Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dem Senators privately griping to Joe Scarborough about Obama?

By Greg Sargent

Is it possible that some of the most powerful Dem Senators in the country are privately bitching to Joe Scarborough, of all people, about President Obama?

No idea if it's true or not. But that's what Scarborough alleged on MSNBC this morning. Before you jump on me for quoting Scarborough on this, allow me to make a point about it.

Scarborough, much to Republicans' delight, claimed that Dems in Washington have been "horrified by this president's handling of things for a year and a half now," adding that the "top Democrats in the United States Senate have all told me individually this guy has no idea what he's doing."

Scarborough specifically claimed that "Democratic chairman in the Senate" -- among the most powerful Dems in Congress -- had complained privately to him that Obama had failed to adequately include Reublicans in the governing process:

Sure, Scarborough could very well be exaggerating wildly or makin' it up. But you know something? Having watched Congress up close for the past two years -- the backbiting, the shortsightedness, the scheming, the elevation of individual careers over party, and the bizarre addiction some Dems have to currying favor with journalists and outlets who are openly hostile to them -- It wouldn't surprise me at all if there's some truth to it.

By Greg Sargent  | November 10, 2010; 11:53 AM ET
Categories:  Political media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Earmark debate another example of Republican fiscal fraudulence
Next: Constitutional law prof: Mitch McConnell's attack on health reform is "absurd"

Comments

What would surprise me is if it's only seven -- I can think of that many backstabbers in a flash, and add at least a few more to my list without much additional mental effort.

Democrats can be slow learners, I'll admit -- but after the past few years, have they still not figured out the advantages of sticking together?

Posted by: S1VA | November 10, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"And it's true that no amount of exercise is going to overwhelm a murderously caloric diet." This is not quite true. Michael Phelps was eating 12,000 calories a day, yes, every day, that adds up...to 4% body fat. When I was running marathons, I could eat anything in whatever quantity I could handle.
The elite runners don't, but that is a whole different class of human bean.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 10, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

What kind of garbage is this, Greg?

Beltway FAIL.

Next.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 10, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama could learn a thing or two about sticking together...with the people who got him elected. Hint: it wasn't powerful Democratic Senators.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 10, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, have you not been paying close attention to the behavior of some Congressional Dems?

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 10, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

How many times have sources said something bad about the admin to HuffPo? or to you, Greg or to TPM? Hundreds of times at least.

This is why Dems have such a difficult time governing, when the going gets tough, the tough get whining. Heck, in light of how many Dem Senators wanted to give up HCR in light of Scott Brown's win in January, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

Posted by: calchala | November 10, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

There should be a simple rule, anything that "Dead Intern" Joe Scarborough says is suspect. It comes with the territory. Anyway, the Dems in the Senate have enough to worry about with their own dysfunctional chamber.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 10, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Sure: Conrad, Lieberman, Landrieu, Baucus (although he has no standing to criticize after his clusterf@#$), Lincoln, maybe even Rockefeller.

Their senate doesn't exist anymore. Republicans killed it at least 6 years ago. These folks need to be put out to pasture.

Posted by: andrewlong | November 10, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

all, I agree that Scar should be taken with grain of salt. I was trying to make a larger point, hope that's obvious.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 10, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I happened to catch Scarborough this morning as well and this caught my ear. My guess is that he is exaggerating, something he does regularly on the show, but I would be surprised if there wasn't some truth to it. He asked Chuck Todd to confirm, which he sort of did. Then Todd went on this weird thing about how Congressional Dems want the President to hand-hold them through the legislative process which sounds like a terrible idea to me.

The whole conversation sounds strikingly like this bizarre beltway (not to overuse that cliche) meme about how Obama needs to be more friendly with elites like Wall Street bankers, big business, lobbyists and Congressional power-brokers (laughably summed up in that recent Politico piece) and that somehow that would have helped Dems electorally.

I am somewhat skeptical that a strongly populous tone from Obama would be effective, but a more bank/business-friendly tone sure as hell wouldn't help.

Posted by: jbossch | November 10, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Greg, have you not been paying attention to the Senate? Have you not been paying attention to Joe Scarborough?

This article amounts to nothing more than beltway insider noise/nonsense and a total waste of time.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 10, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, try and understand that the post is making a larger point.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 10, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of the Senate, Greg.

A far more interesting issue -- to me at least -- is that Dems are trying to get Olympia Snowe to switch parties, given that she is going to face a certain primary in 2012.

The only bit I've seen on it is a teaser at National Journal and a mention of that teaser at political wire:

"""A SNOWE BALL’S CHANCE? We hear that Dems are making new overtures to Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine to switch teams. They've tried before, but Snowe's 2012 primary prospects make taking another run at her now seem worth it."""

Would be interesting to know more about this one... certainly more interesting than anything Joe Scarborough has to say imho.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 10, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

What does "failed to adequately include Reublicans in the governing process" even mean? Gates and Lahood are two powerful Republicans in Obama's cabinet. How is Obama supposed to include Republicans in a legislative process and maintain the separation of powers? There wasn't any purge of Bush Justice appointees that I'm aware of. This claim is just pure baloney.

Posted by: boloboffin1 | November 10, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Certainly there can be no doubting that Obama and the Dems have "failed to adequately include Reublicans in the governing process." They tried to ram through every pet liberal project they could and they were pretty successful at it.

It seems doubtful, though, that any Dem Senator would tell Scarborough that Obama "has no idea what he's doing."

Posted by: sbj3 | November 10, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday Joey Scar was ranting on how waterboarding was akin to splashing someone in the face with water. He went on to say that it is hypocrisy to be okay with using drones to slaughter 4 year olds and being against torture.

First off, we don't target 4 year olds, we target terrorists. Is there "collateral damage?" Yes. Bombs tend to do that. I don't remember him complaining, or ever even mentioning, the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed when we invaded Iraq.

Secondly, torture, as opposed to drone strikes or bombing raids, is always intentional. You don't accidentally torture someone. And torture is more about vengeance then information gathering. The intel gathered through torture is dubious at best; torture someone long enough and they will tell you anything.

Thirdly, waterboarding is torture. I remember one conservative radio yacker saying the same nonsense Joey Scar spouts manning up and letting himself be waterboarded just to prove that it isn't torture. He lasted about a half a second before saying, "Yeah, alright, that's torture."

My point in this? Joey Scar is an idiot that doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.

Posted by: nisleib | November 10, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"...understand that the post is making a larger point."

Greg, I got that, this was my first clue.

"No idea if it's true or not."

Usually that matters, a lot, I thought, so he must be saying that it doesn't matter.
Too subtle for the partisans I guess.
Next time you'll have to use a blunt object.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 10, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"try and understand that the post is making a larger point."

I understand the larger point. I think it is a total waste of time and, frankly, beneath your considerable skills as a journalist. Sorry.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 10, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

jbossch, thanks for that -- interesting angle I hadn't considered.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 10, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I hope on his Asia trip Obama takes some time to read up on FDR. The man was a master of getting things done by marginalizing the GOP and demonizing Wall Street. Obama is too busy extending the olive branch to people who knock it out of his hands. He needs to prepare for 2012 by growing a spine, be the bulwark for the middle class, and start going after the GOP directly by personalizing it by calling out guys like McConnell and Boehner by name. He is every bit as bright as FDR, but if he is tempermentally unable to do it, then step aside and let Joe or Hillary run.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 10, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Scarborough ALWAYS talks like this.

When he started the show, he had his initial contacts, but once a show goes on the air, Scarborough could probably get anyone to talk to him off-the-record, on backgound.

What do you expect?

Mika is getting text messages from the White House staff DURING the broadcast.


WHY don't you write-up a conspiracy theory about that ???

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 10, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"I am somewhat skeptical that a strongly populous tone from Obama would be effective..."

@jbossch Maybe not, but it is his only chance. That is what got him elected.

Then he turned his Presidency over to Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Lloyd Blankfein, Rham Emanuel, Ken Salazar, The Fed and so on. He left we the people at the altar of Hope and Change and ran out into the waiting arms of...business as usual.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 10, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Would not put much creditibility in waht Scarborough says. He is another commentator that lets his mouth override facts.
The main reason Wall St does not back our president is the regulations he put in place to make sure they cannot dupe the
American people again. They and the republicans strongly support de-regulation.
Far as reaching across the aisle, everytime President Obama reached out a hand it was slapped.
When you have a political party with the unAmerican, irresponsible goals the republicans have, you have a party that is not representing the American people or the survival of our country.

Posted by: kathlenec | November 10, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"Yesterday Joey Scar was ranting on how waterboarding was akin to splashing someone in the face with water."

Right Wing shock jock Mancow Muller was waterboarded on his show, and after seconds of being under he went all "no mas" "no mas". Within seconds you had another poor man's Glenn Beck phony tough guy admit that waterboarding is, in fact, torture.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 10, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Some truth in it? Does it seem like Obama knows what he's doing. Obama is so stuck in his tired old social justice playbook that he can't see beyond rails, clean energy, global warming, cap and trade, and global competition. Obama completely ignored jobs, economy, deficit, and the debt because he first wanted to change our fundamentals and transform this country to socialism before he lifted a finger get the economy going. Why do you think Obama invented the phrase "the new norm". It's so no can could hold him accountable for ignoring jobs, economy, the deficit, and the debt. Get used to high job losses. Why? So Obama could have a get out of jail card for not knowing what he's doing.

Posted by: houstonian | November 10, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

filmnoia - Yeah, it was Mankew that I was referring to.

Here is the video of Mankew getting his "face splashed with water."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0

Posted by: nisleib | November 10, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Greg

I AM HORRIFIED at Obama's handling of the country's affairs.


Are you really surprised that several democratic Senators agree with me ???

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 10, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Joe is full of (%&$. Those "Dem" politicians are about as nonexistent as his "CIA" sources. He's full of garbage and self importance. I don't believe a word out of his mouth.

Posted by: clintt5 | November 10, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "The intel gathered through torture is dubious at best; torture someone long enough and they will tell you anything..."

This is foolish.

"This ignorant view of how interrogations are conducted is belied by both experience and common sense. If coercive interrogation had been administered to obtain confessions, one might understand the argument... But confessions aren't the point. Intelligence is. Interrogation is conducted by using such obvious approaches as asking questions whose correct answers are already known and only when truthful information is provided proceeding to what may not be known. Moreover, intelligence can be verified, correlated and used to get information from other detainees, and has been; none of this information is used in isolation."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993446103128041.html

"I remember one conservative radio yacker saying the same nonsense Joey Scar spouts manning up and letting himself be waterboarded just to prove that it isn't torture. He lasted about a half a second before saying, "Yeah, alright, that's torture."

The waterboarding was fake:

http://gawker.com/5272691/mancows-waterboarding-was-completely-fake

"Mancow called us back to say that even though his waterboarder didn't know what he was doing, and his publicist called the whole thing a "hoax," it wasn't supposed to be a REALLY real waterboarding to begin with. Just the radio stunt kind!"

Posted by: sbj3 | November 10, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Who are the Scarborough Seven? That should be pretty obvious: Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Richard Shelby, Herb Kohl.

And that's the list of SURVIVING Blue Dog Dems after the midterm election. Nervy bunch, aren't they?

Posted by: kayjay503 | November 10, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I watch Morning Joe and I enjoy it. But I also yell at the TV some morning. Where was Scarborough with all these insights about what Democratic Senators were saying 12 months ago? 6? 3? Nowhere. He's been complaining about this or that, Obama needs to do whatever, but he hasn't gone full Jimmy Carter on him. Now that the Republicans are ascendant, he's going with the way the wind is blowing. (As Nisleib said, Scarborough is jumping all over the drone attacks. Could this have anything to do with Bush's memoir being out? Oh the good ole days. Rhapsodizing about about how Bush got the Dems to sign off on the Surge and tax cuts. Why can't Obama do that?)

I see Tom Daschle in shrink2's list. And Tom Daschle is one of the guys, along with Colin Powell, that Scarborough recommends Obama bring in to shake up the WH and go along and get along with the Hill. Someone who can work the system. A Jim Baker The whole thing is a joke.

Bottom line is, Obama is a pragmatist. I'm hoping he'll adjust accordingly to the new situation.

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | November 10, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Ok, I give up! I stopped commenting on blogs about a year ago when we were in the healthcare back & forth, I still read them, but made commenting a no-no, because really, so much of the time we go round and round and nothing gets accomplished...but this post just forced me to drop my "no commenting rule" at least for today. I have a major problem with anything coming from Joe Scarborough. I had been watching him every morning since Imus left in '07. At first it was an enjoyable platform, I even kind of liked him although I disagree with him on ideology. I don't mind hearing from people that I disagree with, but I like having both points of view debated in a non-hostile platform. Well recently, this show has taken a tone that is much, much worse. I am not sure what happened over the last 4-5 months, but it's intolerable in my opinion. After I stopped watching the show, I started doing additional research on Joe & suffice it to say that while he had me convinced at first that he was a conservative with a balanced platform and reasonable temperment, it is just not true. He has one of the worst temperments, he just surrounds himself with people that mostly agree with him so that his nasty personality doesn't come out. He has a habit of literally walking away from the table if he is on a show and is called on the carpet. We all know that Maddow got to him on Race to the White House that one night and he literally walked off the set in the middle of the segment. Also, I found an interesting clip of him and Colbert from years ago. Now, it's Colbert, so you know the types of things he is going to say when you go on his show and if you can't take it then don't go on, but Colbert opened the interview with "So I understand you took money from Ambramoff" and J just got up and started to walk off, I thought he was going to go off altogether, but he finally came back. Anytime someone with an opposing point of view, that has a valid point confronts him, even in a polite way, he goes to his standard "I don't do Crossfire" in order to get out of responding to difficult questions. He has set up this brand of himself as if he is this level-headed, balanced pundit, but he is not & I do not trust him one single bit. There is motivation behind every thing that he does and I realize that is the case with all pundits, but seriously he has gone off the reservation lately and I'm not sure who he thinks his viewers are or who MSNBC thinks it's viewers are, because they are not a bunch of conservatives. I think he is trying to stir up a bunch of conflict within the Dem Party and using his platform with MSNBC to do it. He knows that the GOP is going to be in sad shape as far as an electable candidate in 2012 and he is trying to pull Dem's apart, the fact that his BS is now landing on a blog post of Greg's is just more affirmation of this. If there is one thing I've learn about Joe and his show is it is all a complete farce of false equals and bombastic bullshit.

Posted by: jdrewd | November 10, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

This is bogus. A couple of weeks ago I caught a segment where Scarborough was saying that many Republcans come on the show and in the Greenroom they say how unqualified and ignornat Palin is but, when they come out on the set they say all of these nice things about her. He they just pivoted and said that some Dems say the same thing about Obama. He claimed that priately they say this guy doesn't know wha the's doing but, won't say it on camera. It was basically more of the both sides garbage. You should all note that the President has appeared on every show on the planet except Morning Joe. I suspect that White House staffers watch this garbage each day and they've told the President how he trashes him on a daily basis. I don't buy anything from a guy who hid behind his wife with those policitical donations. Remember that it was Mika who claimed that Joe's wife gave the donations. He couldn't even speak for himself. That doesn't pass the smell test as the kos put it because Scarborough also spoke at a campaign fundraiser for the guy.

Posted by: roxsteady | November 10, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Mr. Sargent, for bringing this up. I wrote to the show this am with exactly your headline!!! What a tool Scarborough is. And that Barnicle too (look up his past if you want to see some ethics violations!) It's bad enough that Joe constantly talks about insider this and that, but to state that the chairs of powerful committees in the Senate were confiding in him, Mika and Barnicle is just ridiculous. Oh sure, I can see Kent Conrad doing that, but the others? Doubtful! I want names, and I want Valerie Jarret to check them out. If they are going behind the President's back than they need to be challenged at their next primary!

Posted by: LAB2 | November 10, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

sbj3, the point of Mancows demonstration was to determine if it was torture.

So, if what Mancow received lacked the tying of the hands and Mancow still had the sensation of being tortured then one would assume having his hands tied would make the sensation even more prevalent.

And regarding Scarborough, the guy is having one of his mood swings. Yesterday, he tried to frame drone attacks as a policy of killing 13 year old girls and said people complaining of waterboarding didn't have a leg to stand on when they ignore the killing of 13 year old girls as a policy.

See, he's trying to justify Bush and Cheney and trying to make Obama out to be a monster.

Clever little prick.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 10, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Greg, for what it's worth, this is not the first time Joe Scar has made this claim, nor is it even the first time this week. He said essentially the same on Monday.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 10, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010's response translated:

(sticking fingers in ears)

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!!

Posted by: BoiledFrog | November 10, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

SBJ - Maybe you should read the article you linked to.

"We went into this thinking it was going to be a joke," Muller said very quickly when we called him. "But it was not a joke—it was horrible. 'Hoax' is probably not the right word, but we did think it was going to be a joke."

And the guy they found to do the waterboarding, where did he learn how to do it?

"So we called Klay South, the marine Mancow found at the last minute to perform the waterboarding. He says he had no idea what he was doing! To wit:

I know nothing about waterboarding. I had never done it before, I have no formal training in it, and I've never had it done to me. The only thing I knew was what I saw on the internet. I went to waterboarding.org and looked it up. I just did what I was told—poured the water on his face and that was it. I'm probably the last person they should have had do it. I didn't know what I was doing."

In short, what Mankew went through was nowhere near as bad as real waterboarding, and it was STILL more than Mankew could take.

And SBJ, you can defend torture all you like, I'm against it and with the many, many experts who say it is a terrible method of gaining intel.

Posted by: nisleib | November 10, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

@mike: "sbj3, the point of Mancows demonstration was to determine if it was torture."

If that was the point (which I don't think it was), then shouldn't he have been submitted to the same procedure that the detainees went through?

"Isn't the whole point of these exercises to let people know exactly what we talk about when we talk about waterboarding? ... we've learned absolutely nothing about the mechanics or ethics of what goes on at CIA black sites. ... He hasn't actually experienced it, or anything remotely approaching what actual torture victims experienced. None of it is real."

"... We have [no] idea if Muller was deliberately faking the whole episode for publicity, or if he ginned up a fake waterboarding as a gag and then was surprised to find himself actually terrified by it."

"... Mancow Muller is a shock jock. He calls himself Mancow! He's been making ludicrous, insane comments for a living and pranking people for years. He's claimed that Obama is a Muslim and that Hillary Clinton was sitting on a secret tape of Michelle Obama making a racist tirade. Nothing he says should be taken at face value."

http://gawker.com/5272691/mancows-waterboarding-was-completely-fake

Posted by: sbj3 | November 10, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Heads up, folks. The Debt Commission will be releasing their Chairmen's Mark report today.

(via TPM)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 10, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

umm...sbj3. So because he's a shock jock that discredits him?

And Mancow had it done to him for what, a few seconds? Because he didn't have it done to him dozens of times like Khaleed then it wasn't real?

Is that what you're trying to argue?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 10, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

And by Democrats I wonder if Scarborough is talking about Evan Buhbye, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson to name a few.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 10, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

After reading many of the posts, I see that many of you agree with me, that JS is full of it. However, one of you noted that he has become a bombastic bully of late, and I couldn't agree more.

I remember years ago, during the Clinton impeachment hearings, listening to JS go on and on about how Clinton should be impeached. A year or so later, I heard his voice on MSNBC, ran into the room, and saw his ugly mug. I couldn't believe they'd given this idiot a show, on TV! Then when he auditioned for the am show after Imus, I thought he seemed pretty even tempered and even funny sometimes.

I thought Mika would be a stronger lib defender, but now she's suffering from abused spouse syndrome and caves all the time. The way he yells at her and any guest who disagrees with him (never letting them get a word in edgewise either!) is really offensive. The way I've gotten around it is that I start watching a half hour late and fast forward through his parts and just listen to the guests. He talks so much sometimes that 30 minutes isn't enough.

But the bit yesterday about the drones and four year old girls with their heads blown off was just unbelievable. I was shocked they didn't pull him off the show to calm him down. Mika handled it as well as she could, but I thought she looked disgusted with him.

I agree he's trying to split the Dems to make a path for the right--but I notice fewer and fewer Dems are coming on the show. Pretty soon it will be all white older men, like lying Andy Card who thinks Obama doesn't respect the office of POTUS by wearing shirts with the sleeves rolled up.....Can't they find one minority to be on the show every day and ditch that Barnicle guy? (google him to see what he did a few years ago to disgrace his name....)

Posted by: LAB2 | November 10, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The more things change...

"President Theodore Roosevelt privately rationalized the instances of "mild torture, the water cure" but publicly called for efforts to "prevent the occurrence of all such acts in the future."

In that effort, he ordered the court-martial of General Jacob H. Smith on the island of Samar, "where some of the worst abuses had occurred." When the court-martial found only that he had acted with excessive zeal, Roosevelt disregarded the verdict and had the General dismissed from the Army."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Posted by: shrink2 | November 10, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

@mike: I'm arguing that what Mancow had done to him is not what the (three) detainees had done to them. I'm arguing that you shouldn't trust (like Scarborough) what Mancow says - unless you *do* believe that Obama is a secret Muslim?

Posted by: sbj3 | November 10, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Scarborough is following the Bye Bye Bayh rule:

Take something Evan Bayh thinks, and pretend there at least 7 times as many Senators agree with him.

Since Evan Bayh is probably the only one who may have actually spouted this nonsense, that's how Scarborough arrived at the number 7. Had Bayh actually been joined by say Lieberman and Nelson in saying this, Scarborough would have said 21 people told it to him.

Posted by: michaelh81 | November 10, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"I thought Mika would be a stronger lib defender, but now she's suffering from abused spouse syndrome and caves all the time. The way he yells at her and any guest who disagrees with him (never letting them get a word in edgewise either!) is really offensive. "

Quite sadly, JS got an email from his wife yesterday morning instructing him to apologize to Mika for brow-beating her. I found it odd that he read it on the air, then apologized noting that if he didn't, he'd have hell to pay when he got home. The guy is strange.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 10, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

So let me see if I have this story straight: powerful Democratic Senators, who for the last four years have at least in theory controlled the legislative process in the U.S. Senate have supposedly been complaining to "Morning" Joe Scarborough that President Obama has not sufficiently involved Republicans in governing?

At least now I know where the vicious "in crowd" from most junior high schools ends up.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 10, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Your welcome to your opinion of what you saw in the Mancow video I suppose.

But you haven't proved or disproved anything by what you've been posting is all.

So, I guess we both have opinions to reinforce what we believe which is I think waterboarding is torture and you think it isn't, even though Reagan signed off on the UN Convention on Torture of 1984 which defined waterboarding as torture.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 10, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama has no idea what it takes to pass Health Care Reform, Financial Regulatory Reform, a Stimulus Package, an overhaul of the Student Loan system, a Credit Card Reform Bill, and an Auto Maker Rescue Package in the first two years of his administration. None at all.

Posted by: klautsack | November 10, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Those Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2012 who want to get re-elected had better jump on the earmark banning wagon being led by Senator DeMint. As a Democrat I have always viewed "earmarks" as corruption. Banning earmarks may not save much money but it would be a step forward in the fight against corruption.
If the GOP and Tea Party partisans want to reduce the federal deficit they had better start favoring an end to the expensive, useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best way to support US troops is to bring them home. The best way to cut the federal deficit is to stop spending billions of dollars on these wars. Much of the money we spend goes to our enemies who use it to purchase weapons to kill our troops.Many Iraqi and Afghani tribal leaders are building villas in Switzerland with the money we give them.

Posted by: jimeglrd8 | November 10, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

All, check this out: A constitutional law professor eviscerates Mitch McConnell's argument that Obamacare is unconstitional:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/constitutional_law_prof_mitch.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 10, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

To LAB2 -

So why not just stop watching Morning Joe?

I've never understood how early morning shows get any viewers other than retirees and shut ins. Most people are too busy shaving, showering, getting kids off to school, and planning their day.
If all the people here who are moaning about Joe would just not watch him then there wouldn't be a Morning Joe and MSNBC can show something of value, like re-runs of LOCKUP.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 10, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

jimeglrd8: earmarks aren't only corruption. Many are worthwhile projects that would never get a hearing in time to be beneficial. It's not just the bridge to nowhere, it could be the bridge to your house.

Posted by: LAB2 | November 10, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure this is the exact sort of gossip laden, shallow, waste of time non-story that Jon Stewart has been pleading with the media to stop covering.

People always say "Politics is Hollywood for Ugly People", but this isn't even that. This is like an ugly version of a bad "reality" show that's half-scripted by people who couldn't make it as real writers.

Political reporting should be the pinnacle of journalism in this country. Instead it's a mixture of TMZ and ESPN, and somehow still manages to be less than the sum of it's parts.

@Greg

Don't pass on this non-sense, unless you've done additional reporting that actually makes it a real story. Leave the rumor-mill crud like this for The Daily Caller and Politico...

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | November 10, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Right now the Democrats in the Senate are an army in retreat. They took some very heavy hits and saw some on the other side too like Senator Bennett of Utah, Spector of PA and maybe Murkowski in Alaska. Are they going to grumble, you bet they are. They are looking down the road two years when for technical reasons it will be very very tough if not impossible for them to hold the Senate majority. They are not happy, not one little bit.

The loss of Senator Kennedy as a vital behind the scenes compromise maker is no doubt more serious that is usually thought, Barncle is very right on this. Finally, the Obama White House staff is even tighter and narrower than the Bush staff and it was far too insular. The White House is missing a lot of cues and signals and that is making life a lot harder in the Senate. Although there is no sign of it right now, President Obama must widen the range of savvy experienced people around him. If he doesn't he will have far more trouble dealing with the changed and far less congenial political reality. If I was him I would make sure I played a round of golf with John Boehner at least once a month. Casual background chat between him and the leadership of his party and the other party can really help avoid potholes and bumps in the road and limit head banging partisanship.

Posted by: SanchoK | November 10, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

sbj, if you really believe that waterboarding is not torture, surely you would have no objections to our military being subjected to it, correct?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 10, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans have 47 Senators.

Theorically, they only need 13 democratic Senators to side with them on a closture of any issue.


So, the House Republicans PLUS 13 democratic Senators puts an issue in front of Obama - who then has the decision to veto.

_______________________


In other words, the Republicans need to get 13 democratic Senators and Obama to agree to a bill - and that PASSES A LAW - that is the new majority.

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 10, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

filmnoia--I have plenty of free time after my kids go to school at 6:10 am, and before I have to leave for work at 9:30 am....I am a political junkie, like it or not, and I like watching some of the guests and the discussion. I guess as a woman I'm a good multitasker--making coffee, breakfast, feeding and walking the dogs, putting in laundry, all while listening or watching to MJ....

Posted by: LAB2 | November 10, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

@BBQ, agreed 10,000,000%

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 10, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

And why are you spreading this rumor around, Greg? You said you didn't know whether it is true or not. That puts it into the category of rumor, and rumors should not be spread. Did you have nothing else to write about?

Posted by: CRinVegas | November 10, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"So, I guess we both have opinions to reinforce what we believe which is I think waterboarding is torture and you think it isn't, even though Reagan signed off on the UN Convention on Torture of 1984 which defined waterboarding as torture."

See, what you fail to realize, Mike, is that it's only "torture" when it's done by "bad guys". We're the "good guys" with only the best of intentions so when we do it, it's not "torture", it's "enhanced interrogation". I believe that even the NY Times subscribes to this philosophy. /snark

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 10, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

The larger point is: Journalists and opinionated talking heads focus on BS and nothing more. Who cares about Joe Scarborough's hear-say? Why does stuff like that COUNT as news?

Stuff like this and the constant horserace/elections as a game idea is what makes you guys in the political media a pain in the ass to watch or read. Focus on what matters.

So there are some "influential" Democratic Senators chirping about Obama. BFD. They should be complaining about how poorly Reid responded to Pelosi's 400+ bills passed because he was wetting the bed over possible filibusters, which -if he actually had any fight in him from his glory days- he would have let those Republican idiots do it, but then actually HIGHLIGHT THAT to the American people, as many are busy or distracted by garbage reading/noise like this article.

That would've helped them, perhaps. They certainly didn't use their Senate majority to an advantage. How the hell is 41 votes holding up the progress of the United States in times like these? Journalists aka the media aren't doing their damn jobs.

They don't focus on why Healthcare Reform was actually connected to the economy, you know, because it's what the gov't most needs to worry about in terms of cost, now and in the near term, as well as people goin bankrupt due to healthcare costs and losing their homes as well (though I don't agree that HCR actually deals with everything right away - IT SHOULD HAVE).

No, you guys like to focus on the right-wing echo chamber and parrot what they have to say to try and seem tough on the president (and not just, you know, being firm in getting good answers and the truth about matters), rather than actually clean up the messes you allowed to happen with your LACK OF GOOD JOURNALISM DURING THE FIRST BUSH TERM. It's akin to a "make-up call" by a referee in hockey. Only thing is, the right isn't being fair. They have genuine animosity towards the president and their opinions and faux-journalism isn't grounded in truth-seeking and fact-checking the way actual reporters are supposed to do.

So, before you report to us about what Sean Hannity says about Obama's trip to India ($200 mil/ and one-tenth the Navy - those lies), how about you just stick to reporting the facts and opinions based on something pertinent.

Some Democrats are mad at Obama - f-ck them. They were complicit in their defeat, too, by not having a spine and calling Republicans out for what they really are in the early going - obstructionist, unpatriotic bastards who only have in interest in winning elections as their voting records and wait-out-the-clock and sabotage-type tactics will clearly illustrate. Why else would anybody continually vote against their own proposals, ideas, supposed beliefs, and the interests of their constituents?

Obama has definitely worked with the Republicans, often these two years, Sargent. All the bipartisanship is in the bills. The GOP voting NO to everything shouldn't be the only criteria.

Posted by: fbutler1 | November 10, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44812.html
A case of Emperor's Clothing; I'm just surprised that the Post let Politico get the jump on this growing awareness...by the American citizens who tried to right some of the damage...is he even aware enough at this point to begin to listen? Or is the Democratic Party a lost cause? I certainly don't recognize it any longer!

Posted by: majorman06 | November 10, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama can not demonize Wall St. His funds come from the same place all dem funds come from - Wall St., big business like BP and GE., union bosaes and George Soros. His funds came from the same places when he was in the senate - but bigger than the other senators. He will not compromise with the republicans. Remember, he told Mc Cain, "I won."

Also, the dems have been in the majority in congress for 4 years. They have complete scr3w3ed up this country!!

Posted by: annnort | November 10, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

From annnort:

" Remember, he told Mc Cain, "I won." "

You know what's dumb about echoing this? It's that you're supposing that Obama is somehow not able to at the same time compromise while pointing out that he won the election and that his agenda will be the one that will set the tone for things in Washington and not the other way around.

It's so ridiculous to hear journalists and people on the right (or even in the center) make the claim that Obama hasn't done enough. Even Obama makes this claim. It's surreal yet absurd. If Obama bent over backwards anymore for these people, he'd be kissing his own ass (he might actually have his head up it, if he thinks he can compromise with saboteurs).

The Republicans' stated goal is to make him a one-term president (Isn't it amazing how open Republican have been about how much they don't care about this country, yet people ignore it, so easily?) It's not just about what they say to Obama and do in the Congress, it's how they talk about unemployed people being "spoiled" and withholding benefits, holding up HCR for a year (supposedly in the name of bipartisanship "meetings"), and not putting up one damn proposal on jobs that makes any real sense.


But Obama's been the "inflexible" one? People who actually voted for him but didn't this time around aren't just mad about the economy, they are mad that he wasn't as transparent with things, that he hasn't changed the way things work (or began to really - can't change everything in two years), but mostly I believe, they are mad that he's capitulated to Republicans on every issue in allowing things to be watered down or less effective than they would've been otherwise. He's done this for the sake of bipartisanship, a campaign pledge (but this is ridiculous with the climate they've fostered), and to NOT COMPLETELY CLOSE THEM OUT OF THINGS THE WAY BUSH DID TO DEMOCRATS for the most part.

Look at the stimulus, which was effective, but not as effective as everyone would have liked. In hindsight, it's unreasonable to think a less than a trillion bucks would've been enough at the rate we were losing jobs. Especially since 40% of that was tax cuts (I remember getting about $20 extra per pay period in lieu of it going to income tax, BFD). That was what Republicans wanted, and I'll bet it would've been money better spent (money better borrowed), if we had put people to work with more infrastructure repairs, as only a third of the stimulus went into that.

If unemployment was curbed even more being doing that, confidence would be higher, and maybe that combined with banks not only having paid all TARP money back (most have already down so), but making it a condition that they actually lend that money to businesses and homeowners, we'd be in a much better position, overall.

Oh well, so much for common sense.

Let's blame Obama's supposed intransigence that allowed everything to be watered down and pushed out to future years by idiots for our issues.

Posted by: fbutler1 | November 10, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Some reasons people gripe about Obama

ON THREE BIG ISSUES, NOT LISTENED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:

1 The American people wanted a government administered plan like Medicare - for everyone. (72% - CBS/New York Times poll June 2009)

1A. Democrats gave private sector insurers a windfall: mandated customers, with a taxpayer-paid overhead rate of 20% for ‘mandated customers’ (20% of our premium spent on administration, CEO salaries, bonuses, Boards to set rates and decide who’s covered and ‘profits’).

2 64% of the American people opposed expanding the war in Afghanistan and wanted to disentangle from Bush-era ‘War on Terror’ and ‘preventive war’ policies.
2B. Democrats gave us an expansion of the war in Afghanistan.

3 The vast majority of Americans opposed the transfer of taxpayer wealth to cover private company debt – the bailout.
3B. Democrats kept the 6 too-big-to-fail banks – now bigger than ever; kept deposits at risk by maintaining huge grey areas between commercial and investment banking; didn't 'punish' the financial industry - now even more profitable, with bonuses among the biggest ever.

ON DEALING FRANKLY AND TRUTHFULLY WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:

The day after the election, the White House’s Director of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, in a NYTimes OpEd tells the voters this whopper:

“There are four ways to contain health care costs:
by reducing payments to providers and suppliers;
by rationing services;
by having consumers pay a greater share; and
by giving providers incentives to be more efficient.”

The big #5 - the biggest - is strangely missing from the White House list.

A savings of 15% or more can be achieved through a government-administered plan like Medicare - for everyone.

(And by the way, a CBS/New York Times poll June 2009 showed that 72% of Americans favored this approach.)

The quickest, easiest and sane way to save is move to a single payer system. Advocates for such a system were blocked from speaking last year by Obama's shill, Senator Max Baucus; but the facts are the facts.

ON CHANGE:

Kept Bush advisors in the two key areas where people wanted change - the Economy and the "War on Terror" - Geithner, Paulson, Summers & Gates, Patreaus.

ON MAINTAINING REPUBLICAN POLICIES, WHILE BLATHERING ABOUT 'CHANGE':

1. Gutted real financial reform (no Glass-Steagle, no 'too big too fail)
2. Rejected the only health care option that would simultaneously extend coverage and cut costs (single payer)
3. Supported a stingy stimulus (one-third tax breaks)
4. Doubled-down & accelerated the Bush bailouts
5. Escalated a fruitless war in Afghanistan
6. Not helped people in bankruptcy & needing mortgage remediation
7. Not passed a jobs bill & had trouble extending unemployment compensation
8. Ignored previous Republican profligacy, crimes, misdemeanors
9. Used “Heck of a Job, Timmy” to promote low taxes for the wealthy on capital gains, dividends and ‘carried interest’
10. Sandbagged his “Budget Commission".

Gripe? Yes.

Posted by: theworm1 | November 10, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I usually watch Morning Joe until 7:00 AM and then I switch to Washington Journal.

The trouble with Joe is that he talks too much and interrupts too much. But at six in the morning, there isn't much on worth watching.

That show and IMUS before him, wouldn't invite Hillary on. Also, they complained about Katie Couric big time when she took over on CBS.

Posted by: LL314 | November 10, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

@suekzoo: "sbj, if you really believe that waterboarding is not torture, surely you would have no objections to our military being subjected to it, correct?"

I believe it is, generally, as part of Survival Evasion Resistance Escape training. As far as objections, I'm not sure. Is such training truly preparative or simply sadistic?

Waterboarding would certainly seem to be torture to me. However, it's clearly had some efficacy as a way to get actionable intelligence out of high value detainees who otherwise would never cooperate, thus potentially saving many lives. It may not be moral to attempt to save lives in that manner, but it clearly has not been without value as an interrogation technique. It's not used as a method of extract confessions or conversions, but actionable intelligence, which is something that can easily be tested for veracity.

Thus, if you will continue to have the detainee under your control, the only option to prevent further waterboarding would be to cooperate. If the detainee knows something, there's a very high degree of likelihood they will accurately communicate what they know.

There is another strategy, which appears to be more of the Obama strategy: drone attacks on any target of any potential value. This is also an effective strategy, and while there may be some collateral damage, it seems at least as justifiable as using non-life-threatening forms of torture to extract actionable intelligence from high value suspects, if not more so. Why Scarborough would be all for waterboarding but not drone strikes is beyond me.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 10, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

You mean there are really people out there believe anything Joke Scarborough says?

Posted by: DrainYou | November 10, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Joe's obviously lying about this, but his stuff about Boehner being a lazy drunk is correct, right?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 10, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"Before you jump on me for quoting Scarborough on this..."

What does that sentence mean? Is it, "God forbid I quote a so-called Republican"? You wouldn't be a typical journolister pretending to be something relevant and legitimate, would you?

Posted by: Charley_XF | November 10, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"Before you jump on me for quoting Scarborough on this..."

What does that sentence mean? Is it, "God forbid I quote a so-called Republican"? You wouldn't be a typical journolister pretending to be something relevant and legitimate, would you?

Posted by: Charley_XF | November 10, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"Before you jump on me for quoting Scarborough on this..."

What does that sentence mean? Is it, "God forbid I quote a so-called Republican"? You wouldn't be a typical journolister pretending to be something relevant and legitimate, would you?

Posted by: Charley_XF | November 10, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"However, it's clearly had some efficacy as a way to get actionable intelligence out of high value detainees who otherwise would never cooperate, thus potentially saving many lives."

Define clearly.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 10, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Kevin: "I believe it is, generally, as part of Survival Evasion Resistance Escape training. As far as objections, I'm not sure. Is such training truly preparative or simply sadistic?"

What I meant was sbj would not object to our military being subjected to it at the hands of our enemies.

"Waterboarding would certainly seem to be torture to me. However, it's clearly had some efficacy as a way to get actionable intelligence out of high value detainees who otherwise would never cooperate, thus potentially saving many lives."

What, pray tell, is your evidence of this? Dick Cheney's statements? FBI agents who were interrogating the detainees who were ultimately waterboarded said they were cooperating prior to the treatment. What proof do you have that they weren't?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 10, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse


Don't believe a word he said. He wanted publicity.

Posted by: AugustWest1 | November 10, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Quoting the Queen of Republicans in responding to criticism leveled against her by unnamed sources, "Scarborough and his Senate sources should "man up" and identify themselves. This is not news, it is just "pissy insider gossip".

Posted by: BBear1 | November 10, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse


BBear1,
Bush should have "man upped" about Iraq and his approving of torture. Save your hypocritical BS for you fellow amnesia victims which is the GOP.

Posted by: AugustWest1 | November 10, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I've watched and listened to Conservative talk show host Joe Scarborough. And man o' man, there times I would like to reach through the television and 'itch slap him, because of the fact that he has a tendency of projecting his made up thoughts, his made up opinions, his made of exaggerations, and other made up rhetoric onto the viewers. And, he gets highly aggravated and agitated with his co-host's and guest when they don't agree with him.

In many ways he is an agitator just like that control freak Bill O'Reilly over on FIXED News, and I am not sure why Scarborough doesn't take his yazoo over there with Bill O'Reilly.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | November 10, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Scarborough seems to be a member of the Republican team that is bent on making Obama a one term president.

Posted by: janye1 | November 10, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama could learn a thing or two about sticking together...with the people who got him elected. Hint: it wasn't powerful Democratic Senators.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 10, 2010 12:05 PM
===================================
Really? I think all of them are Superdelegates. Without them the people who voted for him wouldn't even have an opportunity to vote for him!

They all need to stick together. But in the end it is the party and the many that constitute the party. Not one in the party.

Posted by: kishorgala | November 10, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous sources at Fox tell me that Scarborough has been privately begging Andrew Breitbart to spank his bad boy heiny while he has his face stuffed with Beck's dirty gym socks.

Blog away friends!

Posted by: theobserver4 | November 10, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

The Reps chose to be insulted by Obama's "back of the car" analogy, & used that as their rationale for non-involvement in the governing process. What more could O have done to reach out to them? He watered down HCR & bank reform to address Rep concerns, all to naught. You can't reach out successfully to people who seem to despise you & your agenda.

I'd love to hear these anonymous Dems' suggestions about what O should have done differently. It's a shame that so many Dems lack a spine when it comes to standing up for a liberal agenda.

Posted by: nyskinsdiehard | November 10, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Dems in Congress are "horrified by this president's handling of things for a year and a half now" ??
ANY American should be horrified by this president's handling of things.

Posted by: HawkSprings | November 10, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Scarborough loves to think that everyone in power is confiding in him. What a blowhard and BTW, the show sucks! It's all about him and his ridiculously inept pal Mika and little else. Who the hell is producing such garbage?

Posted by: buzzsaw1 | November 10, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Scarborough, NAME one Democratic Senator who says "President Obama doesn't know what he's doing". You're good at making these statements, BACK THEM UP WITH NAMES!!!

Posted by: billnbillieskid | November 10, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

The dirty little secret around Washington is that unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have a multiplicity of opinions on any subject. That is one of the main problems with Democrats, they are basically a herd of cats. The Republicans are more like a herd of cattle (or sheep), they're basically afraid or unable to conjure up an individual opinion. This was true prior to the Tea Baggers, but now voicing a divergent opinion will most likely result in a political death sentence for all Republicans both big and small. Nelson Rockefeller would be drawn and quarter in todays Republican Party. I am not saying that I think that the herd of cat metaphor is a compliment, its not!

Posted by: oren1956 | November 10, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it would not surprise me because I am sure that there are at least seven idiot, unprincipled, Democratic senators, who believe that nothing should be done unless it is bipartisan, which means several actual GOP votes for the legislation, not just outreach to the GOP or inclusion of GOP ideas in the legislation; and who resent that Obama expected them to exercise their responsibility to legislate and make tough choices without the cover of GOP votes. Additionally, of course, these particular Dems seem to believe that they should always themselves be prepared to add some bipartisanship to whatever the GOP is doing, thus they would probably be found among those who voted for the unpaid for Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D while being deficit hawk blowhards. Also, whoever the supercilious seven may be, they must almost all have voted time after time for the legislative accomplishments of the first Obama congress. How in the world was he able to get them to do that if he didnt know what he was doing? In any event, if the seven did say this, it clearly reflects more on them and the never failing to dismay Congressional Democratic Party than it does on President Obama.

Posted by: gregspolitics | November 10, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Yes everybody but the dems lies and all the stories in the Post are about Republican discord and where are the articles about discord in the democrat caucus. There are very few. The Post is the print talking points forum and attack forum for the DNC. This so called newspaper is nothing but Bull#$^t dnc propaganda. Keep up libs and socialist and you will be out of power forever, god willing.

Posted by: DCalle10411111 | November 10, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I stopped watching Morning Joe about 2 Months ago, I started watching the show about 2 yrs. ago and Joe seemed like a likable guy and pretty reasonable to. But in the past year he has become a mean spirited Jerk who belittles his guest, talks over people when they don't agree with him. He used to have a couple of frequent guest that were on his show almost every morning who were a good counter point to his opinions and more often the not made ol' Joe look like an idiot. One of Joe's regulars was Danny Deutch a very bright and engaging person who bested Joe on a regular basis, one morning after Danny had made Joe look like an moron Joe did what Joe does best start yelling and talking over his guest so that they can't respond.Joe's bully tactics seem to please him I think because his guest are to polite to get in a shouting match with him so of course he gets the last word, anyway Danny stood his ground and Joe got especially angry and down right hostile. That was about 6 months ago and Danny has only been back once since then. Barnacle is nothing more then Joe's Renfeld.

Posted by: Sergeant2 | November 10, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

I stopped watching Morning Joe about 2 Months ago, I started watching the show about 2 yrs. ago and Joe seemed like a likable guy and pretty reasonable to. But in the past year he has become a mean spirited Jerk who belittles his guest, talks over people when they don't agree with him. He used to have a couple of frequent guest that were on his show almost every morning who were a good counter point to his opinions and more often the not made ol' Joe look like an idiot. One of Joe's regulars was Danny Deutch a very bright and engaging person who bested Joe on a regular basis, one morning after Danny had made Joe look like an moron Joe did what Joe does best start yelling and talking over his guest so that they can't respond.Joe's bully tactics seem to please him I think because his guest are to polite to get in a shouting match with him so of course he gets the last word, anyway Danny stood his ground and Joe got especially angry and down right hostile. That was about 6 months ago and Danny has only been back once since then. Barnacle is nothing more then Joe's Renfeld.

Posted by: Sergeant2 | November 10, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

democrats are scared to criticize themselves.

"Scarborough, much to Republicans' delight, claimed that Dems in Washington have been 'horrified'"

liberals are shaking in their boots. this lack of conviction only strengthens (and confirms) republican resolve

Posted by: batigol85 | November 10, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Joe Scarborough has about as much creditability as a morning worm. Morning Joe is aired at 3a Vegas time and sometimes I catch his early morning rants. However, on the morning of 11/10, Joe and Andy Card (sp)? Were on a continuous rant about how immature President Obama is far as Washington goes and that he lacks the understanding of how Washington works. Joe, Barnicle and Andy felt it was their duty to run President Obama and his administration because, in their minds, he clearly is in over his head. The kicker in the conversation came when Joe insisted that President Obama has never made an effort to include Republicans on anything and that he should have had Senator McConnell over for a special one-on-one, meeting 18 months ago. He later went on to say that Obama needs to pivot to the right. Then maybe the Republicans would be willing to compromise like Clinton did. In essence, President Obama should scrap his far-left agenda and do what the Boehner and McConnell want him to do. Then scrap his agenda and veto his Healthcare Reform bill. Then he summed it up by saying Obama needs to show some respect for the Republicans and the business community if he plans to gets anything done.

President Obama has achieved more than Joe Scarborough ever dared to dream. When he says he just a little country lawyer, he's right; a little country insurance lawyer, which, with his temperament, about all he could handle. Would handle. Joe Scarborough has had as many opportunities, if not more, than President Obama to do whatever he wanted to do with his life. However, he lacks the civility and decorum to do much more. As a former congressman, Joe Scarborough has shown nothing but disdain, not only for the president, but of the office. His attitude is disgraceful.

Posted by: LisaLV | November 11, 2010 5:45 AM | Report abuse

Sargent, man up. What you are wanting to say without saying it, but implying it, hinting at it, is --- "Joe Scarborough is a liar."

There, see how much better you feel that you actually stopped trying to be a politician and not saying what you really mean.

Now, go tell Joe he is a liar, to his face, that is, if you are man enough.

Posted by: RonKH | November 11, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Rats leaving the proverbial sinking ship? We must not forget that Democrats are often their own worst enemies, some are still smarting over Obama's win from Hillary Clinton and would not rest until this perceived injustice has been righted.In the meantime the other Obama haters are busy regrouping to take over completely in 2012. Where are the partriots in this country, who really care about putting America first and restoring it to its greatness?

Posted by: tkymagble | November 11, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Okay now I'm confused. Does Obama cave in to Republicans or is he a tyrant when it comes to including them into the process of governing. I've heard both sides of the coin and now my head is spinning. Punditry is the ultimate welfare in this country.

Posted by: charlekenghis | November 11, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company