Mediaite » joe scarborough

Joe Scarborough Calls Out Sam Stein: ‘Don’t Suggest You’re The Only One Who Gives A Damn About Women’s Health’

Alex Alvarez — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:37:52 +0000

The Morning Joe team continued its ongoing discussion on the White House’s controversial — and, now, changing — birth control mandate, with host Joe Scarborough urging people not to turn an issue about government interference in religion into a discussion on contraception. This debate, he told his colleagues, is farther-ranging than a specific health care issue.

Former RNC chairman Michael Steele agreed, adding that the White House made “a political calculation” in creating a discussion that is “more about the health of women and more about those broader subjects as opposed to the very difficult angle on the relationship between the government and church.” Steele framed the words “health of women” as a sort of parenthetical, which fellow panelist Sam Stein did not appreciate.

“Let’s not put the health of women in boxes or quotes like that,” said Stein. “That’s not an insignificant consideration.”

Scarbrough was not having it.

“Don’t suggest you’re the only one who gives a damn about the health of women around this table,” he told Stein.

Check it out, via MSNBC:

Soledad O’Brien Pushes Back On ‘Religious Liberty’ But Lets Abortion Pill Lie Slip Through

Tommy Christopher — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:44:05 +0000

On Tuesday morning’s Starting Point, host Soledad O’Brien led yet another discussion of the Obama administration’s decision to give non-church religious employers one year to comply with the Preventive Services Mandate, which some claim is an “attack on religious liberty.”

O’Brien did a good job of challenging that false premise, but allowed guest Rep. Marcia Blackburn (R-TN) to slip in the lie that the mandate covers the “abortion pill.”

Ms. O’Brien repeatedly pressed Rep. Blackburn to explain how the administration’s decision had anything to do with religious liberty. In responding, Rep. Blackburn inserted a popular lie about the mandate, one which the media has been slow to correct.

“It is about forcing employers to provide things that go against their religious beliefs,” Rep. Blackburn said. “And when you have individuals that go to church on Sunday and put money in the offering plate, they need to be assured that that money is not going to go and pay for contraception items, for abortion pills. And this mandate covers all FDA-approved medications.”

The “abortion pill,” RU-486, is not covered by the mandate, of course, but Rep. Blackburn was likely trying to conflate emergency contraception with the abortion pill. They are not the same thing, so while some religions may promote that idea as an article of faith, it is a medical fact that they are not the same. Emergency contraception prevents pregnancy from occurring, and is for use long before a pregnancy is even possible.

O’Brien’s other guest, the ACLU’s Louise Melling, explained why the mandate does not infringe on religious liberty. “This respects religious liberty,” Melling said. “Churches don’t have to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their package. What this rule says is institutions like hospitals and charities and schools that open their doors to the public, serve primarily the public, don’t have a primary purpose of religion, have to offer the same insurance everybody else does. 98% of American women use contraception, including Catholics. This say it is you serve the public, you play by public rules.”

The “religious liberty” argument has even gained traction among Democrats, partially because the Obama administration, and even people like Ms. Melling, have failed to make the simple, essential argument that this decision is about equal protection under the law for women. The Preventive Services Mandate itself is about achieving parity for women’s preventive health services with everyone else’s, and the decision about the “conscience exemption” is about extending that protection to women who work in institutions that serve the general public, religious or not.

While I disagree strongly with most of what he says about this, Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough deserves a bit of credit for pointing out, this morning, that the Preventive Services Mandate doesn’t cover abortion services of any kind, and I’d even tend to agree that the administration did a poor job of rolling this out. By letting it just sort of pop out and lie there, shivering, the administration has allowed the measure’s critics to control the discussion, so that even when they do a good job of defending the decision, the best they can do is convince people they’re not infringing on religious liberty. There’s a bumper sticker.

They should have announced this decision with a strong statement about equal protection, and about protecting women from having their employer’s religious beliefs imposed on them. Instead of answering questions like “Why should Catholic hospitals provide contraceptive coverage?” the media could, and should, be asking “Why should a woman be denied the same rights as others, just because she works at a Catholic hospital?”

Here’s the clip, from CNN’s Starting Point:

Joe Scarborough Calls Both Mitt Romney And President Obama ‘Awkward’

Alex Alvarez — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:09:55 +0000

On Friday, the Morning Joe team once again tackled the question of whether a certain GOP candidate is just a little bit socially awkward, or just a little at a loss when it comes to relating to others. Mika Brzezinski referred to a New York Times piece by Frank Rich, where Rich notes that Romney’s attempts at small talk “famously take the form of guessing a voter’s age or nationality (usually incorrectly) or offering a greeting of ‘Congratulations!’ for no particular reason.” Even Romney’s looks, Rich writes, work against him, noting that even “at his most human, he resembles George Hamilton without the self-deprecating humor or the perma-tan.” (To Romney’s credit, he did recently make a pretty funny joke about “gluing my hair on” after being glitter-bombed in Nevada.)

“I think Romney has a Ken Doll problem,” agreed panelist Jon Meacham. “He looks like a president. I mean, you could put him on Rushmore now.”

Host Joe Scarborough reminded Meacham that, earlier, he’d noted that President Barack Obama “doesn’t seem to genuinely like being around people.”

“I mean,” he added, “we’ve got two possible major candidates who are awkward.” Awkward Americans on either side of the aisle: our time is now!

And what of Mitt Romney and Ann Romney standing by — awkwardly — while Donald Trump gave his endorsement? (Then again, wouldn’t that make anyone feel awkward? How does one deal with an endorsement from such a polarizing and odd pop culture figure in a way that wouldn’t seem uncomfortable or contrived or just plain surreal?)

The question, then, is “does it matter”? If someone can reach a certain level of accomplishment — as both Obama and Romney undoubtedly have — would not being especially gregarious form a serious impediment to performing the duties of president? Put another way: Is this a productive narrative surrounding Romney… and Obama?

Have a look, via MSNBC:

Dylan Ratigan: Mitt Romney’s Problem Is That He’s ‘A Weirdo From Boston’

Alex Alvarez — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:33:06 +0000

MSNBC host and author Dylan Ratigan visited Morning Joe on Thursday, giving his two cents on Mitt Romney‘s recent comments about keeping his focus on the middle class and not being “very concerned about the poor,” and on Romney in general.

Everybody thinks, ‘Oh, well Mitt Romney, it’s because he’s rich, he’s out of touch, he’s not… doesn’t know how to connect to people.’ I think that’s wrong. I actually think that if Mitt Romney, if you you look at his history, there are a lot of folks in New York and around the world who do and did what Mitt Romney did, and they’re very sociable and relatable — they happen to be very rich, but they also happen to be very sociable and very good at relating to people.

“I think Mitt Romney’s problem,” Ratigan said, “is more that he’s just kind of a weirdo from Boston. It’s less that he’s rich or poor; it’s more that he’s just kind of a strange guy that doesn’t relate to people that well. If he was poor, he wouldn’t relate to people that well, if he’s rich, he doesn’t relate to people that well. He’s just kind of a strange dude.

Romney also wants to be included, Ratigan added, among the “super elite” and the cool kids.

Watch the clip below, courtesy of MSNBC. And be sure to watch to the end, for Joe Scarborough’s pitch-perfect impersonations of Republicans and Democrats:

Sen. Chuck Schumer: Romney Is ‘Desperately’ Trying To Be A Middle Class Candidate

Alex Alvarez — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:04:46 +0000

New York Senator Chuck Schumer appeared on Thursday’s Morning Joe to discuss his efforts in reining in the amount of corporate money spent on political campaigns.

Host Mika Brzezinski started things off by noting that Schumer’s colleagues in the National Republican Senatorial Committee “point out you are the number one recipient of Wall Street money in the Senate, and it’s funny you’re decrying the role of corporate money in the political process.

“Is that,” she asked, “a fair criticism?”

“No, of course not,” he responded, “because they don’t want to address the issue. Number one, it’s not corporate money; that can’t be given to an individual. Second, and most importantly, it’s disclosed and disclosed immediately and there are limited amounts. $5,000 per individual. This is not millions of dollars anonymously given and running huge kinds of negative ads.”

“I don’t know that Chuck would be the first guy I sent out there,” said Joe Scarborough, noting that Schumer is referred to as The Senator from Wall Street. “I’m not knocking you for it, but I am asking, are you really the best person to come forward and decry the powerful interest of corporate money?”

“Well, I’d like to see some of my Republican colleagues doing it,” Schumer responded, decrying the way Super PACs have altered the system so that giant amounts of money are now anonymously funding (mostly) negative ads. Later, Schumer said that “the vast majority, when you look at the numbers, is on the Republican side because they have most of the wealthy, wealthy donors.”

“No, we don’t. No, we don’t!” Scarborough interrupted. “You’ve got all the rich guys on Wall Street that have supported Democrats for years, Senator!” To drive his point home, Scarborough asked Schumer which President — in all history — has received the most money from Wall Street donors. “I guess you mean Barack Obama,” Schumer responded.

He then offered his analysis of how Obama differs from Mitt Romney when it comes to reaching out and relating to middle class Americans:

Look, I think Mitt Romney is desperately searching to show that he’s a middle class candidate, but he’s not. His upbringing is not middle class, his policies are not middle class, his think is not middle class. Barack Obama has found his stride and is focused on the middle class. So Romney tries to reach. But because it’s not real and it doesn’t come from the heart, it’s sort of false. He makes these gaffes, as he did yesterday, and they sort of show the true person. The average middle class person doesn’t say, “Oh poor people, to heck with all of them,” they say focus on us and give us some help. And Romney doesn’t get it. And I don’t think he will get it. And that’s why I think he’s fundamentally a weak candidate against Barack Obama, because he doesn’t have that internal gyroscope that says I am middle class, I care about the middle class, I want to do things for the middle class.

Have a look, via MSNBC:

Joe Scarborough: The Way Media Covered For Obama’s Negative Ads Is ‘Shameful’

Alex Alvarez — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:24:06 +0000

The Morning Joe crew took a look at the fallout from — and the benefits of — using negative ad campaigns in presidential elections. The panelists agreed that Mitt Romney‘s success in the Florida primary was tied to his decision to “hit back” against Newt Gingrich‘s slew of negative campaign ads, both with his own ads and during debates.

Host Joe Scarborough was quick to remind everyone that, back in 2008, Barack Obama launched his own barrage of ultimately successful negative campaign ads:

I don’t know a lot of candidates that wouldn’t rather win ugly than lose pretty. Jon Huntsman lost pretty. Mitt Romney, this past week, won ugly. But, that’s…. I mean, Barack Obama won ugly in 2008; he ran more negative ads than anybody else in the history of television. He ran so many negative ads that he actually swung ahead of John McCain on the question of who do you trust more on taxes. ‘Cause remember the grainy, negative, false, misleading ads that he ran over and over again. [...] I mean, these negative ads worked.

Later, Mika Brzezinski noted that the President had sat himself in the driver’s seat of a sports car at the DC auto show, “as he should.” “I’m not trying to be smug,” she added.

Scarborough got a laugh out of that before turning to panelist Donny Deutsch. “Well, there’s no need to be smug,” Scarborough said. “This is going to be a tough, long campaign. But, Donny Deutsch, the man in the driver’s seat right there ran more negative ads — 30-second ads, 4 years ago — than any candidate in history.”

“The only difference,” he added, “between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is the mainstream media — every network, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post — they all covered for him. Nobody wrote that story because they all wanted him to him. It was shameful the way they covered for him.”

Deutsch, meanwhile, felt we should retire the term “negative ads.”

“Why?” asked Scarborough. “Because I attached it to Barack Obama?”

Brzezinski, all the while, kept trying to get Scarborough to answer a question about whether the President is “literally and figuratively in the driver’s seat.”

“No!” he said, finally.

And a (hilariously) sassy morning was had by all. Have a look, via MSNBC:

(NOTE: The original headline for this article, “Joe Scarborough: The Way The Mainstream Media Covered For Obama’s Negative Ads Is ‘Shameful’” was shortened in order for it to properly fit on the website’s home page.)

Morning Joe Panel Rips Into The ‘Fickle’ Media’s Coverage Of GOP Candidates

Alex Alvarez — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:15:18 +0000

Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough — prompted in part by the characterization of “brain dead” Republicans in Richard Cohen‘s harshly critical Washington Post op-ed piece — had some choice words about the state of the media in regards to the GOP.

“Well, I mean, I don’t know that I hear Richard Cohen complaining about a lack of experience when Barack Obama was running for president four years ago,” he said. Scarborough did concede, however, that the Republican party has been doing a “miserable” job of putting forth its conservative credentials and explaining how this crop of candidates will be “different” on a number of issues, including the economy. And he feels some of the party’s best candidates — like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie — decided to stay out of the race this time around.

Telemundo anchor José Díaz-Balart also chastised the media — of which, of course, both men are a part — for focusing on issues like extramarital affairs during debates. (Paging John King!)

But it’s not just the media, Scarborough pointed out. Romney and Gingrich could also do more to provide voters with messages and information that resonate instead of, say, singing “America the Beautiful” or discussing Kosher meals.

“One of the major things that’s gone wrong is the way we cover politics,” added panelist Mike Barnicle. “Politics is now — and over the last ten years has become — so intertwined with our culture that the media doesn’t really cover the cultural aspect of campaigns, it just sticks with the politics. So it’ll cover Mitt Romney singing ‘America the Beautiful’ or referencing Newt Gingrich talking about, you know, Kosher food being unavailable to seniors in Massachusetts.”

He also gave an example of the media being out of touch, citing a story about a man having trouble paying for his second home. The real story, Barnicle added, is the couple with a family unable to pay for their one home while trying to get their kids into college and juggling with one income.

(If I may editorialize for a moment… For what it’s worth, the media offers plenty of fluff and sensationalism and distraction, sure, but there are ALSO a variety of outlets and programs — online, in print, on TV, what have you — that offer more in-depth or introspective or long-form looks at politics, culture, and the intersection of the two. The media occupies a BIG SPACE beyond that which brings in the most viewers or page views. The consumer who digs just a little deeper beneath the surface will, ultimately, be rewarded.)

Now that I have that off my chest, have a look a the Morning Joe clip below, via MSNBC:

Rick Santorum Shares Memory Of Joe Scarborough Running Across House Floor Yelling ‘I’m Here Because Of You!’

Alex Alvarez — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:18:40 +0000

On Tuesday’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough took a moment to speak with GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, whom he’s known for some time. Santorum told the host he was gearing up to visit his old stomping grounds in Pensacola, Florida.

Host Mika Brzezinski had a playful moment at the expense of Pensacola mayor Ashton Hayward. As Mayor Hayward’s name might suggest, the man looks like he’d be perfectly comfortable playing “handsome high school guidance counselor” on a CW show. “He has very white teeth,” she told Santorum. “They sparkle.”

Scarborough then shared a fun little moment with Santorum:

“A little-known fact,” Scarborough began telling Brzezinski, “When I first ran for congress in 1994, Joe Gaylord gave me Rick Santorum’s plan when he ran in 1990. I was the first Republican elected in my district since 1872; Rick was in the swing district. And I followed it. So these Pensacola people are going to absolutely love you.”

“I’ll never forget, Joe,” said Santorum, “the first day that it was, we came back for a NAFTA vote and you were in a training session on the floor of the House. And I walked into the well of the House and this big guy comes running down the center aisle, pointed his finger saying ‘I’m here because of you!’ I’ll never forget that. I’ve now had to apologize to several people because of that. But, nevertheless.”

Have a look, via MSNBC:

Later, Mayor Hayward texted Scarborough, joking that he would fly up to NYC to confront Mika. Brzezinski didn’t miss a beat. “I’m not worried,” she said. “He’d have to leave his mirror.”

“White Strips,” one panelist added. It’s on! Watch:

Roasturbation: Politico Posts Own Roast For 5th Anniversary

Tommy Christopher — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:41:32 +0000

They grow up so fast, don’t they? Online political media giant Politico turns five years old today, and to celebrate, the site posted a video roast by some quotable notables in the political media world. While the site has arguably earned the right to toot its own horn at least once every half-decade, did they really have to overshadow the birthday of Saved By The Bell actress Tiffani-Amber Thiessen?

January 23 is also the birthday of Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, who, it should be noted, only won that one morning, and perhaps most fittingly, late Battleship Potemkin director Sergei Eisenstein. Most DC media types will tell you that they’ve never met a Politico reporter who wouldn’t push a baby down the stairs to get a story.

The nearly six minute video includes roastimonials from the likes of David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, Donald Trump, Katie Couric, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Willie Geist, Diane Sawyer, Tom Brokaw, Candy Crowley, Luke Russert, Greta Van Susteren, Chris Matthews, Jonathan Karl, Andrea Mitchell, Steve Scully, Jamal Simmons, Norah O’Donnell, Erin Burnett, Alex Wagner, Dan Rather, Al Sharpton, Mark Halperin, Dylan Ratigan and Arianna Huffington. FishbowlDC‘s Betsy Rothstein collects some of the funnier quotes:

Politico is “truly a news organization that acts its age: a petulant five-year-old concerned with only trivial matters,” host of “MTP” David Gregory says with a smile.

With a few repeats and some intensive listening, Arianna Huffington can be understood as saying, “Just as I was sitting down to write this, I saw that Mike Allen had already broken what I was going to say.”

MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” host Willie Geist remarks, “I’ve gotta recuse myself because I don’t care for Politico, inside the Beltway gossipy garbage. And CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer cracks, “The next thing you know, you’ll be getting your driver’s license.”

I don’t know that I can top any of them, but I will add this: Why did the Politico reporter cross the road? I don’t know, but give it 5 minutes, and FishbowlDC will have a plog post about it. Probably without a photo.

Even though we don’t go for this kind of self-promotion, the video is fun, and Politico has earned every second of it. Happy Birthday, Politico.

Joe Scarborough Reminisces On Newt Gingrich: ‘He Thought I Was Too Conservative For My District’

Alex Alvarez — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:10:29 +0000

On Monday morning, Morning Joe‘s Mika Brzezinski reported that South Carolina’s GOP exit poll has primary winner Newt Gingrich ranking highest in electability, with 51 percent of the vote versus Mitt Romney‘s 37. And as the candidates look ahead to Florida, Romney is launching an offensive, labeling the former Speaker a “failed leader.”

Host Joe Scarborough responded, characterizing Gingrich as a “mixed bag” and drawing back on his own experiences working with (or, as it happened, against) him:

He was a great revolutionary out in the field. And Newt Gingrich was able to organize and put together a winning team. And Republicans took control of the House for the first time in a generation. I mean, I didn’t even believe it. I remember when the results were coming in — and we were talking about this before — and somebody shouted when I won — I wasn’t supposed to win. Of course, just for the record, Newt was working against me the whole time. He thought I was too conservative for my district. Nice call, Newt.

But anyway. I get up on stage and somebody said, “We won the House!” I said you’re kidding me. So I give Newt credit for dragging a lot of people over the line that normally wouldn’t win.

Have a look, via MSNBC:

Joe Scarborough Calls Gingrich ‘Unsustainable,’ Compares Him To Michael Moore

Josh Feldman — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:36:03 +0000

Last summer, when Newt Gingrich made several significant campaign missteps, the media wrote his candidacy off before it even began. In December, thanks to his strong debate performances, he surged to the top of the field, and some analysts thought he would be the likely nominee. A few weeks later, his campaign fizzled and the media went back to writing him off again. So now that Gingrich is back in the spotlight, the media is naturally… writing him off again.

On Meet the Press today, Joe Scarborough argued that Gingrich’s candidacy was not sustainable, and in the long run he would eventually fizzle again and lose to Mitt Romney. Scarborough has a well-documented disdain of Newt Gingrich and his ability to become the next president, so his criticisms are nothing new. But today he went so far as to compare the conservative Gingrich to one of the conservatives’ favorite punching bags.

Katty Kay saw last night’s Gingrich victory as good news for the Obama campaign, because of how vulnerable he is on a number of issues and how “the ads against [him] write themselves.” However, she also noted that Gingrich’s attacks on Romney seemed to be borne of the same anti-business sentiments fueling Occupy Wall Street. Scarborough jumped in, finding it unbelievable that “Gingrich is adopting the language of Michael Moore.” He argued that Gingrich’s line of attack did not make him a good conservative alternative to Romney.

Kay suggested that rather than focusing on Romney’s flip-flops, Gingrich and his fellow candidates have been more focused on Romney’s wealth. Scarborough had a slightly different take.

“They’re not focusing on Mitt Romney’s money, they’re focusing on Mitt Romney’s tongue. He can’t answer a question that he knows is coming.”

Later on in the program, when the discussion turned to Rick Santorum, Scarborough brought up the evangelical support Santorum has, and the efforts of many evangelicals to make a stronger line of attack against Gingrich.

“The bottom line is, I’m sorry, Newt is not sustainable. Nobody that’s known him since ’95 thinks he’s sustainable, last night was not about Newt, it was a primal scream by some South Carolina voters against the Republican establishment.”

Watch both segments below, courtesy of NBC:

Stephen Colbert Visits Morning Joe: Gingrich Was Gentleman Enough To Ask Permission To Cheat

Alex Alvarez — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:44:29 +0000

Comedy Central host and presidential hopeful Stephen Colbert visited the Morning Joe crew in South Carolina Friday to discuss the GOP race, as well as his (and Herman Cain’s) efforts in the state.

He also had some kind words for rival candidate Newt Gingrich, who is currently having a less-than-enviable moment in the spotlight. After sharing that honesty is the best policy when letting one’s spouse know one would like to open their marriage, Colbert praised Gingrich’s highly underrated tactics:

Here’s the thing that I don’t think Newt Gingrich gets credit for. Ok, a lot of politicians screw around on their wives, but he was enough of a gentleman to ask permission first. Ok? That’s a Southern gentleman.That’s what Robert E. Lee would have done.

When asked whether he thinks Mitt Romney is “skilled” enough to beat Barack Obama, Colbert responded that he didn’t know, adding that a recent poll shows voters might prefer another candidate altogether:

I think Mitt Romney is probably a very good guy. But a recent poll put out by Marist and paid for by the Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC has found that 41 percent of South Carolinians are not satisfied with their choices. You know, don’t think that’s good news. I don’t think that’s good news for anybody but Herman Cain. [...] I have the highest favorability rating of any of the Republican candidates, even though I’m not one. Nationally, not just out here. Nationally I have the highest favorability ratings, Joe.

While Joe Scarborough found that to be “absolutely disturbing,” he LOVED Colbert’s fun fact about Ron Paul: “Do you know,” Colbert asked, “that if you guess Ron Paul’s name correctly, he has to teach you to spin hay into gold?” Mika Brzezinski was less amused.

On a more serious note, Colbert noted that he really does admire Ron Paul, particularly for his “intellectual consistency.”

Watch, via MSNBC:

Mika Brzezinksi: Isn’t Chris Christie Sounding Kind Of… Vice Presidential?

Alex Alvarez — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:33:10 +0000

New Jersey governor and America’s Great Right Hope Chris Christie stopped by the Morning Joe set Wednesday, where talk eventually turned to his future aspirations. Or, at least, what some are anticipating and/or hoping his aspirations might be.

“Why couldn’t we have a guy like this on the national ticket?” asked Joe Scarborough.

“Well, you still could,” said Mika Brzezinski. “Well, I mean, isn’t he sounding kind of …. vice presidential?”

“Wait a second, am I sounding like I should go to a funeral?” joked Christie. “Then, what are you talking about? How do you sound vice presidential?” He said he enjoys being Governor of New Jersey, adding that vice presidents basically just attend funerals.

Dude’s going to self-deprecate his way into the monarchy. Wait and see. In fact, a recent poll from Quinnipiac University shows 55 percent of NJ voters believe Christie is “likely” to be selected as the winning GOP nominee’s running mate, versus 68 percent who see it as unlikely.

Christie joked that the results, which add up to more than 100 percent, sound like “Democratic math,” adding that “I don’t expect to be asked” to be anyone’s running mate. That’s not a no!

Have a look, from MSNBC:

Christie Slams Eugene Robinson On Morning Joe: ‘Shouldn’t Have A Platform To Speak’

Tommy Christopher — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:24:42 +0000

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie lashed out at Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Eugene Robinson on Robinson’s home turf this morning, telling Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski that people like Robinson “shouldn’t have a platform to speak, they’re so ignorant.”

Christie was responding to a September column by Robinson, in which the Pulitzer Prize-winner advised the Gov. to “Eat a salad and take a walk.”

Mika Brzezinski began by praising Christie’s recent interview with Oprah Winfrey regarding his struggles with obesity.

“It is a struggle and has been a struggle for me a lot of years,” Christie said, adding, “I hope other people in the country understand. I hope you all understand when ignoramuses like Eugene Robinson get on your show, when they talk about weight and someone should ‘have a salad and take a walk.’

“As far as I’m concerned,” Christie continued, “guys like that shouldn’t have a platform to speak because they’re so ignorant.”

Christie is understandably sensitive about criticism of his weight, but Eugene Robinson is getting something of a bad rap here. The “salad” quote is accurate, and, out of context, it does sound flippant and mean. However, Robinson’s column was about the larger issue of obesity, and he compared Christie’s role in it to President Obama’s relationship to smokers, a far more legitimate line (in my view) than those who have concern-trolled about Christie’s physical fitness to hold office.

Still, as someone who struggles with a host of self-destructive vices, I understand the urge to greet the advice of perfect, skinny people with a friendly Parkway Salute. What I find disturbing is Christie’s desire to silence Eugene Robinson. Can you imagine if Barack Obama went on MSNBC and said that Joe Scarborough “shouldn’t have a platform to speak?”

Even more disturbing, though, was Joe Scarborough’s reaction, or lack thereof. After the Governor of New Jersey had just tacitly called for the firing of his friend and colleague, Scarborough joked, “Willie and I have our own struggles.”

Willie Geist, at least, had the courage and loyalty to “By the way, we love Gene Robinson. That may not have been his finest moment, but we love Gene.”

Scarborough’s silence in the face of this attack on his friend was reminiscent of how he handled Ann Coulter‘s slurring of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy on Morning Joe a few months back. Apparently, being friends with Joe Scarborough means never having to say “Thanks for backing me up, pal!”

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC:

And here’s a clip of Eugene Robinson defending his column on Morning Joe this past September:

Richard Cordray On Whether He Was Legally Appointed: ‘There Are Lawyers Who Are Digging Into That’

Alex Alvarez — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:06:59 +0000

Richard Cordray, the newly-appointed — and rather controversial — director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, stopped by the set of Morning Joe Wednesday to discuss his new role, and found himself treated to a little trip down memory lane.

Back in 1987, Cordray was winning big on a little game show called Jeopardy, one time by answering a fairly easy (snappin’ my suspenders smugly, folks) question (or answer, really) comparing bushido and chivalry. The four-time winner took home $40,303 for his trouble. He also had really great hair.

“What was the tax rate you paid on that?” joked the panel about his winnings. “115 percent,” he laughed.

“There’s a big battle about whether you were legally appointed or not,” said host Joe Scarborough, turning serious, “because you may not have been a recess appointment. What is your bottom line on that issue?”

Look, I’m going to leave that to others. There are lawyers who are digging into that. My job is to be the director of the Consumer Bureau. It feels to me that director position was long overdue to be filled. We’ve got a lot of work to do for the public, a lot of work to do help these markets function more effectively, and that’s what I’m focused on.

And what would he say to conservatives who argue we don’t even need yet another federal agency?

“Well, we never really had a federal agency that had that job,” said Cordray. “It was kind of broken out among 7, 8 agencies, which meant nobody focused on it. We had the mortgage market that was badly broken, which led to the financial meltdown. We all know how badly that hurt so many Americans, whom had nothing to do with it but lost jobs, lost homes, had their communities affected. So if we can make sure these markets function in a fair and transparent manner, I think businesses, the responsible businesses, are going to welcome that.”

Have a look, via MSNBC:

Joe Scarborough: If I Raise An Eyebrow, I Get Headlines Saying ‘Joe Takes A Knife And Slashes Mika.’

Alex Alvarez — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:39:30 +0000

Did GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney — not one to have been particularly surprising or controversial during this election’s many debates — hurt his chances during last night’s performance in South Carolina? That’s precisely what the Morning Joe crew wanted to figure out Tuesday morning. And, more importantly for our country, are Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough ok?

The two co-hosts entered into a tiff this morning after Scarborough noted that they “have a little fun back-and-forth,” only to have Brzezinski note that it was “just back.” “Never fight in the front of the kids!” said a panelist.

Guest Peggy Noonan then gave her two cents on South Carolina, opining that Newt Gingrich performed very well at last night’s debate, but that, ultimately, it won’t matter because the election will go to Romney. The key to a good debate performance, the panel agreed, was being able to speak directly to and “level with” the American people.

“So Mika,” said Scarborough. “these days, the Huffington Post, if I raise an eyebrow, they have headlines that say ‘Joe Takes a Knife and Slashes Mika.’ Do I owe you an apology?”

Brzezinski toyed with the idea.

“Because I don’t think I do,” Scarborough added.

Have a look, via MSNBC:

Limbaugh Zings Scarborough Over Huntsman Support: He Wants To Be ‘A Favorite Son Of The Left’

James Crugnale — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:24:04 +0000

Following Joe Scarborough‘s comments that all that was left in the GOP race was “big government conservatives” in the wake of Jon Huntsman exit from the Republican nomination race (see below), radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh lit into the MSNBC host, saying he was attempting to curry favor with his network’s executives. “I think that’s what you say when you have to keep your job at a liberal network,” Limbaugh jabbed.

“I think that’s what you say when you’re trying to make a move,” Limbaugh continued, criticizing Huntsman as liberal on many issues. “If you’re a known conservative and you’re trying to make a move to the center and become a favorite son of the left. It’s what you say. It’s where you work.”

Listen to Limbaugh zing Scarborough below:

(h/t Daily Caller)

Watch Scarborough’s earlier remarks in support of Huntsman below via MSNBC:

Keith Olbermann, Media Matters Pressure CNN To Fire Dana Loesch Over Urinate-Gate

Tommy Christopher — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:05:02 +0000

CNN contributor and Editor-in-Chief of Big Journalism Dana Loesch took a lot of flak over the weekend for her declaration of solidarity with the four Marines who videotaped themselves urinating on the corpses of alleged Taliban fighters, in which she said “I’d drop trou and do it too.”

Countdown host Keith Olbermann and liberal watchdog Media Matters, among others, have called for CNN to fire Loesch over the remark, and according to Big Journalism, even Politico is in on the act. Lest you think that this is all a bunch of ginned-up liberal outrage, however, a conservative think-tank in Illinois also backed away from Loesch over the comments, withdrawing an invitation for her to appear at their ”Women, Liberty, and America’s Future” event.

Olbermann took to Twitter to slam CNN, and to add some trademark innuendo:

A) why hasn’t CNN fired her already; b) she sounds way too familiar w/topic @DLoesch says she’d urinate on dead Taliban

He also paid Loesch a backhanded compliment, while also saying she was worse than the Taliban:

Actually, no. They are unthinking religious fanatics. You’re worse RT@DLoesch So @KeithOlbermann thinks I’m the Taliban? So ridiculous.

The implication there is that, unlike the Taliban, there is thought behind Loesch’s remarks.

Big Journalism‘s John Nolte notes that Politico, like Mediaite, reached out to CNN for comment on Loesch’s remark, but went the extra mile by wondering “whether or not it will have any impact on her role at CNN.”

CNN responded with this statement to Mediaite:

CNN contributors are commentators who express a wide range of viewpoints—on and off of CNN—that often provoke strong agreement or disagreement. Their viewpoints are their own.

Media Matters, though, has gone full-bore at Loesch. In addition to a Twitter barrage from Eric Boehlert challenging Loesch to repeat the sentiment on CNN’s air, their investigative reporter Joe Strupp has published an article in which numerous CNN on-air sources (anonymously attributed) express displeasure and embarrassment at Loesch’s remarks.

That last item is probably the biggest reason for concern for Loesch, who could probably count on CNN to ignore pressure from liberals, but might lend a more attentive ear to internal voices. Loesch’s supporters can tell themselves that Strupp’s reporting is meaningless because the sources are unnamed, but he’s a real reporter with a real reputation. Those quotes are real, and depending on the relative juice of the speakers, could signal trouble for Dana Loesch.

As someone who knows a thing or two about being fired over political speech, I think it would be wrong of CNN to fire Dana Loesch over this. Within reason, my philosophy is that more speech is always better than less speech. Most of the speech-related firings of the past few years could have been handled more productively, in my view, by expanding the dialogue, rather than shutting it down.

In this case, rather than see Dana Loesch fired for saying something so silly and wrong, I’d rather see her defend those remarks on a panel with people like Bill Maher (who, while not cheering the desecration, said he didn’t see what all the fuss was about), former Marine Goldie Taylor, and maybe even Sen. John McCain, who knows a thing or two about war atrocities. Like it or not, Loesch’s false bravado resonated with a lot of people, and such a discussion could prove clarifying for Loesch and her defenders. Alternately, Loesch could possibly smoke them all in a debate, and we’d all run out to look for an appropriate corpse to piss on. Who knows?

The point that the “fire Loesch” crowd misses, and that CNN apparently gets (if their statement is any indication), is that aside from being offensive and cheap, Loesch’s remarks were revealing in a way that true journalism is supposed to be. Having disparate viewpoints represented on their air has value to CNN viewers because they come away knowing something they previously didn’t. In this case, I learned that if Loesch is going to be at my funeral, I’d better request a closed casket.

There are cases in which pressure campaigns like boycotts are justified, but often, efforts like this are led by people who aren’t watching in the first place. Except in extreme cases, my solution is simple. If I don’t want to see someone on my TV, I change the channel. For example, I was very disappointed in the way Joe Scarborough handled Ann Coulter‘s slurring of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy on Morning Joe a few months back. Before that, I was a fairly regular viewer of Scarborough’s program.

I didn’t call for a boycott of Morning Joe, or for Scarborough to be fired. In fact, I still tune in every once in a while, but the incident soured me on the program, tainted the collegial vibe that was key to its appeal. As a result, Morning Joe lost a loyal viewer. Now, who knows, maybe they also gained a bunch of fans who groove on that sort of thing.

For CNN, it’s probably tougher to gauge Loesch’s performance in terms of viewers, and I don’t think I’ve seen enough of her segments to pass judgment on them, but I don’t think they hired her to play tiddlywinks.

Joe Scarborough To Suze Orman: Debt Growth ‘Not Just About Big Business; It’s About Big Government’

Alex Alvarez — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:31:41 +0000

On Monday, the Morning Joe team welcomed financial guru Suze Orman onto the show to discuss Elizabeth Warren‘s ideas regarding debt.

“Now, I think [people] need to listen to Elizabeth Warren,” said Orman. “I’m actually sorry she wasn’t appointed head of the CFPB. I’m a big supporter of hers. And it is true: What used to be no longer works today.” Orman then, citing the Census Bureau, added that one out of every two people is in or near poverty and that, once you’re in poverty, “there is no way, currently, to get out. So you have to be able to control what the credit people have done, what the banks have done.”

“How about listening to how our parents raised us, and how our grandparents them?” asked panelist Mike Barnicle. “How about listening to ‘you keep in what you don’t have’? That you can’t create your own credit card society around the kitchen table. You might not need the big screen TV.”

Orman then compared people to Trick or Treaters who’ve had their Halloween candy taken away, to which Barnicle suggested they be sent to their rooms and left to cry it out on their own. “You help people,” Orman continued. “You don’t let kids drive when they’re 3. You don’t let people vote until they can.”

Later, host Joe Scarborough weighed in:

You know, I keep hearing about all of the problems being big businesses and big banks. And yes, there has been fraud. But we’re sitting here ignoring what is going on all around us. We have historical trends that are exploding in our faces. You look this past weekend, look what happened on Friday. France downgraded because of massive debt. Eight other countries in Europe, downgraded because of debt. Our federal government keeps getting bigger by the year, and we keep sitting here scratching our heads going, “well, what are we doing? Why are more and more people going into poverty? It must be big business’s fault.”

The federal government keeps growing by the year. The debt keeps growing. When Democrats are in power, the federal government gets bigger, and debt gets bigger. When Republicans are in, when Democrats are in, it gets bigger. And I hear Dr. Sachs saying all morning about Mitt Romney’s “right-wing radical plan.” That’s a bunch of bunk! It is bunk. Mitt Romney doesn’t have a conservative plan. If he did, I would already be on board with him. But he’s going to be a big-government Republican who is going to follow a big-government Democrat who followed a big-government Republican in George W. Bush. I mean, come on, we have to break this trend. And it’s been going on for 30, 40 years. The government just keeps getting bigger. And our debt keeps getting bigger. Crowding out takes place, and we just sit here trying to blame big business. That’s not going to sell with middle Americans moving forward.

“It’s not just about big business,” he concluded. “It’s about big government.”

Have a look at their discussion, from MSNBC:

Bill Keller: Adding Hillary Clinton As VP Nominee Would ‘Nearly Guarantee Obama Re-election’

Alex Alvarez — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:43:54 +0000

On Friday, the Morning Joe crew took a look into their crystal ball (sponsored by Starbucks) and glimpsed ahead into what the future may hold for big-name Democrats. Is current Vice President Joe Biden gearing up to run for another presidential run? Would President Barack Obama do well to tap Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to be his 2012 running mate? Would either stand a chance if Boo were to seek the nomination?

The New York Times‘ Bill Keller was on hand to defend candidate Rick Perry‘s suit-wearing abilities (I actually think he tends to wear his collar too high. Thoughts?), later opining that the White House must be getting a chuckle with the way the GOP candidates have, as he sees it, gone from accusing Obama of being a socialist to accusing Mitt Romney of being a capitalist.

Keller also thought Obama would be well-advised to bring Clinton on as his running mate this year, despite obstacles like, oh, Obama and Clinton and Biden (oh my). “But other than those little speed bumps…” he joked. “Look, it’s the one thing, I think, that the Democrats could do to nearly guarantee Obama re-election. It would generate enough excitement that they might actually have some coattails and help out a little bit with the Senate and House. And it would position Clinton as their heir apparent for 2016, assuming she wants to run.”

Have a look, courtesy of MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Joe Scarborough Labels Mika Brzezinski A ‘Food Nazi’ After Twinkies Argument

Nando Di Fino — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:22:22 +0000

Things on Morning Joe got a little heated Thursday morning during a discussion about Hostess Brands — the maker of Twinkies — filing for bankruptcy.

“The good news,” host Mika Brzezinski read, “is the company will continue to produce Twinkies.”

She then caught herself. “What is the good news? I’m not sure who wanted to editorialize in that script. I’m not sure that’s good news.”

Joe Scarborough, a defender of the tasty treat, then pleaded with viewers to, “go out to a convenience store right now and buy as many Twinkies as you possibly can.”

“…and buy yourself a plastic bag of poison,” Brzezinski interrupted.

Rev Al Sharpton, a guest on the show, added, “Make sure ObamaCare is there to take care of your diabetes…”

Scarborough described the Twinkie as “American exceptionalism,” and agreed that we landed on Omaha Beach, “for the right for me to eat a Twinkie.”

“I don’t need food Nazi Mika Brzezinski — and by the way, what is that? A communist, Chinese name, ‘Brzezinski’? I don’t need the red army kicking down my door, going into my cupboard, and telling me what I can eat.”

“Why don’t you have ten today?” Brzezinski challenged.

Watch a clip of the exchange below, courtesy of MSNBC:

Joe Scarborough Grills Eugene Robinson Over His Comments On Rick Santorum’s Newborn

James Crugnale — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:46:34 +0000

In a remarkably heated back-and-forth on Friday’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough grilled MSNBC contributor Eugene Robinson over his controversial comments — calling Rick Santorum‘s handling of the death of his newborn “weird.”

“Do you think you may have gone overboard a little bit in your criticisms of Santorum?” Scarborough asked. “We haven’t talked about it. I’m not setting you up for anything. I was taken aback by what you said. My wife likes you very much, couldn’t believe you said it.”

“That was obviously not the right way to say what I was trying to express,” Robinson acknowledged.

Robinson had earlier said Santorum’s handling of his newborn was a “weird story” on Wednesday night’s The Rachel Maddow Show:

Some of his positions he’s taken are just so weird, that I think some Republicans are going to be off-put. Not everybody is going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the stillborn child whose body they took home to kind of sleep with and introduce to the rest of the family. It’s a very weird story.

“I certainly didn’t mean to offend anybody, especially Mr. Santorum,” Robinson added. “But it was in a discussion of his views, and, you know, which I consider extreme, and Santorum himself who is a cultural — culture warrior extraordinaire, whose faith — and we all appreciate someone of deep faith — but it is — it is extremely deep, and it’s a kind of faith that some people, I think, are going be… if not surprised by… at least want to know more about.”

“That’s fair enough, but is it the decision about what you do with an infant that passed away a highly personal decision?” Scarborough pressed. “This was not a stillborn child. This was an infant that was born and that lived for a few hours, and there are actually pediatric specialists who say the family needs to say good-bye to that sort of child. Children, if you make that decision, parents, could get closure that way too. Why touch it? Why would you even talk about it? That’s a really personal decision, isn’t it?”

“It is a personal decision,” Robinson noted. “And I’ve certainly been educated on the subject since — in the past day, so I do understand that — that this is not — it’s not something that’s in any way beyond the pale or considered inadvisable and that many grief counselors do advise a period of saying good-bye to a child who tragically dies in that way.”

“Do you wish you hadn’t written that part of it?” Scarborough asked.

“I didn’t write anything,” Robinson corrected. “I didn’t write this at all. It’s something I said on the air.”

“Do you wish you hadn’t said it?” Scarborough clarified. “You can see how prepared I am.”

“I wish I hadn’t said it that way, Joe. You know, I — we had — had this sort of discussion when I wrote about Chris Christie‘s weight, and I do think that a columnist has an obligation to — to write what he or she thinks and write what he or she sees, but obviously I did it in the wrong way. Or in a way that rubs people the wrong way, and that’s not what I intended.”

Watch Scarborough heated questioning of Robinson about his remarks about Santorum’s handling of his dead newborn below via MSNBC:

GOP Knockout Pool: Joe Scarborough Recently Predicted A Michele Bachmann Second Surge

James Crugnale — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:26:28 +0000

When Michele Bachmann dropped out yesterday after coming in a disappointing sixth place in the Iowa caucus, it piqued the Mediaite staff desk’s curiosity about who had made recent predictions about the Congresswoman’s success in the Hawkeye State.

Interestingly, it turns out — only a few weeks ago — there was a popular theory among conservative commentators that Michele Bachmann would have a “second surge.”

Fox News commentator Dick Morris predicted a “Bachmann comeback”, in this over-the-top home video, replete with Aaron Copland’s Fanfare For The Common Man soundtrack:

WND’s Jerry McGlothlin said, “There is a biblical precedent set for God sending a woman to do a man’s job when a man isn’t willing to boldly step up to the plate to get the job done. The only man left standing is a woman. Her name is Michele Bachmann, and she’s set for a second surge.”

Morning Joe‘s Joe Scarborough even seemed pretty confident of a second surge by Michele Bachmann just 2 weeks ago.

Watch his mistaken prognostication below:

Update: In fairness, none of Mediaite’s staff predictions were on the mark either. “I just thought she would play better for Iowans,” Alex Alvarez laments. “Better luck in 2016.”

Joe Scarborough Says ‘There Will Be Blood’ If Mitt Romney Walks Away With Nomination

James Crugnale — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:08:56 +0000

On Monday’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough surmised there would be backlash amongst Republicans if Mitt Romney was seen easily winning the nomination in the early states. “Anybody who thinks it’s going to be over after Iowa and New Hampshire, if Romney wins, does not understand the conservative base,” Scarborough opined. “There will be blood if Mitt Romney seems like the guy who’s going to walk away with it.”

Mark Halperin then said that nobody was going to drop out after the Iowa caucuses. “I think even Michele Bachmann will go, try to fight on in South Carolina,” Halperin predicted. “It’s perfect for Mitt Romney to have a crowded field in South Carolina.”

“I will tell you this. I know this sounds crazy, but if I’m just looking at the field right now: keep your head down, don’t blow yourself up in Iowa, because there’s going to be a lot of teeth gnashing and weeping after the guy that’s got a 24% ceiling wins Iowa and the conservatives split,” Scarborough added. “Cause everybody’s going to start looking and saying OK, who is the conservative? We are not going to allow a guy that has the 24% of the moderates in the Republican party voting for him, while this conservative party pushes another, let’s say, Gerald Ford to the finish line. By the way, I need to explain this. This isn’t necessarily what I feel. I need to explain this. I’m telling you, as I predicted, crazy never wins in the Republican party, and it doesn’t.”

Watch Scarborough’s predictions for the Republican race below via MSNBC:

(h/t NewsBusters)

Joe Scarborough: ‘There Is Always A Strain Of Anti-Semitism’ At Ron Paul Events

James Crugnale — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:15:33 +0000

During a discussion about Ron Paul‘s controversial newsletters sent in his name during the 1990s on Thursday’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough provocatively observed “There is always a strain of anti-Semitism” at the Republican presidential candidate’s events.

“There is a tension that we need to explain here among Ron Paul supporters,” Scarborough explained. “There are some who will embrace his domestic agenda, embrace the idea of a smaller government, even if they don’t agree with everything. And they have been saying for some time, with their eyes rolled about foreign policy. But also, (they) go away from an event saying there is always a strain of anti-Semitism — I’ve never heard the racism part, but always a strain of anti-Semitism there.”

“I think when you read the statements in his name, the problem is that you are not dealing with someone that has dealt with any forthright manner what happened,” MSNBC commentator Al Sharpton opined. “You can say something and later say, I shouldn’t have said it, I apologize, you can say something and say ‘I was misunderstood.’ All of us have gone through that. You can’t say something and then turn around and act as though you didn’t know it was said…and then you get angry when people ask about it. That’s the danger zone that he’s in.”

Watch Scarborough’s comments on Ron Paul events below via MSNBC:

(h/t JP at DC)

Mike Barnicle: ‘Preposterous’ That Piers Morgan Wasn’t Aware Of Phone Hacking

James Crugnale — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:39:32 +0000

Morning Joe‘s Mike Barnicle expressed skepticism over Piers Morgan’s denial of having any knowledge about the phone hacking scandal during his tenure as editor of multiple British tabloids on Wednesday’s show. “Just the clips of that testimony are preposterous,” Barnicle opined. “A newspaper editor who says he only knows 5% of what his journalists were up to? That’s ridiculous!”

“You look at James Murdoch’s testimony, you look at Piers Morgan’s testimony,” Scarborough observed. “It looks like these people, Mike, are walking on a thin tightrope.”

“The fact is, the odd thing is about the two cultures, our press culture and their press culture, I’m not at all surprised there was hacking going on and I’m confident there was a lot more than even we’ve heard about,” Tom Brokaw added. “The Brits who come here say ‘you’re all a bunch of limp-wristed liberals’ — that you don’t want to do what’s required to do to be a great journalist. On the other hand they have got all those press rules, the press council in which you can win libel suits and so it’s an odd mix of things that is going on.”

Watch Barnicle’s skepticism over Morgan’s testimony below via MSNBC:

Joe Scarborough: The Press Favored Obama By A Longshot Over Hillary

James Crugnale — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:39:47 +0000

On Wednesday’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough agreed with Former President Bill Clinton‘s assertion on The O’Reilly Factor that the press favored Barack Obama, saying the “press favored Barack Obama by a long shot over Hillary Clinton.”

“(Hillary) was shredded,” said Newsweek editor Tina Brown “And withstood it with great aplomb. Really, I think a lot of it was about the press wanted a new narrative and in the end, Obama’s story of the first black president, you know, trumped the exceptionalism of her being the first woman president. It was bad luck for her that happened, but it was also a much more fun idea to have this new narrative to write about. Everyone was board with the Clintons. They didn’t want to have another Clinton story.”

“She didn’t embrace that narrative, they made her the establishment candidate.” New York magazine’s John Heilemann disputed.

“Go back to 2007 and watch people drooling over themselves on networks,” Scarborough countered.

“I totally agree, the press was in the tank for Obama,” Heilemann conceded, but noted that Clinton’s handlers kept her in a “safe box” during the campaign.

Watch Scarborough needle the press over their bias towards Barack Obama via MSNBC:

(h/t DC)

Mitt Romney: It’s Possible I’ll Take My Campaign All The Way To The Convention

James Crugnale — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:48:30 +0000

Republican hopeful Mitt Romney appeared on Tuesday’s Morning Joe and hypothesized that he had all the resources in a contested election to take the nomination fight all the way to the convention. Joe Scarborough asked the former Massachusetts governor how long he would trudge on. “I don’t think it is likely, but it’s possible that this goes a long way. We have built enough resources and raised enough money to have a campaign that will go to the very end.”

Earlier, Scarborough asked Romney if we thought he was going to win the Iowa caucuses.

“I think that’s hard to predict,” Romney hedged. “Of course — everyone wants to win Iowa. They want to win every state.”

“You think you can?” Scarborough followed up.

“All things are possible and I hope to do well,” Romney explained. “But when we got into this, we thought Iowa would be a stretch and New Hampshire, we hope to do well.”

Scarborough asked if he had to win New Hampshire to go on.

“I don’t think today you have to win anything,” Romney replied. “I think the only thing you have to win is 1,150 delegates. And we’ve seen some people have gone down and come back. If one of the people on the stage doesn’t win the first two, I wouldn’t write them off. One of those people could come surging — we’ve seen people surge from nothing to high numbers very quickly.”

Watch Romney explain his nomination strategy with Scarborough below via MSNBC:

(h/t Jeff Poor at The Daily Caller)

Morning D’oh! Chris Christie Falsely Claims President Obama Had Filibuster-Proof Majority For 2 Years

Tommy Christopher — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:22:47 +0000

In an appearance on Tuesday’s Morning Joe, New Jersey Gov. and Mitt Romney-endorser Chris Christie joined host Joe Scarborough in the shared delusion that President Obama, at the beginning of his term, enjoyed a filibuster-proof majority for two years, and “frittered” it away. There’s a fair debate to be had as to whether the President took full advantage of that majority, but it is a fact that even the most generous calculation reveals that the Democrats’ obstruction-free window lasted 7 months, not two years.

This wasn’t the only big, fat steamer in the segment (Christie tried to sell the House GOP’s renege on the payroll tax deal as an example of Republicans not obstructing the President), but it was the biggest and steamiest. While this sort of thing is to be expected from a politician trying to get elected, I had come to expect better than this from Joe Scarborough, whose appeal as a commentator rests largely on his knowledge of the inner workings of congress.

It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the US Senate, which is now the default to get pretty much anything done. As Scarborough well knows, the Democrats didn’t reach that 60-seat threshold in the Senate until Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in on July 7, 2009. They lost that majority upon the swearing-in of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) on Feb. 4, 2010, just under seven months later. While state politician Christie can possibly be forgiven such an error, someone with Joe Scarborough’s reach and influence ought to have better than a 71% margin of error.

As Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum points out, though, the actual amount of time the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority, when you factor in the late Sen. Ted Kennedy‘s illness and the winter recess, amounts to 14 weeks.

What non-Democrats often fail to realize is that a Democratic majority isn’t like other majorities. While Republicans can be relied on to lock arms and stay put no matter what kind of political pepper spray they get hit with, there are always about 10% of Democrats willing, nay, eager to undercut their own party. To the extent that Barack Obama ever had a filibuster-proof majority, he still had to water everything down just to get past his own party. They are the reason the President ended up with a too-small stimulus package that was 40% tax cuts, just like Mitt Romney wanted.

Even given those limitations, though, the President did manage to get a few minor things done, like saving the auto industry, reversing 750,000-per-month job losses, passing health care reform (I can’t wait for Republicans to try and explain to Americans how they’ll be better off when insurance companies can go back to throwing them off their health benefits again), rescuing the economy from a new Great Depression, and killing so many terrorists that even Republicans began to complain, just to name a few. There are people on all sides of the political spectrum who would argue he could have done more (or in the Republicans’ case, should have done less), but it’s just not accurate to say he “frittered away” that tiny window.

Gov. Christie has the excuse that he’s shilling for Mitt Romney, but Joe Scarborough knows better. Morning Joe has earned influence beyond Scarborough’s conservative ideology because even those who disagree with him have come to expect him to tell the truth. If he wants to retain that influence, Scarborough needs to live up to that expectation.

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC’s Morning Joe:

Chris Christie Defends Mitt Romney’s Lack Of Stage Presence On Morning Joe

Nando Di Fino — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:37:55 +0000

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made a quick appearance on Morning Joe Tuesday, and offered up a few explanations of why he likes Mitt Romney, the GOP candidate he has thrown his support behind for the 2012 nomination. The most pervasive theme? That Romney can’t “own the stage” (a point Christie said would happen after he gets votes in the primaries) and seems to be somewhat stiff.

“Do I wish Mitt would be a little edgier and a little bolder? Sure. And I’ve told him that,” Christie said. “But he is who he is.”

Christie also called Romney, “Far and away the best qualified person,” in the field of candidates. Of course, that field excludes Christie himself, who ruled out a run in October. The governor was told about Sarah Palin‘s comments on Fox Business Network Monday, where she said that it’s not too late to jump into the race.

“It’s too late,” Christie replied. “Its way too late.” So the natural follow-up would be if he regretted bowing out of what looks to be a very uncertain field. “I don’t have a moment of regret. Not even a pang of regret,” Christie said. “And here’s why — because I love the job I’m doing. How can you feel bad if you’re the governor of New Jersey?”

Watch a clip of the interview below, courtesy of MSNBC: