it should be illegal in most cases. Further, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted November 3-5 found that 61 percent of Americans "think President [George W.] Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision" that protects a woman's right to an abortion, while only 34 percent think justices who will overturn the decision should be appointed.
It is not red country, Joe..
FOX News Channel host Sean Hannity and MSNBC host and former U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL) used a county-by-county map of the 2004 presidential election to overstate the margin of President George W. Bush's victory. On the November 4 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Hannity declared: "It's all red. ... When you break it county by county it is a red [Republican] country." On the November 4 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Scarborough said: "County by county, the United States was washed in red." Wall Street Journal deputy editor Daniel Henninger made the same claim in his November 5 column: "[I]f you adjust the map's colors for votes by county (as at the Web sites for CNN and USA Today), even the blue states turn mostly red." Discussing the presidential electoral map on his November 3 radio show, FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly made a similar misleading remark that the United States is "sea of red except for the [blue] pockets."
The map touted by Hannity, Scarborough, and Henninger is misleading: The overwhelming majority of U.S. counties are Republican; however, counties carried by Democrats are generally more densely populated. The county-by-county map, therefore, visually overstates the Republican share of the vote, because the Democratic votes are concentrated in fewer counties that cover a smaller land mass.
Princeton University professor Robert J. Vanderbei used "county-by-county election returns and latitude and longitude coordinates for county boundaries provided by the U.S. Census Bureau" to create a "JAVA graphic" map that better indicates the breakdown of voter preference in the 2004 election (view Vanderbei's map from the 2000 election here). Rather than just depict a county as red or blue, Vanderbei's map takes into account the percentage of the Democratic and Republican vote in each county, thereby using a shade of purple to represent closely contested counties.
Similarly, many of the more sparsely populated western states that Bush won cover a large amount of land mass, whereas many of the northeastern states that Senator Kerry won are densely populated but cover a smaller amount of land. In fact, the 20 states that Kerry won contain 48 percent of the U.S. population, according to 2003 U.S. Census Bureau numbers. Therefore, the electoral map O'Reilly cited is also misleading. A size-adjusted electoral map of the red and blue states provides a more accurate visual for how red and blue the United States actually is.
The facts clearly show that the United States is not a "red country." Bush received 51 percent of the vote, compared with Kerry's 48 percent; Bush's advantage in electoral votes was 279-252, with results from Iowa pending. With the exception of the 2000 election, Bush's popular vote margin of about 3.6 million votes (out of approximately 115 million total votes cast) was the narrowest since 1976, when then-Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter (D) defeated then-President Gerald R. Ford (R) by about 1.7 million votes. Bush won by the narrowest margin of any wartime incumbent president in U.S. history. As Wall Street Journal Washington editor Albert R. Hunt noted, it was "the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."