The choice we face
Joe Scarborough has become my favorite morning show host, largely because I think his program Morning Joe is a good mix of his political experience, good humor, and a casual atmosphere. Scarborough is also incredibly frank, and is often honest to a fault about the political situation as he sees it.
In this clip from prior to the Michigan Primary, Scarborough rightly criticizes John McCain, who went after Mitt Romney for not supporting the President's tax cut plan soon enough when McCain himself failed to support a tax cut at all. Scarborough is right about McCain, who is now attempting to repackage himself as the Goldwater conservative that he was when he first came to the Senate. The Romney campaign is both correct and strategic in pointing out the anti-conservative positions McCain has held on issues like immigration, tax relief, and judges.
The problem is that John McCain is exactly right about Mitt Romney's record: It is flip-flop city.
If you are as pro-life as I am, this is hard to stomach. Mitt Romney says he is one of us, but his previous record has shown something different than what he is telling anti-McCain conservatives now. Could he have changed? Yes, it is possible-and I have always said that if he is the Republican nominee he will have my full support. I do think Mitt Romney is a conservative, but when he was Governor of Massachusetts, he was afraid to stand up for what he knew to be right.
If one accepts the premise that these are the only two to choose from, the choice is between pseudo-liberal political appeaser and a Massachusetts/Michigan dynasty man with no fortitude.
Labels: News Media, Presidential Election
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 7:23 AM
10 Comments:
Scarborough? Goodness, I think I'm about to lose my breakfast.
There's a reason that he got such a prominent show on the same network that employs Keith Olbermann, Dan Abrams, and several other less-than-objective yokels. And the reason is NOT because he's a good journalist or a nice guy.
Getting promoted by MSNBC is like getting endorsed by the New York Times.
Scarborough's brand of "conservatism" makes McCain look like Reagan in comparison -- and he's one of the worthless Congressmen who helped the Party get into the situation that it's in now. I suppose the ONLY positive thing about him is that he's not in Congress anymore.
And I suppose you've conveniently forgotten about the idiotic, misogynistic, and downright rude things that he had to say about Jeri Thompson. And I suppose you've forgotten how much fun he had yukking it up with Mike Huckabee on occasions such as when Pastor Mike said that Fred needed to take his Metamucil.
Yep, that Scarborough show just has loads of good humor on it. Come to think of it, I'm laughing myself silly just thinking about it.
As with everything else recently, this revelation just begs the question...
Why am I NOT surprised?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Good grief...what a bitter, bitter man. *shakes head sadly*
That's why Huckabee is a not so distant third nationally and I think in Tennessee and most of the South will finish quite more than a hair better than Romney.
Matt,
It appears (though I didn't know it prior to your talking points cut and paste) that Scarborough offended Thompson supporters, but Scarborough left Congress after the 2000 election.
As far as his time in Congress, exactly how is he responsible for the GOP's current state?
Ned,
How typical. Oh yeah, that was certain a "talking points cut and paste" from me. Boy, you've got me pegged perfectly.
Look, if you don't take some moral issue with someone who feels the need to insinuate that a candidate's wife is a pole-straddling stripper whore/trophy wife...just because she happens to be relatively young and good looking...well, that's your choice.
But it also says quite a bit about you.
It wouldn't matter if it had been said about Mrs. Huckabee, Mrs. Obama, or any other woman involved in this year's race -- the comments were still wrong.
As was, I might add, the inappropriate Metamucil joke that the Huckster and Scarborough laughed at several weeks back.
As for Scarborough himself, I didn't say he was entirely responsible, so you can stop twisting words. His election to Congress and his voting record once there, coupled with that of other RiNOs and neo-cons, is the problem. He's not the entire problem, but he's certainly a symptom of it.
Matt,
If he made comments like your saying, then he surely is out of line . . . but it is hard to argue that you are indifferent to whose ox is being gored.
No twisting words intended . . . your comment just seemed far-fetched based on what I knew of Scarborough when he was in Congress and my initial impression was supported by what I read on his wikipedia entry. I perceived that you were flailing at Scarborough and tried the "he was a former member of Congress who now says squishy things about Fred Thompson" angle of attack. I'm guessing you don't believe Thompson was a part of the current sad ideological state of the GOP?
I guess I'm just a bit wary of the daley slash n' burn technique. Who are y'all backing in the primary?
Ned,
Save for McCain/Feingold, no, Fred really wasn't part of the problems that have developed in the Republican Party.
Do you think that, if he were, I would have supported him so strongly?
I mean, geez...use some common sense here. What good would it do me to so strongly stand for something and then back a candidate who doesn't meet my own standards?
I'm not willing to sell out conservatism, for any reason.
As for who I am now supporting, the answer is "nobody". At least, not on the Republican side. Based on my feelings regarding conservatism, I cannot in good conscience actively support any of the remainng Republicans. McCain and Huckabee are moderate liberals, and Romney is no better than a used car salesman.
In the Ohio primary on March 4, my vote will go to Fred Thompson if he remains on the ballot. If not, my vote will go to the Republican that I feel will most likely lose in November.
At this juncture, the conservative movement is better off if Republicans lose this election, much as it was in 1976. Some may ask -- what about the country as a whole? And to that, I'd simply answer that we're all gonna get screwed in one way or another by everyone who's left, on both sides.
And if we're all gonna be screwed, let the Democrats do it.
Settling for the lesser of two evils in 2000 and 2004 did incredible harm to the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I refuse to participate in another such exercise.
Frankly Matt, I'm not confident that you know exactly what you're "standing so strongly" for.
E.g., Scarborough didn't even vote for McCain/Feingold.
But not knowing what you think are the problems with the current GOP I can only speculate . . . did Thompson oppose any of the Bush spending programs? How about the Bush prescription drug act?
What is it about the GOP that you concerns you?
David, et. al,
I don't think the point of the article had anything to do with MSNBC anchors or anything else but his:"If one accepts the premise that these are the only two to choose from, the choice is between pseudo-liberal political appeaser and a Massachusetts/Michigan dynasty man with no fortitude.
And yes that is point and that's all you got. :-)
SteveMule
Post a Comment
<< Home