Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Max Blumenthal: Joe Scarborough, the "Real Conservative," Has Been Blinded by the Right

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:07 AM
Original message
Max Blumenthal: Joe Scarborough, the "Real Conservative," Has Been Blinded by the Right
Max Blumenthal: Joe Scarborough, the "Real Conservative," Has Been Blinded by the Right

Before I first appeared on Morning Joe on September 22, I was warned about Joe Scarborough's tendency to filibuster guests he does not agree with, and to do so in a belligerent manner. But to my surprise, the former Republican congressman proved a remarkably genial host, presiding over a civil but spirited discussion of my book, Republican Gomorrah and extremism in the GOP.

Perhaps Joe's civility was rooted in cluelessness; when I was announced on the set as "the YouTube Michael Moore," Scarborough excitedly asked a producer if I was "the ACORN guy," referring to James O'Keefe, the young right-wing activist whose hidden cameras prompted a congressional investigation into the Obama-linked community- organizing group. Nevertheless, by the end of my segment, Joe promised to bring me back on. "I want to debate you more on this," Scarborough insisted.

I returned on October 7, just days after Scarborough instigated a food fight with Rush Limbaugh, by criticizing his higher-rated competitor for celebrating Obama's failure to secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. Scarborough opened the segment by launching a scattershot of breathless accusations at me, including that I was being "intolerant" of evangelical Christians "concerned by the radicalism of the 1960s."

When I attempted to respond that figures like Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), who had labeled President Barack Obama "an enemy of humanity," were the truly intolerant ones, and that the right-wing opposition sought nothing less than the delegitimization of the president, Scarborough rattled off a flurry of examples -- each one without context -- of supposed Democratic extremism. Joe pointed twice to Rep. Jerry Nadler, who had called the disruptions of town hall-style health care forums by the far-right Tea Party movement "a fascist tactic."

"My point to you was that we can both pick out extreme rhetoric on both sides who are reckless and irresponsible on both sides" Scarborough declared. "We've gotta step back and try to figure out how to heal this country."

But were "both sides" equally culpable for the conflict currently polarizing the country? This narrative had been popular among many pundits during Obama's campaign for president and might have survived after his inauguration had Obama not gone to excessive lengths to generate bipartisan Republican sponsorship for health care reform while tens of thousands of right-wingers marched on the National Mall with signs comparing him to Hitler and Stalin; or if Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), of the ranking Republican negotiating health care on the Finance Committee, had not warned that Obama might "pull the plug on grandma" if his health care plan passed, and urged his constituents to read Glenn Beck.

If I agreed with Scarborough's storyline celebrating an end to the culture war the right has intensified against Obama, then, as Rodney King might have said, we could have all just got along. Instead, when I refused to accept his version and debated it, the host grew exasperated and angry, shouting again, "You're being intolerant!"

Scarborough's reflexive response to the question of the right's responsibility for the trashing of Obama was to dilute and confuse the issue by blaming "the 1960s," the original focus of the right's culture war for decades. With the dog-whistle of "the 1960's," Joe instantly transformed into a 1994 re-enactor, recalling the crusade when he and a group of young conservatives backed Newt Gingrich's Contract for America, attempted to cut off AIDS research funding, seized the Congress, twice shut down the federal government, and impeached Bill Clinton in the name of the culture war. In touting his record as an authentic "small government conservative," Scarborough claimed credit for the federal budget surplus, prompting me to remind him that the surplus was created through Clinton's economic stewardship. The mere mention of Clinton seemed to incite Scarborough's rage even further.

As the interview turned into a heated debate because I insisted on answering his accusations, Scarborough muttered to a producer, "I'm done!" After remaining silent throughout the confrontation with a Stepford-like stare, Joe's co-host, Mika Brzezinski, terminated the segment. "We don't do Crossfire here," Scarborough muttered to me after the cameras went off. He was visibly upset and unable to make eye contact with me.

As I was hurried off the tense set, I wonder why, when challenged, did Scarborough retreat into an attempt to validate his own career in Congress? Perhaps he believes the hype of a few pundits who claim he could contend for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination by campaigning, in the words of Andy Ostrow, as "the guy to bring a different GOP tone to the next election." Or perhaps he is trying to balance constituencies, appealing to his old conservative base while trying to project as a healer blaming all sides for the vicious attacks on Obama.

But as Scarborough observes national politics from a hermetically-sealed studio inside 30 Rock, long removed from his old congressional district in Florida, the Republican Party had sailed past the farthest shores of the right. And as Joe conjures stereotypical scenes of "Real Americans" alienated by "the 1960s," grassroots conservative activists have waging a '60s-style guerrilla campaign astro-turfed by right-wing groups determined disrupt the public debate, demonize Obama and overthrow him.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/joe-scarborough-the-real_b_323268.html


What I find most interesting is how quickly this column, which was posted less than 24 hours ago, was buried over at the Huffington Post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. Max looked like a wimpy kid on that show. I rofl @ his ass. Max is not ready
for the big leagues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. How old is he?
Scarborough is so volatile--he's all over the map mood wise. At one point he's a sulking child, at another he's a mouth foaming wingnut, then he turns around and wonders why we can't all act civilly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErinBerin84 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Race for the White House was a sucky show
But I loved when Scarborough was on and Rachel Maddow would piss him off...anyone remember the time he stormed off set after she pawned him? Classic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErinBerin84 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
3. I think that Scarborough has anger management issues
He hasn't been AS bad the past year (maybe medication?), but every now and then he reverts to bully mode and gets that crazy ass look in his eye like he is going to snap someone's neck like a twig. Remember when he went off on Shuster and the rest of the panel just stood around gaping?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. as his former intern can attest,
no wait. she can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. Joe cant carry on a decent conversation. At least I have never seen it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
8. I am also frustrated by the false claims that "both sides" are engaging in incivility.
So many of the old conservatives want to cover up the dangerous pushing of the already right wing GOP (Greedy Obstructionist Plutocrats) to the far right, and having professional astroturfers whip them into an anti-Democratic-government frenzy from which racism regularly bubbles up to the surface, by pretending that hey, there's equal anger on both sides. "The left makes lots of unreasonable demands too"-- they say, even though we left-of-current-center Democrats are just asking for health care in the USA to be treated as a basic human right, rather than a Pay-to-Play privilege. And that our country, having had the highest per-capita carbon emissions for decades, begin to curb those emissions more urgently in light of the empirical evidence of the damaging effects of accelerated atmospheric deterioration and global warming.

The ultra-right ideologues have purchased and continue to run a 24/7 anti-Democratic-government TV station. That station makes the other broadcast conglomerates owned by conservatives appear to be moderate by comparison. But the stances those networks take, like promoting the false war on Iraq, going along with the "few bad apples" concept of Abu Ghraib, pretending there is controversy about whether global warming is an international emergency, pushing the idea that we'd prefer a Beer Guy over a war hero for our president and exit polls just failed in 2004, etc. etc.-- those dominant perspectives are all very conservative, not "moderate" or somehow "balanced."

The hard right has managed to push our national dialogue way off to the right on our broadcast media. They keep a few token liberal shows on the air to point to as proof that they are not doing what I am accusing them of. How can news networks that have 20 conservative-leaning news-chat shows possibly be conservative, there are 4 liberal shows on the air too! And sometimes guys like John King and Wolf Blitzer even acknowledge Republican failures-- so gosh, look at that! They admitted that GWB couldn't find the WMD. They covered the story about the torture memos. So they're good to go on having Cheney come pontificate without challenging him about his war crimes. They covered those crimes in other stories years ago. They covered John McCain's advocacy of turning away from Afghanistan and into the false war on Iraq years ago, so why should they have to ask him about that when interviewing him these days about his advice for the US war in Afghanistan? Can't say they didn't cover it before.

Astroturf 9-12 demonstrations of 75,000 get wall to wall coverage of their "genuine grass roots" sentiment. Demonstrations of 75,000 for civil rights for LGBT Americans get small mentions, if any.

The GOP losers whose party spent billions and still couldn't bring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to justice are interviewed on air for their military advice without being asked the obvious question-- Your president, GWB, vowed to get Bin Laden Dead or Alive, and didn't achieve that after 7 years and billions of dollars of war profiteering-- why should we take your advice now?

It is only when more liberal ideas start cutting through the right wing dominance of our national dialogue that we begin to hear the -- "Hey, there's over-heated rhetoric on both sides!" arguments. They let desperate people be spun into hateful frenzies all summer, carrying guns and racist signs to their "genuine grass roots" (sponsored by Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks) rallies and covered them as "many people are opposed to reform." Then poll after poll revealed majorities in favor of the choice of a public option and now "there's too much extreme talk on both sides," eh?

I hope we don't fall for the hard right attempt to suppress widespread public pro-reform sentiment with the tired old "both sides are too extreme" claptrap.

The hard right will be waving "The 60's" around again when the debate moves along to reducing US carbon emissions. They'll say the concepts are "too hearts & flowers" in these times of economic upheaval. We need to pollute as usual to restore our economy, they'll contend. They'll probably try to characterize President Obama as "another Jimmy Carter"-- too negative about the great USA, even though he is trying to move us toward an exciting new economic arena-- energy independence and US ingenuity in devising new green technologies, and finding ways to enjoy ourselves without unsustainable patterns of consumption and energy use.

I hope progressives continue to speak up for the positive visions of a "We" society instead of the Pay-to-Play privatized "Me" society the corporations have been promoting through their successful, decades long campaign to push our country to the right. We could be having a much better time creating positive paths to a more cooperative future. Many other countries know that and expressed that understanding by awarding our president the Nobel prize. They know we will need diplomatic and economic cooperation around the globe to achieve our goals of reversing the deterioration of Earth's atmosphere, creating more equitable multi-lateral systems of international trade that don't leave half the world starving, elimination of nuclear weapons, etc., and are very glad President Obama is moving in that direction, in spite of the intense, well-funded right wing opposition in our country.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC