Joe Scarborough says progressives didn't really want to take out bin Laden

By Richard K. Barry

Could Joe Scarborough be a bigger idiot? I have my doubts.

Each day after breakfast I turn on Morning Joe because I enjoy MSNBC's evening lineup and I assume, incorrectly, that the morning show will begin to approach the same level of discourse found on the network after 6:00 p.m. I am almost always disappointed, but I never seem to learn.

One of my favorite moments ever on the show was when Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor under Jimmy Carter, once referred to some choice analysis by Scarborough as "stunningly superficial and embarrassing." That pretty much sums up most things that come out of Joe's mouth.

The latest is Scarborough's opinion that Obama's successful mission to eliminate Osama bin Laden runs counter to the ideology of the president's base and even goes against the president's own ideological leanings.

Here's his statement:

Here, you know, I think Republicans should stand up and certainly salute Barack Obama for making some - again, for making some very tough choices that his own base did not want him to make. That takes courage, that takes leadership, and we saw the results of that courage and leadership saying no to his own base yesterday.

[These are] decisions that he probably did not believe as a candidate, he didn't think he'd have to make. Going against his own ideological leanings to do what he believes he has to do. 

What the fuck is he talking about?

The conceit of the right is so frequently that only they are capable of making hard choices and difficult decisions rooted in reality - that the "real world" is not a place in which progressives comfortably reside. And when progressives do make difficult decisions, it's somehow surprising.

Unlike Mr. Scarborough, I am not going to speak for all those who may consider themselves a part of Obama's base. As for myself, as a member of the club, I'm pretty proud of my president. I suspect a lot of other progressives feel the same way. The thing had to be done.

Having the ability to do the difficult tasks required as Commander-in-Chief is not a "right" and "left" thing. It's a leadership thing.

In the event that you want to be as annoyed as I am at the moment, here's the full clip:

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

No labels? No thank you

By R.K. Barry 

When I find myself agreeing with conservative pundit George Will, it might be time to walk away from the computer. What can I say? But we do seem to agree about one thing and that is that this new group of moderate conservatives, calling themselves "No Labels," who have come together to give us all a good tongue-lashing for our hyper-partisanship, is a goofy bunch. 

Here is the mission statement for the group:

No Labels is a 501(c)(4) social welfare advocacy organization created to provide a voice for America's vital center, where ideas are judged on their merits, a position which is underrepresented in our current politics. No Labels provides a forum and community for Americans of all political backgrounds interested in seeing the nation move not left, not right, but forward. No Labels encourages all public officials to prioritize the national interest over party interest, and to cease acting on behalf of narrow, if vocal, special interests on the far right or left. 

Here is what Mr. Will has to say about them: 

People have different political sensibilities; they cluster and the clusters are called parties. They have distinctive understandings of the meaning and relative importance of liberty, equality and other matters. Politics is given weight, and motion is imparted to democracy, by intensely interested factions composed of people who are partisans of various causes. 

Yup, there it is. I agree with George Will. That, all on its own, may be proof that left and right can work together. (Just kidding.) But Will's point is that these people have no understanding of what politics is and that the kind of agreement that they think exists at the vital centre of American life, isn't there – and that is not a bad thing. Political partisanship is what makes democracy work.

To add a bit more clarity, I draw your attention to a comment made by MSNBC political commentator Joe Scarborough, one of the principles of No Labels, who offers this:

We govern in the middle. We always have. With apologies to Arthur Schlesinger, there’s not a pendulum swing ideologically in America. America stays in the middle, and we saw it. When you go too far left, they slap you back and when Republicans go too far right, they slap you back as well, into the center. 

What Scarborough seems to be suggesting is that there is a true and identifiable "general will" of the American people that is politically centrist and that Democrats and Republicans would do well to focus their energies on keeping it happy. He also seems to suggest that this general will has a clear idea of what public policies it would support and those it would reject and politicians need only work together, as good technocrats, to give effect to its interests.

George Will, as a trained political philosopher, probably has a pretty good idea that Joe Scarborough is full of crap. Hence Will's comment that people have very different ideas about the meaning of some extremely important ideas like liberty, equality, justice, fairness, morality, etc., etc. Politics is, as he says, all about "intensely interested factions composed of people who are partisans of various causes."

If Scarborough and his "No Label" friends only mean to say that we should try harder to understand each other to see if we can reach a working and reasonable accommodation about things where absolute agreement is unlikely, then okay, fine. I don't think we need a new 501(c) (4) social welfare advocacy organization for that, but fine. Knock yourself out.

But if he thinks that those on the right and left are simply conspiring to thwart the clear will of the people for the sake of narrow partisan and illegitimate interests, he and his friends are not serious people.

Speaking only for myself, I am on the left and will never stop trying to convince people, through legal and generally civil means, that wealth and power is concentrated in America to an extent that makes real democracy difficult; that equality is impossible if the rules of the game are rigged; that liberty is empty if we don't share the resources needed to make our desires effective; and that justice has far too much to do with how much money you have in your pocket. 

This also means that I have a lot invested in challenging the status quo. And I doubt that the "No Labelers" would consider a challenge to the status quo, at least in any meaningful way, acceptable. My guess is that the status quo is what they mean by the "vital center," and making the machine function in a more amicable way is about as ambitious as they intend to get. 

What they also mean is that the vital center should be defined by the values that the "No Labelers" hold. It wouldn't be the first time that the particular values of those holding power in society were represented as the universal values of everybody. Whenever I hear someone trying to tell us what the American people, taken as a whole, believe, I know it's time to run for cover.

This is the oldest trick in the political play book. Everybody else is biased in their political views and values, but the views that I and my friends hold define the good itself. No thank you.

At a minimum, labels are, as Will notes, a shorthand for how people feel about some pretty important issues, for which there may be little basis for agreement. The "No Labels" movement, and every other "beyond left and right" movement wants to gloss over this important fact.

To repeat, politics is not a technical exercise among like minds to implement in policy the values that we obviously share. There is no such agreement. There is no "general will." Politics is the fight over whose values will prevail. Labels are simply a useful shorthand for telling us who our potential allies and opponents are. If we stopped using the ones currently in vogue, we would need to invent others to replace them.

Again, if this is all about the fact that we should have more respect for good process, that's fine. But please stop saying that moving beyond left and right is necessarily the same as moving forward. It isn't. It's just an argument for de-clawing political opposition and for embracing business as usual.

I'll bet partisans on the left and right can agree at least about that much. 

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Scarborough slams Palin

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Far be it from me to heap any praise on Joe Scarborough -- I generally consider him a slimy creep -- but sometimes, you gotta admit, he's right:

Republicans have a problem. The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected. And yet the same leaders who fret that Sarah Palin could devastate their party in 2012 are too scared to say in public what they all complain about in private.

Enough. It's time for the GOP to man up.

I hate the phrase "man up," but otherwise this is a solid assessment of the current state of the GOP. For all the anti-Obama obstructionism and right-wing ideology, it's basically the party of Sarah Palin (and "Sarah Palin"). She's become the de facto leader of the party, and, while I do think some of us (yes, I include myself) spend too much time on her, it's important not to give her, or her party, a free pass.

And, actually, I would prefer that she remain a prominent, if not the most prominent, Republican -- because I think Scarborough is right. She could very well "devastate" the party. I still don't think she'll run for president, but even being a prominent player -- a kingmaker, of sorts, the one will anoint the 2012 nominee -- could be enough to derail the party (as if its extremism isn't enough).

This is the woman, after all, who backed such utterly un-electable candidates this year as Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, not to mention Joe Miller and John Raese. Some of her chosen candidates won, like Rand Paul, but they probably would have won anyway. Her record, simply, has been poor, largely because she gravitates towards those like her, bitter, resentful, extremist outsiders who resonate with the Tea Party but not so much with the GOP establishment, let alone with independents or conservative Democrats.

Anyway, Jonathan Chait is right to note that some Republicans have already challenged/criticized Palin: Karl Rove, Peggy Noonan, Barbara Bush (for what that's worth), and The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash. The "manning up," in other words, has already begun. Other than Rep. Spencer Bachus, though, who blamed the Republicans not winning the Senate on Palin (which is a bit of a stretch, but not much), "elected Republicans, and especially Republican presidential candidates, have shied away from attacking Palin on the record." That presumably was part of Scarborough's point.

And as long as Palin remains so popular with Republicans, specifically with the two main components of the base -- social conservatives and teabaggers -- elected Republicans, particularly those in the House who may want her endorsement in 2012 (whether she runs or not) and those eyeing the presidency, won't dare come out against her in any significant way. Her wrath, channelled through Facebook and Fox News, is enough to scare any self-regarding Republican into submission.

And there, if you're a Republican who actually cares about the future of your party as something other than a repository of right-wing insanity, is the problem.

L'affaire Olbermann

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED HERE: Olbermann will be back on the air on Tuesday.

**********

I don't really have much to say about MSNBC's suspension of Keith Olbermann for contributing money to Democratic candidates. Obviously, it's ridiculous. Here are a few points:

1) As Think Progress has noted, MSNBC, as part of NBC, may soon be taken over by Comcast. The deal is currently awaiting regulatory approval from the FCC. Comcast's COO, Steve Burke, who will be in charge of MSNBC (along with other NBC companies), was a Bush fundraiser.

2) Olbermann supposed broke NBC rules in doing what he did. As Think Progress has also noted, however:

[C]onservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough has donated to Republican candidates for Congress while promoting the same candidate on air, but has never been disciplined. Moreover, Gawker notes that MSNBC has been exempt from the formal NBC ethics rules for years. It is still a mystery why MSNBC selectively applied NBC's ethics rules to Olbermann.

3) Scarborough is hardly alone. Another major MSNBC figure, Pat Buchanan, has donated to Republican candidates -- and was, of course, a leading Republican.

4) As Politico has reported, what Olbermann did is pretty common on the cable news networks, whether it's Hannity on Fox News or Begala on CNN. And, of course, Fox News is unabashedly partisan. (Obviously, it behooves MSNBC to hold itself to higher standards than Fox News, but Olbermann is an opinion journalist, a pundit with a TV show, not an anchor or reporter, and we all know where he's coming from politically. We don't expect non-partisanship from him, we don't want non-partisanship from him, so who cares if he donates to political candidates? How does this impact his credibility? (It doesn't, at all.)

5) Suspension -- and, worse, suspension without pay -- seems awfully harsh, not least given what others at the network have done? Why is Olbermann being made an example of? Why is he being treated more harshly than others? One cannot help but suspect some ulterior political motive. As Steve Benen writes, "an indefinite suspension without pay seems way over the top under the circumstances. We are, after all, talking about three checks -- one each for three candidates. As we talked about earlier, the MSNBC host's donations were made in his personal capacity; he disclosed his contributions; and he never encouraged others to support these campaigns." Furthermore, Steve continues, MSNBC claims that such rules are necessary "because political activities may 'jeopardize [employees'] standing as an impartial journalist.' But therein lies the point -- those who watch Olbermann are well aware of his politics. Psst -- no one considers him 'impartial.'" No kidding.

6) MSNBC suspends Olbermann but has no problem putting Buchanan on the air? It's not just that the guy's a crazy pitchfork populist of the far right, it's that he's a WWII/Holocaust revisionist, a racist, a nativist, and a Hitler apologist. How is this acceptable?

7) Even Krazy Bill Kristol thinks MSNBC is in the wrong:

MSNBC's suspension of Keith Olbermann is ludicrous.

First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn't take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting.

Second, he's not a reporter. It's an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him.

Third, GE, the corporate parent of MSNBC, gives money to political organizations. GE executives and, I'm sure, NBC executives give money. Why can't Olbermann?

Perhaps Olbermann violated NBC News "policy and standards." But NBC doesn't have real news standards for MSNBC -- otherwise the channel wouldn't exist. It's a little strange to get all high and mighty now.

But there's now a Republican House, and perhaps GE is trying to curry favor by dumping Olbermann?

Republicans of the world, show you believe in the free expression of opinion! Tell the crony corporatists at NBC -- keep Keith!

I can't remember the last time I agreed with Kristol -- except for his jab at MSNBC for not having "real news standards." Surely, even as a mostly opinion-oriented network, it can have "real news standards" for some of its programming/content, whatever "real" means. Besides, it is also ludicrous to suggest that there is equivalency between MSNBC and Fox News. Yes, MSNBC is generally liberal in terms of its opinion programming, but it's not nearly as partisan as Fox News, which is effectively an organ of the Republican Party.

Of course, Kristol has a partisan agenda. He always does. As Steve M. of NMMNB explains:

Yeah, right. More like: Republicans of the world, don't let MSNBC actually fire Keith -- what if that starts a media-wide craze for holding political talking heads to higher standards? How do we then keep Karl Rove, whose organization basically replaced the RNC as a fund-raising arm of the GOP, on the air at Fox, not to mention practically all the A-list Republican presidential candidates? How do we justify everything else Fox and its hosts do to enrich the GOP and Republican-linked groups, including the tea party movement (which, last time I looked, was 99% Republican, if not 100%)?

I think Kristol's worried about nothing -- no one ever holds Republicans to standards like this. But I'm sure he's doing this out of group self-interest, not out of any sense of fairness or generosity of spirit.

I agree, but that doesn't make him wrong about Olbermann.

Basically, I have no problem with Olbermann giving money to Democratic candidates, but we should also expose everything Fox News does to support Republican and conservative causes -- remember, for example, when News Corp. gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association? (As Steve Benen wrote prior to the suspension, "[t]here's a reasonable debate to be had over the propriety of media professionals donating to political candidates," just as there is, I would add, over the partisanization of journalism generally, but let's not start by making Olbermann a scapegoat while this sort of thing goes on all the time, especially at Fox News.)

Anyway, if CNN knew what was good for it, it would try to hire Olbermann and Maddow away from MSNBC as quickly as possible and reinvent itself as a reality-based alternative to Fox News. But it won't, of course, and ultimately, I suspect, Olbermann will be back on Countdown sooner rather than later. This is not just a terrible and hypocritical move, after all, but a possibly suicidal one for MSNBC. Thankfully, there are many voices of reason, including some that are usually so unreasonable, rising up in opposition to the suspension and in support of one of our mow important political commentators.

MSNBC blacklists Kos: A tale of murder, Twitter, and media double standards

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Did you know that in 2001, around the time Chandra Levy, an intern at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, disappeared and media attention focused on Democratic Rep. Gary Condit, with whom Levy, who was from Condit's district, had had an affair, there was another serious incident, if one that received far less attention, involving a young woman, one Lori Klausutis, who worked for then-Rep. Joe Scarborough, now a big-shot MSNBC host?

I didn't either, until I read about Markos "Kos" Moulitsas being blacklisted from MSNBC.

It's still not clear what happened, but the 28-year-old Klausutis died at Scarborough's office in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The mystery surrounds how she died, and if anyone else was involved. Conspiracy theories abound that Scarborough himself was involved, but nothing, it seems, has ever come of them. Kos wrote about the incident back in 2005.

Well, as Kos writes, Scarborough was all over the Joe Sestak "scandal" (the allegation that the White House offered Sestak a job to keep him from challenging Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter in this year's Pennsylvania Senate race. (Sestak challenged and won the nomination.) Scarborough accused the media of neglecting to give the story, such as it was one, its due. In response, Kos tweeted: "Like story of a certain dead intern..." Scarborough fired back, accusing Kos of having "a long history of spreading lies" and of calling him a murderer. Kos replied that he had never called Scarborough a murder, noting that the issue was "media hypocrisy": "But he was Dem. You aren't."

Maybe there's nothing to the conspiracy theories, but Kos certainly wasn't pushing them. Rather, all he did was bring up the lack of media coverage of Klausutis's death. But that was enough to send Scarborough over the edge, and the upshot is that Kos has been blacklisted from MSNBC. As MSNBC head Phil Griffin put it in a statement reprinted (in full) by Kos:

Yes, after I became aware of the ugly cheap shot  you  took at Joe on Twitter, I asked the teams to take a break from booking you on our shows for a while. I found the comments to be in poor taste, and utterly uncalled for in a civil discourse.

I'm hoping this will be only temporary and that the situation can be resolved in a mature fashion, but until then I just don't know how one could reasonably expect to be welcomed onto our network while publicly antagonizing one of our hosts at the same time.

The DailyKos community has been among the most supportive of MSNBC, and we continue to appreciate that support.

Well, a lot of people antagonize MSNBC hosts. Are you not welcome on the network if you've ever criticized Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann? And, again, it's not like Kos called Scarborough a murderer. All he did was bring up a subject that Scarborough finds uncomfortable, one for obvious reasons he would rather consign forever to the dustbin of his own sordid past, far away from prying eyes.

What Kos is getting at here is that there appears to be a double standard, just as there was with the coverage of Levy/Klausutis, one driven by partisanship and ideology. And it's all about the media giving conservatives a free pass. It may not be clear-cut, and there may be exceptions to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Meanwhile, the Kos-Scarborough flare-up probably could have been handled more maturely, but it's really only Kos's first tweet that went a bit too far (if anything, he could have been more tactful). After that, it was Scarborough who lost it, throwing a "temper tantrum" and complaining to his boss (who "lets Scarborough call the shots" and so who was bound to side with his low-rated morning host).

Regardless, it's pretty stupid for MSNBC to blacklist a major progressive voice and new media icon like Markos Moulitsas. It would do well to rethink its priorities, and to think through its double standards.

Uncivil war

By Mustang Bobby

Media Matters totes up the number of Republicans and moderate conservatives who are worried that the public might get the wrong idea about them because of the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh:

As Eric Boehlert pointed out earlier today, a significant fissure is opening up on the Right. The increasing influence of extremists like Fox News' Glenn Beck and radio host Rush Limbaugh has shaken more mainstream conservatives who are searching for a new set of leaders -- and the conservative establishment is lashing out. Consider some of the recent comments from prominent conservative media personalities and elected officials:

* Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks describing Beck, Limbaugh, and radio talker Mark Levin as "loons" who are "harmful for America."

* Former Bush and McCain adviser Mark McKinnon denouncing Levin's "jaw-dropping hate language about the president."

* MSNBC commentator and former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough blasting Limbaugh's cheers after Chicago lost its Olympic bid: "Republicans have gone off the deep end"

These are just a few examples of a serious trend. Right-wing media figures are now routinely attacking each other's tactics and relevancy. On Friday, Brooks (nonsensically) dedicated an entire column to explaining why conservative media leaders like Beck and Limbaugh are not worthy of attention. He argued that we are once again witnessing "the story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche -- even of the Republican Party." It's a point he made several weeks earlier, when he said that "[i]f the Republican Party is sane, they will say no to these people."

Much as I would like to agree, I think it's a little much to describe this as a "serious trend" for the conservatives; not that they're not over the top on their attacks on President Obama (and I'm still not buying Joe Scarborough's usual tactic of saying that the Democrats were just as bad to President Bush), but that this sort of distancing by the more grown-up members of the conservative community of their misbehaving miscreants is a sign of a fissure in the right wing. It's both a little tepid and a little late, and leaves the impression that they're doing it more out of a sense of obligation rather than a real sense of revulsion for some of the more hateful stuff that gets out there. Of course they're going to say that neither Mr. Beck nor Mr. Limbaugh speak for the party; that would affirm that they don't have anyone in the party that does. But they were all too happy to welcome Rush Limbaugh as an honorary Member of Congress when it suited them.

What I think is really going on here is typical CYA so that when either Glenn Beck goes completely off the deep end or some viewer of his takes up the notion that it is his God-given duty to do something evil to the first black man elected as president, they will be able to say "Hey, we warned you about this and we had nothing to do with it." It's not that they really care about how rotten and uncivil the discourse has gotten; they just don't want to get blamed for it when it leads to an inevitable and tragic climax.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Stunningly superficial

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, former NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski yesterday called out Joe Scarborough -- directly to his face -- on his "stunningly superficial knowledge" of the situation in the Middle East.

Specifically, Brzezinski said: "You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you."

Hilarious. And right on the money.

For more on the substance of the exchange, see Steve Clemons.

(I can't seem to get the video to work, but both links above take you to it.)

Morning Joke teaches thousands of kids to swear!

Or: Blame It On The Cheetos, Joe ...

By J. Thomas Duffy

I'll have to look up and research Morning Joke Scarborough's position on "No Child Left Behind."

Of course, after this morning's incident, we may find that Morning Joke refers to it as "Giving The Child A Kick In His Fucking Ass."

Oh My!

If he didn't take Keith Olbermann's advice, and purchase a shovel, old Morning Joke is going to need one now.

Morning Joke got so worked up, palming off his pontificating pea-brained knowledge, he let fly a "F___ You" in his excitement, only to be chided, in a very jocular manner, from others on the panel, and, of course, Mommy Meekstress Mika.

Joe Scarborough drops accidental f-bomb on live TV

Today on “Morning Joe,” host Joe Scarborough was discussing the calm nature of the Obama campaign and accidentally used the f-word. His guests joked about needing a seven-second delay. After apologizing, Scarborough said, “My wife is going to kill me when I get home.”

Scarborough Drops The F Bomb



Well, notwithstanding what his wife will do, or the soap, since Morning Joke is on MSNBC, which is on cable, it's doubtful that he will be nailed by the FCC.

Perhaps parent company General "We Bring Fucking Things To Life" Electric will weigh in on it.

From John Cole:

While it is not shown on the clip, and I no longer watch Morning Joe because of the endless idiocy of the two hosts, it is pretty clear what happened here- Time’s Jay Carney told a story off camera about Rahm Emanuel’s habit of using the word “fuck,” but when Carney told the story, he just used the initial “f-” to let them know what he meant. Scarborough then goes on camera and passes on the story, but forgets to use initials, and just blurts out “screaming fuck you at the top of their lungs.”

So, it turns out that Joe is a massive hypocrite. Shocking, I am sure. The funniest thing about this is that Joe hails from the Redneck Riviera in Florida, where the f-bomb is not an unknown word.

And, of course, there is such robust, dripping irony here.

Glenn Greenwald points out (in his "Joe Scarborough: Hoisted by his own sanctimonious petard") what will quickly surface, the hypocracy of Morning Joke, detailing the apocalyptic, head-exploding rage Morning Joke went in, over the infamous Janet Jackson Super Bowl Affair:

Two days later, Scarborough collected hordes of outraged emails from his angry viewers over Janet Jackson and flew them to Washington DC to deliver them to Trent Lott and other right-wing officials, demanding government punishment against CBS, Viacom, MTV, and even the NFL ..."

And Greenwald added this:

UPDATE II: From the Comment section, an outraged parent speaks out:

My kid heard that

It's funny you write about this today. I was getting ready for work this morning, watching Morning Joe (which I like despite Joe). My 10-year-old son got up, came into the living room, and is typical of a day when he doesn't have school, plopped down on the couch and started watching with me. I was just about to hand him the remote to change to less-newsy fare when Joe popped off with this. I was flabbergasted. And there's no question my kid heard that. Ugh.

One shudders to think how many other American children were exposed today to the raunchy filth of Joe Scarborough. The outraged emails are already pouring in. Keep them coming. Let me hear especially from other parents. I'm going to fly down to Washington with the emails and comments in hand (and a camera crew in tow) to demand government punishment against NBC, MSNBC, GE, Scarborough, Time-Warner, Inc. (due to Jay Carney's instigation) and others.

See kids, you can learn all kinds of new words, just by watching Morning Joke.

Maybe what will come out of this will be a new legal strategy.

Working off the already unprecedented "Twinkie Defense", Morning Joke can turn this around by blaming Cheetos.

**********

Bonus Morning Joke Riffs

Shuster vs Scarborough! Man Love in the Morning!

Matthew Yglesias: The Party of Cheetos

Logan Murphy: Morning Joe: Obama Advisor Sets Scarborough Straight On Bush’s Diplomatic Failures

Joe Scarborough Walks Off MSNBC's "Race To The White House" After Exchange With Rachel Maddow

Palmetto Scoop: Scarborough has an “Imus moment”

Get A Shovel! ... Olbermann Disses Scarborough, On-Air

Top Ten Cloves: Things Joe Scarborough Likes To Eat and Wear When Sitting At Computer




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)