Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
You mean, like in the Harriet Miers case? Get a grip, stop fantasizing. The people that don't question their politicians, are the ones that elect Ray Nagin, Marion Barry, Bill Clinton, and Algore. Now would those be conservatives or liberals, hmmmmmmmm?
Poco
Let's not get too carried away with political philosophies... Joe is a media personality employed by the third-ranked cable news network. Perhaps this network, in an attempt to boost viewership and ratings, has decided to test the waters with an agenda that actually coincides with the national polling on this joke of a president. Hell, Olbermann does OK. There is no point, and no money in trying to outfox Faux News anymore...
The neocons will fall only when the corporations that prop them up move on to more promising shills. Suck it up, Chris Matthews: if it works, you'll be next.
I have not been much of a fan of Joe's politics, but I realy appreciated this article and will watch him more in the future because of it.
I will have to watch "Scarborough Country," now, and make up my own mind, but admittedly I would never have considered tuning in before reading this article.
I join the kudos to Scarborough/Salon for coherently addressing the difference between conservatism and blind loyalism. I'm disinterested in any ulterior motives; let's just get the point across to as many people as possible, please. I am a progressive liberal, but does it even matter these days? I'm sick of running up against the tired old blockade in debates with Republican loyalists -- "the president and people in charge know what they're doing." They will come up with any rationalization to hold onto this fantasy, and whether you are liberal, moderate, or conservative, if you have the nerve to question authority, you are attacked for being treasonous, for hating America.
Absurd -- the point is to *always* hold elected officials accountable, Democrat or Republican; to have absolutely no tolerance for corruption; to ensure every American's voice is heard in fair elections. Then, and only then, can we address the very long list of ideological differences between liberals and conservatives. Until then, every other controversy is a (very effective) mass distraction. This simplistic good guy/bad guy politics-as-sporting-event mindset must fall by the wayside if we hope to ever get out of this mess.
A recent book discusses public and private hypocrisy. Basically, the author argues that public hypocrisy about private matters, i.e., sexual shenanigans, is not only palatable to the public, but almost expected, and, therefore, generally ignored.
Mr. Clinton's private behavior had virtually no effect on the body politic, and things were going swimmingly--in comparison. So it is understandable why Dems might say one thing in Congressional cloakrooms but another on the floor.
Mr. Bush's brush with hypocrisy is public--a totally different matter. It does affect the body politic, and things are definitely not going swimmingly.
Mr. Scarborough's consistent stance for conservatism is laudable, but a little late. What, for instance, could have persuaded him the country would be better off with a failed businessman as its CEO? Other than a tax cut for people who didn't really need it.
There were intimations of leadership problems back in 2000. Remember when there was a sigh of relief when Mr. Cheney was self-appointed as nominee for the Vice Presidency? There were comments about "adults" in the administration. Republicans dropped the ball in 2000, going for a malleable good ol' boy and a tax cut rather than an experienced politician.
Welcome to my reality, Joe.
Though I appreciated the article, this whole "Is Bush an Idiot" thing just doesn't set well with me. Is he any dumber now than when he was initially elected? I don't think so. Despite what he wants us to believe, this is just a way for guys like Scarborough to jump off a sinking ship. Prior to August, 2006, if a liberal counterpart of Scarborough would have centered a TV show around the topic of Bush being an idiot, Scarborough and his ilk would have labeled that person a bad American.
So if Bush is an idiot, what's that say about the people that, until recently, have been telling us how great he is?
Not a coincidence that nobody's harshing on you, Tyler. Real leftists, who totally agree with your point about the loss of privacy rights, had little love for Clinton for many reasons -- remember all those Nader voters? Remember Tom Tomorrow's little waffle icon (which preceded Trudeau's)? Clinton was never a creature of the left, to whom he was always a mealy-mouthed corporatist sell-out.
What they didn't get (until far too late) is that merely keeping the burgeoning neocon/Xtianist/corporate cabal at bay was a huge and triumphant accomplishment, and probably the very best that could have been expected. The knives were out for the Clintons from before the inauguration, and the Repukes -- and the media (and the corporations that own both) -- were never gonna let even mild centrism, let alone anything further left, hold sway too long.
I had friends in the 80s who voted for Reagan specifically because they believed that only if things got much worse would the country's voters remember to appreciate that it was the left that created the policies and programs that fostered the huge growth of the economy and specifically the middle class throughout the 20th century. I thought they were nuts; turns out they were just prescient and a bit premature.
It's to our everlasting shame that it took the horrific and manifold failures of the Bushists to get Americans to start looking behind the curtains again. It's also a sad indictment of our culture, and our educational system in particular, that 35-40% of the populaace still buys the insanity and the lies.
Fine and timely work, Salon -- but I'm not ready to forgive Joe for the shabby way he and his ilk treated President Clinton. They moved heaven and earth to try to destroy a popular and successful president over a trivial private matter. They then forced an upper class twit on us (despite the fact that Al Gore got more votes), and for the next five years labeled as a traitor anyone who dared question Their Way. The result has been their phony "war on terror", and their failed war in Iraq. Sorry, Joe, but with half of the American public still so deliberately misinformed as to think that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and that WMD were found in Iraq, and with the so-called republicans already busy gearing up for their next war, We the People (or at least, We the Audience) desperately need to see and hear something more pertinent than the frantic squealing of another right-wing rat jumping ship.
In any event, "Bush Is an Idiot?" would be better with the question mark removed.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
