Tag Archives: joe-scarborough

Joe Scarborough Just Let His Privilege Hang Out While Blasting St. Louis Rams & Ferguson [VIDEO]

More:

Joe Scarborough has had enough of people speaking out in defense of Michael Brown, and you’ll never believe…

Joe Scarborough Just Let His Privilege Hang Out While Blasting St. Louis Rams & Ferguson [VIDEO]

Matthew Broderick and Joe Scarborough visit The Late Show!

http://www.youtube.com/v/Z7n-ZLMUNgs?version=3&f=user_uploads&app=youtube_gdata

Matthew Broderick and Joe Scarborough visited The Late Show with David Letterman today. Matthew even faked out the cameras a bit, but came out to give us a few shots after-all. Not quite as good as the “lick your palms” trick, but hey… Follow Hollywood.TV on Facebook @ facebook.com

Follow this link:

Matthew Broderick and Joe Scarborough visit The Late Show!

MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’: Tax Cut Compromise Is Another ‘Steaming Pile of Garbage’

Comparing the current tax cut compromise with Barack Obama's stimulus plan of 2009, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough labeled the tax cuts a “steaming pile of garbage” on his December 13 show. Complaining that the compromise will add another $900 billion to the deficit, Scarborough compared it to the stimulus plan that cost a similar amount in the name of “stimulating” the economy. “This is a disaster for conservatives,” Scarborough asserted, arguing that adding to the deficit is worse than stimulating the economy with tax cuts that aren't “paid for.” The weekend after the deficit commission proposed a way to cut $4 trillion in the next generation, Republican leaders met with President Obama and produced a compromise extending the Bush tax cuts for all income earners, along with other provisions that would ultimately add $1 trillion to the deficit. “It's another steaming pile of garbage,” co-host Mika Brzezinski spat. Scarborough agreed with her. “Man, I tell you, if I were a Democrat in the House, I'd vote against this in a second,” he remarked.

Joe Scarborough Rips Liberal MSNBC Colleagues Schultz and Olbermann On-Air

Does he want to lose his job at MSNBC the way Donny Deutsch did ? Joe Scarborough seems to have a devil-may-care attitude towards criticizing his outspoken colleagues, liberal blowhards Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann. Simply refer to past episodes here , here , here and here . While not mentioning them by name on today’s “Morning Joe,” Scarborough featured outlandish barbs from his colleagues Schultz and Olbermann as examples of what not to do in trying to “keep calm and carry on,” as the show was trying to preach to its viewers. For the second straight day, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” ran a segment titled “Keep Calm and Carry On” – Scarborough’s favored slogan of late, he even features in his profile picture on his Twitter account – dedicated to throwing water on the political fire created by the fringe Left and Right and promoting more calm, moderate, bipartisan candidates and positions. Tuesday’s segment featured a game show format where Joe and co-host Mika Brzezinski asked questions with obvious answers – for instance, does such-and-such rabid quotation by such-and-such talk show blowhard merit the label “Keep Calm and Carry On?” Scarborough’s second question began thus: “If you’re a liberal radio and TV talk show host, and your goal is to keep calm and carry on, do you say of a Republican politician who’s just had a life-threatening heart attack, quote, ‘We ought to rip his heart out, and kick it around, and stuff it back in his chest’?” That question referred to Ed Schultz’s nasty rant from this past February, where he derided conservatives for complaining that Dick Cheney’s recovery from his heart attack was being used as a political football for health care. “You’re damn right Dick Cheney’s heart is a political football,” Schultz ranted. “We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him. I’m glad he didn’t tip over. He is the new poster child for health care in this country.” Two questions later, Scarborough again used an MSNBC colleague’s words as an example of hate-speech. “If you’re a liberal cable host, and you want to keep calm and carry on, do you accuse the President of the United States, who happens to be a Republican, of being a fascist, and a liar, who urinates on the Constitution?” he asked columnist Mike Barnacle. That question referred back to Olbermann’s August, 2008 smear of President Bush’s administration as “urinating on the Constitution.” It seems quite fascinating that out of all the hate speech from liberal talk show hosts on radio and television, Scarborough chose to feature barbs from two of his colleagues. Then again, MSNBC isn’t exactly a harbor of calm and collected debate. A partial transcript of the segment, which aired on September 21 at 6:43 a.m. EDT, is as follows: JOE SCARBOROUGH: Calling out the “Professional Left” and the far-Right, a campaign of ours to kind of calm everybody down, because we find – and we found out in New Hampshire this past weekend, we’ve seen it everywhere from Maine down to South Alabama, to Florida, to Alabama, to West – Americans are tired of all the screaming and shouting, so we’re trying to encourage sort of the chattering classes – to keep calm, and carry on. A noble gesture, is it not? JON MEACHAM: Absolutely. I would expect nothing less. (…) SCARBOROUGH: Question: If you’re a liberal radio and TV talk show host, and your goal is to keep calm and carry on, do you say of a Republican politician who’s just had a life-threatening heart attack, quote, “We ought to rip his heart out, and kick it around, and stuff it back in his chest.” MIKA BRZEZINSKI: That’s a no-brainer, Willie. WILLIE GEIST: Life-threatening, or did it cost him his life? SCARBOROUGH: Life-threatening. He’s still alive – these guys aren’t very good at this. BRZEZINSKI: It’s a new game. GEIST: Yes. SCARBOROUGH: No. GEIST: You said “threatening.” SCARBOROUGH: “Life-threatening.” No, I’m sorry. (…) SCARBOROUGH: Question: For the t-shirt. If you’re a liberal cable host, and you want to keep calm and carry on, do you accuse the President of the United States, who happens to be a Republican, of being a fascist, and a liar, who urinates on the Constitution? Now Mike, I would suggest that “urinates on the Constitution,” as well as “liar” and “fascist,” would be a clue for you. MIKE BARNACLE: It is, it is, and I don’t need a lifeline for this one. Yes. (Pause) C’mon, give me the t-shirt. That was the right answer, wasn’t it? It happens all the time! SCARBOROUGH: It does happen all the time. We have, actually, some re-educating to do. BRZEZINSKI: We do.

See the original post:
Joe Scarborough Rips Liberal MSNBC Colleagues Schultz and Olbermann On-Air

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Believes ‘Certain Networks’ Would Have Trashed Bush if He Echoed Obama’s ‘We’re Buying Shrimp’

Once again, the co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Joe Scarborough hinted that “certain networks,” (ahem, MSNBC) hold quite the double standard between Democrats and Republicans. When the subject matter was President Obama’s snub of an Iraq War question during his vacation at Martha’s Vineyard – he remarked “We’re buying shrimp, guys” – Scarborough pointed out that network coverage of Bush would have been far more negative. As NewsBusters reported last week, Scarborough also believes “certain networks” will “maul” Haley Barbour if he runs for President in 2012. The show’s co-host Willie Geist first opined that news coverage might have been different with President Bush. “I hate to make this point too often,” he said, “but imagine for a moment George W. Bush were on his sixth vacation, and he was asked about Iraq, and he said ‘I’m buying shrimp.’ You think that wouldn’t be a headline everywhere?” “You’re implying there’s a double-standard, Willie,” conservative guest Pat Buchanan snickered. Scarborough made it quite clear. “Can you imagine if someone asked [Bush] about shrimp – about Iraq, and he goes ‘We’re buying some shrimp here,'” he asked. ” I mean, they would, they would…they would kill him.” “It would be running on a loop. On certain networks,” Scarborough quickly added. Co-host and self-proclaimed Democrat Mika Brzezinski immediately changed the subject. Later in the segment, Joe and Willie were at it again. Joe and Mika entered a brief spat over whether the networks would have treated Obama and Bush differently on the matter. Mika, ever endeared to the Democratic talking points, dismissed any notion of a double-standard. When Pat Buchanan remarked that “they really would rip [Bush] to shreds here, I think,” Mika kindly retorted “I think you’re suffering from a very bad case of selective memory. I’m sorry.” A transcript of the segments, which aired on August 26 at 6:33 a.m. EDT and 7:12 a.m. EDT, respectively, is as follows: 6:33 a.m. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The President is avoiding questions about Iraq this week, while vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard. Here he is yesterday, being asked about Iraq while placing his lunch order at Nancy’s. (Video Clip) President BARACK OBAMA: We’re buying shrimp, guys. (End Video Clip) WILLIE GEIST: Said “We’re buying shrimp, guys.” MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Okay. We’ll talk more about this later. Moving on with news. North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il made a surprise – (Crosstalk) SCARBOROUGH: That’s just kind of strange, isn’t it? We’re buying shrimp now, guys? GEIST: I hate to make this point too often, but imagine for a moment George W. Bush were on his sixth vacation, and he was asked about Iraq, and he said “I’m buying shrimp.” You think that wouldn’t be a headline everywhere? BRZEZINSKI: No, he was. In a golf cart. SCARBOROUGH: He actually said – GEIST: That’s my point. And noone’s lambasting President Obama for doing the – SCARBOROUGH: And George Bush said “Now watch me” – he answered the question, and said “Now watch me hit this drive.” In this case, of course, Barack Obama didn’t answer the question about Iraq. He said “We’re buying shrimp.” So your point is – PAT BUCHANAN: You’re implying there’s a double-standard, Willie. GEIST: Perhaps. (Laughter) SCARBOROUGH: Can you imagine – BUCHANAN: Isn’t that a bit of a stretch, Willie? SCARBOROUGH: Can you imagine if someone asked him about shrimp – about Iraq, and he goes “We’re buying some shrimp here.” I mean, they would, they would – BUCHANAN: It’d be on all the networks every night. (Crosstalk) SCARBOROUGH: They would kill him. It would be running on a loop. On certain networks. (…) 7:12 a.m. GEIST: We hate to go to this argument too often, because we say – imagine if this had been George W. Bush, the media would have treated him differently. But I mean, that would have been a – SCARBOROUGH: He would have been killed. GEIST: A signature moment. He would have been torn to shreds. (Crosstalk) ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, New York Times columnist: That was a Michael Moore moment. Remember, that was actually in the Michael Moore movie, sort of the iconic – GEIST: You’re asked about Iraq, talk about shrimp, you’re already criticized by some for being on vacation too much. It fits into this narrative. BRZEZINSKI: He gave a speech on Iraq on Tuesday. SCARBOROUGH: George W. Bush made speeches on Iraq all the time. Of course, what would happen is that they would have that response, and then they would cut immediately. News cast would cut immediately to dead Iraqi bodies in the street. We saw – BRZEZINSKI: Wait a second. You’re also taking out of context – it’s not like President Obama brought us in there. And there wasn’t the whole WMD – SCARBOROUGH: He’s commander – he’s Commander-in-Chief. BRZEZINSKI: A huge disgrace. I mean, there were a lot of reasons – SCAROROUGH: That’s all you got? That’s all you got? (…) SCARBOROUGH: You’re telling me that the left-wing wouldn’t shred this guy in a million pieces? BUCHANAN: They shredded even the ol’ man. Remember back there, when the ol’ man went out in his golf cart out there in Maine, during the build-up to Desert Storm? SCARBOROUGH: Tore him to shreds. (…) BUCHANAN: They really would rip him to shreds here, I think. BRZEZINSKI: I think you’re suffering from a very bad case of selective memory. I’m sorry.

Read more here:
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Believes ‘Certain Networks’ Would Have Trashed Bush if He Echoed Obama’s ‘We’re Buying Shrimp’

Mika on ‘Morning Joe’: If Obama Can Run a Beer Summit, He Can Work to Unite Two Sides of Mosque Debate

Picking up where she left off last week, MSNBC “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski on Tuesday and Wednesday cast opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as a “destructive” force, “demonizing” Muslims and “promoting ignorance.” Yet Brzezinski advocated Wednesday for a compromise between the two sides to be spearheaded by President Obama. When Joe Scarborough opined that President Obama, along with former presidents, needs to get involved in a compromise, Mika blurted out that “if [Obama] can have a summit in Boston between a professor and a cop, I think he can do this.” MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” panels largely supported the proposed Ground Zero mosque on both Tuesday and Wednesday, although they did show sympathy toward families of 9/11 victims. But the talking heads still would not give full credence to opponents of the mosque. Perhaps the climax of the struggle came toward the end of Tuesday’s 7 a.m. hour, where Mika faced off against the vice president of America’s 9/11 Foundation, Nick Leischen. After Leischen, speaking for the families of 9/11 victims whom he represents , said that the mosque within sight of Ground Zero would be an affront to grieving persons returning to the site, Mika unleashed her tirade. “When you talk about, every year, on the anniversary of 9/11, people going down there and then perhaps having to look at this center, and be so reminded – what are you talking about?” Mika asked in shock.  “What are they being reminded of? Are you kidding me? It’s an Islamic cultural center.” “You’re now – what you’re doing, and very politely and respectfully, but what you’re doing is, I think, promulgating ignorance about who these people are and what their center is, and demonizing them,” Mika tersely admonished the guest. Not to be left out of the fray, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin also questioned Leischen’s arguments. When the guest brought up Islamic history as a support for his argument, Halperin asked him to leave history out of the debate and consider the people who are involved in the mosque’s planning. “When you say looking at the building would be some sort of horror for them, try to enunciate what that means,” Halperin told Leischen, “because again, as Mika suggested, the only way that that should trouble people is if they’re making a connection between the Islamic faith and what happened on 9/11. Otherwise I don’t see where the pain comes from.” A transcript of selected quotes from Wednesday’s”Morning Joe,” as well as Tuesday’s debate between Mika Brzezinski’s and Nick Leischen, is as follows: MORNING JOE 8/24/10 7:44 a.m. EDT MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And I guess what I see is potentially so different than what you see, and that is for the good of our society and for the good of our relationships between communities, I can’t imagine it being moved now. Why would you think it actually does need to be moved? NICK LEISCHEN: Well it hasn’t been too good for our country and our relationship so far, in fact, quite to the contrary. I’ve got to tell you, I’m not a vociferous opponent by any means, and I’m here representing America’s 9/11 foundation. We have an opinion, and that opinion is just that the location of the proposed mosque is extremely inappropriate. We’re well-based in our opinion, because we’re in contact with so many of the survivors of the World Trade Center, and with other 9/11 sites, and with their family members, the survivors, and with the first responders, especially. And I can tell you that the amount of anguish and pain, and the agonizing difficulty that this has created for them – it hasn’t been a good thing. And I don’t believe that it will continue to be a good thing. And we could have, you know, we could have taken the low road. We could have gone politically correct, and said, you know, “No comment.” Because we are not a political organization, and I am not here to join America’s 9/11 Foundation into the fray. We exist primarily to honor the memory and the sacrifices of the victims, and their families, and the survivors of 9/11, and not just the World Trade Center, but the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pa. BRZEZINSKI: And with due respect and sympathy to the families and family members of victims and survivors, I just, I do – LEISCHEN: But beyond that, our mission has gotten to be, to a great deal of support to first responders. BRZEZINSKI: And first responders, for sure. And I completely – look, my first reaction when I first heard the headline to the story was “Ooh, wow, is this the right thing?” But with further looking at it, knowing that there is a mosque at the Pentagon, knowing that there is another Islamic center 12 blocks away, knowing what else is around Ground Zero, hearing the conversation, and then listening to it being ratcheted up politically, and on the streets of New York – I just wonder now, though, if it would actually be detrimental to turn back. LEISCHEN: Well, the thing is is that, you know, life is full of compromises, and certainly corporations, religious foundations, charitable foundations – we make compromises all the time to, you know, reach our ultimate goals. So I guess the question is, what really is the goal of the mosque people? I mean, is the goal to create a tribute there to , you know, what happened? I hope not. Or is the goal to create a place of worship, and a community center, and to honor and respect people – BRZEZINSKI: Well that’s the goal. I mean, that’s – from everything we’ve heard, sir, with all due respect, that – that is the goal. The goal is not – LEISCHEN: Why is it so critical to place it virtually right on top of the World Trade Center site? BRZEZINSKI: I honestly, from talking and listening to the people who planning this, and knowing the Imam and having interviewed him – I truly believe, and I could be wrong – but I believe that they were blindsided by the response, because they have another center 12 blocks away, the Pentagon has a – LEISCHEN: I think 12 blocks away would make all the difference in the world. I think that having it within the site of the World Trade Center – imagine every year, on the anniversary, when the family members and the survivors who narrowly escaped with their lives come back to the World Trade Center for the annual memorial, and they’re looking at this 13-story grand monument. How would that feel, how painful would that be? How painful is it now? The people who were at the protest – many of them were family members of the victims. The pain that they were suffering was so great, so extreme, it was very difficult to witness or to speak with them. And by the way, I want to to set the record straight about something. I am not a protester. Certainly, America’s 9/11 Foundation is not protesting. We were down there, but we were down there for an event that is an annual event for us that had been planned more than a year in advance, and we had, oh, I don’t know, 5-600 American patriot motorcyclists that came down there and we did put on an event over by the Pass station, and we very carefully and skillfully, using these wonderful motorcycle police escorts from around the country, and we moved our people around the protest so that we would not draw any media attention, or draw attention to ourselves, or that we would be misconstrued to be protesters. But then I heard media outlets that were building us up to be protesters. We polled our riders, and they are definitely opposed to the location. BRZEZINSKI: Nick, though, the question I have, and I’ll let Mark Halperin in in just a second. When you talk about, every year, on the anniversary of 9/11, people going down there and then perhaps having to look at this center, and be so reminded – what are you talking about? What are they being reminded of? Are you kidding me? It’s an Islamic cultural center. You’re now – what you’re doing, and very politely and respectfully, but what you’re doing is, I think, promulgating ignorance about who these people are and what their center is, and demonizing them. LEISCHEN: Well, it sounds like you’re trying to draw me into the controversy. The only thing I can say in response is this. Let’s look to Cordoba, Spain. When people look at the mosque there, what does it symbolize? BRZEZINSKI: It’s not what we’re looking at down near the site of 9/11, not even close. LEISCHEN: It very clearly symbolizes, you know, an Islamic victory that was held in great esteem for a very long time, and that was marked and monumented by the building of a large mosque on the site that used to be a church, where a massacre occurred. I think there’s a very unhealthy parallel there, and it frightens me. BRZEZINSKI: Whoa. LEISCHEN: I think that if they really wanted to be moderate, and if they were considerate about what’s most important here, it is the respect for the people that are most directly impacted by 9/11. I think that’s what’s important. I’m not talking about a Constitutional right. (…) MARK HALPERIN: When you say looking at the building would be some sort of horror for them, try to enunciate what that means, because again, as Mika suggested, the only way that that should trouble people is if they’re making a connection between the Islamic faith and what happened on 9/11. Otherwise I don’t see where the pain comes from.   MORNING JOE 7/25/10 6:49 a.m.-6:52 a.m. EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: This is why the President needs to get involved. And I do believe that with the President involved, George W. Bush involved, George H. W. Bush involved – BRZEZINSKI: If he can have a summit in Boston between a professor and a cop, I think he can do this. JOE SCARBOROUGH: This can be resolved. I’m going to say also – and Pat, a week ago – I would have said that compromise needs to include the possibility of moving the mosque north. I’ve got to say at this point, I don’t see how that can happen when you’ve got African-Americans being threatened down at a protest because they quote, “look Muslim.” When you have the nation listening to Newt Gingrich, comparing a house of worship to a swastika. We’ll be seen around the globe as the United States bowing to the pressure of an extreme fringe element. (…) BUCHANAN: In the Islamic world, there are Islamic leaders who are saying “What are these guys thinking of putting it there? There are people over there who are saying “America is anti-Islam,” at the same time (unintelligible). Joe, you won’t find Saudis, in my judgment, or anybody of the Gulf Arabs funding this thing when they realize the sensitivity it has for Americans, and the division that’s associated with it, they’re going to back off. I don’t think it’s ever going to be built. SCARBOROUGH: Okay. We shall see. I am always – I am Pollyanna, I believe there’s a way to bring people together and make this thing happen in a way that makes –

Go here to see the original:
Mika on ‘Morning Joe’: If Obama Can Run a Beer Summit, He Can Work to Unite Two Sides of Mosque Debate

MSNBC: Obama ‘Did the Right Thing’ With ‘Uncontroversial’ Mosque Remark

On Monday’s Morning Joe, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went out of their way to defend President Obama’s Friday statement defending the planned mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. Brzezinski cooed that the President ” did the right thing by saying what he said ” and Scarborough labeled the remark “uncontroversial” and later stated the controversy over the mosque was a ” wedge issue ” . As NewsBusters’ Noel Shepard reported , the former Florida congressman turned MSNBC anchor blasted Newt Gingrich for his barrage against the President for his defense of the mosque. Earlier in the broadcast, just after the top of the 7 am Eastern hour, Brzezinski related her personal anecdote about discussing the issue over her recent vacation, and went right into her “right thing” defense of the President’s stance. Scarborough replied to this by berating Gingrich, in an early preview of his later attack: SCARBOROUGH: David Ignatius, talking about the mosque on ‘This Week’- BRZEZINSKI: Actually, that’s a fascinating issue. We talked about it over the weekend, and, certainly, on vacation, it was much the dinner table conversation. I thought the President actually did the right thing by saying what he said , but- (shakes head) SCARBOROUGH: The President’s getting pounded. I ‘ve got a quote I’m going to read in a little bit when David’s here- from Newt Gingrich, a guy I know, a guy I worked with, a guy who I always considered to be one of the brighter guys – BRZEZINSKI: Yeah- (shakes head) SCARBOROUGH: But, my gosh, this quote is stunning, and I would say, stunning and irresponsible and – BRZEZINSKI:  It’s over the top . SCARBOROUGH: He’s not alone. Minutes later, the two MSNBC anchors brought on Ignatius to discuss the controversy. Scarborough read one of Gingrich’s attacks on Obama, and included his “non-controversial” label of the President’s statement on the mosque, as he asked the editor to respond to the former House Speaker. When Ignatius expressed his disagreement with this label, the former congressman erupted with a sharp retort. The editor replied with liberal platitude about how the Republicans needed to take care, as the world was watching: SCARBOROUGH: Let me read you what Newt Gingrich said and you tell me what kind of impact this has across the globe: a former speaker, somebody whose name many people across the world know. Gingrich said this, according to The New York Times- quote, ‘There’s nothing surprising in the President’s continued pandering to radical Islam. What he said last night is untrue and inaccurate.’ Do you care to respond about the level of heat that this non-controversial statement that the President said on Friday night has generated? DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, you couldn’t really call it a non-controversial statement because- here we are still talking about it , but I do think that kind of- SCARBOROUGH: Well, no, no, no- I’m just saying, though- I mean, David, he said this, though: Muslims have a right to worship as they choose . IGNATIUS: Yup. I understand- BRZEZINSKI: It shouldn’t be controversial .              SCARBOROUGH: It should not be – IGNATIUS: I understand. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. I’m sorry- go ahead. We have a delay. IGNATIUS: You know, it seems to me that this rhetoric about pandering to radical Muslims really is inappropriate. I do think Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, have to be careful when they speak to the world about us, about- and by that, I mean our political debate . The Washington Post editor went on to echo his earlier praise of the President’s stance on Sunday’s This Week on ABC . As he lauded Obama, Brzezinski took the time to express her agreement with him: IGNATIUS: What I found striking about the President’s comments on Friday night was he knew that this was going to be unpopular. The polls showing two-thirds of Americans disagreed with the essence of what he was about to say were already out. If you look carefully at the Friday night statement, he said we have to be sensitive to the feelings of people in lower Manhattan. This is hallowed ground, but even so, this is America, and we have to live by America’s rules, and he stated- I thought, the rules that we live under here, in terms of freedom- you buy a piece of property, you have a right to put up a mosque or whatever you want on it. And I thought it was, in that sense, a courageous statement by the President – BRZEZINSKI: Mmhmm- me too – IGNATIUS: It was a kind of leadership, frankly, I’d like to see more from him. I’d like to see more of that, not less. I was a little troubled by all of the nuance back-in filling that followed the next day, but I think it’s okay for our president to say things that people disagree with. He just needs to continue the dialogue. He needs to explain to Americans, this is the kind of country we are . He’s got a lot of support; he’s got Mayor Bloomberg; he’s got- you know, many of the prominent legislators up there who are going to stand behind him- not Peter King, maybe, but an awful lot of other people. So I didn’t think it was- you know, Obama’s mistake, and I think the attacks on him really paint us in a bad light around the world- I have to say that. Later in the hour, Scarborough actually went on the offense against not only Gingrich and the opponents of the NYC mosque in general, but also President Obama himself for his recent “demagoguing” of the Social Security issue. His co-anchor, however, couldn’t help herself to continue her praise of the executive: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (from August 14, 2010 weekly address): Some Republicans leaders in Congress don’t seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They are pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall. That agenda is wrong for seniors, it’s wrong for America, and I won’t let it happen, not while I’m president. I’ll fight with everything I’ve got to stop those who would gamble what you got with Social Security on Wall Street, because you shouldn’t be worried that a sudden downturn in the stock market will put all you’ve worked so hard for- all you’ve earned- at risk. SCARBOROUGH: Oh, boy (laughs). BRZEZINSKI: I’m glad. SCARBOROUGH: Not exactly a weekend for political courage on either side . BRZEZINSKI: Oh, come on! SCARBOROUGH: You have the Republicans demagoguing the mosque issue and you’ve got Barack Obama demagoguing Social Security . It’s almost like- BRZEZINSKI: What!? He’s protecting us. It’s nice . SCARBOROUGH: Yeah- protect us, please, from those bad Republicans who want to destroy Social Security! You know, Mark Halperin and I have been having this conversation for some time. And I said, will Barack Obama really allow the Democrats to demagogue on Social Security, even though he says he wants to save it? And he said- well, he will until after the election, and then it will come to Republicans. Saturday, he sent me a press release and as I- whoops! Okay, I guess he is kind of jumping into the water himself- BRZEZINSKI: Well- SCARBOROUGH: This is the oldest, most cynical trick in the book – BRZEZINSKI: You are cynical. SCARBOROUGH: Especially when Social Security is dying. Social Security is running out of money, along with Medicare. Every economist that’s not a political hack will tell you the entitlements pose the greatest long-term economic risk to us, and Barack Obama decided to use his radio address this weekend to demagogue Social Security. It is shameless. It is shameless, every bit as shameless domestically- because this is the big issue- as Republicans demagoguing the mosque is in foreign affairs . BRZEZINSKI: So cynical! Over an hour later, near the end of the 8 am Eastern hour, as the two anchors discussed the mosque, among other issues, with Matt Lewis of Politics Daily and Republican political advisor Mark McKinnon, Scarborough used his “wedge issue” label to describe the controversy and referenced his earlier attack on both Obama and Gingrich: SCARBOROUGH [to Lewis]: Hey, Matt, this morning, we- I attacked Republicans for demagoguing the mosque issue- so I’ll get hate e-mails all day from right-wing nuts. And then, I attacked Democrats for attacking Social Security shamelessly, like they do, so I’ll get hate e-mails from left-wing nuts all day . When you posted a blog- as a conservative taking on both sides- what was the response? MATT LEWIS: Well- you know, the funny thing, Joe, is that both sides think that I was dead-on when I talked about the opponent- SCARBOROUGH: Of course- LEWIS: But that I was really wrong and overreached. There are a few blogs out about me today. I’ll just give you a couple headlines. One is called, ‘Civil discourse is overrated.’ One is called, Conservative blogger Matt Lewis ducks the fight.’ And one is called, ‘Matt Lewis proves he is a girl: g-u-r-l.’ [Scarborough laughs] So that will give you an idea. I think I’m starting to feel the Joe Scarborough love there. SCARBOROUGH Yeah. Well, here’s what I found that is so disappointing is that- it’s disappointing that all these symbolic issues- all these wedge issues take a backseat to the real issues- whether you’re going to stand up to balance the budget; whether you’re going to stand up to cut taxes; whether you’re going to stand up to show restraint in foreign policy- actual ideas don’t matter for a lot of these freaks. It is where you stand on these red-hot issues.

View original post here:
MSNBC: Obama ‘Did the Right Thing’ With ‘Uncontroversial’ Mosque Remark

Mika Rips Crist For Switch, Scarborough Sees Him As Role Model

Odd bit of role reversal on today’s Morning Joe . . .  There was Mika Brzezinski, ripping Charlie Crist as unprincipled for his mid-campaign ditching of the Republican party.  Joe Scarborough, the quondam GOP congressman from the Sunshine State, was in a much more forgiving mood, going so far as to predict that, following in Crist’s footsteps, many others would successfully go the independent route. Mika and Joe’s exchange was triggered by the news that Crist’s own Lieutenant Governor, Jeff Kottkamp, has endorsed Marco Rubio for Senate. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The party switch, I’m telling you, it has consequences. People may still fall for it, but — JOE SCARBOROUGH: Why are you so cynical? Just because Charlie Crist loves America, doesn’t mean you have to kick sand in his face. BRZEZINSKI: Charlie Crist is one of several politicians that we’ve seen in our careers who didn’t win in his party, and who thought: I still want to win, so now I’m going to switch parties even though I have no convictions, I’m just going to switch, I’m just going to change this coat. SCARBOROUGH: The Republican party left Charlie Crist: that’s what he’d tell you. BRZEZINSKI: Really? Why did he run with the Republican party half-way through the election process? SCARBOROUGH: They changed, right after the election. BRZEZINSKI: It was a dipsy-doodle. SCARBOROUGH: You know what?  I will guarantee you, more and more people are going to go independent, and they’re going to win elections, because of it. In much of his commentary, Scarborough was surely being facetious.  But the bottom line was that while Mika was condemning Crist for his unprincipled flip, Joe saw Charlie’s cynical move as a model for others. 

Continue reading here:
Mika Rips Crist For Switch, Scarborough Sees Him As Role Model

Morning Joe Libs Sweep Sherrod, Voter Intimidation Under Carpet: Let’s Not ‘Scratch A Sore’

It’s pretty hard—even for media liberals—to defend a guy in paramilitary duds swinging a billy club outside a polling site, or a government official bragging about having declined to do everything in her power to help someone because of the white color of his skin.  So on today’s Morning Joe, Margaret Carlson, Norah O’Donnell and Mike Barnicle were obliged to engage in a modicum of hand-wringing over the incidents.  But once having discharged that duty, the trio set about doing what libs do best: finding ways to minimize the matters and excuse the MSM’s failure to cover them. To be sure, Carlson did call the statement by the USDA official “hateful” and said one should be “ashamed.” And Norah O’Donnell and Mike Barnicle agreed with Joe Scarborough that the MSM can fairly be criticized for undercovering these stories. But then the three started their excuse-a-thon: Carlson: “I mean, there’s more [racism] on one side [whites] then the other,” though that didn’t change the fact that what Sherrod did was wrong. O’Donnell: On this [Sherrod] particular case, while this egregious in my mind, it is an isolated, we believe, incident.  There’s no suggestion that the USDA is doing this as a systematic problem.  So I worry that in a climate that there have now been, that there is an effort to pile up a lot of these racially-charged stories , that concern me about things, that we’re, you know, setting up these black versus white stories in this country, that these instances are, because, are trying to create some kind of narrative about where we are in this country.  And that makes me nervous.  Do you know what I’m trying to say?  Do you know what I’m trying to say?   Barnicle: Out there, in this big large universe beyond television, that people are more obsessed with other issues like their jobs and their incomes than they are with what someone said in March working for the Department of Agriculture. After agreeing that if the polling site intimidators would, if white, have been immediately arrested and that there would have been more media coverage, Barnicle continued . . . BARNICLE: At this point, the incessant coverage of it, with all of the questions, it’s like scratching a sore.  That’s all it’s doing. It’s pulling a scab. As Joe Scarborough observed: “But who’s covered it? Fox has covered it, but even the Washington Post said nobody else has covered it.” After Scarborough accused the MSM of ignoring the stories, Carlson had the last word. CARLSON: Maybe not ignored.  I mean, there’s so many stories that slip by and go through the cracks , you don’t know . . . They did prosecute the guy who was holding the billy club at an almost all-black precinct.  So, intimidating white voters at an all-black precinct?  would you go to another precinct where there might be more [abruptly ends at hard commercial break]. Let’s summarize the libs’ arguments:  The media shouldn’t make too much of all this. The Sherrod thing was an isolated case. Covering these stories is just going to stir up bad feelings.  And anyhow, the stories aren’t that important, compared to the economy.  And, hey, lots of stories slip through the media cracks: these just happened to be two of them. And you know, the voter intimidation was really pretty harmless.   All of which goes to prove a point that Scarborough made: with media liberals who think like this, were the racial tables turned, these stories would have been the subject of 28-part front page series.

See original here:
Morning Joe Libs Sweep Sherrod, Voter Intimidation Under Carpet: Let’s Not ‘Scratch A Sore’

AP Reports on Cuban Regime’s Latest Propaganda Exploitation of Elian Gonzalez

As is its custom from time to time, the Castro regime trotted out former refugee Elian Gonzalez for PR purposes yesterday. This time the cause of celebration was the 10th anniversary of the young man’s return to the Communist regime on June 28, 2000. Associated Press reporter Will Wiessert covered the story, which I found published at AOLNews.com with the headline, “A Decade Later, Elian Gonzalez Speaks Out.” Wiessert began by noting that “Elian Gonzalez says he’s not angry at his Miami relatives who fought to keep him in the United States” and that he was “thankful [that] ‘a large part of the American public’ supported him being reunited with his father in Cuba.” Later in his article, Wiessert insisted that “Cuba has worked to play down the public persona of both” Elian and his father since June 2000, but that “the latest anniversary of their triumphant return proved an exception.” The AP reporter was equally uncritical of the totalitarian regime in other parts of his report. For example, Wiessert noted that during Elian’s time in the U.S. that “[s]tate television crated a nightly ’round-table’ program that provided updates on the Gonzalez case and it endures today, though it now discuss all sorts of themes.” A roundtable public policy program hosted by the state media of a Communist regime? Yeah, I’ll bet that’s real fair and balanced. Wiessert also noted that Elian’s father Juan Miguel Gonzalez was “elected to parliament” following the custody struggle in 2000, but he failed to note that the Cuban parliament is window dressing for the Castro regime, and allows no opposition parties. Wiessert’s piece quoted a Castro regime official as well as a useful idiot who heralded the “love and justice” of the Castro regime: The latest event was organized by Cuba’s Council of Churches, which includes all major Cuban religions except the Roman Catholic Church, and was held at the Episcopal Santisima Trinidad Cathedral in Havana. The council staged a celebration in the same church days after Gonzalez’s return in 2000. “It was a triumph, not only of love and justice, but of logic over indecency of spirit, truth against evil,” Rev. Marcial Miguel Hernandez, president of the Council of Churches, told those assembled Wednesday night. A bit later, parliament head Ricardo Alarcon said that “for many in the United States, Elian’s case was the discovery of the reality that the imperial propaganda, the industry of deception, tried jealously to hide.” Yet no critics of the Castro regime were quoted in the story, even though Wiessert found space to quote propaganda from an official Castro regime newspaper: “The boy of yesterday is now a Cuban like any other,” said the Communist Youth newspaper Juventud Rebelde, adding that “a decade after being used as a toy by the enemies of the revolution … he is preparing to be a future officer of the Revolutionary Armed Forces.”

See the original post here:
AP Reports on Cuban Regime’s Latest Propaganda Exploitation of Elian Gonzalez