Free Markets, Free People


Joe Scarborough–“right-wing rage” water carrier (update)

It appears that as President Obama tries to “move to the right” with his op/ed in the WSJ today, POLITICO is also engaged in such a move with the hiring of Joe Scarborough as the righty on the site.  It is meant, one supposes, to help “center them up”.  I guess.  Joe Scarborough hasn’t ever impressed me as a good representative of the right on his MSNBC show, so I’m not sure how he’s going to help POLITICO in that regard.  But hey, it’s their call.  Maybe they don’t want a real righty, just a pretend one.

Anyway, Scarborough has decided these last two days to carry water for the “right-wing rage” crowd.  Apparently if you don’t sound like mewling mush-mouthed compromiser, you’re in a rage and Joe is here to call you out on that.  So taking on the big boys and girls (Beck and Palin), Morning Joe – who’d love to have Beck’s ratings, I’m sure – announces that he gets it.  They weren’t responsible for the Tucson shooting.  However:

But before you and the pack of right-wing polemicists who make big bucks spewing rage on a daily basis congratulate yourselves for not being responsible for Jared Lee Loughner’s rampage, I recommend taking a deep breath. Just because the dots between violent rhetoric and violent actions don’t connect in this case doesn’t mean you can afford to ignore the possibility — or, as many fear, the inevitability — that someone else will soon draw the line between them.

Uh, Joe … if the dots don’t connect in this case they don’t connect at all.  Got that?  It means whatever you’re babbling on about concerning their supposed “violent rhetoric” (yup, that’s a right-wing talking point isn’t it) is irrelevant.  They aren’t a part of that scene.  At all.  Nada, zip, zero to do with it.  Whatever their rhetoric it wasn’t a factor.

So I recommend you take a deep breath and back off.  There’s a possibility that a freakin’ meteor may hit the earth, however given how slight it is, I think I can afford to ignore that possibility.  At least until new information becomes available that says I should pay attention again, right?

Well, that’s kind of where you are with this act.  You’re spouting off about a “possibility” which has no real history to support it and certainly isn’t something that was a part of this most recent tragedy.

Scarborough goes a little schizoid after his nonsense above and acknowledges the right’s righteous anger at the way the media and the left immediately blamed the usual suspects on the right (Palin, Fox News and Beck) but then says:

Now that the right has proved to the world that it was wronged, this would be a good time to prevent the next tragedy from destroying its political momentum. Despite what we eventually learned about the shooter in Tucson, should the right have really been so shocked that many feared a political connection between the heated rhetoric of 2010 and the shooting of Giffords?

Well, yes, the right most certainly should have been shocked.  Ok, maybe not – after all we did watch the left melt down for 8 years – speaking of violent and vile, hateful rhetoric – but I haven’t seen anything to this point to even compare to that on the right.  So maybe the shock was how the left woke up in a new world in January of 2008 (along with Scarborough it appears) and suddenly discovered “violent rhetoric” exists – at least as they define it.  Most of the right, however, understands “violent rhetoric” as a lefty code phrase for “shut the right up”.

Of course the right’s “violent rhetoric” is, in comparison, a pale shadow of what the left pitched during the Bush years as has been amply demonstrated by any number of bloggers and right wing media types. 

So show me the history Joe – where there has been right-wing violence precipitated by “violent rhetoric”.  And no McVeigh doesn’t work – he stated unequivocally that the reason he detonated that horrific bomb in OK City was because of Waco – not Rush Limbaugh, not Fox News, not right rhetoric.  In fact there really isn’t much history of political assassination associated with “violent rhetoric” from the right in this country, is there?

And what sort of whack job associates a campaign stunt such as firing a “fully automatic M16” with her political opponent as a threat to Giffords – except you and the left, that is?  What you can’t break the context out on that?  It was a campaign event.  It was meant to draw people in to do something they’d find cool or enjoyable.  It wasn’t, pardon the word, aimed at Giffords, for goodness sake.

But waterboy Joe can’t leave it there, oh no:

And who on the right is really stupid enough to not understand that the political movement that has a near monopoly on gun imagery may be the first focus of an act associated with gun violence? As a conservative who had a 100 percent rating with the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America over my four terms in Congress, I wonder why some on the right can’t defend the Second Amendment without acting like jackasses. While these types regularly attack my calls for civility, it is their reckless rhetoric that does the most to hurt the cause.

Joe, you’re about as conservative is Barack Obama is centrist, but that aside, perhaps the right can’t defend the 2nd Amendment without acting like jackasses is because the real jackasses on the left are constantly trying to nullify it.  Sometimes you just have to be blunt about what’s happening.

As for the nonsense about not understanding why the right would be immediately associated with a shooting crime that’s simply a predisposition for the left that Scarborough wants to excuse. And it jumped right out there after Tucson embarrassingly enough, didn’t it Joe?

Facts, pal … facts.  That’s what matter.  And the fact of the matter is the right or its rhetoric had nothing to do with the tragedy in Tucson. Not what it has said, not its literature, not its stance on guns.  Nothing.

That’s the fact, sir.  And jackasses like you who keep this crap rolling based in nothing but your own “rage” need to be called out on it. “Civility” is just another in a long line of lefty attempts to shut the right up.  Racist is losing its sting so now the way to shut down debate, to shut your opponent up and to dismiss or wave away any argument they may make, is to call them “uncivil”.  That’s what the left is attempting.  Nice to see it has fellow travelers who claim to be from the right carrying water for them, Joe.

Great job.

UPDATE:  Ah, now I know why waterboy Joe is still ranting.  Ed Koch explains.  Ed Koch for heaven sake.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

25 Responses to Joe Scarborough–“right-wing rage” water carrier (update)

  • I remember when David Brock and David Gergan were both “pundits of the right”.  The left loves guys like that.

  • So taking on the big boys and girls (Beck and Palin), Morning Joe – who’d love to have Beck’s ratings, I’m sure – announces that he gets it.


    You keep doing that.  You keep relating ratings to a quality argument.  It is as though you think that a quality argument is directly related to the number of consumers.  One could very well say, “QandO – who’d love to have the hits RedState and PajamaMedia has – announces that they get it” as a smite whenever one might disagree with you.

    Then you go on to question his bonafides.

    Joe, you’re about as conservative is Barack Obama is centrist,

    Yeah, I’m sure many said the same of you when you favored the repeal of DADT.  In fact, I remember many here in the comments section actually questioning your bonafides then.

    You don’t like Scarborough’s argument?  Fine.  I think it’s rather a benign argument myself… but why bring in these externallities unless you feel that they somehow help your rebuttal.

    Which, of course, they don’t.

    Cheers.
     

    • Good grief Pogue – it was a throw away remark – unimportant – true, but unimportant. I get snarky when I’m pissed off. Live with it.

      Gawd, you pick at the oddest things.

      As to why I do it? Because it’s my blog and I can.

      Any other questions?

      Good, I have one for you – what “bona fides” were in question when I came out in favor of DADT? Many who regularly read the blog didn’t like it but few who’d been here more than a day questioned why I was for it (i.e. only those who assumed I was a conservative questioned non-existent bona fides and those don’t count).

      • Gawd, you pick at the oddest things.

        Don’t I, though?  I can’t help it.  Back in the day when I was a house painter, I was always tasked with picking just the right shade of white.

        Call it a gift!

        As to why I do it? Because it’s my blog and I can.

        Of course.  What is a blog if not a perfect venue to rant about whatever annoys you?  And what is the comments section of a blog if not a perfect venue to nitpick about whatever annoys me?
        What a beautiful relationship we have.  :)

    • I think the salient bit is that ‘Morning Joe’ works for a competing cable network.  That he blasts his competition on a self-proclaimed “neutral” site is also relevant.  And you might want to be a bit careful with starting a quality vs quantity meme, Pogue, for the largest quantity of news sources are not FNC and associates.

      Questioning McQ’s bonafides on a dedicated neo-libertarian site in regards to DADT?  Are you serious?

      • Questioning McQ’s bonafides on a dedicated neo-libertarian site in regards to DADT?  Are you serious?

        Well that’s the real trick, isn’t it Bains?
        You see, when one invents their own ideology, one must be conscience of the colors one mixes on the pallete.

        As Dale Franks describes “neolibertarianism” as a “big-tent libertarianism”, wouldn’t it seem odd to highlight the ideological bonafides of others on a “dedicated neo-libertarian site”?
        After all, Scarborough describes himself as more libertarian than anything else.

        But of course, that is the fall back position of any self-described conservative whenever they decide to buck the party line.  “Well, I’m more of a libertarian…” Yeah, right.
        And neolibertarianism, from what I’ve witnessed over the years, simply means having an aversion to whatever might be annoying you at the time.

        Cheers.

        • Well if I’ve been part of “making it up”, then I get to decide the colors on the pallet, not you. So suck it up, big boy. I get to define my own bona fides.

        • And neolibertarianism, from what I’ve witnessed over the years, simply means having an aversion to whatever might be annoying you at the time.

          I will not deny that there have been a fair amount of non big-L libertarians that fit this bill.  In fact, I seem to recall a number of prominent progressives adopting the label in an attempt to urge others to vote for Obama several years ago.

          And that is a big problem with the neo-libertarian label – too often others want to co-opt it’s supporters.   It is noteworthy now that Obama  has lost the support of Libertarians, neo-libertarians, and fair-weather libertarians, that “progressive-libertarians” take exception to attitudes we have always held, and comments we have always made.

  • I hear they are thinking of complimenting Scarborough’s political savvy with Megan McCain’s insight.  And to balance out that right-wing rhetoric, they will also add Glen(‘s) Greenwald and Amanda Marcotte with the center/left POV.

    I’ll still read Politico – but as with the dead tree dinosaurs (NYTimes & WAPost)  each article has to, in and of itself, prove its worth.

    And I wont pay for their content!

  • I  was wondering if anybody else had noticed the waterboy had sold out.

    Being the big NY celeb went right to his brain or wallet.

    If he should ever run there will be a (D) after his name. Nobody takes him for a conservative!

  • Damn, racists. Barack Obama has called for a more cordial atmosphere and some racist jerk at Gardena High School in Los Angeles has decided to take it upon himself to ignore “The Won’s” gracious call.
    Obviously, this is the fault of Joe Scarborough … and I don’t want to hear a word out of him that it is anything but his fault. Self-centered idiot, hold your tongue.

    • Actually Neo, I think the proper response to all our friends (and I mean friends) with leftist leanings is to blame everything bad that happens for the next few months on Sarah Palin.  With good cheer of course, but pound in into their minds via veiled sarcasm, the absurdity that us non-leftists know it to be.

      Kinda like in Repoman (NSFW) when Otto’s friend Duke issues his dying breath:

      “…the lights are growin dim…
      I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate…
      I blame society…”

      • I like your idea…except for a lot of the Collectivists I know…it would actually reinforce their PDS.  They’d think I was being serious.

    • This is an example of how Joe expects Palin to act.
      Accuse them of anything, then invoke “the children” or some other poor sober story, followed by a story that their problem are a lot bigger, then tell them to shut up.
      Hey, Joe.  You racist, boy-toy and pediophile.  STFU and live with it.

  • Let’s flip this around a little bit, and assume that the original presumption was that it was a black shooter, as has happened repeatedly with criminal acts (Susan Smith) to the outrage of the “leaders” of the black community.

    “Before the rest of you black folks get to sure in yourself because this time it wasn’t one of you that did this bunch of murdering, I recommend you calm down.  Just because it wasn’t one of you that was connected to this violent, antisocial act doesn’t mean it won’t be you the next time.  After all, you spend all day listening to violence-glorifying music, embroiled in a culture that rewards bad behavior.  Statistically speaking, it’s almost always one of you.  So should you really be so surprised that everyone assumed it was one of you?”

    Think you’ll see that spew out of one of these MSNBC hacks?  And why not?

  • LOL  Joe is “conservative” only when compared to his co-host Mika Breztoughtospell.  But at least she’s honest about what she is.

    He’s the absolute epitome of someone changing to get liked by the cocktails crowd.

    Well Joe, (and Mika as well), EFF YOU, and the horse you rode in on.   And yes, that’s actually quite civil compared to what you really deserve to be called.

  • There’s conservatives, then there’s NY/East Coast “conservatives”.
    I’d rather a western state Democrat than a Scarbouough any day.

  • Scarborough goes a little schizoid after his nonsense above and acknowledges the right’s righteous anger at the way the media and the left immediately blamed the usual suspects on the right (Palin, Fox News and Beck)

    More there than perhaps you realize, McQ.
    What is it called when incomprehensible associative abstractions are made? Where does moral relativism derive from?
    Yup.

  • It occured to me that the left’s linking Tucson to the “right wing” has a useful byproduct: providing cover for RINO’s and other Republican elites who despise Sarah Palin and the Tea Party but need a “safe” excuse to criticize them.  They can’t come right out and say, “Man, you Palinistas and Tea Partiers are a bunch of ignorant f*cking whackos who really need to shut up and just do what your betters – that would be us – tell you is best.  Don’t you know how EMBARRASSING it is to have to be asked at a DC cocktail party or on ‘Meet the Press’ whether we share your screwball views on the Constitution, the budget, and good governence?  PUH-LEEZE!  So, do us all a favor and be more ‘civil’, or, in the parlance of those reichwing blogs you all seem to enjoy reading: STFU.”

    [W]ho on the right is really stupid enough to not understand that the political movement that has a near monopoly on gun imagery may be the first focus of an act associated with gun violence?

    Good grief!  By this “logic”, the right appears responsible not only for Tucson but for every other shooting in America!  What’s next???  Associating the right with the Taliban because the right has a “near monopoly on religion”???? 

    Oh, wait…

    To Joe and his ilk, I say with heartfelt loathing: BITE ME.

  • http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/01/16/how-the-obama-campaign-created-the-palin-incites-violence-meme/
    Interesting take on the forming of a lie, two years back.
    It is all designed, remember, to silence us.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet