Tag Archives: scarborough

Dems Will Love Morning Joe’s Odd Manifesto Against ‘Angry Voices’

Not sayin’ Rahm wrote it, but . . . In a strange departure from Morning Joe’s typical spontaneity, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski issued what was clearly a scripted, teleprompted, manifesto this morning.  The statement purported to be non-partisan condemnation of “angry voices” and a call, citing a WWII poster, to “keep calm and carry on.”  But even a cursory analysis reveals that the manifesto’s message suits Dem themes to a ‘T’ , and carries clear echoes of a recent partisan speech by Pres. Obama at a political event. The manifesto amounted to a condemnation of the “angry voices” and the “political extremists” who, claimed Scarborough, “are dominating the airwaves and dominating the national debate.” But at this juncture in American political history, the anger is understandably more present on the right. The Dems, after all, control both houses of Congress and the White House, and have used their power to promote a big-government agenda on everything from health care to trillion dollar spending schemes to higher taxes.  You’re darn right we’re angry!  In instructing us to calm down, Joe and Mika are really seeking to sap the vitality from the political movement that threatens to sweep Dems from office. Scarborough approvingly cited recent comments by NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg that “anger is not a government strategy . . . It’s not a way to govern.”  But Bloomberg was in turn echoing comments by PBO at a recent political fundraiser . . . CNN reported PBO’s words in an article entitled “Obama: GOP relying on fear, frustration instead of offering new ideas,” and quoted him as saying: “In a political campaign, the easiest thing the other side can do is ride that anger all the way to Election Day . . . people are hurting and they are understandably frustrated. A lot of them are scared and a lot of them are angry . That dynamic makes it easier to run on a slogan of “cast the bums out . . . but it’s not a vision for the future .” Let’s recapitulate: Obama says anger bad, not a vision for the future.  Scarborough says anger bad, not a way to govern. I’m sure the folks at the White House and the DNC will be delighted by Morning Joe’s manifesto.  They couldn’t have said it better themselves.

View post:
Dems Will Love Morning Joe’s Odd Manifesto Against ‘Angry Voices’

Joe Joins The Food Police

If Ron Paul were dead, he’d be turning over in his grave . . . Joe Scarborough casts himself as a conservative with a libertarian bent.  Earlier this year, he listed Ron Paul as one of the people he admires, because of Texan’s devotion to “championing less government.”  But at least when it comes to counting calories, Joe has volunteered for the ranks of Mika’s Nanny State Food Police. On today’s Morning Joe, Scarborough declared that he favors forcing all restaurants to put calorie counts on their menus. Joe was responding to Mika’s report that, under the umbrella of ObamaCare, many restaurants will be required to disclose calories. Joe was responding to Mika’s report that, under the umbrella of ObamaCare, many restaurants will be required to diclose calories. Watch as Joe admits that, at least when it comes to food, his supposed libertarian streak was a sham. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The days of American consumers being in the dark about how many calories they’re consuming may be coming to an end.  In accordance with the recently enacted health-care overhaul, the federal government is requiring movie theaters, airplanes, trains, even grocery-store food courts to post calorie counts. JOE SCARBOROUGH: OK, you know what? I’ve got to drop this act that I do.   Because I know I’m fat, and Mika tells me I’m fat, this act about how I think you’re a bore, and I’ve got to tell.  We went up to Friendly’s, and I’m just going to out them, and I guess I should salute them.  We were in Connecticut, and somebody said, hey, let’s go to Friendly’s, and I said OK, never been.  They put the calories on the menu.  And I would have, without looking, consumed about 2,500 to 3,000 calories.  After looking at the counts on those things, I was just grossed out.  I had soup. This is critical.  It really is. I hate to sound like you.  This is a critical, critical step.  I think all restaurants should be required to put calorie counts next to it. Again, not sounding like you. But I’ve played that act long enough. A true libertarian would observe that information is a commodity. If there’s a demand for calorie counts, if people are more willing to patronize restaurants that provide that information, then restaurants will rush to offer it.  It’s the same principle that accounts for tofu burgers on the Upper West Side and BBQ joints in Texas. We don’t need government to force calorie counts down our throats, excuse the pun. Meanwhile, later in the show Joe sympathized with Bob Herbert’s notion, expressed in his New York Times column of today, that it is wrong to ship “other people’s children” off to fight our wars.  So how about it Joe?  Will you encourage your kids to do the dirty and dangerous work of the Food Police?   “Put down your spatula, and step slowly away from the menu.  Do it now!”

Visit link:
Joe Joins The Food Police

Joe Scarborough and Grover Norquist Discuss Ground Zero….and 1650s New Amsterdam?

On Monday’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough returned to attacking the “anti-Muslim bigotry” inspiring protests against a Ground Zero mosque, asking Grover Norquist to denounce religious bigotry. Norquist obliged in a major way, comparing today’s Ground Zero activists to Calvinist leader Peter Stuyvesant trying to forbid synagogues in the New Amsterdam colony in the 1650s. Norquist explicitly suggested a Mormon like Beck should realize that he’s only been pushing the bigotry that was used against his own religious brethren. Scarborough also bizarrely found scandal in Beck questioning Obama’s Christianity, insisting “I don’t really know what his version of Christianity is. But I don’t think it’s any of our business to judge other people’s religious faith. What? But Joe Scarborough definitely questioned the Christianity of ObamaCare opponents on July 21, 2009 as he pressed conservative Sens. Tom Coburn and John Barrasso: SCARBOROUGH: In the ‘90s, everybody was wearing these “What Would Jesus Do” wrist bands. I wonder, what would Jesus think about walking in to any emergency room in any urban center at 11:00 or 12:00 at night and seeing all of these moms bringing their children from poor families who don’t have health care having to use emergency rooms as their primary care. Is that a moral system? Is there a better way to do it? How do we do it? We can’t just say no, can we? On Monday morning, Scarborough begged Norquist to dispose of the notion that Beck was holding a religious rally:   SCARBOROUGH: I think those people were there more out of fear, fear of where Washington’s heading than the people that were up on the stage. But Glenn Beck has said this was a religious rally. It wasn’t a political rally. That’s not really true, is it? NORQUIST:  I tend to think most of the people were coming there because they were speaking to the concern and fear that people have about all the massive spending and debt that’s been coming down the pike. And he was making religious comments. I guess it’s helpful after the Romney campaign where there was so much anti-Mormon bigotry sort of under the surface that Beck, who’s a Mormon, could comfortably participate in a movement like that and perhaps we’re beginning to put anti-Mormon bigotry behind us. SCARBOROUGH: But, but now we have anti-Muslim bigotry and you actually — NORQUIST: They are sticking with the M’s. SCARBOROUGH: You actually have Glenn Beck questioning Barack Obama’s version of Christianity. Now I really don’t know what his version of Christianity is. But I don’t think it is any of our business  to judge other people’s religious faith. I said it last week about Muslims and the week before about Muslims. I say it now about Glenn Beck, the day after this rally, questioning somebody’s version of Christianity. Isn’t there something a bit ominous about that and sort of throwing the Muslim shadow on Barack Obama? Because he thinks — I don’t think — he thinks that’s a bad thing. NORQUIST: it’s an interesting question, because when the mosque in New York came up, the Forward newspaper, the Jewish newspaper in New York pointed out that in history, in Manhattan under the Dutch and the British, synagogues were illegal. So the sort of — People have been through this. When the anti-Mormon feeling was very strong in the United States, when UItah wanted to send a senator, a Mormon leader senator to congress — to the Senate, it took four years of hearings before he was seated. And in New York, Mormon missionaries were banned by the mayor. So when people look at modern political uses of religious bigotry, we’ve been there before with the Mormons. We’ve been there before with the Jews. And you sort of hope that people whose own religious heritages have been hit by that would recognize what is happening and speak out, as many are doing. The article Norquist seems to be citing, by Brandeis professor Jonathan Sarna, isn’t quite as black and white as Norquist suggested. Stuyvesant, Sarna wrote, wanted Jews barred from the colony, but “Stuyvesant’s superiors in Holland overruled him, citing economic and political considerations.” In any case, comparing peaceful Jewish immigrants in the 1650s to Ground Zero after 3,000 Americans died is a flawed analogy. From there, Mika Brzezinski pressed Norquist to declare that something more “substantive and productive” than anti-socialist fears was driving this protest: MIKA BRZEZINSKI: But real quickly, what is the next step? Are you with a president who feels this is perhaps someone, a couple of people capitalizing on fears during tough economic times where there are many fears? Was it being driven by that, or something more substantive and productive? Was there a second sentence or — SCARBOROUGH: What is the follow-up? Yeah. NORQUIST: The follow-up, this is one of many rallies. I’m not a fan of national rallies. I would rather have had 300,000 people in 300 congressional districts with thousand-person rallies because that’s how you changes things and make real progress. About ten minutes into the 6 A.M, Brzezinski noted that according to Gallup, Obama’s highest approval rating is among Muslims (78 percent, compared to 60 percent of Jews, 50 percent of Catholics, 43 percent among Protestants, and just 24 percent among Mormons). She insisted she liked Obama talking about his faith to defend himself and accused conservatives of “promulgating evil” by suggesting Obama’s a Muslim:  I would say some even want it to be worse. It’s wrong, and incorrect and basically promulgating, I think, evil when you’re lying that way about someone’s heritage and then leaving — and about their faith and leaving kind of a dark nasty cloud over it and that is exactly what is happening. It is nothing less. And it should be condemned.   

The rest is here:
Joe Scarborough and Grover Norquist Discuss Ground Zero….and 1650s New Amsterdam?

Beck ‘On Crack, Taking Stupid Pills’ Say Mika, Joe

When Joe Scarborough wondered out loud “how many times can you set your hair on fire?” before viewers stop being shocked, you might have thought he was talking about Keith Olbermann, the man whose scenery-chewing soliloquies inspired an instant-classic Saturday Night Live skit . But no, Joe was speaking of Glenn Beck.  Perhaps the shot Scarborough took at Ed Schultz a couple weeks ago exhausted his monthly quota of internecine MSNBC insults. On today’s Morning Joe, Joe and Mika Brzezinski took turns ripping Beck’s promotion of the rally at the Lincoln Memorial he’s staging Saturday on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  Riffing off a Colbert Show segment showing clips of Beck, Mika claimed he sounded like a drama student “on crack.”  Scarborough, suggesting Mika might have gone too far, surmised Beck might merely have taken “stupid pills.” JOE SCARBOROUGH: Hey, I don’t get it. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I don’t either. SCARBOROUGH:  How many times can you set your hair on fire before you stop having your viewers being shocked? BRZEZINSKI: It’s like the boy who cried wolf in drama form, on crack. SCARBOROUGH: On crack?  That’s awfully harsh. I don’t know if I’d go that far. BRZEZINSKI: It’s just silly: how many times can you set your hair on fire? SCARBOROUGH: On crack? Maybe he’s taking stupid pills.   I don’t think it’s crack. BRZEZINSKI: That’s better: you’re so smart.

See original here:
Beck ‘On Crack, Taking Stupid Pills’ Say Mika, Joe

Joe Scarborough Bashes Newt Gingrich’s Position on Ground Zero Mosque

Joe Scarborough on Monday bashed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for saying the building of the Ground Zero mosque would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum. Scarborough was responding to the following from Sunday’s New York Times: Mr. Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” The next day on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Scarborough let Gingrich have it: JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: When I was in Congress in 1994, when I got elected in ’94, I was considered to be one of the more conservative guys up there. I was a right-wing nut job and crazy this and crazy that. So far right and yet despite the fact 14 years later, 16 years later, I still have the same views on taxes. I still have the same views on small government. I still have the same views on military. I still have the same views everywhere. I am feeling further and further distant from the people who are running my party and never more distant than this morning when I wake up to read what Newt Gingrich, a guy who’s leading in a lot of presidential preference polls across the country said this to say, had this to say about the First Amendment. “There’s nothing surprising in the President’s continued pandering to radical Islam. What he said last night is untrue and accurate.” And then he went on to say “this would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” Mark, I don’t know where to begin. To suggest that someone trying to build a, a tolerance center for moderate Muslims in New York is the equivalent of killing six million Jews is stunning to me. To begin with, where does Scarborough get off claiming this is a “tolerance center for moderate Muslims?” The Imam behind the mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is anything but moderate .   Beyond this, the Times piece included edited snippets from remarks made by Gingrich without letting readers know where and when the comments were made. What came before and after this excerpted sentence that Scarborough found so offensive? In a post-Shirley Sherrod world, shouldn’t commentators be careful about expressing an opinion about excerpted comments? Isn’t this especially true for a so-called conservative reading excerpts printed in the New York Times? For instance, Gingrich said the following on “Fox & Friends” this Monday morning providing a little more context to these twelve words: GINGRICH: This happens all the time in America. Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.  Much less offensive in that context, correct? After all, Gingrich’s point Monday – and what the majority of Americans are expressing in polls about this subject – is that Ground Zero represents hallowed ground where thousands of our citizens were killed by radical Islamists. As such, allowing a radical Islamic Imam to build a mosque near Ground Zero in Gingrich’s view would be akin to us allowing the Japanese to put up a site near Pearl Harbor or Nazis putting up a sign near the Holocaust Museum. In that context, what Gingrich said is by no means as offensive as what Scarborough claimed, and he should know better than to assume the twelve words cited by the Times stood by themselves without anything before or after that could result in them being far less caustic.  When so-called conservatives begin bashing members of their own Party because of something written in the New York Times, their judgment is going to be questioned – and with good reason.  

Follow this link:
Joe Scarborough Bashes Newt Gingrich’s Position on Ground Zero Mosque

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

Scarborough Calls on Petraeus and Gates to Fire McChrystal to ‘Keep the President’s Hands Clean’

During Tuesday’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough called for the firing of General Stanley McChrystal. He boldly exclaimed that this discharge should not come from the Commander-in-Chief because “Democrats have to treat generals differently from Republicans.” He goes even further and states, “Were this a Republican, were it George W. Bush, McChrystal would have been fired yesterday,” and “the press would have understood it.” Of course, because during the last administration, the media was noted for giving former President George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt, especially with military decisions. Interestingly enough, a flashback to January 31, 2006, tells a different tale. During MSNBC’s three-hour post State of the Union coverage, Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, denounced President Bush’s message about Iraq. Matthews thought that President Bush “cashiered” General Shinseki’s remarks about wanting more troops and believed the “idea that these guys are free to think out loud, I thought, has been yet to be proven.” Scarborough echoed Matthews and cited that, “For the most part, the Generals and the Admirals, 99 percent of them parrot what the Pentagon and what the President wants.” [Full article available here ] However, it is now 2010, and it is no longer cool to have the courage to stand up or to think out loud against this administration. There is a new president, so Scarborough insisted, because he is a Democrat, “Gates and Petraeus both have to come out, they need to fire McChrystal, and keep the president’s hands clean.” Since, Scarborough served on the Armed Services Committee he should be aware that the President is the top link in the chain of command and therefore is the ultimate authority, but he wants to make it easier for this Democrat to not do his duty as Commander-in-Chief. Apparently, Scarborough’s conservative viewpoint is synonymous with other MSNBC hosts who parrots White House talking points.

Breaking-News » Blog Archive » where is joe scarborough this week …

where is joe scarborough this week after surgery ? This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 29th, 2009 at 8:38 am and is filed under Health. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Continued here:
Breaking-News » Blog Archive » where is joe scarborough this week …

BAWAAL! | Joe Scarborough – Surgery

Joe Scarborough – Surgery . By Darshi ⋅ September 29, 2009 ⋅ Email This Post ⋅ Print This Post ⋅ Post a comment. Surgery

Go here to see the original:
BAWAAL! | Joe Scarborough – Surgery

Иномарка » Blog Archive » joe scarborough surgery, bill winters …

joe scarborough surgery · bill winters · acne pillowcase · bill winters jp morgan · william h macy · ted harper · cristina warthen · vortex portable mixer · howcast · conan o brien injured video · z100 · how · zapatero daughters photo …

Read this article:
Иномарка » Blog Archive » joe scarborough surgery, bill winters …